Climal Warmging Thread?

[bushwacked]

buh bye

 

 

It's gotta be gratifying for you to see the party that believes FDR and Hitler fought on the same side against Jesus' Freedom Dinosaur Cavalry aren't letting those godforsaken liberals and their preponderance of scientific elitist studies push them around.

[driveby]

 

It's gotta be gratifying for you to see the party that believes FDR and Hitler fought on the same side against Jesus' Freedom Dinosaur Cavalry aren't letting those godforsaken liberals and their preponderance of scientific elitist studies push them around.

 

With the end in sight, Committee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) organized what was billed as an “all-star” cast of witnesses to testify Wednesday on the dangers posed by climate change. And like the Democrats’ hopes for a bill limiting carbon dioxide emissions, things didn’t turn out exactly as planned.

 

Former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark didn’t show and environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was delayed by several hours.

 

Reporters covering the hearing were sparse and most of the rank-and-file lawmakers who appeared declined to give opening statements. Markey was the only committee member who returned in the afternoon to hear Kennedy’s testimony calling for domestic innovation on “clean energy” technologies.

 

Nobody cares. The preponderance of the global warming hot air was coming from this committee and their star witnesses.

[McBoog]

"They" are all meeting in Cancun, MX this week. Other places were just too dang cold at the moment and their private jets work better in the warmer "climates".

 

Hey. You gotta get there somehow!

[Jimmy Neutron]

"They" are all meeting in Cancun, MX this week. Other places were just too dang cold at the moment and their private jets work better in the warmer "climates".

 

Hey. You gotta get there somehow!

 

Glad I'm not the only one that finds hughmor in this.

[tosberg34]

 

It's gotta be gratifying for you to see the party that believes FDR and Hitler fought on the same side against Jesus' Freedom Dinosaur Cavalry aren't letting those godforsaken liberals and their preponderance of scientific elitist studies push them around.

 

I have no idea what this tripe you just posted means. However, I'll try my best to translate this nonsense for others:

 

"I'm sad that one of our scams to take more money from people has come to an end. Hitler is my idol."

 

Did I get it right?

Edited December 2, 2010 by tosberg34

[Big John]

Glad I'm not the only one that finds hughmor in this.

Especially since jet engines perform better in cold weather since the colder air is more dense.

[bushwacked]

Glad I'm not the only one that finds hughmor in this.

 

I guess it's funny and hypocritical much like having to burn gas in a vehicle to transport household recyclables to a recycle center. Should I not fly to LA to install a remedial system to clean up the soil? Should I not fly to meetings to discuss the status? Kind of a desperately weak beef to have if you ask me.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bushwacked

[Jimmy Neutron]

I guess it's funny and hypocritical much like having to burn gas in a vehicle to transport household recyclables to a recycle center. Should I not fly to LA to install a remedial system to clean up the soil? Should I not fly to meetings to discuss the status? Kind of a desperately weak beef to have if you ask me.

 

Any attempt to defend these shmucks is desparate and weak. Al Gore has a mansion in TN and a new one in FL. These chicken littles convene in Cancuun. This particular band of stupid would be more convincing if they were not so terribly hypocritical. Ed Bagley Jr might seem loomey cranking on his stationary bike to toast his waffles, but at least it's an honest looney.

 

Interesting that when religious people are hypocritical, they are called to the mat and bashed in 5 page long threads yet the Warm Changers get a free pass and sorry rationalization.

[bushwacked]

Any attempt to defend these shmucks is desparate and weak. Al Gore has a mansion in TN and a new one in FL. These chicken littles convene in Cancuun. This particular band of stupid would be more convincing if they were not so terribly hypocritical. Ed Bagley Jr might seem loomey cranking on his stationary bike to toast his waffles, but at least it's an honest looney.

 

Interesting that when religious people are hypocritical, they are called to the mat and bashed in 5 page long threads yet the Warm Changers get a free pass and sorry rationalization.

 

I'm not even entirely clear what this Cancun thing is about or who is attending, so it's rather difficult for me to defend whatever schmucks are going to be there. My point was that it's weak to whine about people flying into a conference at a warm place to discuss GW. It's completely retarded no matter how you justify it.

 

I'm concerned about the Science and that's what I focus on. . Yer clearly caught up in the politics of Al Gore and his mansion and the soap opera of Ed Bagley Jr. This is clearly a bigger issue to a lot of you guys than the Science.

