Global Warming?

[Gator6x4]

Do I believe in Climate Change? YES. Do I believe summers will get hotter and drier? YES. Do I believe winters will get colder in some parts of the world and warmer in others due to climate change? YES. Do I believe the United States is going to experience unpredictable violent weather that will cause billions upon billions of dollars in property damage? YES. Do I believe the tax payer will get the bill for the damage? YES. Do I believe deniers of climate change will be the first in line demanding tax money to repair damages done because we failed to steer away when we had the chance and instead ran full speed into the brick wall? YES

Do I believe a small child born today will before the end of their life cycle have to endure an environment much different and harsher than the one we currently have on earth? YES.

Do I believe we live in a society that is predominately all for instant gratification and I want it now, let someone else worry about tomorrow I want be here anyway? YES.

 

[toppop52]

Climate change is not a "belief", it's a reality. Not sure when you had to start believing in something that has always been. In fact as I said in previous posts, according to many scientists and meteorologists, the climate has been unusually tame over the last century and that much wilder weather is the true norm and always was.
Of course predicting violent storms is a no brainer, we always have had them at times with times of moderate activity. Many meteorologists had predicted severe hurricane seasons over the last few years, yet they were virtually much less active than normal.

 

[Gator6x4]

Climate change is not a "belief", it's a reality. Not sure when you had to start believing in something that has always been. In fact as I said in previous posts, according to many scientists and meteorologists, the climate has been unusually tame over the last century and that much wilder weather is the true norm and always was.
Of course predicting violent storms is a no brainer, we always have had them at times with times of moderate activity. Many meteorologists had predicted severe hurricane seasons over the last few years, yet they were virtually much less active than normal.

Very - Very true. Climate change is reality that naysayers deny and do not believe is occurring. Naysayers believe the environmental climate on earth today is as it has always been and as it will always be, regardless of what we do or have done.

 

[madmax12]

Very - Very true. Climate change is reality that naysayers deny and do not believe is occurring. Naysayers believe the environmental climate on earth today is as it has always been and as it will always be, regardless of what we do or have done.

Totally false straw man argument.

I deny the agenda promoted by the AGW proponents. The climate, which is always a changing component of the planet, is the plaything USED for the purpose of pushing the real purpose... The liberal agenda.

I deny the agenda's reasons for climate change.

I do not know anyone who thinks the climate is, or ever has been, unchanging.

For someone slamming the opposition for denying facts, you completely misstate the opposition's viewpoint...either misunderstanding or disregarding the facts.

Facts aren't the real issue though. It's the agenda.

 

[IslandTractor]

How were they resolved? You can't change history and through the 60's and first half of the 70's, scientists believed the cooling would continue. No matter who wrote what later, it doesn't effect what was real and what was believed at that time. Same as what is real and what is believed now, no matter how we reinterpret later, it will in no way change the reality of what was. That is a fool's argument. (meant rhetorically)

Top, did you read articles I provided links to? Your question is clearly answered with huge amounts of data to back it up. You bring up the cooling issue regularly but you sound like a broken record because you're not addressing any of the specific papers that provide the evidence explaining what the thinking was in the 70's.

 

[toppop52]

What the think was in the seventies or what the thinking is today, has zero bearing on what the thermometers around the world showed as the real temperatures. They were in a cooler than normal trend over that time frame, period. There is no realistic way to argue that fact. Now, recent agenda driven drival has attempted to mitigate the fact, but the fact remains the fact.

 

[IslandTractor]

What the think was in the seventies or what the thinking is today, has zero bearing on what the thermometers around the world showed as the real temperatures. They were in a cooler than normal trend over that time frame, period. There is no realistic way to argue that fact. Now, recent agenda driven drival has attempted to mitigate the fact, but the fact remains the fact.

You haven't read the material I linked. There are a number of specific reasons identified to explain the temp dip in the 70's. Aerosols, especially due to volcanoes, are responsible for much of the change. Read the data.

 

[toppop52]

The "temp dip" included the 50's and 60's as well. The aerosol theory doesn't cover it all.

 

[Gator6x4]

Totally false straw man argument.

I deny the agenda promoted by the AGW proponents. The climate, which is always a changing component of the planet, is the plaything USED for the purpose of pushing the real purpose... The liberal agenda.

I deny the agenda's reasons for climate change.

I do not know anyone who thinks the climate is, or ever has been, unchanging.

For someone slamming the opposition for denying facts, you completely misstate the opposition's viewpoint...either misunderstanding or disregarding the facts.

Facts aren't the real issue though. It's the agenda.

I don’t think anyone is promoting an agenda when it comes to climate change. I do think that some people are trying very hard to ignore scientific facts because they clash with a personal opinion. So when a personal opinion conflicts with facts they go on the attack and label climate change a liberal agenda.

I do not know anyone who thinks the climate is, or ever has been, unchanging.

You need to set aside some time and watch Fox News. They have plenty of people on weekly who deny the climate on earth has changed or will ever change regardless of what we do.

As to someone assisting or supporting a liberal agenda, I don’t think so. I do have friends who are liberals though and have never seen or heard them promoting any liberal agenda on climate change. I have heard them state scientific facts they have read about climate change and a concern they have in regards to their children and grandchildren. I will have to share with them the next time the conservation comes up that they need to stop promoting a liberal agenda.

If believing in climate change, the facts that have been presented to support such is happening and we in our reckless disregard for the environment are causing the majority of the problems impacting negatively on the earth, requires this old dyed in the wool conservative be labeled a liberal, then I will wear the label with honor and pride.

 

[IslandTractor]

The "temp dip" included the 50's and 60's as well. The aerosol theory doesn't cover it all.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. Please read pages 1327-1329.

