Quote:The science is settled. Climate change is real and man made, settled.
Settled, just like these:
The earth is flat.
The earth is hollow.
Alchemy, turning any metals to gold.
Earth is cooling and will soon be in an ice age, 1970 's.
Blood letting to cure any illness.
I could on and on..............
Settled once and for all.
Didn't science prove the earth was round? Didn't science prove we revolve around the sun?
Didn't science prove genes and dna make us who we are?
I had a really awesome physics teacher in college, he mentioned something about theories and scientific models that has stuck with me for all these years...
The theory/model right now is that the sun rises in the east. This morning, the model has been proven again to be accurate. Tomorrow, the model will be tested again.
Quote:Scientists have been wrong in the past. Therefore, we can believe whatever we want to believe. And that's what we do. We pick a side, whichever one makes us most comfortable, and then we cherry pick some facts to back up our position and argue about it as if we actually knew something about it.
Dealing with climate change would be painful. So we'd rather not do it.
Personally, I think man made climate change is real and it's going to cause some problems. But I am an inveterate optimist, and I think we will somehow handle it.
I would add that I trust the scientific community a lot more than I trust the politicians who get campaign contributions from oil companies.
And it's kind of laughable to say scientists are in this for the money, and ignore the trillions of dollars that are earned by selling fossil fuels.
The idea that scientists would deliberately spread a falsehood in order to earn money is pretty slanderous.
Come on, now. Don't you know there is an international conspiracy amongst the world's climatologists to use the idea of global warming to scare people enough that a New World Government can complete its plan for world domination? It seems so obvious.
Quote:Didn't science prove the earth was round? Didn't science prove we revolve around the sun?
Didn't science prove genes and dna make us who we are?
But THIS time they are absolutely correct and we should totally trust them and do what they say.
Quote:But THIS time they are absolutely correct and we should totally trust them and do what they say.
The notion that scientists the world over are lying and that you somehow know more than them is, IMO, more conceited and arrogant than saying man can actual effect the climate of the earth.
No you should just continue to follow what makes you most comfortable. In this case it's believing the oil money backed deniers because it's the stance your side has picked as their horse.
Quote:Yes, we should all just shut up...
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/22/former...n-climate/
But why would we when we're continually shown to be right?
:teehee:
You oil backed scientists confirm a bias you already had based on your voting record. Color me so completely shocked. :o
Quote:You oil backed scientists confirm a bias you already had based on your voting record. Color me so completely shocked. :o
Did you even see who the guy was? Or does your Ooga Booga Anti-corporation bias overwhelm even the slightest hint of natural curiosity?
I mean, I do understand, for you all it's SETTLED. Critical thinking or critique is forbidden, the dogma ruleth all and the prophets of Gaia must remain unquestioned by the faithful. And only the stake remains for the heretics of the Word.
Quote:Did you even see who the guy was? Or does your Ooga Booga Anti-corporation bias overwhelm even the slightest hint of natural curiosity?
I mean, I do understand, for you all it's SETTLED. Critical thinking or critique is forbidden, the dogma ruleth all and the prophets of Gaia must remain unquestioned by the faithful. And only the stake remains for the heretics of the Word.
That's rich coming from senior conspiracy over here.
Have you gone insane?
Quote:Yes, we should all just shut up...
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/22/former-un-lead-author-global-warming-caused-by-natural-variations-in-climate/'>http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/22/former-un-lead-author-global-warming-caused-by-natural-variations-in-climate/</a>
But why would we when we're continually shown to be right?
:teehee:
Because you insulate yourself in the conservative infotainment echo chamber and you think being right is hearing someone say what you want to hear?
Quote:Did you even see who the guy was? Or does your Ooga Booga Anti-corporation bias overwhelm even the slightest hint of natural curiosity?
I mean, I do understand, for you all it's SETTLED. Critical thinking or critique is forbidden, the dogma ruleth all and the prophets of Gaia must remain unquestioned by the faithful. And only the stake remains for the heretics of the Word.
