People who don't believe in climate change, why don't you believe in it?

[Billy_Bob]

Really? And the AGU, the GSA, and the American Institute of Physics agrees with you, correct? No, not correct at all. These Scientific Socities say you are completely full of shit.

After receiving over 875 BILLION dollars most would lie and say it too.. Got to keep that money flowing...

 

[jc456]

Our President considers the problem as the most urgent one.
This is a curiosity question. I know there are plenty of individuals out there who do not believe in climate change, but I'm curious as to why you don't believe it regardless of all of the data and evidence science has provided.
So is climate change a real threat?

I think they do, but are denying it simply along partisan lines. Would have to be the world's biggest fools not to believe your own eyes.

How do you account for the 400 ft rise in sea levels that occurred before man built cities?

Did ice melt?

 

[jc456]

Our President considers the problem as the most urgent one.
This is a curiosity question. I know there are plenty of individuals out there who do not believe in climate change, but I'm curious as to why you don't believe it regardless of all of the data and evidence science has provided.
So is climate change a real threat?

I think they do, but are denying it simply along partisan lines. Would have to be the world's biggest fools not to believe your own eyes.

How do you account for the 400 ft rise in sea levels that occurred before man built cities?

Well, God did flood the world right?

Yeah when the ice melted down!

 

[Billy_Bob]

You are filled with shit

Lets show who is the pile of shit, shall we...

30 billion a year but when you consider carbon taxation globally it jumps to over 150 billion annually.

"The real total of vested interests in climate-change science is far larger than just scientists doing pure research. The $30 billion in funding to the CCSP (graphed above) does not include work on green technologies like improving solar cells, or storing a harmless gas underground. Funding for climate technologies literally doubles the amount of money
involved, and provides a much larger pool of respectable-looking people with impressive scientific cachet to issue more press releases—most of which have little to do with basic atmospheric physics, but almost all of which repeat the assumption that the climate will warm due to human emissions. In other words: a 30-billion-dollar cheer squad"

Source

 

[FactFinder]

Our President considers the problem as the most urgent one.
This is a curiosity question. I know there are plenty of individuals out there who do not believe in climate change, but I'm curious as to why you don't believe it regardless of all of the data and evidence science has provided.
So is climate change a real threat?

Basically because it is only scientific opinion and not scientific fact. The flat earth was scientific opinion. There is no where near enough data to proclaim global warming as scientific fact.
Talk to me in a few thousand years and perhaps there may be sufficient data. What currently exists is conjecture, extrapolation,,,,whatever, Not fact.

 

[Crick]

Wikipedia's introduction to the natural sciences (of which climate science is a part)

Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on observational and empirical evidence. Validity, accuracy, and social mechanisms ensuring quality control, such as peer review and repeatability of findings, are amongst the criteria and methods used for this purpose.

Natural science can be broken into two main branches: life science (or biological science) and physical science. Physical science is further broken down into branches, including physics, astronomy, chemistry, and Earth science. All of these branches of natural science are divided into many further specialized branches (also known as fields), and each of these is known as a "natural science".

In Western society's analytic tradition, the empirical and especially natural sciences use tools from formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, converting information about nature into measurements which can be explained as clear statements about the "laws of nature". The social sciences also use such methods, but rely more on qualitative research, so that they are sometimes called "soft science", whereas natural sciences, insofar as emphasizing quantifiable data produced, tested, and confirmed through thescientific method are sometimes called "hard science".[1]

Modern natural science succeeded more classical approaches to natural philosophy, usually traced to ancient Greece. Galileo, Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Newton debated the benefits of using approaches which were more mathematical and more experimental in a methodical way. Still, philosophical perspectives, conjectures, and presuppositions, often overlooked, remain requisite in natural science.[2]Systematic data collection, including discovery science, succeed natural history, which emerged in the 16th century by describing and classifying plants, animals, minerals, and so on.[3] Yet today, natural history suggests observational descriptions aimed at popular audiences.[4]


Do you see the word "fact" in there? How about "proof"? Well, they do say "laws of nature". Let's look that up.


