Can you really trust the science of global warming?

[RightyTighty]

I gave you my answer.
How is CO2 a poison if people exhale it, and plants inhale it? It's essential to life on Earth, yet you want to eradicate it and tax it, and classify it as a poison.
If you believe that, then save the planet by you and 3.5 Billion of your whackadoodle fanatic brethren cease in polluting the atmosphere by breathing.

I made a bunch of points upstream. If you have the intellectual capacity to understand them.....there are the answers to questions which you really don't want to know the truth about anyways.

It's really simple. If one truly believes in a cause, they will die for it. So save the planet and quit breathing.

The planet should have 1/10th the number of humans living on it currently. And the planet is no the issue - the ability of us to live on it is.

I say people change things - you say they don't. One of us has a future and it isn't you.

People change nothing. The sun determines how warm or cold we are. SCIENCE calls it Solar Maximum and Solar Minimum, and there isn't a thing people or cows or volcanoes can do to change it. Your carbon footprint is the same as a golden retriever's where the sun is concerned.
Keep your money and enjoy the weather like the thriving polar bears are doing.....

It's a carbon based planet and there is a carbon cycle. CO2 has actually decreased over time as more and more of it gets locked in volcanic rock, and the oceans, sedimentary rock. Some of this is released by Chemical Weathering in to the cycle again and volcanism and life processes. But the Idiots calling it a poison have a political agenda, and they really don't give a phuck about science despite the fact they have Science degrees.

Same as Liberal School teachers don't give a phuck about actually educating children, they want to indoctrinate them in to PC culture and Liberal Theology.

PC culture and Liberal Theology? Be nice to other kids and other religions have rights? Terrible, just terrible.

Separation of Church and State means that our Tax Dollars should not go to fund Pseudo Science and the Followers of The Church of Climatology.

I see that you also don't know what a church (and a religion) is? Creationism, anyone?

 

[bripat9643]

Science is science and it is a political by it's nature. An example would be the theory of relativity or quantum theory. There is no politics in that so the people who work on these ideas can't have a political agenda. They could have other agendas but it wouldn't be political. We can't say the same thing about the theory of man made global warming because so many people in this field are believers or detractors in it's political agenda. Can we really trust any of them because of this?

A lot of people do something in politics that they don't do in any other field which is lie or exaggerate their claims in order to achieve a political agenda. The people who either push global warming or say it is wrong could be lying in both directions so I wonder if we can trust any scientist on this issue since they may be lying in order to advance their own political agenda behind this. Whatever that happens to be.

I don't want to pick on the left on this because it is also equally possible that anti-global warming scientist may not be telling the complete truth on this matter either. I'm just asking whether or not we can trust anyone on this subject since it has been so politicized at this point. The research on this may be corrupted because of this.

Can you really trust the science of global warming?

Yes, as far as it goes.

There is no science to global warming. It's a con.

And why would all these people, unlike you educated people, be involved in a con?

Same as every con: money.

 

[RightyTighty]

Science is science and it is a political by it's nature. An example would be the theory of relativity or quantum theory. There is no politics in that so the people who work on these ideas can't have a political agenda. They could have other agendas but it wouldn't be political. We can't say the same thing about the theory of man made global warming because so many people in this field are believers or detractors in it's political agenda. Can we really trust any of them because of this?

A lot of people do something in politics that they don't do in any other field which is lie or exaggerate their claims in order to achieve a political agenda. The people who either push global warming or say it is wrong could be lying in both directions so I wonder if we can trust any scientist on this issue since they may be lying in order to advance their own political agenda behind this. Whatever that happens to be.

I don't want to pick on the left on this because it is also equally possible that anti-global warming scientist may not be telling the complete truth on this matter either. I'm just asking whether or not we can trust anyone on this subject since it has been so politicized at this point. The research on this may be corrupted because of this.

Can you really trust the science of global warming?

Yes, as far as it goes.

There is no science to global warming. It's a con.

And why would all these people, unlike you educated people, be involved in a con?

Same as every con: money.

Wouldn't there be much easier ways, easier things to study that have more piratical value to say - a moron like you?

The pentagon sees man-made climate change as a threat. Are they - also in on the con?

 

[westwall]

I'm still wondering, if it's too late to do anything, the world will just fall apart, are you still going to say that humans had nothing to do with it?