Look who is talking.
Please, explain to me how the actual science is wrong.
I'll wait.
Quote:'Lying' is a strawman. Believers will state what they believe. Are Catholic Priests 'lying' when they state their religious beliefs? What the scientists publish is mostly very modest compared what comes out of press releases. Press releases state a worst case scenario. Scientists who depend on federal funding will emphasize the worst case scenarios because that's what keeps the funding coming. That's not a lie, it's what they believe. Of course the probability that the worse case will happen is very close to zero, but it's not a lie as long as they believe it's not zero.
'Conspiracy' (not from you, but from others) is a strawman too. It doesn't take a conspiracy for people to act the same way to benefit themselves. How many people take out a mortgage because of the tax advantages? Is that a conspiracy?
And make no mistake, scientists are humans too. What happens to you if you have a degree in Climate Science (and you should be suspicious of any field that's name ends in 'science', e.g. Creation Science) if the funding dries up? Who pays your mortgage or pays for your kids braces? "Would you like fries with your burger" is not what you want as a job when you paid $50k or more for your degree.
The 'oil money' claim is also nonsense. Oil companies couldn't care less whether or not governments impose regulations on carbon emissions, they'd just raise their prices to compensate. Shell and BP are big funders of CRU. The climate research group at Stanford lists Exxon as a funder. A lot more oil money is going to the Warmists than to the skeptics. There is no viable alternative to petroleum in vehicles. Gas/diesel has a very high energy density yet is reasonably safe. 'Big Oil' isn't going away, no matter what.
The rich leftist elitists don't care either, because they don't feel the need to obey the laws they impose on others (e.g. Sharpton and the other MSNBC tax cheats, Hillary, Geithner). Imposing carbon regulations will hurt the working poor the worst by far. The elites will just get someone else to pay for their fuel.
I have stated earlier in this thread that I think there is plenty of room for reasonable conversation on the issues and how we can do our part to reverse what we have done (if we have done anything) or what we can do to help the problem (if we have not). This ought not be a partisan issue but both sides have drawn a line in the sand and I believe the extreme reaction from the left has come about due to earlier flat out denials of any change at all from the right. They have since softened to yeah something is happening but no way we could have done it and so nothing should be done and we should maintain the status quo. Both sides are at fault in the matter but the bottom line is reasonable discussion ought be happening and it's not.
I am not a scientist, I am in structural engineering. One of the first things we learn is to not pretend to know other disciplines better than the experts in those fields. Their is nothing wrong with questioning but I take offense when and the majority of an entire community of scientists both in that discipline and out of it are ridiculed and vilified for political gains when a very clear bias is present. I take issue with people that have attempted to educate themselves with clearly politically biased information as their source to claim to know the truth over the experts in the field.
In addition comparing scientists beliefs in science or theories is not even remotely in the same realm as beliefs in religion. Not even close.
Quote:Your very statement implies that doing nothing is not acceptable, so that's hardly a reasonable starting point. Until we know a lot more about this, it's best not to overreact. For all we know the CO2 might be staving off another era of glaciation. Heaven knows based on past events that we're overdue for one. And cold is a lot worse than hot for the biosphere.
I'm all for research into better technologies, even government-funded research, although I think the money would be better spent in the form of prizes. For example, the government could offer $10B to the first US person or company that builds a battery that has the, size, safety, and energy density of gasoline, with an average lifespan of 10 years (and some other requirements). It only costs the taxpayer if successful. A useful battery would make solar and wind viable.
I don't think there were many if any who have claimed no change at all. The climate is always changing. The question has always been how much. I agree the Warmist point of view is very politically biased. If one compares the science part of the IPCC reports with the 'summary for policymakers' section at the beginning, it's clear that the summary is way more alarmist than the science. No surprise that the summary was written by politicians, not scientists. Politicians seek power. That's why they became politicians in the first place.
