CDZ The American Republican Denial of Climate change.

[Wyld Kard]

Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.

So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?

The issue concerning global warming / climate change has always been much more about politics and a whole lot less about actual science. It's nothing more then a massive scam to push a political agenda to introduce more taxation, more regulations, and more government control all in the name of "saving the planet".

 

[Boston1]

Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.

So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?

The issue concerning global warming / climate change has always been much more about politics and a whole lot less about actual science. It's nothing more then a massive scam to push a political agenda to introduce more taxation, more regulations, and more government control all in the name of "saving the planet".

So you are proposing a conspiracy

Going back hundreds of years

CO2 discovered 1750

Greenhouse effect discovered 1824

Effect of CO2 on global temperatures first calculated 1896

So your saying this conspiracy has been going on since the mid 1700s ?

Thats brilliant

Lets go with that ;--)

 

[320 Years of History]

Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today

Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.

On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.

That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.

More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.

P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.

• What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
• Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today

Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.

On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.

That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.

More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.

P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.

• What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
• Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.

we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions.

Yes, 75 out of 77 is very convincing.

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me.

If you want reliable, CO2 free energy, you'd have to support nuclear.
Yet most doomers refuse to consider nuclear. They want unreliable, more expensive, wind and solar instead.
Why is that?

 

[320 Years of History]

Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today

Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.

On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.

That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.

More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.

P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.

• What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
• Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.

we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions.

Yes, 75 out of 77 is very convincing.

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me.

If you want reliable, CO2 free energy, you'd have to support nuclear.
Yet most doomers refuse to consider nuclear. They want unreliable, more expensive, wind and solar instead.
Why is that?

Red:
You'd have to ask them not me.

Truly, I could yield a bit of reliability, particularly if the unreliability is predictable, if there is a reasonable chance that the alternative is that by the time my kids or their kids are my age (almost 60) the planet isn't as habitable as it is now. Men once lived by firelight. If that's what's needed, I can do so, at least intermittently.

 

[Boston1]

Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today

Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.

On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.

That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.

More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.

P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.

• What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
• Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.

we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions.

Yes, 75 out of 77 is very convincing.

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me.

If you want reliable, CO2 free energy, you'd have to support nuclear.
Yet most doomers refuse to consider nuclear. They want unreliable, more expensive, wind and solar instead.
Why is that?

Thats ridiculous.

We don't have to support nuclear. Its incredibly unreliable, there isn't enough high grade fuel and it does nothing to reduce CO2. It also costs a fortune.

We need to support renewables.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today

Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.

On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.

That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.

More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.

P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.

• What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
• Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.

we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions.

Yes, 75 out of 77 is very convincing.

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me.

If you want reliable, CO2 free energy, you'd have to support nuclear.
Yet most doomers refuse to consider nuclear. They want unreliable, more expensive, wind and solar instead.
Why is that?

Red:
You'd have to ask them not me.

Truly, I could yield a bit of reliability, particularly if the unreliability is predictable, if there is a reasonable chance that the alternative is that by the time my kids or their kids are my age (almost 60) the planet isn't as habitable as it is now. Men once lived by firelight. If that's what's needed, I can do so, at least intermittently.

You'd have to ask them not me.

I'll ask you, for nuclear or against?

if there is a reasonable chance that the alternative is that by the time my kids or their kids are my age (almost 60) the planet isn't as habitable as it is now.

Isn't as habitable? Can you give a clarification of what you mean?

Men once lived by firelight. If that's what's needed, I can do so, at least intermittently.

But you'd be releasing CO2.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Let's do this the easy way...that even idiots that believe that MAN can cause climate change can understand!

Thank you for this hysterically funny snapshot of reality. I gotta read more political humor. So rich!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today

Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.

On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.

That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.

More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.

P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.

• What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
• Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.

we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions.

Yes, 75 out of 77 is very convincing.

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me.

If you want reliable, CO2 free energy, you'd have to support nuclear.
Yet most doomers refuse to consider nuclear. They want unreliable, more expensive, wind and solar instead.
Why is that?

