what do global warming people want ??

[mamooth]

Many of those very scientists stated in the 70s that we would be by now buried under tons of ice. That didn't fly, so they pivoted to global warming.

Since the 1960s, most climate scientists have been consistently predicting warming. By the 1980s, the warming consensus was universal. Only the most desperate deniers attempt to rewrite history by pretending there was ever a consensus for cooling. The consensus was always for warming.

(And no, a faked Time Magazine cover does not prove otherwise, so I hope nobody bothers.)

It's only the deniers who have been predicting an imminent new ice age for decades now. Give that the deniers have failed so completely with every prediction they've tried to make, why would anyone pay attention to them?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yet none of you seem to embrace nuclear power

Where did you get such an idea?

I've always been very pro-nuclear.

And as for others ...

Environmental scientists tout nuclear power to avert climate change - CNN.com

Really then why aren't any democrat leaders pushing nuclear over wind and solar?

 

[mamooth]

Republican politicians aren't pushing nuclear power either. There's no political gain to be had with it. Even those saying they're pro-nuclear don't want a plant built near them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Republican politicians aren't pushing nuclear power either. There's no political gain to be had with it. Even those saying they're pro-nuclear don't want a plant built near them.

So because republicans aren't then science loving liberals won't even though it's liberals are saying that climate change is the most pressing matter in the world?

That's lame.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Many of those very scientists stated in the 70s that we would be by now buried under tons of ice. That didn't fly, so they pivoted to global warming.

Since the 1960s, most climate scientists have been consistently predicting warming. By the 1980s, the warming consensus was universal. Only the most desperate deniers attempt to rewrite history by pretending there was ever a consensus for cooling. The consensus was always for warming.

(And no, a faked Time Magazine cover does not prove otherwise, so I hope nobody bothers.)

It's only the deniers who have been predicting an imminent new ice age for decades now. Give that the deniers have failed so completely with every prediction they've tried to make, why would anyone pay attention to them?

Well gosh, I was on the Mall in DC for the 1st Earth Day. Beautiful weather. Great place to meet girls and score weed.

About all they talked about was The Coming Ice Age.

Revel in your delusion.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yet none of you seem to embrace nuclear power

Where did you get such an idea?

I've always been very pro-nuclear.

And as for others ...

Environmental scientists tout nuclear power to avert climate change - CNN.com

Really then why aren't any democrat leaders pushing nuclear over wind and solar?

This is starting to change. The only viable alternatives we have to fossil fuels are nuclear, wind, solar, and a few others. The human race will soon understand, as a whole, there is no alternative and there is no more time. Every government on Earth should be making a huge push towards fusion, to see if it is feasible and if so how quickly we could perfect it.

 

[SwimExpert]

the denier cult says

BAM!!! You did it again.

You're not engaging in a discussion. You're not talking about science. Now, you should be talking about science. Instead, you're just demonizing anyone who isn't going to accept the conclusions you want. And by doing that, you are in fact being the antithesis of a scientifically minded individual.

Either talk about science, or don't stay anything.

 

[IsaacNewton]

the denier cult says

BAM!!! You did it again.

You're not engaging in a discussion. You're not talking about science. Now, you should be talking about science. Instead, you're just demonizing anyone who isn't going to accept the conclusions you want. And by doing that, you are in fact being the antithesis of a scientifically minded individual.

Either talk about science, or don't stay anything.

I treat those that deny Global Warming the same way I treat Flat Earthers or Birthers.

As probably nice people but with a screw loose. YOUR opinion does not mean anything compared to 10,000 PH.D's, SORRY. They are doctors in their field.

Just as I would ignore YOUR opinion on whether to get heart surgery.

 

[SwimExpert]

I treat those that deny Global Warming the same way I treat Flat Earthers or Birthers.

And that's the problem. First, you lump everyone into this one group called "global warming deniers." Then, you assign people to that group without even knowing what they are saying, simply based on the fact that they disagree with you.

YOUR opinion does not mean anything compared to 10,000 PH.D's, SORRY.

And here's my evidence. You don't know the science. Not at all. You're simply accepting what some group of people say, and doing so at face value.

Now, if that's how you want to form your opinion, then by all means. But you have no basis to condemn people who don't accept that.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I treat those that deny Global Warming the same way I treat Flat Earthers or Birthers.

And that's the problem. First, you lump everyone into this one group called "global warming deniers." Then, you assign people to that group without even knowing what they are saying, simply based on the fact that they disagree with you.

YOUR opinion does not mean anything compared to 10,000 PH.D's, SORRY.

And here's my evidence. You don't know the science. Not at all. You're simply accepting what some group of people say, and doing so at face value.

