17 yrs. no warming?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:52 am

RustyGunz1960 wrote: My approach, given these uncertainties, is to look at the pros and cons of some of the suggested actions. Can it really be argued that we are putting too little particulates and other substances into the air? Can your car get too good gas mileage? Are we really using up non-renewable resources too slowly? Alternatives to heavy fossil fuel reliance aren’t just about possible climate change. Don’t we want these fuels to last as long as possible? Some things just make sense. Why has our space program relied on solar power since its inception, rather than hauling extra fuel or batteries into space? I also feel expanded nuclear power has been greatly neglected as a solution to many of our energy problems. That stance certainly isn’t popular with the left. Going back to my original assertion, alternatives are too often written off due to their being aligned with the right or the left, rather than simply being taking into on their merits.


You're right, but jumping the gun on unproven technology can lead to disaster.

We do want petroleum and LP to last as long as possible. Right now at our current rate of expansion, if we open all of the available oil field to our current capabilities, we have enough petrol on/under US grounds to last more than 300 years. A lot of that is thanks to hydrofracing. Over that 300 years we are likely to expand our drilling and recovery abilities and extend that time to who knows a 1000 years, after all Jimmy Carter said we would have already run out! If we expand our abilities at that rate we have 3000 years.

Even if our capabilities stay the same and population growth increases, we have hundreds of years to come up with a viable renewable energy source... Heck, LP is a good one, hydrogen has strong possibilities, even solar and wind have their place. But to expand those fields while they are still immature will leave power shortages, brown outs, black outs, etc...

We do need to think about the future and prepare for it! Luckily we have time, and enough of it that panic was not needed. They wanted panic... panic is good for politicians that are selfish and for businesses set up to prevent the fake disaster.

Right now solar and wind are incapable of providing reliable energy at a rate high enough. Their infrastructures also have a pay back time longer than life-expectancy/maintenance period... That means manufacturers of equipment make bank, while users and operators loose money. Eventually it will all fall apart and a collapse will follow.

Coal which has been demonized is actually quite clean these days, the stuff coming out of the towers is water vapor and that's about it. Nuclear, same thing... The only problem is what to do with the waste, but there are many uses for depleted uranium and most of it can me reconstituted.

For vehicles, E85 not only causes damage to your engine it is only cheaper than petrol because of government intervention. The fed pumps money into the corn/ethanol industry while over taxing and penalizing oil companies.

Electric cars as we all know are a net negative on energy use and even money (until 250,000 miles).
And their life expectancy is 175,000 miles. Also, worthy of note is the fact that the 250,000 miles is when compared to a quarter ton (150, 1500...) truck running a 5+ liter engine. If companies to an equivalent vehicle that is smaller like a mid sized sedan it gets all blown out of proportions and is not even believable.

The car companies are forced by the EPA to make non profitable and unsafe vehicles and shortages of what we really want artificial are inflated... The requirements on OBD systems do the same thing for the same reason...



The thing most people don't take into consideration is the fact that not only are the fuel sources not renewable neither are the building materials. It takes a lot more materials to build the structures to take advantage of "renewable" sources than it does the conventional ones.

All in all, if the fight was taken up on the right set of morals and goals the idea of green energy is a good one to start looking into,but not implementing. The problem is they are not interested in helping, they are interested in their own pockets and self preservation, that is evident by their jump to implement prematurely... Either that or they are just stupid!

Both of those prospects are dangerous as characteristics of leaders.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN


Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:22 am

RustyGunz1960 wrote: Some things just make sense. Why has our space program relied on solar power since its inception, rather than hauling extra fuel or batteries into space?


This is a subject that makes up part of what I was very close to focusing on for grad school... until I found out I would have to move to California to work in the industry.

The answer to this is very complicated if you want to know the science behind it, but basically it stems from the amount of power provided by the engines and the amount of power needed to leave earths atmosphere.The more weight you add the more energy is required for lift off and flight.They are restricted greatly by this and that is one of the main reasons no one has stepped foot on Mars. The solar power collectors are much lighter than fuel and batteries, but they are not as powerful and are very expensive. This limits our space exploration capabilities greatly...

