The Global Warming Thread

Coherent discussion is for sheep dude.

 

Wake up sheeple!

Stop parroting experts in their field and peer-reviewed science.

Smart people parrot the ramblings of right-wing shock-jocks, Fox News and discredited lords!

 

And Michael Crichton, you forgot Michael Crichton.

 

Looks like you been fooled or lied to, that happens when you blindly listen to propaganda without doing your own research.

 

You've only posted other people's opinions, no research - try using google scholar. Do try darling, we believe in you.

 

Sorry Robin but you've been missing meetings. Global Warming is a conspiracy by the reptile people to make the planet more livable for them.

By the way we meet Tuesday to discuss what shape our tinfoil hats should be next quarter.

 

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLSADmQm4kc"]Ted Cruz, Mark Steyn - That 97% Global Warming Consensus - YouTube[/ame]

Here is your leader answering question to Congress.

 

Yeah....I think you need to look up what "evidence" means

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yX_1gJ_51M"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yX_1gJ_51M[/ame]

Seriously at this point every single post you make shows you as either an idiot or a troll...there is literally no middle ground

 

I have given you plenty of proof that your global scam is not real, there is a ton more, even the top guys admitting it's a scam. You probably don't even look at any of it, , get your head out of the sand and maybe you will learn something.
The Nobel prize winner even breaks it down and explains it to you., if you still don't get it, then maybe ...

Your comments are a better description of yourself.

 

But the Green peace guy isn't a climatologist, brother, he is an ecologist and unqualified on the subject of climate change. He is of course entitled to his own opinion, but he's still just one guy with some background in science. In fact according to Greenpeace itself, he's now a paid lobbyist for the logging industry and nuclear energy.

Here's a thought experiment, if I may: if I randomly selected 1,000 climate scientists (or even any kind of scientist) around the world, how many do you think would say you are correct? Would those that didn't all be "sheep"? Because the way I see it, you can argue all day long that people are sheeple for not believing what you say is the truth. But let's get more scientific about it: a randomized poll of scientists across the entire spectrum of financial and political biases out there in both camps. I wonder if you'd have a very large number of backers. The only place I think you'll get backers is in a small selection of websites and youtube videos. And I'm sorry to say it but I believe the whole reason you are so positive about being right is that you've gotten all your information from those same sites, as opposed to the scientific community, where you normally go to get it.

 

This is literally proof that conspiracy theorists will latch on to anything. I mean seriously if you told this to a conspiracy nut in the 60s it would go like this:

Hippie 1: Yeah man there's this big conspiracy to make people want to use energy and materials which aren't harmful to the planet.
Hippie 2: Seriously man? How do we get in on it?

I mean just for fun let's break this down into potential consequences:

Global warming is a sham and we all switch over to renewables → easier energy, no big market crash when the oil pockets become so small they're too expensive to extract, and no more bombing brown people because we have to control the region where the big deposits are
Global warming is real and we all switch over to renewables → all the above plus maybe we halt and hopefully reverse some of the problems we've caused thus far
Global warming is a sham and we do nothing → then the planet is doomed, our species is going to die and there's nothing we can do to stop it
Global warming is real and we do nothing → then the planet is doomed, our species is going to die and we could've stopped it but didn't

 

Well, let's be real I'm sure there are plenty of folks trying to make money, even dirty, over this issue. But that goes for any political cause I can think of, regardless of what the facts are. "Follow the money" is a naive way of thinking. It implies finding the source of some money will tell you the ultimate truth about something. I disagree, finding the source of money will simply point you to someone who supported a particular cause. And sourcing something with money isn't a bad thing, it's the source of all capitalism. Science always needs money, who provides it doesn't really have a direct correlation to whether it's good science or not.

It's entirely possible the science on climate change is not really settled, of course the science on the universe isn't either!! But, when it comes to data and predictions, climate scientists are generally accurate. We can model the weather weeks in advance, predict the path of storms, and in this case we can model the increases in global temperatures and try to determine the most likely causes (and future trends). It almost seems as if the opposition is claiming that because the science isn't perfect, it's not valid. That's not the scientific method though! Models can be rough, and even wrong in places sometimes, but still usable until we obtain better ones. We don't choose to throw out entire realms of scientific inquiry simply because we find something to be skeptical of. The sciences of history and archaeology and anthropology are no different, we sometimes have to throw out certain models, but until we have to do that, we rely on rough models based on the data.

 

*cough* chi *cough*
*cough* god *cough*

 

I find that in these discussions there often times comes a moment where people apologize for the provisional nature of scientific knowledge; e.g. 'the science isn't settled, but it's the best we have to work with.' Far from being a flaw in scientific information, it is a feature, the provisional nature of scientific information is one of its greatest strengths, allowing itself to be revised and overturned according to new discoveries and the strength of the evidence. And that is what should guide our hand, we should have as much confidence in our theoretical explanations as we have in the research informing them. In the case of Global Climate Change this evidence is extremely robust.

 

There you go again using words that you have no idea what they mean - "proof" in this case

I mean seriously at this point there is nothing to be said...97% consensus vs PAID objectors of 3%

Siding with those 3% stats goes past stubborn, through obstinate and ends up at destination cabbage

 

MY CABBAGES!!!

 

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cALo-8PFntQ"]Brian Sussman, "ClimateGate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam" - YouTube[/ame]

Here is a book you can read.

If you had watched the videos , you would see that the 97% that The sheep are always parroting has really just turned out to be a 3% concense., !!

 

Late last year there was a report about moss? plankton? blooms due to the melting ice caps that were helping to absorb CO2. Has anyone seen any followup research starting on this?

 

There has been ongoing research into the affect of algal blooms in absorbing and sequestering atmospheric CO2 for decades including large scale tests of dumping fertilizer to encourage agal blooms even more. In short the results are that although some co2 is removed during algal blooms which does slow climate change the amounts are not significant to halt it in any meaningful way.

But like I said this area of research is ongoing. Possibly (following the money) because the fossil fuel companies are looking for a get out of climate change free card. Unfortunately for everybody it does not look like plankton are it.

 

I think that you have missed the point of this whole science thing all together.