Now, if that's how you want to form your opinion, then by all means. But you have no basis to condemn people who don't accept that.

You are tiring.

I know the science. It isn't brain surgery even though some aspects are complicated, the general idea is not. The fact that you would deny Global Warming is real and it is accelerating shows YOU do not know the science.

I don't want you to take my opinion. Go to your local university and talk to the geologists, chemists, and biologists there.

They'll get you squared away with reality.

 

[jillian]

this has become a most divisive political hot potato in America, and the world.

a couple of quick question please.

1. what do the global activists want to happen ? (specifically)

2. have people signed on to this without knowing anything about it ?


WASHINGTON — A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change, according to anew survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters.



Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sought to paint Republicans who question climate change as deniers of science who are out of touch with the mainstream.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/u...-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?_r=0

to paraphrase neil degrasse Tyson, your "belief" doesn't matter. science exists whether you believe in it or not

 

[mamooth]

Well gosh, I was on the Mall in DC for the 1st Earth Day. Beautiful weather. Great place to meet girls and score weed.

About all they talked about was The Coming Ice Age.

Revel in your delusion.

So your believe your weed-induced paranoia was actual science?

Ah ... that does explain your current postings.

 

[washamericom]

this has become a most divisive political hot potato in America, and the world.

a couple of quick question please.

1. what do the global activists want to happen ? (specifically)

2. have people signed on to this without knowing anything about it ?


WASHINGTON — A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change, according to anew survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters.



Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sought to paint Republicans who question climate change as deniers of science who are out of touch with the mainstream.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/u...-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?_r=0

to paraphrase neil degrasse Tyson, your "belief" doesn't matter. science exists whether you believe in it or not

i like him, but he also respects the nexus of faith science and religion, they can coexist. also, if our beliefs don't matter, what's the point of anything really.

i don't think global warming or climate change will amount to much now. there are so many more pressing things to worry about.

there has to be someone on this board that can speak to these charges of hoax, with math and physics. the warmalists are trying to seperate the scientists (e.g. the physicists from the climatologists... and so forth). that's odd. that and the idea they don't want any more discussion, that's a super red flag, especially coming from the left. gone are the days of question authority.

 

[jillian]

this has become a most divisive political hot potato in America, and the world.

a couple of quick question please.

1. what do the global activists want to happen ? (specifically)

2. have people signed on to this without knowing anything about it ?


WASHINGTON — A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change, according to anew survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters.



Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sought to paint Republicans who question climate change as deniers of science who are out of touch with the mainstream.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/u...-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?_r=0

to paraphrase neil degrasse Tyson, your "belief" doesn't matter. science exists whether you believe in it or not

i like him, but he also respects the nexus of faith science and religion, they can coexist. also, if our beliefs don't matter, what's the point of anything really.

i don't think global warming or climate change will amount to much now. there are so many more pressing things to worry about.

there has to be someone on this board that can speak to these charges of hoax, with math and physics. the warmalists are trying to seperate the scientists (e.g. the physicists from the climatologists... and so forth). that's odd. that and the idea they don't want any more discussion, that's a super red flag, especially coming from the left. gone are the days of question authority.

why would anyone speak to charges of hoax when those charges are as irrational and baseless as those claiming the holocaust is a hoax. we can talk about immediacy and degrees to which the problem is already impacting us, but I don't entertain allegations from conspiracy theorists and science deniers. false discussion isn't discussion. and when people pretend science doesn't exist, then they should be laughed at, not encouraged by giving their conspiracy theories credence.

this isn't a function of opinion... it's a function of science. and no one on this board has ever proffered a legitimate climate science with a peer reviewed study controverting climate change.

 

[jc456]

this is sort of my overall query, do the people that support it really know what they are talking about ?

I'm sure the climate scientists who comprise the consensus know what they're talking about. Why, do you know more than them?

because I don't need to be funded and they do. without funding, they might actually have to work for a living.

 

[jc456]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

Will lowering CO2 by 10% cut back climate change by the same 10%?

Probably not. Models indicate how much warming would occur under various future emissions scenarios, but as you know the correct answer is very difficult to accurately model. And yet, the overall answer is clear ... if emissions continue at the current rate, global warming will accelerate.

And yet, the overall answer is clear .

Clear as mud. dude you can't even post up one variable that is affected by CO2. How can you even make a stupid statement like that?

 

[jc456]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

Will lowering CO2 by 10% cut back climate change by the same 10%?

Probably not. Models indicate how much warming would occur under various future emissions scenarios, but as you know the correct answer is very difficult to accurately model. And yet, the overall answer is clear ... if emissions continue at the current rate, global warming will accelerate.