It really is completely unrelated to long term energy conservation, it has more to do with a short term energy budget.
The amount of energy used to launch a space vehicle is astronomical and little consideration is given to how much effect the launch has on total worldwide energy use.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby assateague » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:37 am

That, and they can make a solar panel the size of a football field out of paper, since there's no wind or gravity in space. Nor is there an atmosphere, making such things as "cloudy days" nonexistent.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:41 am

Parallel science is not always science.

People that disagree with the 97% of scientists that believe climate change is due to humans activity has a few things going on.
1. They actually don't understand what a scientific consensus is, or how it can change given additional information.
2. Dey be mowrons! :lol3:
3. They are sheep to oil company funded demagogues

This isn't even a liberal vs conservative argument. Anyone that goes there proves they can't intellectually fight their way out of a wet lunch bag.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:43 am

slowshooter wrote:Parallel science is not always science.

People that disagree with the 97% of scientists that believe climate change is due to humans activity has a few things going on.
1. They actually don't understand what a scientific consensus is, or how it can change given additional information.
2. Dey be mowrons! :lol3:
3. They are sheep to oil company funded demagogues

This isn't even a liberal vs conservative argument. Anyone that goes there proves they can't intellectually fight their way out of a wet lunch bag.

That is false. 97% of scientists do not believe in global warming.....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56360
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:51 am

slowshooter wrote:Parallel science is not always science.

People that disagree with the 97% of scientists that believe climate change is due to humans activity has a few things going on.
1. They actually don't understand what a scientific consensus is, or how it can change given additional information.
2. Dey be mowrons! :lol3:
3. They are sheep to oil company funded demagogues

This isn't even a liberal vs conservative argument. Anyone that goes there proves they can't intellectually fight their way out of a wet lunch bag.


97% of scientist that stand to make a financial gain... :huh:
Kind of like 97% of people who regularly eat at McDonald's like McDonald's :thumbsup:

Slow I can only guess at what you do for a living, but there is little chance you know more about science than me and what qualifies as science. And there is literally no chance that you know more about the subject than Spinner... so, where do you get your ideas... the loony been? AKA Democratic Party platform...

Oil sheep :huh:

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:The fact that everyone could not see the logical conclusion to this hoax without a study, sickens me.

No one with half a brain thought we could actually affect climate, to do so we would have to overcome forces far greater than we can conceive.

It was all a vote pandering and money grabbing scheme.



You're wrong. Lots of smart people believed it, and still do.


I disagree on the smart part in your statement...

Really? You believe all those who are concerned about this are just stupid? Really? And those on the other side of the aisle are blessed with wisdom that transcends popular sentiment? Really? And the ones promulgating this theory are so powerful compared to the poor schmucks in the oil and coal industry that want you to believe that all is fine.....keep pumping and burning.....keep fracking and burning.....keep mining and burning....everything is fine. But of course those poor schmucks have no influence. They're just trying to make an honest living and help America become free of foreign dependence on energy. Really? :eek: :no:

Jim,
You know better!
"transcends popular sentiment?" Popular does not mean correct!
The side of the isle has absolutely nothing to do with it!

The oil companies?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
REALLY!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
What about...
General Electric ($3 Billion Amount received in GOV funds directly tied to Green E)
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!??!

God Damn those evil gas companies.... Effin... ExxonMobil (Income tax expense: $31.05 billion), Chevron ($20.00 billion), ConocoPhillips ($7.94 billion)...

Yeah Eff them they are evil and make things up for free money and pay no taxes.

:hammer:
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:40 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Parallel science is not always science.

People that disagree with the 97% of scientists that believe climate change is due to humans activity has a few things going on.
1. They actually don't understand what a scientific consensus is, or how it can change given additional information.
2. Dey be mowrons! :lol3:
3. They are sheep to oil company funded demagogues

This isn't even a liberal vs conservative argument. Anyone that goes there proves they can't intellectually fight their way out of a wet lunch bag.

That is false. 97% of scientists do not believe in global warming.....



http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Your pubic lice researcher friends and Kinsey don't count since climate scientists are the only ones that actually do the work. :lol3:

Nice try though. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:54 pm

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Parallel science is not always science.

People that disagree with the 97% of scientists that believe climate change is due to humans activity has a few things going on.
1. They actually don't understand what a scientific consensus is, or how it can change given additional information.
2. Dey be mowrons! :lol3:
3. They are sheep to oil company funded demagogues

This isn't even a liberal vs conservative argument. Anyone that goes there proves they can't intellectually fight their way out of a wet lunch bag.

