You want to talk down to us? Go ahead, just don't expect us to play along. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyTalk down to someone on here? THAT would never happen! No, not HERE!
- Old-T
- 01-29-2013, 10:12 PM
- essence
- 01-31-2013, 09:57 AM
Talk down to you?
You want to talk down to us? Go ahead, just don't expect us to play along.
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Let me summarise your (and I mean you, not normal US citizens) thought patterns.
Most scientists around the world make certain climate predictions, through extensive gathering of data and modelling and research.
Some scientists raise some doubts on those predictions, and their own predictions are outside the range.
The science is complex and there are many competing factors, and the modelling is imperfect.
Because the scientists are from all over the world, including very reputable US scientists, and because their predictions, if accurate, would necessitate some action on a global scale, and because those actions may require significant funding,
IT IS ALL A COMMIE PLOT BASED ON BAD SCIENCE AND THE PURPOSE IS TO CREATE A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
No, I wouldn't dare talk down to you. I would squash your idiocies with my big toe.
- joe bloe
- 01-31-2013, 10:50 AM
[QUOTE=essence;1052287921]Talk down to you?
Let me summarise your (and I mean you, not normal US citizens) thought patterns.
Most scientists around the world make certain climate predictions, through extensive gathering of data and modelling and research.
Some scientists raise some doubts on those predictions, and their own predictions are outside the range.
The science is complex and there are many competing factors, and the modelling is imperfect.
Because the scientists are from all over the world, including very reputable US scientists, and because their predictions, if accurate, would necessitate some action on a global scale, and because those actions may require significant funding,
IT IS ALL A COMMIE PLOT BASED ON BAD SCIENCE AND THE PURPOSE IS TO CREATE A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
No, I wouldn't dare talk down to you. I would squash your idiocies with my big toe.[/QUOTE]
Is that where you keep your brain?
If global warming scientists are legitimate, and not just propagandists, why do they keep falsifying data? Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for his work spreading "knowledge" about global warming, even though his book, movie and lectures have been shown to contain exaggerations, innacuracies and in some cases outright lies.
The environmental movement has been hijacked by the radical left which is using it to try to destroy capitalism and promote socialism.
Real science is the best tool we have to advance human civilization. Scientific quackery is dangerous.
Let me summarise your (and I mean you, not normal US citizens) thought patterns.
Most scientists around the world make certain climate predictions, through extensive gathering of data and modelling and research.
Some scientists raise some doubts on those predictions, and their own predictions are outside the range.
The science is complex and there are many competing factors, and the modelling is imperfect.
Because the scientists are from all over the world, including very reputable US scientists, and because their predictions, if accurate, would necessitate some action on a global scale, and because those actions may require significant funding,
IT IS ALL A COMMIE PLOT BASED ON BAD SCIENCE AND THE PURPOSE IS TO CREATE A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
No, I wouldn't dare talk down to you. I would squash your idiocies with my big toe.[/QUOTE]
Is that where you keep your brain?
If global warming scientists are legitimate, and not just propagandists, why do they keep falsifying data? Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for his work spreading "knowledge" about global warming, even though his book, movie and lectures have been shown to contain exaggerations, innacuracies and in some cases outright lies.
The environmental movement has been hijacked by the radical left which is using it to try to destroy capitalism and promote socialism.
Real science is the best tool we have to advance human civilization. Scientific quackery is dangerous.
- essence
- 01-31-2013, 11:06 AM
[QUOTE=joe bloe;1052288200]
I don't consider AG a scientist.
From wiki
Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,[23] he did not do well in science classes in college, and avoided taking math.[22] His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool, and occasionally smoking dotdotdot
I was at an oil company conference a few years ago on prediction, and the speaker used AG's name as a lazy way to pour scorn, rather than debate the science. It was very shody and lazy, but I was more shocked by the reaction of the 200 or so attendees who generally laughed and supported the speaker.
Nothing like peer pressure or bullying.
AG does more harm than good for his cause, he is used as a way to avoid debate.
AG is irrelevamt outside the US, and is probably pretty irrelevant inside also, apart from his utility as a means to ridicule the science.
Yes, we agree, we want reputable science and more of it, not quackery or ideology.
I don't consider AG a scientist.