Thats ridiculous.

We don't have to support nuclear. Nuclear does nothing to reduce CO2 and costs a fortune.

We need to support renewables.

We don't have to support nuclear.

Only if you want reliable energy with no CO2 that won't damage the grid or the economy.

Nuclear does nothing to reduce CO2

Besides generating more than 4 times as much electricity as wind, with no interruption when the wind stops blowing.

and costs a fortune.

Compared to our planet turning into Venus, it's a bargain. LOL!

We need to support renewables.

Can't do enough to matter. Not dependable. Too expensive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Drowning isn't the problem, lack of oxygen is. If you understood the aerobic stratification process which has occurred with each of the previous major disturbances in the atmospheric chemistry, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consequences of our actions today

Truly, one doesn't need to understand that process or even know it exists. Merely knowing one is out of one's depth trying to refute the rigorously obtained findings and extrapolations of people whose job it is to examine that stuff and share with the world the results of their tests and analysis should be enough to stop anyone with half a brain from quickly dismissing their admonishments and advice.

On the matter of global warming, it's potential effects, and what we can do about it, we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions. What that tells me is that 9.7 out of 10 individuals who are (1) supremely qualified to examine something pertaining to global warming and (2) who elect to examine something related to global warming or elect to examine something not obviously related to global warming find out that the warming is the cause of "whatever they were examining", each and every time keep coming up with the same results, outcomes, observations, etc.

That doesn't occur by coincidence, contrivance, covetousness or conspiracy. Those four motivators may at times be in play, and even working to a good extent, but not to 97% extent. Moreover, were the 97% indeed wrong, or the surety of their conclusions truly questionable, I'd expect the 3% of equally credible experts to perform their own equally objective research that shows something contrary to the the 97%'s findings. But, from what I've seen, they don't. The most I've seen in scholarly papers is the 3% tossing stones at "this or that" minor point, but nothing that militates for a sea change in conclusion.

More importantly in my mind than whether all of the 97% are 100% right, 80% right, or even 30% right with regard to their conclusions and predictions. The critical decision factor is my mind is that I DON'T DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLANET TO WHICH I CAN IMMIGRATE WHEN THIS ONE BECOMES UNINHABITABLE FOR ME OR MY DESCENDENTS! Last time I looked, neither does anyone else. Moreover, there isn't so much as a viable planet that's even been identified, regardless of whether anyone has a way to get there. Now to me, that means that if there's a reasonable, i.e., a chance of happening that is better than my odds of rolling dice and getting "snake eyes," I think it's worth taking the "better safe than sorry" option. If I had another planet, or even a moon, to move to, I might be less risk averse. But I don't, nobody else does either and that's something about which 100% of us can be 100% certain.

P.S./Edit:
I don't really care if humanity is the cause of global warming. The planet is warming.

• What I want to know is what can we do to try to slow or abate the warming?
• Is there a "point of no return" as goes by when we must achieve XYZ?

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me. It seems to me that doing something about global warming is tailor made to the U.S.' comparative advantage in intellectual capital and is a fine opportunity to create an entirely new industry segment that in turn creates a new employment sector in which the U.S. and its workers lead the world.

we have 97% of the folks on the planet who've studied the matter independently arriving at the same overall conclusions.

Yes, 75 out of 77 is very convincing.

Why conservatives oppose trying to do "whatever" to stem global warming is beyond me.

If you want reliable, CO2 free energy, you'd have to support nuclear.
Yet most doomers refuse to consider nuclear. They want unreliable, more expensive, wind and solar instead.
Why is that?

Thats ridiculous.

We don't have to support nuclear. Its incredibly unreliable, there isn't enough high grade fuel and it does nothing to reduce CO2. It also costs a fortune.

We need to support renewables.

there isn't enough high grade fuel

We have decades of barely used fuel we could reprocess.
We could use thorium.

and it does nothing to reduce CO2.

You mean like Ivanpah? LOL!
Do they generate more from nat gas or solar now?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.

So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?