Wait, first you said "Climate change" and now you said "Global Warming" are they interchangeable?

Yes, they are. The climate change is summarized by increasing global average temperatures, i.e. global warming.

what? climate change is daily changes in temperature, it could be warm it could be cold. I know for a fact that when the Northern Hemisphere is in summer it's warmer and when it is in winter it is colder. Now sir you disprove that fact.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well gosh, I was on the Mall in DC for the 1st Earth Day. Beautiful weather. Great place to meet girls and score weed.

About all they talked about was The Coming Ice Age.

Revel in your delusion.

So your believe your weed-induced paranoia was actual science?

Ah ... that does explain your current postings.

What I believe is that the speeches given that day reflected what the scientists giving them believed was actual science.

Or perhaps they didn't believe it. Perhaps it was, as seems in hindsight most likely, all a political ruse right from the beginning.

 

[IsaacNewton]

this has become a most divisive political hot potato in America, and the world.

a couple of quick question please.

1. what do the global activists want to happen ? (specifically)

2. have people signed on to this without knowing anything about it ?


WASHINGTON — A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change, according to anew survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters.



Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sought to paint Republicans who question climate change as deniers of science who are out of touch with the mainstream.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/u...-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?_r=0

to paraphrase neil degrasse Tyson, your "belief" doesn't matter. science exists whether you believe in it or not

i like him, but he also respects the nexus of faith science and religion, they can coexist. also, if our beliefs don't matter, what's the point of anything really.

i don't think global warming or climate change will amount to much now. there are so many more pressing things to worry about.

there has to be someone on this board that can speak to these charges of hoax, with math and physics. the warmalists are trying to seperate the scientists (e.g. the physicists from the climatologists... and so forth). that's odd. that and the idea they don't want any more discussion, that's a super red flag, especially coming from the left. gone are the days of question authority.

Do you question the authority of:

- the law of gravity
- the Earth revolves around the sun
- germs cause disease and we can't see them with the naked eye
- the Earth is 4.5 billion years old
- the moon revolves around the Earth
- we can split the atom

If you are REALLY looking for the facts about Global Warming, do so at your local university. Any number of physicists, chemists, geologists, climatologists, oceanographers, and biologists will explain it to you.

THERE ISN'T ANY DEBATE AMONG SCIENTISTS ANYMORE, THAT ENDED 15 YEARS AGO. THEY DEBATED AND DISCUSSED IT FOR THE LAST 100 YEARS AND THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.

See why there is no discussion? Its because there is no discussion among the scientists of the world. They settled it and agree.

You can debate the law of gravity with people all you want, and that would qualify as discussion. But if you come to any conclusion that the law of gravity is wrong the discussion is meaningless. The discussion is settled already.

The denier cult is beginning to fade out as reality begins to set in for the human race. And the people that propped up the phoney hoax crap, the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel industry, will likely face charges for crimes against humanity at some point. This is no game.

 

[washamericom]

this has become a most divisive political hot potato in America, and the world.

a couple of quick question please.

1. what do the global activists want to happen ? (specifically)

2. have people signed on to this without knowing anything about it ?


WASHINGTON — A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change, according to anew survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters.



Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sought to paint Republicans who question climate change as deniers of science who are out of touch with the mainstream.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/u...-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?_r=0

to paraphrase neil degrasse Tyson, your "belief" doesn't matter. science exists whether you believe in it or not

i like him, but he also respects the nexus of faith science and religion, they can coexist. also, if our beliefs don't matter, what's the point of anything really.

i don't think global warming or climate change will amount to much now. there are so many more pressing things to worry about.

there has to be someone on this board that can speak to these charges of hoax, with math and physics. the warmalists are trying to seperate the scientists (e.g. the physicists from the climatologists... and so forth). that's odd. that and the idea they don't want any more discussion, that's a super red flag, especially coming from the left. gone are the days of question authority.

why would anyone speak to charges of hoax when those charges are as irrational and baseless as those claiming the holocaust is a hoax. we can talk about immediacy and degrees to which the problem is already impacting us, but I don't entertain allegations from conspiracy theorists and science deniers. false discussion isn't discussion. and when people pretend science doesn't exist, then they should be laughed at, not encouraged by giving their conspiracy theories credence.

this isn't a function of opinion... it's a function of science. and no one on this board has ever proffered a legitimate climate science with a peer reviewed study controverting climate change.

ok, then i want to start from the beginning, and hear from everyone again, see all the numbers and where they came from. i object to "it's settled" counselor, we've been through this before with the birther thing and benghazi.