I have seen first hand how important it is for scientists to get funding. It used to be "publish or perish." Now it's "get grants or get out." Do you really believe it's vilification to claim that scientists act like human beings and look out for themselves? On the other side, are you willing to look into where the 'big oil' money actually goes, or are you just going to accept the claims of the left?
IPPC has been consistently criticized for the conservation nature of their predictions.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/'>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/</a>
Sooooo.....
Quote:Your very statement implies that doing nothing is not acceptable, so that's hardly a reasonable starting point. Until we know a lot more about this, it's best not to overreact. For all we know the CO2 might be staving off another era of glaciation. Heaven knows based on past events that we're overdue for one. And cold is a lot worse than hot for the biosphere.
I'm all for research into better technologies, even government-funded research, although I think the money would be better spent in the form of prizes. For example, the government could offer $10B to the first US person or company that builds a battery that has the, size, safety, and energy density of gasoline, with an average lifespan of 10 years (and some other requirements). It only costs the taxpayer if successful. A useful battery would make solar and wind viable.
I don't think there were many if any who have claimed no change at all. The climate is always changing. The question has always been how much. I agree the Warmist point of view is very politically biased. If one compares the science part of the IPCC reports with the 'summary for policymakers' section at the beginning, it's clear that the summary is way more alarmist than the science. No surprise that the summary was written by politicians, not scientists. Politicians seek power. That's why they became politicians in the first place.
I have seen first hand how important it is for scientists to get funding. It used to be "publish or perish." Now it's "get grants or get out." Do you really believe it's vilification to claim that scientists act like human beings and look out for themselves? On the other side, are you willing to look into where the 'big oil' money actually goes, or are you just going to accept the claims of the left?
When I say it's vilification, I am referring to the claims of conspiracy and agenda pushing. Now sure, it's not unreasonable to think there could be some corruption. What I take issue with is claiming that all of these scientists around the world are conspiring together to basically make something up for political and financial gain. There is funding money to be made whether they agree or disagree with the current proposed theories, although the way current GOP congress is going the funding for climate change research will be all but gone so it makes little sense for science to keep pushing in that direction (but I digress). One proposes something, it is reviewed and retested and on and on with more data aiding to coming to conclusions therefore to assume one is in for financial gain while the other is not does not sit well with me. I do not have a specific side in this. Again I am no scientists and do not claim to even understand most of the data nor how to interpret it. It would be very easy for me to say here I found this chart from a liberal view point so clearly this side is correct. All I want to see is the scientists working and trying to find an answer and solutions.
When I say something should be done I mean in a broad sense. Research in alternative energy, ecological preservation, protection of water supplies and limiting of pollution in general. The left pushes these things as solutions to climate change and the right pushes against them because they don't agree with climate change theory. My argument is both sides are stupid and short sighted in this particular argument. We should be doing those things anyways regardless of climate change. Clean water and air is good. Alternative energy is good. etc... etc....
Quote:Look who is talking.
Please, explain to me how the actual science is wrong.
I'll wait.
We've done this ad nauseum. Anyone who disagrees with you is in Big Oil's pockets, and since that's your constant position it's better just to sit back and laugh at you guys and your spin.
Quote:We've done this ad nauseum. Anyone who disagrees with you is in Big Oil's pockets, and since that's your constant position it's better just to sit back and laugh at you guys and your spin.
"Spin" hilariously hypocritical. True in his case, but still hypocritical in yours.
Quote:When I say something should be done I mean in a broad sense. Research in alternative energy, ecological preservation, protection of water supplies and limiting of pollution in general. The left pushes these things as solutions to climate change and the right pushes against them because they don't agree with climate change theory. My argument is both sides are stupid and short sighted in this particular argument. We should be doing those things anyways regardless of climate change. Clean water and air is good. Alternative energy is good. etc... etc....
It must be weird that even if Global Warming isn't happening, that I want my children to grow up in an environment that is clean in a country that has energy independence. The only real downside is cost, and it's not as if fossil fuels are a truly sustainable source of energy.