That is false. 97% of scientists do not believe in global warming.....



http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Your pubic lice researcher friends and Kinsey don't count since climate scientists are the only ones that actually do the work. :lol3:

Nice try though. :lol3:

google confirmation bias...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56360
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:54 pm

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Parallel science is not always science.

People that disagree with the 97% of scientists that believe climate change is due to humans activity has a few things going on.
1. They actually don't understand what a scientific consensus is, or how it can change given additional information.
2. Dey be mowrons! :lol3:
3. They are sheep to oil company funded demagogues

This isn't even a liberal vs conservative argument. Anyone that goes there proves they can't intellectually fight their way out of a wet lunch bag.

That is false. 97% of scientists do not believe in global warming.....



http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Your pubic lice researcher friends and Kinsey don't count since climate scientists are the only ones that actually do the work. :lol3:

Nice try though. :lol3:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You are either incredibly stupid or... nope, on second thought that is it


Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus
Written by PRWeb, Houston Chronicle.
In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.

Calgary, Alberta (PRWEB) May 28, 2013

“The Cook et al paper is very misleading as described in major media. The breakdown of the survey results are not described up front,” says Ken Gregory, Director of Friends of Science. “The Cook study claims that any paper that mentions CO2 as a possible cause of some warming is part of a ‘consensus’. That is simply not true. Further, this survey does not assess ‘danger’.”

Gregory’s comment refers to the Obama tweet that wrongly claimed that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Cook survey showed that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”"

“Nothing in this survey discusses any level of danger to humans; in fact global warming stopped 16 years ago and this is well-known in the scientific community and acknowledged by the UN Climate Panel, the IPCC,” says Gregory.

Friends of Science say the public should question the motives of those who are twisting the survey results. The Herald Sun of Melbourne, Australia published similar questions along with answers from surprised scientists who do not support Cook's 'consensus' at all, even though Cook says they do!

Gregory explains a subtle point most readers would miss. “The Cook abstract falsely says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

He explains that the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) AGW consensus position is that humans are causing at least 90% of the recent warming to 2001, not that humans have ‘some’ effect on climate. However Cook's 'explicit endorsement level' is based on only 50%, influence by humans, misleading to average citizens as it reduces the accepted international parameter by almost half.

While Friends of Science note that most scientists acknowledge that humans affect climate in some way, the paths are many – including farming, forestry, land disturbance, industrial emissions, and breathing.

“Each of us emits CO2 at about 40,000 ppm when we breathe out,” says Gregory. “Does that make us dangerous?”

Another under-reported element is that "This letter was conceived as a 'citizen science' project by volunteers contributing to the Skeptical Science website: skepticalscience.com."

Skeptical Science is an advocate of the AGW theory. A searchable database of abstracts and ratings in the Cook study is provided on the Skeptical Science site.

This link shows the "Endorsement level 1, Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%.(human actions causing 50% or more warming)"

Note that this search term returns 65 of the 12000+ abstracts. The page lists each of the 65 abstracts giving the title with a link to the abstract, the journal where it was published and the endorsement rating.

The IPCC and climate alarmists claim that 90% to 100% of the recent warming (since 1975) was caused by greenhouse gas emissions. An astrophysical paper by Nir Shaviv that shows the sun causing 60% of the warming does not support the IPCC position on climate change. However, in the Cook study, this paper was falsely rated as explicitly endorsing AGW ("but does not quantify or minimize").

Several of the 65 papers categorized by Cook as Endorsement level 1 in fact show that the IPCC projections of warming are wrong and grossly exaggerated.

A paper by Scafetta and West states, "We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming."

The Cook et al study data base has seven categories of rated abstracts.
1. 65 explicit endorse, >50% warming caused by man
2. 934 explicit endorse
3. 2933 implicit endorse
4. 8261 no position
5. 53 implicit reject
6. 15 explicit reject
7. 10 explicit reject, <50% warming caused by man

Papers in the third category which Cook alleges, “implicit endorse,” in reality make no comment on whether humans have caused warming. This category includes papers about mitigation policies.

Says Gregory, “It is wrongly assumed by Cook et al, that an author who writes about biofuels, endorses the IPCC position on climate change. This is not necessarily the case.”

The Cook et al paper adds up categories 1, 2 and 3 and presents this total of 3932 papers as endorsing the AGW consensus. In fact many of those papers strongly reject the IPCC AGW position.

