I've changed sides

[jc456]

"I've changed sides"

That there are those who perceive ‘sides’ is the problem.

On a scientific issue, and that is what global warming is, there are no sides. Just what the evidence and observations indicate. That the 'Conservatives' have made it a matter of sides is an indication that they are not interested in the science, just the politics of it.

huh? You have made it sides. You want to erase the existence of anyone who does not fall in line with the AGW reel. Huh? It is the the skeptics that have pointed out the missed observations, hell even the AR5 report backs the observed no warming trend that existed up to the point of the report. so someone pointing out the obvious is now on a side, and it is warmers picking sides. so, nice try, but nope!!!!

 

[jc456]

Why are facts summed up into a conspiracy? Ice sheets are melting, its getting warmer and drier and the weather is totally freakinkin out. Facts are facts. We aren't seeing Elvis holding hands with the Loc ness monster.

please share your location where you think weather patterns have changed. Please share with the class.

 

[SSDD]

Why are facts summed up into a conspiracy? Ice sheets are melting, its getting warmer and drier and the weather is totally freakinkin out. Facts are facts. We aren't seeing Elvis holding hands with the Loc ness monster.

Is there any part of the weather you are describing that is outside, or even approaching the boundaries of natural variability?....you claim that the weather is entirely different where you live now than it ever has been....have you bothered to look up historical records to see if that is actually true? What did the records reveal? The fact is that there is nothing happening in the climate today that is even close to the limits of natural variability so if you are going to claim a whole new cause for the same old thing you better have some damned compelling evidence....got any?..any at all?

 

[mamooth]

And yet another thread devolves into unhinged denier conspiracy cult raving. Same old same old. It's all they have now.

As far as the OP goes ...

Well I think the consensus global warming science is wrong now. Hopefully I can hang with the other side.

I am convinced that they do not treat people seriously enough who try to go against the consensus.

Do you also reject vaccine science because we don't treat antivaxxers seriously? How nice someone is would usually be not something people take into account when looking at science.

It is like string theory - non-observable, non-repeatable, non-falsifiable, non-testable.

Wrong on all counts. You don't seem to understand what the actual science is.

They were saying it (AGW) since the '50s,

And they've been proven to be correct. So why are you arguing with success?

when we really didn't have any evidence, perhaps to ease people's minds about nukes. There are definite financial incentives, such as vaccines and abortion services.

That's all conspiracy nonsense, unworthy of any response.

The charts that I relied on from the M.I.T. class were not conclusive enough to show a steady prediction.

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

I am not trying to tell anyone who to vote for but just taking a stand on this one issue.

The "top scientist", Hal Lewis, had no experience in climate science. Why are you focusing on the few amateurs and ignoring the vastly more numerous pros?

After being retired for 20 years, Lewis threw his tantrum in 2010, and then he died in 2011. A common factor among the few scientists rejecting global warming is they're old. Same goes for the majority of hard core deniers. There's a big streak of emotional "those young whippersnappers are doing it all wrong!" in the denier community. They don't understand the current science, they're angry that the science has left them behind, so they invent a conspiracy to explain their own irrelevance.

 

[jc456]

And yet another thread devolves into unhinged denier conspiracy cult raving. Same old same old. It's all they have now.

As far as the OP goes ...

Well I think the consensus global warming science is wrong now. Hopefully I can hang with the other side.

I am convinced that they do not treat people seriously enough who try to go against the consensus.

Do you also reject vaccine science because we don't treat antivaxxers seriously? How nice someone is would usually be not something people take into account when looking at science.

It is like string theory - non-observable, non-repeatable, non-falsifiable, non-testable.

Wrong on all counts. You don't seem to understand what the actual science is.

They were saying it (AGW) since the '50s,

And they've been proven to be correct. So why are you arguing with success?

when we really didn't have any evidence, perhaps to ease people's minds about nukes. There are definite financial incentives, such as vaccines and abortion services.

That's all conspiracy nonsense, unworthy of any response.

The charts that I relied on from the M.I.T. class were not conclusive enough to show a steady prediction.

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam

I am not trying to tell anyone who to vote for but just taking a stand on this one issue.

The "top scientist", Hal Lewis, had no experience in climate science. Why are you focusing on the few amateurs and ignoring the vastly more numerous pros?