 

ETA: I see that many climatologists and scientists are supposed to be at the conference. I guess the fact that you group scientific experts with a chicken little stupid hypocrite label kind of gives a baseline to your opinion. It sure makes for a convenient, yet facetious reasoning to ignore the prevailing expert overview.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bushwacked

[redrumjuice]

OK bushy, this one is easy. Please answer.

 

I guess it's funny and hypocritical much like having to burn gas in a vehicle to transport household recyclables to a recycle center.

 

You libforks banned incandescent light bulbs to save electricity... yet you are ravenous about electric cars.... which plug into the same grid and I could only assume eat a schit load more juice than the 60w in my attic. That is smart.

[Jimmy Neutron]

I'm concerned about the Science and that's what I focus on.

 

I don't think so. The "science" I see batted around here and elsewhere is merely rehashed points of the climate chicken hawks - whose agenda is purely politcal.

 

Of course the climate is changing - duih! It has always been changing and always willl be changing. Species have always been on the brink of extinctiion and others will follow. We were headed for an ice age in the 70s and now we're headed for global meltdown. (This should point out just how flawed science can be and how terribly short and narrow our collective perspective usually is) The earth will go through these changes whether we're here or not. Mankinds contributions to water, land and air certainly have an effect on the earth, but it is naive to think we fully understand the intracies of the systems we pollute. Science is great, but it's a process - not a set of facts. What we "know" today in any field of science will be markedly different in 100, 500 and 1000 years. It will be different because new and brighter scientists will challenge the ideas of today. Our race is still relatively stupid - we don't understand much of what is around us. Pardon me for not getting too excited about a bunch of money grubbing grant seekers dumb enough to adopt Al Gore as their poster boy.

 

We'll adapt to whatever happens or we'll die. That's the beauty of nature. Even if we nuke this blasted rock to kingdom come, a few millenia down the road the earth will renew itself and some futuristic monkey can have his shot with a clean slate.

[bushwacked]

I see that many climatologists and scientists are supposed to be at the conference. I guess the fact that you group scientific experts with a chicken little stupid hypocrite label kind of gives a baseline to your opinion.

 

I don't think so. The "science" I see batted around here and elsewhere is merely rehashed points of the climate chicken hawks - whose agenda is purely politcal.

 

I get you don't respect the Scientific process when it comes to climate change and your wound up tight on politicizing it. The majority of Scientists believe global warming is real. The more versed a scientist is in climate change the more likely he/she is to believes in the preponderance of the evidence pointing to the industrial age effecting climate in a way far different from the last 500,000 years.

 

There is really no reason for further discussion as you are focused on politically driven agenda/Science is part of the conspiracy jibber jabber and compartmentalizing everyone as chicken little hypocrites if they don't agree with you. That's your prerogative, but that is rather asinine.

 

You also can't help but bring up Al Gore in every post, which says a lot in itself.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bushwacked

[redrumjuice]

Eugenics.

 

And hey pal, alf bore is your leader.

[driveby]

The majority of Scientists that believe global warming is real are cashing a fat grant check.

You were close.

[McBoog]

Especially since jet engines perform better in cold weather since the colder air is more dense.

 

I wasn't prone to blatantly point out the irony.

 

Maybe they figured that it is just plain old hot everywhere and Cancun offered the better hotel deals 'cause of the narco wars scaring off tourism.

[McBoog]

I get you don't respect the Scientific process when it comes to climate change and your wound up tight on politicizing it. The majority of Scientists believe global warming is real. The more versed a scientist is in climate change the more likely he/she is to believes in the preponderance of the evidence pointing to the industrial age effecting climate in a way far different from the last 500,000 years.

 

There is really no reason for further discussion as you are focused on politically driven agenda/Science is part of the conspiracy jibber jabber and compartmentalizing everyone as chicken little hypocrites if they don't agree with you. That's your prerogative, but that is rather asinine.

 

Umm. This is all you! Stop talking to yourself! Until you realize that the whole science was based on PROVING their position rather than testing a hypothesis, you will NEVER get it.

 

It was all about politics. Leftist inroads to world control based on a "feel good" premise like saving the world. Couple this with the HUGH amount of money thrown at "scientists" to PROVE this (bad science), a giant facade based on fear was erected to play class warfare and inject social justice upon us.