I think the point is some of us don't see much rational thought for climate change, let alone man-caused global warming, global climate change,or whatever the moniker du jour is for this "science". Come on, you really aren't just a wee bit skeptical?

 

[Tresha91203]

I'm all for empowering the poor because the alternative is worse:

• When the "haves" have "had enough," a nation experiences evolution.
• When the "have nots" have "had enough," a nation experiences revolution.

I can get by just fine with evolution. I really don't care for revolution.

This is rather interesting.

Many people here seem uncomfortable discussing science and instead appear desperate to discuss economics.

Lets try and stay on topic people, the thread is about the SCIENCE of climate change

It's also interesting that you can't answer the scientific questions I asked.
And that you're so bad at economics.

You asked a scientific question ?

Sorry I hadn't noticed.

And again economics has nothing to do with climate science. if you insist on discussing economics feel free to start a thread in the appropriate location

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years: study

You asked a scientific question ?

What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Is that bad? Why?

None of those are scientific questions.

firstly no self respecting scientist would ask such an ambiguous question. Define current. Specify average, the year, month, etc. And if I have to take it back to high school statistics and go over basic weighted average analysis then we're going to be here for a very long time. I'm afraid your question, as posed, simply isn't sufficiently detailed or specific to be considered a scientific question. Might as well be asking where republicans come from.

on the second no self respecting scientist would ask a question which such an obviously false premise. Your assumption that there is a "perfect average global temperature" is ludicrous. Again might as well be asking why republicans are so smart.

on the third no self respecting scientist would ask why a release of CO2 faster than seen in the last 66 million years was bad. Any alteration in the atmospheric chemistry over a period of time shorter than what is typically found within the "norm" is likely to result in abnormal climactic and environmental responses. Its a no brainer.

Uh, that is his point. The AGW group claims we are too warm, warming too fast, and doomed unless we stop it. What temperature is too warm? Too warm for what? Life flourishes in warmth. We have been much warmer before. Coming out of an ice age, we are supposed to be warming. What is too fast, scientifically?

This science is in its infancy. We know next to nothing, not even enough to perform an adequate lab experiment because of too many variables in an open system. To claim that we are certain at this point is deceitful. It is done for political and economic reasons.

I am skeptical but do not deny, yet I am considered a denier. That is politics and it is used as a weapon. I am skeptical because I remember scientists warning of global cooling and because I remember when we knew squat about el nino and la nina. We know just enough for some to claim they know it all.

If it is too warm, there must be a temperature that is not too warm. What is it? If we are warming too fast, there must be a rate that is not too fast. What is it? These are not silly questions. How the hell can it be too warm without a not warm enough and a just right?

 

[Wyld Kard]

Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.

So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?

The issue concerning global warming / climate change has always been much more about politics and a whole lot less about actual science. It's nothing more then a massive scam to push a political agenda to introduce more taxation, more regulations, and more government control all in the name of "saving the planet".

So you are proposing a conspiracy

Going back hundreds of years

CO2 discovered 1750

Greenhouse effect discovered 1824

Effect of CO2 on global temperatures first calculated 1896

So your saying this conspiracy has been going on since the mid 1700s ?

Thats brilliant

Lets go with that ;--)

It is a conspiracy yes, but to suggest that it has been going on since the mid 1700's is ridiculous.

The goal of the conspiracy is about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

This is rather interesting.

Many people here seem uncomfortable discussing science and instead appear desperate to discuss economics.

Lets try and stay on topic people, the thread is about the SCIENCE of climate change

It's also interesting that you can't answer the scientific questions I asked.
And that you're so bad at economics.

You asked a scientific question ?

Sorry I hadn't noticed.

And again economics has nothing to do with climate science. if you insist on discussing economics feel free to start a thread in the appropriate location

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years: study

You asked a scientific question ?

What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Is that bad? Why?