Law of Nature may refer to:

• Physical law, a scientific generalization based upon empirical observation
• Natural law, any of a number of doctrines in moral, political and legal theory
• Scientific law, statements based on experimental observations and describe some aspect of the world, implying a causal relationship
• Laws of science, statements that describe, and predict phenomena as they appear in nature
• The Law of the Jungle, the idea that in nature, the only "law" is to do whatever is needed for survival
• The Law of Nature, a 1919 American drama film directed by David G. Fischer

Hmm.. empirical observation, experimental observations, theoretical doctrines, descriptions, predictions... I just don't see any mention of facts or proofs. Maybe you need to rethink your objections - and before a few thousand years has passed.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? And the AGU, the GSA, and the American Institute of Physics agrees with you, correct? No, not correct at all. These Scientific Socities say you are completely full of shit.

After receiving over 875 BILLION dollars most would lie and say it too.. Got to keep that money flowing...

More numbers out of your asshole. Just like the 'fact' that the water molecule was ten times bigger than the carbon dioxide molecule. You are a liar, Billy Boob. No credibility, no brains.

 

[asterism]

And yet if he convinces a small percentage more people to conserve, he can easily overcome the carbon 'cost' of flying that jet and have a much larger effect down the road.

Ah.

So he's "special." That's the silly part of the carbon control solution, none of the people preaching about it are subject to those rules. Rules are for little people.

I think it's bad to dump gasoline in our lakes. I don't dump gasoline in our lakes while convincing everyone else to stop doing it. Importing invasive plant species is bad for our lakes. I don't import them while I convince others not to.

Obama's speech would have had much more impact if he did what he says everyone else should do.

 

[Crick]

And yet if he convinces a small percentage more people to conserve, he can easily overcome the carbon 'cost' of flying that jet and have a much larger effect down the road.

Ah.

So he's "special."

In that he's the president of the United States and a great deal more people listen to him and give him more credence than to the average Joe or Jane, yes, he's special.

That's the silly part of the carbon control solution, none of the people preaching about it are subject to those rules. Rules are for little people.

Did Obama suggest to people that they stop flying planes?

BTW, a modern jet liner uses approximately one-third the fuel as would it's passengers, seated two per car, in autos getting 28 mpg, covering the same distance.

I think it's bad to dump gasoline in our lakes. I don't dump gasoline in our lakes while convincing everyone else to stop doing it. Importing invasive plant species is bad for our lakes. I don't import them while I convince others not to.

Excellent. But you'd have to admit that neither has anything to do with global warming.

Obama's speech would have had much more impact if he did what he says everyone else should do.

We might make more progress against global warming, if more people dealt with reality and made less use of their emotional baggage.

 

[Abishai100]

The Axe Rainbow

A rainbow is a naturally occurring separation of white light into its various bands of energy (i.e., wavelengths of color) that appears after a rain storm, since the prismatic effects of water vapor crystals that hang in the atmosphere (after the rain storm) create a 'white light sieve.'

When we see rainbows, we marvel at the magic and majesty of nature and its physical wonders.

However, the high acidic content in modern age water condensation in Earth atmospheric clouds created by manmade pollution (i.e., CFCs) produces something monstrous in the mind and in nature: acid rain rainbows.

We may not realize that when we are looking at a wonderful rainbow in our post-Industrialization era that the rainbow could be 'tainted' --- it could, in fact, be an acid rain rainbow.

Does this give you the willies?

 

[Crick]

No, it does not give me the willies.

Acid rain has been fairly well stopped by EPA restrictions on sulfate and nitrous oxide emissions. Acid rain was never caused by CFCs.

Rainbows are formed from rays of light bouncing around inside spherical droplets of water, not prisms of ice.

 

[skookerasbil]

Donald........really important to educate yourself about climate change. With todays media, its real easy to get duped.

