Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues - Part 1

As if we needed another reminder that you don't understand any of the arguments being made in these threads.
No, that was a reminder that the endless scares that humans embrace are pretty comical after a while.

Are we doomed yet? :woot:
Anyone who denies any form of climate change just baffles me....
The political use of the word "denier" is very revealing.

Not to mention the distortion of the position of skeptics. Who would say climate change isn't happening? The climate has been in a constant state of change since the earth formed.

It is CAGW believers who deny climate change. They are implying the climate does not normally change unless the human race steps in to force it. Apparently, we were supposed to remain in the Little Ice Age forever. :whatever:
 
I don't know why we keep arguing with ^^^^^

He's from Texas. That should be enough to tell you he's not going to accept any amount of evidence we throw at him.
 
I don't know why we keep arguing with ^^^^^

He's from Texas. That should be enough to tell you he's not going to accept any amount of evidence we throw at him.
Hey now, I happen to know several scientists from Texas!
 
It is CAGW believers who deny climate change. They are implying the climate does not normally change unless the human race steps in to force it.
Can you stop trolling for five minutes? Is that really too much to ask? Nobody is this stupid in real life.
 
I don't know why we keep arguing with ^^^^^

He's from Texas. That should be enough to tell you he's not going to accept any amount of evidence we throw at him.
You gotta love the "logic" of AGW believers.

"He lives inside an imaginary line on the earth's surface so that means he and everyone else who live inside that line think exactly alike and this is proof they are wrong".

That's really scientific thinking. :oldrazz:

Can you stop trolling for five minutes? Is that really too much to ask? Nobody is this stupid in real life.
Disagreeing with doomsayers is hardly "stupid" since doomsayers are historically the least logical thinkers.

---------

I'm so going to enjoying laughing about the latest doom scare when the media and politicians get bored with it. The elbola panic is so hilarious to watch....and instructive for how this whole process works. The media gets fixated upon something, ratings go up as the public buys into it, the media covers it more because ratings are all they really care about. Then the politicians get onboard and panic goes into overdrive as the media covers the politicians talking about the scare the media created.

Human beings aren't that smart as a group.
 
Disagreeing with doomsayers is hardly "stupid"...
Not in and of itself, no, but statements like these:

JKD said:
It is CAGW believers who deny climate change. They are implying the climate does not normally change unless the human race steps in to force it.
...are incredibly stupid. You're embarrassing yourself, and the shtick is getting old.
 
Not in and of itself, no, but statements like these:

...are incredibly stupid. You're embarrassing yourself, and the shtick is getting old.
Except that is exactly what they are doing. No natural climate change was allowed into the conversation, thus they are saying the climate would not be changing at all if not for humans.

Now...THAT is dumb.

The funny thing was that with the recent admission that the climate has not warmed for the past two decades, suddenly natural climate change was allowed back into the conversation....as an excuse to explain why the predictions of the models failed. Cracks me up.

I also "embarrass myself" when other types of religions claim the world will end because of man's sins and I roll my eyes. I can take that kind of "embarrassment". :woot:
 
LOL....People will do, say, and think the most absurd thing to support their panic.

The Most Ignorant American Ebola Panic of the Moment

As the spread of Ebola within the United States continues to not happen — we repeat: Only one person has died and two nurses who were in direct contact with him are currently being treated — the string of uninformed overreactions grows longer by the day, and shows once again that Americans have no idea how African geography works, let alone how a non-airborne virus is transmitted.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/stupidest-american-ebola-panic-of-the-moment.html
 
That isn't even remotely true.

It's completely true. The entire AGW theory is based on ignoring the fact that we are recovering from the Little Ice Age. Natural warming is ignored as believers insist we are the reason the world has warmed. (natural cooling is allowed into the conversation...naturally....l:word:) The ultimate climate change denial.
 
It's completely true. The entire AGW theory is based on ignoring the fact that we are recovering from the Little Ice Age. Natural warming is ignored as believers insist we are the reason the world has warmed. (natural cooling is allowed into the conversation...naturally....l:word:) The ultimate climate change denial.
...do you even understand what the "Little Ice Age" actually was? Because this post indicates that you don't.
 