 

[tcreeley]

They certainly beat the drums for 10 years about how we're headed to the next ice age how that in 10-15 years the climate of Atlanta would be as cold as then current Minneapolis. It's just not credible that many ow claim it didn't happen when the media recorded it all. Many people my age remember it well.

They were probably neocons dressed as scientists...can fool anyone....if he is conservative enough!

 

[tcreeley]

Do I believe in Climate Change? YES. Do I believe summers will get hotter and drier? YES. Do I believe winters will get colder in some parts of the world and warmer in others due to climate change? YES. Do I believe the United States is going to experience unpredictable violent weather that will cause billions upon billions of dollars in property damage? YES. Do I believe the tax payer will get the bill for the damage? YES. Do I believe deniers of climate change will be the first in line demanding tax money to repair damages done because we failed to steer away when we had the chance and instead ran full speed into the brick wall? YES

Do I believe a small child born today will before the end of their life cycle have to endure an environment much different and harsher than the one we currently have on earth? YES.

Do I believe we live in a society that is predominately all for instant gratification and I want it now, let someone else worry about tomorrow I want be here anyway? YES.

Very well said:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[toppop52]

I didn't see a thing that disputes the northern hemisphere was cooling in the period I said it was! What I saw was just what I said earlier, an attempt to use cherry picked data to bend the reality to fit an agenda. They want to use warming in the southern hemisphere to somehow counter the cooling in the north, however that's either really bad science or just a blatant attempt to muddy the waters, because during most ice ages where there is enough evidence to discern the southern hemisphere warmed or remained near stable as the northern hemisphere cooled. So I see nothing there that changes a thing.

 

[toppop52]

They were probably neocons dressed as scientists...can fool anyone....if he is conservative enough!

Being a smartass really doesn't enforce your position much. I was 13 in 1965, a very astute science buff and read everything I could find from Popular Science to National Geographic. I don't need people to cut and paste hand picked articles to show me what scientists of the time believed, I lived there.

 

[tcreeley]

Being a smartass really doesn't enforce your position much. I was 13 in 1965, a very astute science buff and read everything I could find from Popular Science to National Geographic. I don't need people to cut and paste hand picked articles to show me what scientists of the time believed, I lived there.

You are a youngster, I was 15 in 1965. I'm your elder- what you think of as smart *** is wisdom. Now stop acting like a punky kid and do the reading that Island Tractor assigned you!

 

[toppop52]

I read what he pointed out and answered it, I thought being a teacher you could have read that. I can't help it if you were reading Marvel Comics and wondering why Fireballs wouldn't really burn.

 

[tcreeley]

I read what he pointed out and answered it, I thought being a teacher you could have read that. I can't help it if you were reading Marvel Comics and wondering why Fireballs wouldn't really burn.

Never did figure that one out- and what did Spidey make his webs out of? ....
But one thing I don't like is the time change- 4:59 outside and it is already dark!
Have a good day.

 

[IslandTractor]

I didn't see a thing that disputes the northern hemisphere was cooling in the period I said it was! What I saw was just what I said earlier, an attempt to use cherry picked data to bend the reality to fit an agenda. They want to use warming in the southern hemisphere to somehow counter the cooling in the north, however that's either really bad science or just a blatant attempt to muddy the waters, because during most ice ages where there is enough evidence to discern the southern hemisphere warmed or remained near stable as the northern hemisphere cooled. So I see nothing there that changes a thing.

How is it that you are more qualified to interpret climatological data than climatologists? The explanation given in that paper passed peer review at a major climate science journal. What are your credentials?

Face it, we are all amateurs here. When acknowledging that it seems reasonable to defer to mainstream science. If there is a significant disagreement amongst climatologists that is one thing but there is not disagreement. They appear to have a consensus.

Understanding of new data sometimes takes a while. Certainly we reverse course in medicine not infrequently but rarely is the second interpretation of data less accurate than the original.

Ignoring a consensus primarily because it conflicts with a political view is not scientific skepticism. You are starting to sound like the pollsters trying to ignore consensus data in order to predict a different outcome.

 

[madmax12]

I don’t think anyone is promoting an agenda when it comes to climate change. I do think that some people are trying very hard to ignore scientific facts because they clash with a personal opinion. So when a personal opinion conflicts with facts they go on the attack and label climate change a liberal agenda.

You need to set aside some time and watch Fox News. They have plenty of people on weekly who deny the climate on earth has changed or will ever change regardless of what we do.

As to someone assisting or supporting a liberal agenda, I don’t think so. I do have friends who are liberals though and have never seen or heard them promoting any liberal agenda on climate change. I have heard them state scientific facts they have read about climate change and a concern they have in regards to their children and grandchildren. I will have to share with them the next time the conservation comes up that they need to stop promoting a liberal agenda.

If believing in climate change, the facts that have been presented to support such is happening and we in our reckless disregard for the environment are causing the majority of the problems impacting negatively on the earth, requires this old dyed in the wool conservative be labeled a liberal, then I will wear the label with honor and pride.

The climate has changed...since the beginning. It always changes. And it will change. Some of the changes are natural changes. Some of the changes are supernatural changes. The climate always changes. The debate...is not about whether or not it changes. But rather...why it does so. And even when it has, and by how much.

Pride is not a lacking quality of those who refer to their opposition as deniers.

Being better than everyone who disagrees with them gives them good reason to be so proud.

 

[Gator6x4]

The climate has changed...since the beginning. It always changes. And it will change. Some of the changes are natural changes. Some of the changes are supernatural changes. The climate always changes. The debate...is not about whether or not it changes. But rather...why it does so. And even when it has, and by how much.

Pride is not a lacking quality of those who refer to their opposition as deniers.

Being better than everyone who disagrees with them gives them good reason to be so proud.

Some of the changes are supernatural changes.

Really?????? I think maybe I had better move on.