None of those are scientific questions.

firstly no self respecting scientist would ask such an ambiguous question. Define current. Specify average, the year, month, etc. And if I have to take it back to high school statistics and go over basic weighted average analysis then we're going to be here for a very long time. I'm afraid your question, as posed, simply isn't sufficiently detailed or specific to be considered a scientific question. Might as well be asking where republicans come from.

on the second no self respecting scientist would ask a question which such an obviously false premise. Your assumption that there is a "perfect average global temperature" is ludicrous. Again might as well be asking why republicans are so smart.

on the third no self respecting scientist would ask why a release of CO2 faster than seen in the last 66 million years was bad. Any alteration in the atmospheric chemistry over a period of time shorter than what is typically found within the "norm" is likely to result in abnormal climactic and environmental responses. Its a no brainer.

Uh, that is his point. The AGW group claims we are too warm, warming too fast, and doomed unless we stop it. What temperature is too warm? Too warm for what? Life flourishes in warmth. We have been much warmer before. Coming out of an ice age, we are supposed to be warming. What is too fast, scientifically?

This science is in its infancy. We know next to nothing, not even enough to perform an adequate lab experiment because of too many variables in an open system. To claim that we are certain at this point is deceitful. It is done for political and economic reasons.

I am skeptical but do not deny, yet I am considered a denier. That is politics and it is used as a weapon. I am skeptical because I remember scientists warning of global cooling and because I remember when we knew squat about el nino and la nina. We know just enough for some to claim they know it all.

If it is too warm, there must be a temperature that is not too warm. What is it? If we are warming too fast, there must be a rate that is not too fast. What is it? These are not silly questions. How the hell can it be too warm without a not warm enough and a just right?

Why does everything in your world have to make sense? Telling people they shouldn't believe in something just because you understand science more than they do is mean and narrow minded. Well guess what.. I think the sun will rise in the west and set in the east tomorrow. Where's all your fancy shmancy science now, huh?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

NO ONE is denying globull warming aka climate change.

what they Disagree with you bully warmers: is what's causing it. the earth has been warming and cooling before we had some freak like Al Gore wailing over the CLIMATE.

That's actually a pretty dumb, unscientific answer if you think about it. Yes, the climate has changed in the past but why? Usually because of some catastrophic event.You see, planetary systems tend to settle into a natural equilibrium that persist until some event upsets that balance. The composition of the atmosphere should remain stable without any natural forces like extreme volcanism or asteroid strikes acting on it. If not man, then how do you account for such a sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 absent a natural explaination? The rise corresponds pretty directly to the start of the industrial revolution. Man is the only force on this planet that is pumping mass quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It's pretty simple if you think about it.

 

[OldLady]

Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.

So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?

The issue concerning global warming / climate change has always been much more about politics and a whole lot less about actual science. It's nothing more then a massive scam to push a political agenda to introduce more taxation, more regulations, and more government control all in the name of "saving the planet".

So you are proposing a conspiracy

Going back hundreds of years

CO2 discovered 1750

Greenhouse effect discovered 1824

Effect of CO2 on global temperatures first calculated 1896

So your saying this conspiracy has been going on since the mid 1700s ?

Thats brilliant

Lets go with that ;--)

It is a conspiracy yes, but to suggest that it has been going on since the mid 1700's is ridiculous.

The goal of the conspiracy is about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere.

I will bet you my bottom dollar that if these "coercive instruments of government" didn't cost you any money, you wouldn't object in the least. It's always, in the end, about businesses having to spend money to clean up their act.
What is having a planet for your descendants to live on worth?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well thats a lot of denial for just a couple posts. But I don't see much rational thought involved in any of it.

So do any of you have any actual reasons for denying climate shift ?

The issue concerning global warming / climate change has always been much more about politics and a whole lot less about actual science. It's nothing more then a massive scam to push a political agenda to introduce more taxation, more regulations, and more government control all in the name of "saving the planet".

So you are proposing a conspiracy

Going back hundreds of years

CO2 discovered 1750

Greenhouse effect discovered 1824

Effect of CO2 on global temperatures first calculated 1896

So your saying this conspiracy has been going on since the mid 1700s ?

Thats brilliant

Lets go with that ;--)

It is a conspiracy yes, but to suggest that it has been going on since the mid 1700's is ridiculous.