After being retired for 20 years, Lewis threw his tantrum in 2010, and then he died in 2011. A common factor among the few scientists rejecting global warming is they're old. Same goes for the majority of hard core deniers. There's a big streak of emotional "those young whippersnappers are doing it all wrong!" in the denier community. They don't understand the current science, they're angry that the science has left them behind, so they invent a conspiracy to explain their own irrelevance.

some would look at age as experience, but in a warmer's head it just means old. and I believe that is what you are correct? Retired person right?

 

[catatomic]

Well, thank you for correcting me. There are not wrong or right scientists just like there is not good or bad science. That's something many too often forget. I still think, MaryL, that the whole picture should be looked at on the scientific end. I simply was persuaded to look at it more closely by things that didn't seem right, and my own science led me to see it differently. I got somewhere like a 34/36 on the ACT in science. I have a Master's in Math and a Minor in Physics.

But there are those of us looking at the whole picture. From declining ice mass on Greenland and Antarctica, alpine glaciers receding worldwide, ocean pH, warming atmosphere, warming oceans, going from 280 ppm CO2 to 400+ ppm CO2, about 750 ppb to over 1800 ppb CH4. From Tyndall's early experiments, to Arrhenius's estimation of the effects of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you have a minor in Physics, then you have to know what those are.

The whole picture is that the model of models at http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-sc...and-policy-spring-2008/lecture-notes/lec4.pdf (page 3) do not show consistency over their years. If the CIA made up global warming in the '50s when these models showed nothing, that is evidence they were doctored.

 

[catatomic]

mamooth, I think you have not said anything substantial except that trying to keep people unafraid of nukes is not worthy of looking at because it is a conspiracy theory, but it could still be true, and with or without it I'm happy in my stance.

 

[Wyld Kard]

"I've changed sides"

That there are those who perceive ‘sides’ is the problem.

On a scientific issue, and that is what global warming is, there are no sides. Just what the evidence and observations indicate. That the 'Conservatives' have made it a matter of sides is an indication that they are not interested in the science, just the politics of it.

On a scientific issue, and that is what global warming is, there are no sides. Just what the evidence and observations indicate.

What "evidence"? What "observations"?

Over and over nutjobs like yourself keep mentioning the so-called "evidence", but all that is ever posted is bullshit lies, and misinformation, and fraudulent science that gullible dumbasses like yourself believe to be true.

 

[bripat9643]

OK. When Dr. Lewis can provide us with a scientific explanation of what we are seeing right now on this planet, I will listen to the old fart. Until then, he is just another over the hill fool denying the science.

he doesn't need a competing theory to rightfully conclude that your theory is shit. You sound just like some Bible thumper who claims god must exist because science isn't currently able to explain everything that happens in the universe.

 

[westwall]

OK. When Dr. Lewis can provide us with a scientific explanation of what we are seeing right now on this planet, I will listen to the old fart. Until then, he is just another over the hill fool denying the science.

What are we seeing that we haven't seen many, many, many, many times before? Exactly.

 

[SSDD]

OK. When Dr. Lewis can provide us with a scientific explanation of what we are seeing right now on this planet, I will listen to the old fart. Until then, he is just another over the hill fool denying the science.

What are we seeing that we haven't seen many, many, many, many times before? Exactly.

Well, we are seeing blatant data manipulation on a scale unheard of in the history of science...we are seeing what could be a valid science coopted by politics and media and turned to a pseudoscience at a scale we haven't seen before...

 

[SSDD]

OK. When Dr. Lewis can provide us with a scientific explanation of what we are seeing right now on this planet, I will listen to the old fart. Until then, he is just another over the hill fool denying the science.

he doesn't need a competing theory to rightfully conclude that your theory is shit. You sound just like some Bible thumper who claims god must exist because science isn't currently able to explain everything that happens in the universe.

They think you need a new hypothesis in order to prove that the old hypothesis is wrong....shows how little they know about science....all you need to prove a hypothesis is wrong is a single predictive failure....the AGW hypothesis has a string of them going back decades...it is clearly flawed but they hate capitalism and capitalism could be crippled if cuts in CO2 were mandated...so it isn't about scientific truth, it is about crippling capitalism..

 

[Billy_Bob]

OK. When Dr. Lewis can provide us with a scientific explanation of what we are seeing right now on this planet, I will listen to the old fart. Until then, he is just another over the hill fool denying the science.

he doesn't need a competing theory to rightfully conclude that your theory is shit. You sound just like some Bible thumper who claims god must exist because science isn't currently able to explain everything that happens in the universe.