“Public policy should be based on scientific evidence, not statistical manipulations like this,” says Gregory.

About Friends of Science
Friends of Science have spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change and have concluded the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). The core group of the Friends of Science is made up of retired and active earth and atmospheric scientists. Membership is open to the public and available on-line.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:14 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Parallel science is not always science.

People that disagree with the 97% of scientists that believe climate change is due to humans activity has a few things going on.
1. They actually don't understand what a scientific consensus is, or how it can change given additional information.
2. Dey be mowrons! :lol3:
3. They are sheep to oil company funded demagogues

This isn't even a liberal vs conservative argument. Anyone that goes there proves they can't intellectually fight their way out of a wet lunch bag.

That is false. 97% of scientists do not believe in global warming.....



http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Your pubic lice researcher friends and Kinsey don't count since climate scientists are the only ones that actually do the work. :lol3:

Nice try though. :lol3:

google confirmation bias...



Dismissing almost 100% of scientists that are working on climate science and who are using that strange and voodoo like system called "scientific method" only shows your bias. Confirmation and otherwise.

You lose. Science wins. :hammer:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:16 pm

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:[
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You are either incredibly stupid or... nope, on second thought that is it


You smell of genius. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:17 pm

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Parallel science is not always science.

People that disagree with the 97% of scientists that believe climate change is due to humans activity has a few things going on.
1. They actually don't understand what a scientific consensus is, or how it can change given additional information.
2. Dey be mowrons! :lol3:
3. They are sheep to oil company funded demagogues

This isn't even a liberal vs conservative argument. Anyone that goes there proves they can't intellectually fight their way out of a wet lunch bag.

That is false. 97% of scientists do not believe in global warming.....



http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Your pubic lice researcher friends and Kinsey don't count since climate scientists are the only ones that actually do the work. :lol3:

Nice try though. :lol3:

google confirmation bias...



Dismissing almost 100% of scientists that are working on climate science and who are using that strange and voodoo like system called "scientific method" only shows your bias. Confirmation and otherwise.

You lose. Science wins. :hammer:

You are trying to claim that scientists outside of climate research can not understand the scientific method. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
97% of scientists do not support GW....you loose.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56360
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:17 pm

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Parallel science is not always science.

People that disagree with the 97% of scientists that believe climate change is due to humans activity has a few things going on.
1. They actually don't understand what a scientific consensus is, or how it can change given additional information.
2. Dey be mowrons! :lol3:
3. They are sheep to oil company funded demagogues

This isn't even a liberal vs conservative argument. Anyone that goes there proves they can't intellectually fight their way out of a wet lunch bag.

That is false. 97% of scientists do not believe in global warming.....



http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus


Your pubic lice researcher friends and Kinsey don't count since climate scientists are the only ones that actually do the work. :lol3:

Nice try though. :lol3:

google confirmation bias...



Dismissing almost 100% of scientists that are working on climate science and who are using that strange and voodoo like system called "scientific method" only shows your bias. Confirmation and otherwise.

You lose. Science wins. :hammer:


Are you talking about yourself?
And can you read my post, it explains how many actually agree
Last edited by WoodyWhiffingMG on Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Gunnysway » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:18 pm

Slow has heard that his whole life...
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:28 pm

Gunnysway wrote:Slow has heard that his whole life...

Hey slow-ask Micheal Mann why he refused to share his data and methodology with peers. :hi: Scientific method my AZZ!

"Beware of Prophets seeking Profits."
I'll trust the opinion of a scientist following the scientific method and not getting paid grant money for results. That is unbiased research.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56360
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby lancej » Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:31 pm

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:The fact that everyone could not see the logical conclusion to this hoax without a study, sickens me.
No one with half a brain thought we could actually affect climate, to do so we would have to overcome forces far greater than we can conceive.
It was all a vote pandering and money grabbing scheme.

You're wrong. Lots of smart people believed it, and still do.

I disagree on the smart part in your statement...

Why? Are smart people not allowed to 'believe in something' on blind faith?


You can believe what ever you want, but you should not make policy and shove it down the rest of our throats on blind faith...
Faith belongs in a a religious realm and not on the political pulpit.

And those who do not make that distinction have no place making statements/policy based on pseudoscience


And yet you've argued for laws from that position. Interesting.

