Global Warming?

[patrick_g]

There is no science to climate change, only an observation by people alive today, anyone can do that!

HS

I need a little more detail. Are you saying science is only valid if the folks doing it are dead? Let me rephrase that... Reporting information is only valid science if the reporter is now deceased?

Contemporary scientists might have access to ancient information through ice bores in old glaciers or core samples from the ocean bottom or terrestrial locations. Are you saying that is science or not? Anyone can do what? Report climate change? Yes, just anyone can report anything but if their credentials and track record are not appropriate then careful campers will discount their validity.

Unfortunately there is great confusion regarding climate change and whether or not a significant contribution is from human activity. There are well intentioned but poorly informed vocal proponents on the fringes of both sides of the issue and every imaginable intermediate position. There are alarmists of every ilk as well as those wrapped deeply in their protective cocoons of denial. Claims, counterclaims, instances of the application of the golden rule (who has the gold makes the rules) and buys results convenient for the purchaser.

I am not typically a conspiracy theorist but one possibility is that some unknown group or group of groups (or de facto conspirators with similar goals) with an interest in maintaining the status quo could fund this confusion. Hire some sci-****** to find bogus answers and thereby discredit science in the eyes of the laity. Muddy the waters so thoroughly that there is no clear mandate to take any action. You could get a lot of bang for your buck by confusing the least scientifically trained among us and essentially enlisting them in an army of Babel to shout down any opposition.

If I had great wealth or power at stake on the possibility of someone showing climate change to be definitely happening for the worst and man being a large part of the impetus for change I would want to happen EXACTLY what is happening. Even with no conclusive evidence, if enough were at stake regarding wealth and power I'd not want to run any reasonable risk of having it revealed that man influences climate detrimentally, even a little.

I make no claim that there is a cabal of conspirators behind all this confusion or that anyone of any particular persuasion is a dupe for the bad guys BUT... if I wanted to defuse a situation that stood a chance of disturbing my position of power or wealth I'd be thrilled to see what is happening to be happening.

Pat

 

[houstonscott]

I need a little more detail. Are you saying science is only valid if the folks doing it are dead? Let me rephrase that... Reporting information is only valid science if the reporter is now deceased?

Contemporary scientists might have access to ancient information through ice bores in old glaciers or core samples from the ocean bottom or terrestrial locations. Are you saying that is science or not? Anyone can do what? Report climate change? Yes, just anyone can report anything but if their credentials and track record are not appropriate then careful campers will discount their validity.

Unfortunately there is great confusion regarding climate change and whether or not a significant contribution is from human activity. There are well intentioned but poorly informed vocal proponents on the fringes of both sides of the issue and every imaginable intermediate position. There are alarmists of every ilk as well as those wrapped deeply in their protective cocoons of denial. Claims, counterclaims, instances of the application of the golden rule (who has the gold makes the rules) and buys results convenient for the purchaser.

I am not typically a conspiracy theorist but one possibility is that some unknown group or group of groups (or de facto conspirators with similar goals) with an interest in maintaining the status quo could fund this confusion. Hire some sci-****** to find bogus answers and thereby discredit science in the eyes of the laity. Muddy the waters so thoroughly that there is no clear mandate to take any action. You could get a lot of bang for your buck by confusing the least scientifically trained among us and essentially enlisting them in an army of Babel to shout down any opposition.

If I had great wealth or power at stake on the possibility of someone showing climate change to be definitely happening for the worst and man being a large part of the impetus for change I would want to happen EXACTLY what is happening. Even with no conclusive evidence, if enough were at stake regarding wealth and power I'd not want to run any reasonable risk of having it revealed that man influences climate detrimentally, even a little.

I make no claim that there is a cabal of conspirators behind all this confusion or that anyone of any particular persuasion is a dupe for the bad guys BUT... if I wanted to defuse a situation that stood a chance of disturbing my position of power or wealth I'd be thrilled to see what is happening to be happening.

Pat

Anyone can observe that there has been global climate change, don't need a scientist to tell me that, if you think someone has taken observations and can prove with those a scientific certainty that the earth is warming now is somehow different, is a lier, can't be done. The ice and glaciers of north america has been melting for 14 thousand years no news there, sorry. California was under 10000ft of ice just 10 thousand years ago, you bet it warmer now than it was then, no science to that, just an observation. So where is the science? Is it going to get cold again, sure is, lots of observations that the cold and warm ebb and flood. No science there either, just an observation. Now what science are you talking about, that proves what?

HS

 

[patrick_g]

Anyone can observe that there has been global climate change, don't need a scientist to tell me that,

Well, right here in River City (This thread) there are folks who argue there is no climate change only random changes not unlike those that have gone before or variations in weather from year to year.

Some deny that it is possible for man to alter the environment through his activities, not that he has but that he could!

