ADVERTISEMENT

If you don't like the scientific findings, make up new ones

Yeah, the entire federal work force changes our priorities according to which party is in power, lol. Those Navy green energy contracts can only be let every four years! It's all just a plot to thwart the fossil fuel industries, or so their lobbyists would have you believe.

if you worked for the VA you'd know their federal work for changes its priorities according to the party in power. If you understood command, you'd know the president identifies his/her mission statement and concept of operations and directs the secretary of defense to execute this. So it is political whether you want to accept it or not or change the nature of any political involvement to mean something you want it to mean.

If you worked for the Army Corps of Engineers you'd know how federal work force changes our priorities according to which party is in power. It filters down from the vision the president sets forth in official documents.

if you were a medical brigade or battalion commander in the military you'd know how party politics impacts the DOD, contracts to civilian entities in support of the DOD, or which communities in the US get medical missions in regions influenced by the state's senators in that region who come to the area served to speak to that commander. But you are not so you make false statements based on your idea of the facts. When you talk with a senator and an Air Force Colonel from the pentagon asking you want recommendations you have about policy and how it impacted your mission planning and execution, you should know it involves politics.

Because you don't have this experience listed above you make like you know what you are talking about. It is clear you don't. LOL

you know you lie in many of your posts when you change the context of what was said. you do this often and place yourself in the same room as Opie.
 
Last edited:
Because so many posters in this thread think all federal agencies act on political ideology (if you would read my entire post, I think it would be obvious how it ties in).

why does the president have secretaries over certain agencies? Do you think these agencies are immune from ideological influence during their meetings with the president? Why does the president select supreme court nominees who are more likely to have the same ideology as he/she does?
 
If a Republican wins POTUS in 2016, will the DoD change to operate in a manner that no longer assumes global warming is happening? I doubt it. Then again, since some GOP POTUS candidates now acknowledge global warming the question becomes pointless if one of them wins.
 
If a Republican wins POTUS in 2016, will the DoD change to operate in a manner that no longer assumes global warming is happening? I doubt it. Then again, since some GOP POTUS candidates now acknowledge global warming the question becomes pointless if one of them wins.


is it currently operating in a manner it assumes global warming is happening? if the answer is yes, are they operating from political ideology or influence of an ideology?
 
Last edited:
is it currently operating in a manner it assumes global warming is happening? if the answer is yes, are they operating from political ideology or influence of an ideology?

Can you keep up at all? It hasn't warmed in 18 years unless you use NOAA's doctored numbers. :)
 
I haven't been paying real close attention but I know Lindsey Graham and I think Jeb too are saying we need to acknowledge and address global warming. And this is in the GOP primary season when candidates run farther out on their wings.
Will you be less likely to vote for these guys because of that?
 
is it currently operating in a manner it assumes global warming is happening? if the answer is yes, are they operating from political ideology or influence of an ideology?

The answer is yes and it's based on this thing called science, not political ideology. I think there should be a minimum IQ score to post here.
 
I haven't been paying real close attention but I know Lindsey Graham and I think Jeb too are saying we need to acknowledge and address global warming. And this is in the GOP primary season when candidates run farther out on their wings.
Will you be less likely to vote for these guys because of that?

Because of those reasons? No. I have plenty of others without these particular reasons.
 
The answer is yes and it's based on this thing called science, not political ideology. I think there should be a minimum IQ score to post here.

See, here's the rub. Science thinks they understand everything, until they don't... then they start all over. A lot of us are just working our way to the point where you realize, oh wait, no we don't understand everything.

Come see us when you explain the 18 year hiatus of warming without faking numbers.
 
See, here's the rub. Science thinks they understand everything, until they don't... then they start all over. A lot of us are just working our way to the point where you realize, oh wait, no we don't understand everything.

Come see us when you explain the 18 year hiatus of warming without faking numbers.

Science isn't perfect and sometimes wrong paths are gone down and it takes awhile to correct but the thing is, some people are fine with the results of science until one comes along that they don't like for political or social reasons or whatever and suddenly we get the "Science is wrong this time" card played.

Even if the 18 year hiatus were real, first of all it's cherry picking to pick that year to start and secondly it wouldn't necessarily mean it's not generally getting warmer, since there is random variation overall and above the baseline of however warm it is. For example, if a young, improving baseball player goes 5-for-5 one game early in the season and doesn't repeat the feat later in the season it doesn't mean he's not getting better.