Lance
It is the shared experiences of companionship that make loss bearable.
RIP Orion, May where you are be full of Rabbits.

when you start explaining what you're seeing, you see what you've been looking at
User avatar
lancej
hunter
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:19 pm
Location: Mount Aukum, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 pm

lancej wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
High Sierras wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:The fact that everyone could not see the logical conclusion to this hoax without a study, sickens me.
No one with half a brain thought we could actually affect climate, to do so we would have to overcome forces far greater than we can conceive.
It was all a vote pandering and money grabbing scheme.

You're wrong. Lots of smart people believed it, and still do.

I disagree on the smart part in your statement...

Why? Are smart people not allowed to 'believe in something' on blind faith?


You can believe what ever you want, but you should not make policy and shove it down the rest of our throats on blind faith...
Faith belongs in a a religious realm and not on the political pulpit.

And those who do not make that distinction have no place making statements/policy based on pseudoscience


And yet you've argued for laws from that position. Interesting.


Lance


When?
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:53 pm

That's what I thought, lance...

I argue on the side that a Christian often would, but I do it from a place of logic... Abortion, gay "rights", etc...
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:04 pm

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Parallel science is not always science.

People that disagree with the 97% of scientists that believe climate change is due to humans activity has a few things going on.
1. They actually don't understand what a scientific consensus is, or how it can change given additional information.
2. Dey be mowrons! :lol3:
3. They are sheep to oil company funded demagogues

This isn't even a liberal vs conservative argument. Anyone that goes there proves they can't intellectually fight their way out of a wet lunch bag.

That is false. 97% of scientists do not believe in global warming.....



http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus


Your pubic lice researcher friends and Kinsey don't count since climate scientists are the only ones that actually do the work. :lol3:

Nice try though. :lol3:

google confirmation bias...



Dismissing almost 100% of scientists that are working on climate science and who are using that strange and voodoo like system called "scientific method" only shows your bias. Confirmation and otherwise.

You lose. Science wins. :hammer:


Are you talking about yourself?
And can you read my post, it explains how many actually agree


You also lose. Science still wins. :hammer: :lol3: :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:08 pm

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:That's what I thought, lance...

I argue on the side that a Christian often would, but I do it from a place of logic... Abortion, gay "rights", etc...


Because believing in a religion cooked up over a thousand years ago to explain the unexplainable is logical... Got it.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:10 pm

slowshooter wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:That's what I thought, lance...

I argue on the side that a Christian often would, but I do it from a place of logic... Abortion, gay "rights", etc...


Because believing in a religion cooked up over a thousand years ago to explain the unexplainable is logical... Got it.


I don't think that is what I said... Your reading comprehension is dismal slow.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:12 pm

slowshooter wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:Parallel science is not always science.

People that disagree with the 97% of scientists that believe climate change is due to humans activity has a few things going on.
1. They actually don't understand what a scientific consensus is, or how it can change given additional information.
2. Dey be mowrons! :lol3:
3. They are sheep to oil company funded demagogues

This isn't even a liberal vs conservative argument. Anyone that goes there proves they can't intellectually fight their way out of a wet lunch bag.

That is false. 97% of scientists do not believe in global warming.....



http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus


Your pubic lice researcher friends and Kinsey don't count since climate scientists are the only ones that actually do the work. :lol3:

Nice try though. :lol3:

google confirmation bias...



Dismissing almost 100% of scientists that are working on climate science and who are using that strange and voodoo like system called "scientific method" only shows your bias. Confirmation and otherwise.

You lose. Science wins. :hammer:


Are you talking about yourself?
And can you read my post, it explains how many actually agree


You also lose. Science still wins. :hammer: :lol3: :lol3:


Do you like being wrong?
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:35 pm

Do you believe in evolution?
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:40 pm

slowshooter wrote:Do you believe in evolution?


I think it is a possible how but probably not why :thumbsup:

And don't you dare say it is a proven scientific fact!
That is a designation very few things have earned the right to be called...

Evolution is a scientific theory based on a very little evidence and excepted because there is no other solution with evidence either.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Chilidawg » Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:38 pm

Indawoods wrote:great read for those scientifically conversant enough to follow the article, cited sources, links, and comments.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/no-significant-warming-for-17-years-4-months/


from global warming to climate change to stasis. lolicopter.


. . . . By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

here is a nice list of some of Monckton's claims that have been debunked.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests