Another closed thread because of politics @Egon

[cqaigy2]

This is a good example of why I don't believe in the science behind global warming. Those of us who doubt that it's real have reached that conclusion based on numerous lies about what is happening. Just like in this article, you pointed out where there is some doubt to what this person has to say based on what is written about the author. Lets say you are correct, and this author has an agenda that leads to his pushing an opinion instead of actual science. Knowing that, it's easy to dismiss what he has to say. But when scientist who are telling you that global warming is true do the same thing, they are believed regardless of their track record of lying? How are you able to research the validity of those who are against global warming, but not willing to do the same for those telling you it's true? And if you have read about the long list of lies from those pushing global warming, why do you still believe them?

Sure, i'd make a generalize decisions about the pros and cons of a subject because i found a whack job espousing one side of an argument so would immediately that would debunk the converse argument.

 

[MossRoad]

This is a good example of why I don't believe in the science behind global warming. Those of us who doubt that it's real have reached that conclusion based on numerous lies about what is happening. Just like in this article, you pointed out where there is some doubt to what this person has to say based on what is written about the author. Lets say you are correct, and this author has an agenda that leads to his pushing an opinion instead of actual science. Knowing that, it's easy to dismiss what he has to say. But when scientist who are telling you that global warming is true do the same thing, they are believed regardless of their track record of lying? How are you able to research the validity of those who are against global warming, but not willing to do the same for those telling you it's true? And if you have read about the long list of lies from those pushing global warming, why do you still believe them?

I'm in agreement with you on that. Who you gonna believe? You? Me? Him? Them? :confused2:

So we all pick and choose our sides based on the info we have at hand that makes the most sense to us.

For me, I can't see how billions of people burning quadrillion's of tons of fossil fuels each year can't have an effect on the planet's atmosphere, let alone the water and soil. It's all gotta go somewhere. It's not going off into outer space. And its not going back into the earth in our lifetime. That takes trees, plants, and millions of years to get turned back into hard stuff like coal. With the deforestation of the planet by humans, where's it all going to go? The ocean? That's going to get saturated eventually too.

So there's two choices. Wait and see what happens. Or decrease the amount of fossil fuels being consumed and burnt each year by humans and stop deforestation so that the planet has a chance to catch up.

Regardless of if the rapid increase in global warming in the last 100 years is caused by humans or not, I'd like to kick the environmentalist from Tennessee in the crotch if given the opportunity. Maybe we can agree on that.

 

[Einthewoods]

So we all pick and choose our sides based on the info we have at hand that makes the most sense to us.
)

I'm picking my side right now! I firmly believe the vanilla frosty is better than the chocolate one at Wendy's. I accept no counter argument as it will certainly be flawed.

 

[EddieWalker]

I'm in agreement with you on that. Who you gonna believe? You? Me? Him? Them? :confused2:

So we all pick and choose our sides based on the info we have at hand that makes the most sense to us.

For me, I can't see how billions of people burning quadrillion's of tons of fossil fuels each year can't have an effect on the planet's atmosphere, let alone the water and soil. It's all gotta go somewhere. It's not going off into outer space. And its not going back into the earth in our lifetime. That takes trees, plants, and millions of years to get turned back into hard stuff like coal. With the deforestation of the planet by humans, where's it all going to go? The ocean? That's going to get saturated eventually too.

So there's two choices. Wait and see what happens. Or decrease the amount of fossil fuels being consumed and burnt each year by humans and stop deforestation so that the planet has a chance to catch up.

Regardless of if the rapid increase in global warming in the last 100 years is caused by humans or not, I'd like to kick the environmentalist from Tennessee in the crotch if given the opportunity. Maybe we can agree on that.

I completely agree with everything you said. And when global warming first became a topic, I was worried about it too. But in my opinion, man made global warming, or human activity is causing the planet to warm up has not been proven to actually be happening. I'm actually leaning towards being concerned that the planet is cooling. I feel the sun is the only factor is what the temperature of the planet is going to be, and I also think that some warming to the planet would be a good thing based on historical evidence from periods in history when the planet was warmer then it is today.