What exactly are the AGW supporters trying to "do about it"? So far every scheme I have seen involves taking money from the poor and middle class and giving it to the rich. There are no mandates to actually reduce pollution. The "solutions" involve taking high paying jobs from first world nations and giving those jobs to low wage third world workers. But.......the corporations still get to pollute.

 

[The Original Tree]

I'm still wondering, if it's too late to do anything, the world will just fall apart, are you still going to say that humans had nothing to do with it?

The world will never end.
That is a fact.

The types of life that exist here may change, but Earth itself will keep on living as The Miracle Planet that it is.

Here are other facts people never talk about.

1.) There is NO KNOWN PLANET in The Universe that has a perfect ratio of a singular moon being roughly one 3rd the size of the planet it orbits.

2.) To take this a step further, there is NO KNOWN PLANET in The UNIVERSE that has such a moon that is also perfectly distanced from the Earth in such a way that it completely stabilizes our Iron Core and maintains our Magnetic Field, Our rotation, Our Orbit, and Produces the Tidal Forces necessary to drive weather patterns, the currents and tides and keeps our tectonic plates active and planet warm which makes life possible here.

Now lets take this exponentially up a knotch. further, shall we?

3.) There is also NO KNOWN PLANET in THE UNIVERSE that has the 1st two factors I listed with regards to it's sole satellite, that also has it's moon placed at a perfect distance from the planet in such a way that the moon is The Identical Astronomical Size as the Sun, making Earth, THE ONLY PLANET IN THE UNIVERSE that has a Perfect Full Solar Eclipse.

You don't have enough paper in the world to write the odds down of that happening by chance, when discussing just those 3 facts. So don't bother. We are one of a kind.

 

[westwall]

Science is science and it is a political by it's nature. An example would be the theory of relativity or quantum theory. There is no politics in that so the people who work on these ideas can't have a political agenda. They could have other agendas but it wouldn't be political. We can't say the same thing about the theory of man made global warming because so many people in this field are believers or detractors in it's political agenda. Can we really trust any of them because of this?

A lot of people do something in politics that they don't do in any other field which is lie or exaggerate their claims in order to achieve a political agenda. The people who either push global warming or say it is wrong could be lying in both directions so I wonder if we can trust any scientist on this issue since they may be lying in order to advance their own political agenda behind this. Whatever that happens to be.

I don't want to pick on the left on this because it is also equally possible that anti-global warming scientist may not be telling the complete truth on this matter either. I'm just asking whether or not we can trust anyone on this subject since it has been so politicized at this point. The research on this may be corrupted because of this.

Can you really trust the science of global warming?

Yes, as far as it goes.

There is no science to global warming. It's a con.

And why would all these people, unlike you educated people, be involved in a con?

Same as every con: money.

Wouldn't there be much easier ways, easier things to study that have more piratical value to say - a moron like you?

The pentagon sees man-made climate change as a threat. Are they - also in on the con?

They see money. As does every other bureaucracy. The ultimate goal of every government agency is money and power. The "solutions" to deal with AGW all involve taking money from the poor and middle class, giving it to the rich, and the power to do this resides in government.

Duh.

 

[RightyTighty]

I'm still wondering, if it's too late to do anything, the world will just fall apart, are you still going to say that humans had nothing to do with it?

What exactly are the AGW supporters trying to "do about it"? So far every scheme I have seen involves taking money from the poor and middle class and giving it to the rich. There are no mandates to actually reduce pollution. The "solutions" involve taking high paying jobs from first world nations and giving those jobs to low wage third world workers. But.......the corporations still get to pollute.

Using energy from the sun (instead of fossil fuels) isn't a solution? Cars that don't use gas aren't a solution?

 

[RightyTighty]

I'm still wondering, if it's too late to do anything, the world will just fall apart, are you still going to say that humans had nothing to do with it?

The world will never end.
That is a fact.

The earth ends when the sun dies. Care to try again?

 

[The Irish Ram]

I don't either. I treat science as science.
Science is as smart as the next discovery. Einstein had to fudge his figures even with his "newly discovered" dimension of time. Had he the science available to him that we have now, his figures would be spot on. We have more than 4 dimensions. And so science goes. The Bible knew that fact and even described the dimensions that Einstein couldn't locate with his limited understanding of "science." I can tell you the properties of the 6 unseen dimensions before Hawking can. He only just realized that they are there. Science supports faith.

 

[RightyTighty]

Can you really trust the science of global warming?

Yes, as far as it goes.

There is no science to global warming. It's a con.

And why would all these people, unlike you educated people, be involved in a con?

Same as every con: money.

Wouldn't there be much easier ways, easier things to study that have more piratical value to say - a moron like you?

The pentagon sees man-made climate change as a threat. Are they - also in on the con?

They see money. As does every other bureaucracy. The ultimate goal of every government agency is money and power. The "solutions" to deal with AGW all involve taking money from the poor and middle class, giving it to the rich, and the power to do this resides in government.

Duh.

You know that's just ignorant dogma, ranting, right?

 

[westwall]

I'm still wondering, if it's too late to do anything, the world will just fall apart, are you still going to say that humans had nothing to do with it?

What exactly are the AGW supporters trying to "do about it"? So far every scheme I have seen involves taking money from the poor and middle class and giving it to the rich. There are no mandates to actually reduce pollution. The "solutions" involve taking high paying jobs from first world nations and giving those jobs to low wage third world workers. But.......the corporations still get to pollute.

Using energy from the sun (instead of fossil fuels) isn't a solution? Cars that don't use gas aren't a solution?

No. They're not. All of those methods actually cost more energy to produce than they give back.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I'm still wondering, if it's too late to do anything, the world will just fall apart, are you still going to say that humans had nothing to do with it?

The world will never end.
That is a fact.

.

The earth ends when the sun dies. care to try again?

How wonderfully optimistic of you. God says otherwise. He says WW3 will be the war to end all wars. Nothing left to fight over but radiation and Israel...

 

[westwall]

There is no science to global warming. It's a con.

And why would all these people, unlike you educated people, be involved in a con?

Same as every con: money.

Wouldn't there be much easier ways, easier things to study that have more piratical value to say - a moron like you?

The pentagon sees man-made climate change as a threat. Are they - also in on the con?

They see money. As does every other bureaucracy. The ultimate goal of every government agency is money and power. The "solutions" to deal with AGW all involve taking money from the poor and middle class, giving it to the rich, and the power to do this resides in government.

Duh.

You know that's just ignorant dogma, ranting, right?

Nope. That is a fact. A well known fact.

 

[RightyTighty]

I don't either. I treat science as science.
Science is as smart as the next discovery. Einstein had to fudge his figures even with his "newly discovered" dimension of time. Had he the science available to him that we have now, his figures would be spot on. We have more than 4 dimensions. And so science goes. The Bible knew that fact and even described the dimensions that Einstein couldn't locate with his limited understanding of "science." I can tell you the properties of the 6 unseen dimensions before Hawking can. He only just realized that they are there. Science supports faith.

Time is not a "new" dimension. That it can be variable is what's interesting.

Even in your (utterly ignorant) version of theology there is time (like when Adam was siting around before God looked in the Garden for a mate and finding none came up with Eve).

 

[The Original Tree]

I'm still wondering, if it's too late to do anything, the world will just fall apart, are you still going to say that humans had nothing to do with it?

The world will never end.
That is a fact.

The earth ends when the sun dies. Care to try again?

When will The Sun die?

Give us a date?

Any date you give is theoretical.

And claiming the sun will die since no one will be able to observe it is also theoretical and unprovable.

If time is Relative, then the more time there is in a time line, the more it appears from certain perspective to be Eternal.

I keep talking Science, and you keep talking emotional doomsday gibberish....

So why have you ignored all of the Scientific Facts I have posted in this thread?

Because Emotion & Faith in an Ideology do not mix with REAL EMPIRICAL SCIENCE.
You cannot rebut actual facts. You can only rebut emotional arguments opposed to your belief systems, because AGW is Pseudo Science wrapped up in Pseudo Religiosity.

To borrow from The Bible...."Ironic Huh" They worshipped the Creation, and not The Creator.

AGW is Earth Worship. Worshipping The Creation. That is a religious argument against it. But we are talking science, so let's go back to that, and why AGW fails the sniff test in the Empirical World.

There is a reason why many people reject Global Warming....

It is because it is based in half truths, and unprovable theories, and there are people with agendas and emotional and financial attachments to promoting those agendas.
AGW requires Faith to believe in something that cannot be seen, nor proven and is unknown if it will ever happen.

Therefore as a Candidate For Hard Science, AGW fails, because there are scientific arguments against it.

These are suppressed by the acolytes of AGW, but they exist none-the-less.

It also fails as a religion because it is not based in universal truths. It fails both as a Faith and as Science.

 

[RightyTighty]

I'm still wondering, if it's too late to do anything, the world will just fall apart, are you still going to say that humans had nothing to do with it?

The world will never end.
That is a fact.

.

The earth ends when the sun dies. care to try again?

How wonderfully optimistic of you. God says otherwise. He says WW3 will be the war to end all wars. Nothing left to fight over but radiation and Israel...

God said nothing of the kind (men who said God did said he did). And if God wishes to chat with me he's always welcome (but he never stops by).

 

[RightyTighty]

I'm still wondering, if it's too late to do anything, the world will just fall apart, are you still going to say that humans had nothing to do with it?

The world will never end.
That is a fact.

The earth ends when the sun dies. Care to try again?

When will The Sun die?

Give us a date?

Any date you give is theoretical.

And claiming the sun will die since no one will be able to observe it is also theoretical and unprovable.

If time is Relative, then the more time there is in a time line, the more it appears from certain perspective to be Eternal.

We have lots of dead suns around. Ours goes in five billion years or so. You are sounding much more like a man of faith than of science.

 

[westwall]

I'm still wondering, if it's too late to do anything, the world will just fall apart, are you still going to say that humans had nothing to do with it?

The world will never end.
That is a fact.

The earth ends when the sun dies. Care to try again?

When will The Sun die?

Give us a date?

Any date you give is theoretical.

And claiming the sun will die since no one will be able to observe it is also theoretical and unprovable.

If time is Relative, then the more time there is in a time line, the more it appears from certain perspective to be Eternal.

We have lots of dead suns around. Ours goes in five billion years or so. You are sounding much more like a man of faith than of science.

Yes. AGW supporters are equally dogmatic. There is no science to support them so they rely on faith as you have done in this thread a couple of times.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I don't either. I treat science as science.
Science is as smart as the next discovery. Einstein had to fudge his figures even with his "newly discovered" dimension of time. Had he the science available to him that we have now, his figures would be spot on. We have more than 4 dimensions. And so science goes. The Bible knew that fact and even described the dimensions that Einstein couldn't locate with his limited understanding of "science." I can tell you the properties of the 6 unseen dimensions before Hawking can. He only just realized that they are there. Science supports faith.

Time is not a "new" dimension. That it can be variable is what's interesting.

Even in your (utterly ignorant) version of theology there is time (like when Adam was siting around before God looked in the Garden for a mate and finding none came up with Eve).

Time is not a "new" dimension..

It was to Einstein. Research the relationship between Einstein and Hubble.
As for theology, you are out of your realm right off the bat if you think Adam was just hangin' out. Stick with your lack of understanding of science...

 

[bripat9643]

Science is science and it is a political by it's nature. An example would be the theory of relativity or quantum theory. There is no politics in that so the people who work on these ideas can't have a political agenda. They could have other agendas but it wouldn't be political. We can't say the same thing about the theory of man made global warming because so many people in this field are believers or detractors in it's political agenda. Can we really trust any of them because of this?

A lot of people do something in politics that they don't do in any other field which is lie or exaggerate their claims in order to achieve a political agenda. The people who either push global warming or say it is wrong could be lying in both directions so I wonder if we can trust any scientist on this issue since they may be lying in order to advance their own political agenda behind this. Whatever that happens to be.

I don't want to pick on the left on this because it is also equally possible that anti-global warming scientist may not be telling the complete truth on this matter either. I'm just asking whether or not we can trust anyone on this subject since it has been so politicized at this point. The research on this may be corrupted because of this.

Can you really trust the science of global warming?

Yes, as far as it goes.

There is no science to global warming. It's a con.

And why would all these people, unlike you educated people, be involved in a con?

Same as every con: money.

Wouldn't there be much easier ways, easier things to study that have more piratical value to say - a moron like you?

Climate science is what they studied. They were lead down the garden path by some so-called "climate scientists" that were already in on the con. However, once they committed to their profession, there was no going back. They didn't know they were training to become con artists, but that's what they actually did.

The pentagon sees man-made climate change as a threat. Are they - also in on the con?

Yes, they are in on the con. If the generals want their funding, they take positions that Obama tells them to take.