It's completely true. The entire AGW theory is based on ignoring the fact that we are recovering from the Little Ice Age. Natural warming is ignored as believers insist we are the reason the world has warmed. (natural cooling is allowed into the conversation...naturally....l:word:) The ultimate climate change denial.

Answer me this question, you are driving you car and come upon a bridge. It is a very long bridge that will take some time to cross. There is a sign that says "97% of engineers agree this bridge will fail, 3% say the bridge is fine." Would you cross that bridge?
 
...do you even understand what the "Little Ice Age" actually was? Because this post indicates that you don't.
I think Jorgen Peder Steffensen says it very well:

"The problem is...and I agree that we have had a global temperature increase in the 20th century...yes. But an increase from what? Probably an increase from the lowest point we've had for the last 10,000 years. And this means, that it would be very hard indeed to prove whether the increase in temperature in the 20th century was manmade or it's a natural variation. That would be very hard because we made ourselves an extremely poor experiment. We started to observe meteorology at the coldest spot in the last 10,000 years."

http://climateclips.com/archives/132
 
Answer me this question, you are driving you car and come upon a bridge. It is a very long bridge that will take some time to cross. There is a sign that says "97% of engineers agree this bridge will fail, 3% say the bridge is fine." Would you cross that bridge?
Ahhh...you are talking about this: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

And since that is a distortion, it means your analogy does not apply here. (Unless you want to claim 75 of 10,257 scientists is "97%")

The "97%" lie is one of the main reasons to be a skeptic. If that lie is told again and again...there must be a reason for it.
 
It's completely true. The entire AGW theory is based on ignoring the fact that we are recovering from the Little Ice Age. Natural warming is ignored as believers insist we are the reason the world has warmed. (natural cooling is allowed into the conversation...naturally....l:word:) The ultimate climate change denial.

I think Jorgen Peder Steffensen says it very well:

"The problem is...and I agree that we have had a global temperature increase in the 20th century...yes. But an increase from what? Probably an increase from the lowest point we've had for the last 10,000 years. And this means, that it would be very hard indeed to prove whether the increase in temperature in the 20th century was manmade or it's a natural variation. That would be very hard because we made ourselves an extremely poor experiment. We started to observe meteorology at the coldest spot in the last 10,000 years."

http://climateclips.com/archives/132
http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age-advanced.htm
 
So you now are urging me to not believe what a scientist says? (gasp!) Interesting how that works. "Listen to the scientists!"....until you don't agree with them, eh? :woot: Oh that's not suspicious at all. :oldrazz:

Also amusing to read that link claiming to know exactly why climate changes when we know the climate of the last 20 years did not follow the AGW theory. That's why there is currently an effort to come up with brand new reasons for what the climate is doing...that were not mentioned 20 years ago when "the science was settled".

Yeah...really convincing that we know what drives the climate there.

Also...If you think I'll fall for the "the factors which contributed to the LIA cannot account for the global warming of the past 50-100 years", you are mistaken.

Which is it? 50 or 100? Pick one. Because it's well known that our CO2 emissions were not substantial before 1950. ...That's why even the IPCC only talks about post 1950 in their generalized statements.

Which is why this is so interesting:



The climate managed to pull off an identical temperature rise before 1950.
 
So basically all I'm getting from JKD is that he is an idiot. Check, noted and archived for future reference so that I can not bother with wasting time with him. Have fun trying to educate this fool Dr. Evo
 
So basically all I'm getting from JKD is that he is an idiot. Check, noted and archived for future reference so that I can not bother with wasting time with him. Have fun trying to educate this fool Dr. Evo
It's not about trying to educate him. It's about letting others watch him systematically ignore the counterarguments presented to him. Anyone who read the link I provided and his subsequent response, for example, should be able to see that he's simply dodging the points rather than addressing them directly.

I prefer to allow him to damage his own credibility - something he consistently does, and in spectacular fashion.
 
This has been a good documentary abut the science behind climate change and how it is effecting us now and will effect us in the future.