 

I for one, if I could afford the gas and the vehicle, would help the situation by buying the biggest gas guzzler I could find. We will not find or use an alternate energy source until the oil is gone. When it is, we will find a solution, FAST. This way, I burn more oil, moving us to a solution faster. How much more responsible to the planet could I be?

 

I urge all of you to burn as much gas and petroleum products as fast as possible so that we can end this madness and finally become dependent on some other foreign source of energy.

 

Thank you!

Edited December 2, 2010 by McBoog

[driveby]

Umm. This is all you! Stop talking to yourself! Until you realize that the whole science was based on PROVING their position rather than testing a hypothesis, you will NEVER get it.

 

It was all about politics. Leftist inroads to world control based on a "feel good" premise like saving the world. Couple this with the HUGH amount of money thrown at "scientists" to PROVE this (bad science), a giant facade based on fear was erected to play class warfare and inject social justice upon us.

 

I for one, if I could afford the gas and the vehicle, would help the situation by buying the biggest gas guzzler I could find. We will not find or use an alternate energy source until the oil is gone. When it is, we will find a solution, FAST. This way, I burn more oil, moving us to a solution faster. How much more responsible to the planet could I be?

 

I urge all of you to burn as much gas and petroleum products as fast as possible so that we can end this madness and finally become dependent on some other foreign source of energy.

 

Thank you!

I'm doing my part. I have a Ford Expedition, an F150, a Musting GT, and a Maxima.

[Perchoutofwater]

I don't think anyone is denying that there has been global warming in the last few years. I think the argument is whether that warming is part of a a continuing cycle that has happened time and time again throughout our planet's history, or if it is some how aided by man. The "science" is sketchy, particularly when you take into consideration "climategate" and the dismissal of dissenting opinions in many of the climate control talks. Also even if man is contributing which is a big "if", the question also arises what is best for the long term survival and comfort of man? Would we be better off by prolonging the current interglacial period by induced global warming if in fact that is possible, than we would be curtailing it and accelerating the return of an ice age? There are still way to many unknown variables, way to many discrepancies in the data and data collection, and way to many people on both sides with something to gain (ie government grants as well as global equalization) to base any legislation on this "science" at this time. Should we do all we can to reduce toxic pollutants in our air, water, and soil? Absolutely! Should we totally change our society based on some admittedly faulty findings with admittedly faulty readings, collected and interpreted by people who were employed and wish to be continue to be employed by government agencies and one world institutions like the UN? Absolutely not! Bring us some hard science that shows that man is actually causing warming to any great measurable extent, and that if we are that this warming is in fact worse for our survival as a species than another ice age, and then we have something to talk about and possibly real reasons to write new legislation that will have a drastically negative impact on our economy and our standing in the world.

[McBoog]

I don't think anyone is denying that there has been global warming in the last few years. I think the argument is whether that warming is part of a a continuing cycle that has happened time and time again throughout our planet's history, or if it is some how aided by man. The "science" is sketchy, particularly when you take into consideration "climategate" and the dismissal of dissenting opinions in many of the climate control talks. Also even if man is contributing which is a big "if", the question also arises what is best for the long term survival and comfort of man? Would we be better off by prolonging the current interglacial period by induced global warming if in fact that is possible, than we would be curtailing it and accelerating the return of an ice age? There are still way to many unknown variables, way to many discrepancies in the data and data collection, and way to many people on both sides with something to gain (ie government grants as well as global equalization) to base any legislation on this "science" at this time. Should we do all we can to reduce toxic pollutants in our air, water, and soil? Absolutely! Should we totally change our society based on some admittedly faulty findings with admittedly faulty readings, collected and interpreted by people who were employed and wish to be continue to be employed by government agencies and one world institutions like the UN? Absolutely not! Bring us some hard science that shows that man is actually causing warming to any great measurable extent, and that if we are that this warming is in fact worse for our survival as a species than another ice age, and then we have something to talk about and possibly real reasons to write new legislation that will have a drastically negative impact on our economy and our standing in the world.

 

 

Late January, two guys on the 10th tee somewhere in New York. Soft Breeze, mid-70s. One guy looks and the other and says, "Nice out!"

 

[McBoog]

I'm doing my part. I have a Ford Expedition, an F150, a Musting GT, and a Maxima.

 

[Duchess Jack]

Umm. This is all you! Stop talking to yourself! Until you realize that the whole science was based on PROVING their position rather than testing a hypothesis, you will NEVER get it.

 

doesn't this work both ways?