Like most people who that do not believe man is increasing or affecting the temperature of the planet, we are very concerned with pollution and want a cleaner environment. I believe that they are separate issues, that in order to self enrich themselves, politicians have used scientist, by bribing them with grant money, to create a false concern that becomes a new world wild bureaucracy that will never find a solution, and will always require more and more money to keep it going to find that solution that doesn't actually exist.

I ask you this, why did NOAA adjust historical temperatures to reflect a greater increase in the planets temperature today? Their official reasoning was that those temperatures where taken at the wrong time of the day. So instead of copying how they where taken back then to prove an increase or a decrease, they put their monitoring stations at Airports, and inside big cities, where the temps are going to be artificially higher then out in the country side, and claim those to be the "correct" temperature for the planet, and not out in the countryside where there isn't miles and miles of asphalt and concrete.

On the most basic things, we are being misled.

The question then becomes why? If it's real, why do they have to lie to prove it? If it's not real, the answer is pretty obvious, it's all about the money.

 

[k0ua]

We actually had a slide rule course. I recall the prof. saying that when it was proposed, someone got up during the staff meeting and said "Why do we need a course in Slide Rule? I can learn to add and subtract on one of those things in 15 minutes!".
I think I still have my old bamboo Versalog hidden away in the book case somewhere.

I still have a few around here somewhere. I never did learn how to add and subtract on them though!. :laughing:

 

[k0ua]

I'm picking my side right now! I firmly believe the vanilla frosty is better than the chocolate one at Wendy's. I accept no counter argument as it will certainly be flawed.

I am with you on this. Vanilla it is. And I am VERY sincere in my support!.

 

[k0ua]

Regardless of if the rapid increase in global warming in the last 100 years is caused by humans or not, I'd like to kick the environmentalist from Tennessee in the crotch if given the opportunity. Maybe we can agree on that.

I would get in line and wait a long time for the opportunity to kick that smarmy, smug, self righteous so and so in the goods.

 

[rekees4300]

since 1970 huh?

List of expanding glaciers

That article states "Glaciers in Montana's Glacier Park on the verge of growing ".

This article (Global Climate Change, Melting Glaciers) states "So far, the results have been positively chilling. When President Taft created Glacier National Park in 1910, it was home to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased to fewer than 30, and most of those remaining have shrunk in area by two-thirds. Fagre predicts that within 30 years most if not all of the park's namesake glaciers will disappear."

Can both articles be correct? This is just one example showing the Internet is a sewer. It's full of info turds to "prove" anybody's opinion.

 

[/pine]

Great Source! :laughing:

[h=1]IceAgeNow[/h][h=2]Background[/h][FONT=&quot]IceAgeNow is a website originally iceagenow.com and now located at iceagenow.info. It has described itself as 殿 Web site dedicated to showing that our climate is driven by natural cycles, not by humans.?nbsp;[1][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]IceAgeNow regularly publishes articles skeptical of climate change by its author, and sole employee, Robert Felix a former architect. George Monbiot at The Guardian describes IceAgeNow as primarily serving to promote Felix's book about the 田oming ice age.?nbsp;Monbiot says that Felix selectively picks evidence in his attempt to disprove man-made global warming. [2][/FONT]

的s Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer? Monbiot asks. 摘r, none of the above. His biography describes him as a 'former architect'. His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says.?nbsp;
​

just more shooting the messenger...the article provides 2nd party citations...

...Regardless of if the rapid increase in global warming in the last 100 years is caused by humans or not...[

How can we be sure that there really has been a "rapid rise" when those responsible for collecting and compiling the data have been proven to lie and misconstrue the temperature data?

 

[/pine]

That article states "Glaciers in Montana's Glacier Park on the verge of growing ".

This article (Global Climate Change, Melting Glaciers) states "So far, the results have been positively chilling. When President Taft created Glacier National Park in 1910, it was home to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased to fewer than 30, and most of those remaining have shrunk in area by two-thirds. Fagre predicts that within 30 years most if not all of the park's namesake glaciers will disappear."

Can both articles be correct? This is just one example showing the Internet is a sewer. It's full of info turds to "prove" anybody's opinion.

Well...we know for sure that one side has been (without any doubt) proven to lie and misconstrue data to bolster their position...so currently we have one side that is unproven and one side that is proven to lie and misinform...yet some blindly believe in and put 100% of their faith in the proven liars...some of us have doubts...