 
Leaked Big Oil Speech: Wage "Endless War" Against Fracking Opponents

ksqx0bpr0d68mjjcrj1s.jpg


In June, Rick Berman of the PR firm Berman & Company gave a speech to a room full of oil industry executives. Presumably believing his talk was private, he spoke of waging "endless war" against fracking's opponents and exploiting fear and anger to win supporters. Unfortunately for him, he was being recorded.

An anonymous executive in the room who was offended by Berman's implication that "you have to play dirty to win"—the speech endorsed tactics like digging up dirt on celebrities and high-profile oil opponents to discredit them—recorded the speech and provided the tape to the New York Times, which published a report alongside a full transcript yesterday.

Berman gave the speech alongside Berman & Co. VP Jack Hubbard to solicit donations for a multi-million-dollar campaign called Big Green Radicals, which runs what the Times calls "intentionally controversial" pro-fracking ads in contested markets like Colorado and Pennsylvania. The audience reportedly included representatives of companies like Devon Energy, Halliburton, and Anadarko Petroleum.

Some excerpts from the speech:

Fear and anger have to be a part of this campaign. If you want to win, that's what we're going to do. We're not going to get people to like the oil and gas industry over the next few months. There is no sympathy for the oil and gas industry. So we're not going to tap into the sympathetic.

People ask me one question all the time: "How do I know that I won't be found out as a supporter of what you're doing?" We run all this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity. People don't know who supports us.

I've had clients say to me, "Well you know, I don't really want to attack. That's not who we are." I say, "Well, you know, you can either win ugly or lose pretty."


And from Hubbard:

You have people like Yoko Ono...this is a billboard we put up in Pennsylvania about, "Why would we take energy advice from the woman who broke up the Beatles?"

There was also an extended gay joke about a weedwacker.

Berman, as Bloomberg notes, has previously approved his avowed hardball tactics to unions, animal rights activists, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. When Bloomberg reporter Mark Drajem asked a Berman & Co. spokeswoman about Berman's speech, she told him, "We are not confident in the objectivity of your reporting. If you have the recording, then you can use that."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/u...estern-energy-alliance-speech-taped.html?_r=0

Well that's not at all disturbing :o :whatever:
 
So, without revealing what side of the argument I'm on, I'm going to ask this question:

Regardless of your views on the science, or what's causing what to happen, SHOULDN'T WE STILL MAKE A LEGITIMATE EFFORT TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PLANET THAT WE ALL LIVE ON?!
 
So, without revealing what side of the argument I'm on, I'm going to ask this question:

Regardless of your views on the science, or what's causing what to happen, SHOULDN'T WE STILL MAKE A LEGITIMATE EFFORT TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PLANET THAT WE ALL LIVE ON?!

You would think so but apparently there are people who just don't give a crap as long as they can do what they want right now
 
What do you think of this guy? Has anyone ever heard of him?

Former Weather Channel CEO Goes off on CNN: Says


‘Hello, Everybody! There’s No Global Warming!’on Cnn.

[YT]q0kT3GagR0g[/YT]

The Weather Channel doesn't want any part of it and says he is no longer part of the Channel.

What do you think? What is this "data" he is talking about. The CNN guys wants us to Google it.... :huh:

On the video John Coleman calls climate geeks not scientist but "Nuts"...
Current Wheater Channel CEO is also interviewed and doesn't agree with John Coleman.
 
So, without revealing what side of the argument I'm on, I'm going to ask this question:

Regardless of your views on the science, or what's causing what to happen, SHOULDN'T WE STILL MAKE A LEGITIMATE EFFORT TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PLANET THAT WE ALL LIVE ON?!

:up:

It isn't much but i do what I can. I try to drive less/carpool, buy more indoor house plants (I got a big collection now), continue my compost pile, lED lighting throughout my house, more evergreen trees for outside, recycle religiously, buy Organic/ buy locally.
 
:up:

It isn't much but i do what I can. I try to drive less/carpool, buy more indoor house plants (I got a big collection now), continue my compost pile, lED lighting throughout my house, more evergreen trees for outside, recycle religiously, buy Organic/ buy locally.

That's way more than I can say for myself (but, then again, I'm a college kid who still lives with his parents, so I don't have total control over the circumstances). Bravo sir! Continue to do your part!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,537
Messages
21,755,756
Members
45,592
Latest member
kathielee
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"