[Deathpig]

doesn't this work both ways?

 

The problem is that science has a means for proving something. These means haven't been used in the case of climate change. We are to accept that a majority shared opinion is now fact.

 

Climate change believers (and believer is such a wonderfully loaded term for this) believe the following hypothesis is true:

 

"The mean global temperature of the earth is rising due to man creating a large amount of greenhouse gasses which trap sunlight and warm the planet."

 

To PROVE this (you know, all scientifically and stuff) you need to prove, at the very least, the following:

 

1) How much of the increase in global temperature is directly attributable to the increase in greenhouse gasses.

2) How much of the increase in greenhouse gasses is directly attributable to human causes.

 

It's up to the climate change group to prove (PROVE, not hypothesize and declare that as proof) the above.

 

Now, if someone wants to link to me actual research done via the generally accepted method of scientific method that shows experiments, methods, and data to show causal relationships in both cases, with dissenting studies done based on the same methods, then I'm pretty sure everyone would shut up about global warming. See, for as long as we've had science, THIS is how you go about proving something. Saying 90% of scientists agree with the concept of global warming is no different than saying 80% of dentists recommend Colgate. Or, to add some zest, a preponderance of intelligence analysts agreed with the conclusion that Iraq had WMDs.

 

Every attempt to get the climate change cartel to release any of their information has been met with complete obstinance, and for them to go so far as to say " we can't release our data or methods because if you try and replicate them you'll get a different result, but that's because you're a skeptic and you'd be lying to make us look bad".

 

A preponderance of scientific opinion does not equal fact. Complete denial at revealing methods and data does not equal science. If they had the ability to irrefutably prove their position it would be proven scientifically already and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

I'm not saying you can't keep on believing that factories cars cow farts are destroying the planet... but you have to understand that what you have is Belief, not Science.

[bushwacked]

The problem is that science has a means for proving something. These means haven't been used in the case of climate change. We are to accept that a majority shared opinion is now fact.

 

You are going to have to believe me when I say your view on how the Scientific Method works, is butchered up pretty bad.

[Deathpig]

You are going to have to believe me when I say your view on how the Scientific Method works, is butchered up pretty bad.

 

I have been trying for months to determine if you are the best troll on the Huddle, or an idiot. And I still can't figure it out.

 

I'll have you read this, and then get back to me on where my assertion that a consensus of opinion is not fact somehow violates the scientific method.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

I'll even go so far as to say what I'm asking for is the last three words of the opening paragraph:

 

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

 

Or, perhaps, you prefer this section:

 

A scientific theory hinges on empirical findings, and remains subject to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered certain. Theories very rarely result in vast changes in human understanding. Knowledge in science is gained by a gradual synthesis of information from different experiments, by various researchers, across different domains of science. Theories vary in the extent to which they have been tested and retained, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community.

 

In contrast, a myth may enjoy uncritical acceptance by members of a certain group. The difference between a theory and a myth reflects a preference for a posteriori versus a priori knowledge. That is, theories become accepted by a scientific community as evidence for the theory is presented, and as presumptions that are inconsistent with the evidence are falsified.

 

I don't mean to make you think harder than you have to, but you might consider looking at the difference between a posteriori and a priori knowledge.

 

And, to summarize, I think you'll also find it's YOU that doesn't have a clue as to how the scientific method actually works. I'm asking for experiments, methods, and data that prove that a causal relationship sits at the heart of the climate change argument. Via the scientific method, this is the FIRST thing that should have been done. That evidence does not exist after a decade or more of bleating about how man is going to incinerate the planet. Correlation IS NOT causation. A collected opinion IS NOT fact.

[bushwacked]

YOU that doesn't have a clue as to how the scientific method actually works

 

You would be very very wrong. And you're missing the point. No-one should be arguing the climate change is "fact," the premise of your point is doo-doo. It's a straw-man argument; not a Scientific one. And Science doesn't necessarily advance only when things become "fact." You are oversimplifying the intricacies of the SM.

 

. I'm asking for experiments, methods, and data that prove that a causal relationship sits at the heart of the climate change argument.

 

They are there, read peer-reviewed Science write ups. Heck,even read the ones that dispute climate change; just realize where the preponderance of opinion is saying. There is a good chance the experts know more than you and me; and an even better chance they aren't a part of some giant GW conspiracy.

 

ETA: Here is something along the lines you were asking for.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bushwacked