Take some time and go through THIS site >> The Green Agenda .......a good place to start is with the "quotes" on the face page!! Like a lot of people who visit this site for the first time......ends up being a real eye opener. Helps you start connecting the dots with this stuff.........then you can decide for yourself!!

 

[Crick]

With media like "The Green Agenda" it IS easy to get duped.

 

[Crick]

And yet if he convinces a small percentage more people to conserve, he can easily overcome the carbon 'cost' of flying that jet and have a much larger effect down the road.

Ah. So he's "special."

In that he's the president of the United States and a great deal more people listen to him and give him more credence than to the average Joe or Jane, yes, he's special.

That's the silly part of the carbon control solution, none of the people preaching about it are subject to those rules. Rules are for little people.

Did Obama suggest to people that they stop flying planes?

BTW, a modern jet liner uses approximately one-third the fuel as would it's passengers, seated two per car, in autos getting 28 mpg, covering the same distance.

I think it's bad to dump gasoline in our lakes. I don't dump gasoline in our lakes while convincing everyone else to stop doing it. Importing invasive plant species is bad for our lakes. I don't import them while I convince others not to.

Excellent. But you'd have to admit that neither has anything to do with global warming.

Obama's speech would have had much more impact if he did what he says everyone else should do.

We might make more progress against global warming, if more people dealt with reality and made less use of their emotional baggage.

Great advice maybe you should follow it

I do follow it. It's fairly easy to do when my position is simply based on the vast majority of mainstream science.

 

[Crick]

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Where's yours?

 

[jc456]

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Where's yours?

What is evidence there? Post it!

 

[bornright]

What I don't believe in is politicians that use this never ending climate change topic to gain power. The politicians that say it doesn't exist is as bad as the ones that says it does and that it is caused by man. The Scientist should keep investigating the subject. Has there ever been a scientific study that got the results correct and did not change their view at any point. Is it possible that many of the scientist from both sides of the topic have gotten tunnel vision and ignore all data? With the population explosion and these huge concrete cities growing all over the world sucking heat from the sun, perhaps there is other causes other than oil and cows passing gas.

Any time we feel we have the complete answer to climate change, it can no longer be considered science. Science is a study that should not be investigated by hard headed people.

 

[jc456]

What I don't believe in is politicians that use this never ending climate change topic to gain power. The politicians that say it doesn't exist is as bad as the ones that says it does and that it is caused by man. The Scientist should keep investigating the subject. Has there ever been a scientific study that got the results correct and did not change their view at any point. Is it possible that many of the scientist from both sides of the topic have gotten tunnel vision and ignore all data? With the population explosion and these huge concrete cities growing all over the world sucking heat from the sun, perhaps there is other causes other than oil and cows passing gas.

Any time we feel we have the complete answer to climate change, it can no longer be considered science. Science is a study that should not be investigated by hard headed people.

Funny thing with the left/ warmers, they believe they can just post statements without providing proof of their statements. Then, demand proof, exactly what they had no intentions of giving themselves, when challenged. And said challenge was only looking for confirmation of the posted statement. So tell me, what can a challenger provide as evidence against something fictional? I tell you, the stupid that flows from these k00ks is outstanding! Three cheers for the leftist stupid.

 

[martybegan]

Our President considers the problem as the most urgent one.
This is a curiosity question. I know there are plenty of individuals out there who do not believe in climate change, but I'm curious as to why you don't believe it regardless of all of the data and evidence science has provided.
So is climate change a real threat?

Climate has been changing since the last Ice Age ended.

What is in dispute, is that man and his activities are causing 100% of current climate change.

More specifically, what is in dispute is that the Western lifestyle is 100% responsible for climate change.

and what is really in dispute is that the only solution is the typical leftist toolbox of more government, less freedom, and giving up our standard of living (except for the ones in power advocating it, rules are for the little people.)

 

[Crick]

What additional government, what lessened freedoms do you believe leftists are suggesting here?