From wiki
Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,[23] he did not do well in science classes in college, and avoided taking math.[22] His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool, and occasionally smoking dotdotdot
I was at an oil company conference a few years ago on prediction, and the speaker used AG's name as a lazy way to pour scorn, rather than debate the science. It was very shody and lazy, but I was more shocked by the reaction of the 200 or so attendees who generally laughed and supported the speaker.
Nothing like peer pressure or bullying.
AG does more harm than good for his cause, he is used as a way to avoid debate.
AG is irrelevamt outside the US, and is probably pretty irrelevant inside also, apart from his utility as a means to ridicule the science.
Yes, we agree, we want reputable science and more of it, not quackery or ideology.
- essence
- 01-31-2013, 11:27 AM
Having looked into this a bit more, and assuming wike is broadly accurate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth
it appears that AG, although not a scientist, has the broad approval in his film/book of many scientists. There are some errors, but even those who criticize the errors say that the science is broadly correct.
On the other hand, in a display of open mindedness and scientific curiosity and willingness to argue the science:
Oklahoma Republican Senator Jim Inhofe, then-chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, didn't plan to see the film (which he appears in), and compared it to Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf".
How can an idiot like him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
become a senator, let alone chair an environment committee?
Example of his science?
Inhofe often repeats his claim that human influenced climate change is a hoax and impossible because “God’s still up there.” and that it is “outrageous” and arrogant for people to believe human beings are “able to change what He is doing in the climate.
Almost as stupid as that guy who said that women who are raped 'naturally' have miscarriages, and so don;t need abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth
it appears that AG, although not a scientist, has the broad approval in his film/book of many scientists. There are some errors, but even those who criticize the errors say that the science is broadly correct.
On the other hand, in a display of open mindedness and scientific curiosity and willingness to argue the science:
Oklahoma Republican Senator Jim Inhofe, then-chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, didn't plan to see the film (which he appears in), and compared it to Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf".
How can an idiot like him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
become a senator, let alone chair an environment committee?
Example of his science?
Inhofe often repeats his claim that human influenced climate change is a hoax and impossible because “God’s still up there.” and that it is “outrageous” and arrogant for people to believe human beings are “able to change what He is doing in the climate.
Almost as stupid as that guy who said that women who are raped 'naturally' have miscarriages, and so don;t need abortion.
- chefnerd
- 01-31-2013, 09:30 PM
The Earth's temperature has been fluctuating up and down for centuries, sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly. According to this study the planet was actually hotter some 3000 years ago. The temp. will continue to fluctuate pretty much regardless of what we so. Personally, I think the greater danger is the deforestation which cuts back on the amount of oxygen re-generated into the atmosphere.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
- CuteOldGuy
- 01-31-2013, 10:10 PM
- essence
- 02-01-2013, 09:59 AM
The temp. will continue to fluctuate pretty much regardless of what we so. Originally Posted by chefnerdThat's like saying 'things will never be the same'.
Of course the temp will always fluctuate.
The issue is the trend and sze of those fluctuations.
Are you saying that the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the very well known chemical behaviours of CO2 and the sun's radiation have no effect? If so, what is wrong? The chemistry, or the measurements of atmospheric CO2?
Or are you disputing what contributes to increased atmospheric CO2? Of course there are many contributions, and fossil fuel burning is just one. ConspiracyOfGlobe's farts are another.
Of course there are many competing effects, all reputable climate scientists recognise this.
- joe bloe
- 02-01-2013, 10:13 AM
The Earth's temperature has been fluctuating up and down for centuries, sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly. According to this study the planet was actually hotter some 3000 years ago. The temp. will continue to fluctuate pretty much regardless of what we so. Personally, I think the greater danger is the deforestation which cuts back on the amount of oxygen re-generated into the atmosphere.Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere actually encourges plant growth. Animals and plantlife have a symbiotic relationship; we need each other. Plants make oxygen and need CO2. Animals make CO2 and need oxygen. The Earth has a way of returning things to the proper balance. If CO2 goes up, so does the amount of plantlife.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm Originally Posted by chefnerd
Deforestation is a problem in some regions, but not in America. Because of the way we control forest fires, America has more trees today than it did a hundred years ago.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wil...s-ago-its-true