They think you need a new hypothesis in order to prove that the old hypothesis is wrong....shows how little they know about science....all you need to prove a hypothesis is wrong is a single predictive failure....the AGW hypothesis has a string of them going back decades...it is clearly flawed but they hate capitalism and capitalism could be crippled if cuts in CO2 were mandated...so it isn't about scientific truth, it is about crippling capitalism..

This is CAGW in a nut shell... No physical, empirical, observable evidence known as proof.. Just their rantings and hatred of capitalism. Its in the damn IPCC charter and organizational statement, if you choose to look closely at what they say and what they leave out.

 

[Crick]

Do you believe scientific theories demand proof? Yes or no.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you believe scientific theories demand proof? Yes or no.

You're the one with the theory, not the skeptics. Prove your theory.

 

[westwall]

Do you believe scientific theories demand proof? Yes or no.

Theories demand evidence.....so yeah. A theory without evidence is nothing but a fart in the wind.

 

[Pogo]

OK. When Dr. Lewis can provide us with a scientific explanation of what we are seeing right now on this planet, I will listen to the old fart. Until then, he is just another over the hill fool denying the science.

he doesn't need a competing theory to rightfully conclude that your theory is shit. You sound just like some Bible thumper who claims god must exist because science isn't currently able to explain everything that happens in the universe.

They think you need a new hypothesis in order to prove that the old hypothesis is wrong....shows how little they know about science....all you need to prove a hypothesis is wrong is a single predictive failure....the AGW hypothesis has a string of them going back decades...it is clearly flawed but they hate capitalism and capitalism could be crippled if cuts in CO2 were mandated...so it isn't about scientific truth, it is about crippling capitalism..

Riiiiiight, because there's like, money in that.

 

[westwall]

OK. When Dr. Lewis can provide us with a scientific explanation of what we are seeing right now on this planet, I will listen to the old fart. Until then, he is just another over the hill fool denying the science.

he doesn't need a competing theory to rightfully conclude that your theory is shit. You sound just like some Bible thumper who claims god must exist because science isn't currently able to explain everything that happens in the universe.

They think you need a new hypothesis in order to prove that the old hypothesis is wrong....shows how little they know about science....all you need to prove a hypothesis is wrong is a single predictive failure....the AGW hypothesis has a string of them going back decades...it is clearly flawed but they hate capitalism and capitalism could be crippled if cuts in CO2 were mandated...so it isn't about scientific truth, it is about crippling capitalism..

Riiiiiight, because there's like, money in that.

There's WAAAAY more money in supporting AGW.

 

[Pogo]

OK. When Dr. Lewis can provide us with a scientific explanation of what we are seeing right now on this planet, I will listen to the old fart. Until then, he is just another over the hill fool denying the science.

he doesn't need a competing theory to rightfully conclude that your theory is shit. You sound just like some Bible thumper who claims god must exist because science isn't currently able to explain everything that happens in the universe.

They think you need a new hypothesis in order to prove that the old hypothesis is wrong....shows how little they know about science....all you need to prove a hypothesis is wrong is a single predictive failure....the AGW hypothesis has a string of them going back decades...it is clearly flawed but they hate capitalism and capitalism could be crippled if cuts in CO2 were mandated...so it isn't about scientific truth, it is about crippling capitalism..

Riiiiiight, because there's like, money in that.

There's WAAAAY more money in supporting AGW.

Riiiiiiiight, because you can always siphon off studies from your scientific study pipelines and sell them.

 

[westwall]

OK. When Dr. Lewis can provide us with a scientific explanation of what we are seeing right now on this planet, I will listen to the old fart. Until then, he is just another over the hill fool denying the science.

he doesn't need a competing theory to rightfully conclude that your theory is shit. You sound just like some Bible thumper who claims god must exist because science isn't currently able to explain everything that happens in the universe.

They think you need a new hypothesis in order to prove that the old hypothesis is wrong....shows how little they know about science....all you need to prove a hypothesis is wrong is a single predictive failure....the AGW hypothesis has a string of them going back decades...it is clearly flawed but they hate capitalism and capitalism could be crippled if cuts in CO2 were mandated...so it isn't about scientific truth, it is about crippling capitalism..

Riiiiiight, because there's like, money in that.

There's WAAAAY more money in supporting AGW.

Riiiiiiiight, because you can always siphon off studies from your scientific study pipelines and sell them.

You tell me genius, which is bigger. the hundreds of billions that the oil companies make by providing us with a commodity that runs this planet....or the TRILLIONS that you progressives want to spend to completely change the energy systems of this planet.