Wouldn't a prudent person want to know what is going on and what if anything should be done about it and what if anything could be done about it?

Consider the argument of the beard: If I have one long hair on my chin is it a beard? How about 2? How about 3? At some point most reasonable people would agree it is a beard. Apply this reasoning to climate change and climate change caused by human activities.

Can anyone show proof that the climate never changes, not even a little bit?

Can anyone prove that human activity is incapable of changing the climate, even a little bit?

Murphy stated that whatever could go wrong usually does and at the worst possible moment. If we don't know whether or not man could have a deleterious effect on climate it would be better to err on the side of caution and check it out rather than assume everything will be OK. Is the ice on the lake strong enough to safely hold a car? Should we guess or groundlessly assume it will be OK because it was this date last year or make a couple test holes to see the thickness and be guided by the measured facts (sounds like scientific method vs baseless faith, right?)

What should reasonably be on the table for discussion is NOT idle conjecture, wishful thinking, or faith based denial but instead whether or not man could cause change and how much change is man causing, is it a problem, could it become a problem, can we do something to make it better, how to identify what if anything could/should be done. These are worthy items for serious scrutiny.

Pat

 

[crash325]

I'm a firm believer in global warming. And I like it.
Doing all I can to help it along. :laughing::thumbsup::laughing:

 

[Tollster]

 

[patrick_g]

Well harumph!!! What has reasoned sensibility and expected human behavior got to do with this. Don't stand out from the crowd, just wait till someone says something against your personal convictions and then make big claims or cute remarks to put those miscreants in their place.

Maybe better you like how you have to prove a negative to refute some positions.

What I want to know is when those guys stopped beating their wives and barking at the moon.

Pat Oh, by the way... nice chart!

 

[Pixguy]

Who has the hidden agenda? The oil company that is selling you fuel for a profit and having to get it half way across the planet in locations that hate the US?

Or a government that relies on tax money raised from selling that fuel, but even more from voters who donate to them so they will fight the oil company with an empty promise to force somebody to invent something better. In the mean time, to keep their supporters happy and giving them more money, they use tax dollars to promote industy that doesn't work and requires more energy to operate then it produces. Have you heard of ethynol? What about solar companies like Sylendra? Or the Chevy Volt?

If you want to find a hidden agenda, look at goverment policy on energy and explain why the pipeline was canceled, why the Gulf was closed down, why ANWR was cancelled, why no more refineries are being built, why no more Nuclear power plants have been built, why Obama threatened to shut down coal and why we are spending billions of tax payer dollars to develop other countries oil industry like Brazil.

Eddie

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[houstonscott]

Well, right here in River City (This thread) there are folks who argue there is no climate change only random changes not unlike those that have gone before or variations in weather from year to year.

Some deny that it is possible for man to alter the environment through his activities, not that he has but that he could!

Wouldn't a prudent person want to know what is going on and what if anything should be done about it and what if anything could be done about it?

Consider the argument of the beard: If I have one long hair on my chin is it a beard? How about 2? How about 3? At some point most reasonable people would agree it is a beard. Apply this reasoning to climate change and climate change caused by human activities.

Can anyone show proof that the climate never changes, not even a little bit?

Can anyone prove that human activity is incapable of changing the climate, even a little bit?

Murphy stated that whatever could go wrong usually does and at the worst possible moment. If we don't know whether or not man could have a deleterious effect on climate it would be better to err on the side of caution and check it out rather than assume everything will be OK. Is the ice on the lake strong enough to safely hold a car? Should we guess or groundlessly assume it will be OK because it was this date last year or make a couple test holes to see the thickness and be guided by the measured facts (sounds like scientific method vs baseless faith, right?)

What should reasonably be on the table for discussion is NOT idle conjecture, wishful thinking, or faith based denial but instead whether or not man could cause change and how much change is man causing, is it a problem, could it become a problem, can we do something to make it better, how to identify what if anything could/should be done. These are worthy items for serious scrutiny.

Pat

Lets play out your train of thought here and maybe you will understand where I am coming from.

Observation, the tides come in and go out. They must be effected by man somehow, lets find out how!

Observation, the earth goes around the sun, mans activities must effect that too, lets find out how!

Observation the earth heats and cools, mans activities must effect that, lets find out how!

It's stupid, a hoax. Get it...

HS

 

[Dadof3]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

"Wouldn't a prudent person want to know what is going on and what if anything should be done about it and what if anything could be done about it?"

These "prudent people" have two goals. To line their pockets and cut America down to size.Why else would the push for Cap and Trade in the US when China and India will never participate?

 

[Tollster]

The White House rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline. But that hasn't stopped TransCanada from suing American landowners and seizing their land to try and start construction. Tell TransCanada to stop this astonishing action against Americans' property

Tell TransCanada: Stop seizing land for the rejected Keystone XL pipeline!