The goal of the conspiracy is about expanding the power of elites using the coercive instruments of government to control the lives of people everywhere.

I will bet you my bottom dollar that if these "coercive instruments of government" didn't cost you any money, you wouldn't object in the least. It's always, in the end, about businesses having to spend money to clean up their act.
What is having a planet for your descendants to live on worth?

What does CO2 have to do with businesses having "to clean up their act"?

 

[320 Years of History]

This is rather interesting.

Many people here seem uncomfortable discussing science and instead appear desperate to discuss economics.

Lets try and stay on topic people, the thread is about the SCIENCE of climate change

It's also interesting that you can't answer the scientific questions I asked.
And that you're so bad at economics.

You asked a scientific question ?

Sorry I hadn't noticed.

And again economics has nothing to do with climate science. if you insist on discussing economics feel free to start a thread in the appropriate location

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years: study

You asked a scientific question ?

What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?

release of CO2 fastest in 66 million years

Is that bad? Why?

None of those are scientific questions.

firstly no self respecting scientist would ask such an ambiguous question. Define current. Specify average, the year, month, etc. And if I have to take it back to high school statistics and go over basic weighted average analysis then we're going to be here for a very long time. I'm afraid your question, as posed, simply isn't sufficiently detailed or specific to be considered a scientific question. Might as well be asking where republicans come from.

on the second no self respecting scientist would ask a question which such an obviously false premise. Your assumption that there is a "perfect average global temperature" is ludicrous. Again might as well be asking why republicans are so smart.

on the third no self respecting scientist would ask why a release of CO2 faster than seen in the last 66 million years was bad. Any alteration in the atmospheric chemistry over a period of time shorter than what is typically found within the "norm" is likely to result in abnormal climactic and environmental responses. Its a no brainer.

Uh, that is his point. The AGW group claims we are too warm, warming too fast, and doomed unless we stop it. What temperature is too warm? Too warm for what? Life flourishes in warmth. We have been much warmer before. Coming out of an ice age, we are supposed to be warming. What is too fast, scientifically?

This science is in its infancy. We know next to nothing, not even enough to perform an adequate lab experiment because of too many variables in an open system. To claim that we are certain at this point is deceitful. It is done for political and economic reasons.

I am skeptical but do not deny, yet I am considered a denier. That is politics and it is used as a weapon. I am skeptical because I remember scientists warning of global cooling and because I remember when we knew squat about el nino and la nina. We know just enough for some to claim they know it all.

If it is too warm, there must be a temperature that is not too warm. What is it? If we are warming too fast, there must be a rate that is not too fast. What is it? These are not silly questions. How the hell can it be too warm without a not warm enough and a just right?

Well, you're asking the right questions in some cases. Now go find the answers for yourself.

• Global Warming and Its Causes and Impacts

 

[2aguy]

Yes........man made global warming is a hoax.......

Media Censor New Study Debunking Climate Models

Researchers at Stockholm University in Sweden published a study in the journal Nature on April 6, 2016, which found that climate model predictions for rainfall and drought extremes in the 20th Century “differed vastly” from what actually happened in the 20th Century. The climate models “overestimated the increase in wet and dry extremes,” meteorologist Anthony Watts reported on his blog Watts Up With That.

The climate models that predicted inaccurately extreme weather are the same models being used to predict the alleged disastrous impacts of climate change in the future.

The Stockholm study examined rainfall data for the last 1,200 years, and found that “prominent seesaw patterns” of wetness and dryness occurred “under both warm and cold climate regimes.” In other words, historical weather patterns don’t support climate alarmists’ belief that global warming (now called climate change) directly causes extreme weather.

 

[Boston1]

I love the hoax theory. Yeah, tens of thousands of scientists going all the way back to the mid 1700s all got together and dreamed up this hoax so that 300 or so years later, in a country that didn't even exist back then, on a continent that hadn't been discovered yet, some jack ass politician, could raise your taxes

Brilliant

Absoulutely and stunningly brilliant