How many institutions are going to proceed on the assumption that global warming is happening before you get on board? Consider the possibility that the opponents might just be doing this for political rather than scientific reasons. Yes, some people promoting global warming are doing it for political reasons too, that's why it's good to focus on the people who don't have a political pawn in the game.
 
The answer is yes and it's based on this thing called science, not political ideology. I think there should be a minimum IQ score to post here.

if science is applied in one administration and not in another what is the probability politics is related? political ideology influences the use of science. This applies to abortion, birth control, capital punishment, WIC, and on and on its influence goes.
 
Science isn't perfect and sometimes wrong paths are gone down and it takes awhile to correct but the thing is, some people are fine with the results of science until one comes along that they don't like for political or social reasons or whatever and suddenly we get the "Science is wrong this time" card played.

Even if the 18 year hiatus were real, first of all it's cherry picking to pick that year to start and secondly it wouldn't necessarily mean it's not generally getting warmer, since there is random variation overall and above the baseline of however warm it is. For example, if a young, improving baseball player goes 5-for-5 one game early in the season and doesn't repeat the feat later in the season it doesn't mean he's not getting better.

How many institutions are going to proceed on the assumption that global warming is happening before you get on board? Consider the possibility that the opponents might just be doing this for political rather than scientific reasons. Yes, some people promoting global warming are doing it for political reasons too, that's why it's good to focus on the people who don't have a political pawn in the game.

You're talking absurdities again. There's no cherry picking. For 18 years, it has not warmed. Not 19, not 20. But for 18 years in a row, it has not warmed.

Secondly, it is outside the statistical bounds for the warming models for there to have been an 18 year hiatus. The models can't be wrong, so let's fudge the numbers.

Why would I get on board if it's not happening in line with computer projected models? Are you on board with the latest fad diet of eating a gallon of ice cream a day? Come on, everyone is doing it.
 
You're talking absurdities again. There's no cherry picking. For 18 years, it has not warmed. Not 19, not 20. But for 18 years in a row, it has not warmed.

Secondly, it is outside the statistical bounds for the warming models for there to have been an 18 year hiatus. The models can't be wrong, so let's fudge the numbers.

Why would I get on board if it's not happening in line with computer projected models? Are you on board with the latest fad diet of eating a gallon of ice cream a day? Come on, everyone is doing it.

First of all I don't know that there's been no warming for 18 years or not but the larger point is that even assuming the data is accurate that the people that say "There's been no warming for 18 years" use, it would also be true to say "There have been warming for 17 years" and "There has been warming for 19 years." That's why picking 18 years is cherry picking.
 
First of all I don't know that there's been no warming for 18 years or not but the larger point is that even assuming the data is accurate that the people that say "There's been no warming for 18 years" use, it would also be true to say "There have been warming for 17 years" and "There has been warming for 19 years." That's why picking 18 years is cherry picking.

Your definition of cherry picking is very odd.
 
Your definition of cherry picking is very odd.

It is? If there are a bunch of years you can choose that will refute your point and one year you can choose that will support your point and you choose the one year that will support your point, isn't that pretty much the definition of cherry picking?
 
The answer is yes and it's based on this thing called science, not political ideology. I think there should be a minimum IQ score to post here.

I'm a scientist... I'd love to see the "science" everyone keeps claiming supports global warming, err climate change, err global cooling? Everyone talks about it in talking points, but I've yet to see anything not based on computer model calculations generated off of <100 years worth of data, which has been proven to be doctored/falsified/incorrect. Even if the data from this is correct and 100% accurate, I have seen nothing that proves humans have anything to do with the change. I can tell you we've had the 2 worst winters the last two years in NC since I moved here 15 years ago. Assuming humans are the cause of "climate change" and we decide to make new regulations to further cut air pollution, any changes we make won't make any difference other than cost lots of money! The US already has much more strict controls in place compared to other countries (china, india, etc.) who pollute a lot more than us. If we reduce our pollution output even by 50% from the current level (not sure that's even possible), it will make zero difference overall as china, india, etc. continue to pollute at ridiculous levels.

Everyone freaks out about there being less ice in Antarctica, but there is now more ice in the arctic than there has been in 20+ years. I think everyone in government is giving humans way too much credit in this. Before we were around or had any industry, the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling including ice ages, etc. Now we think we can actually have some kind of influence over these cycles? I don't get it.
 
I'm a scientist... I can tell you we've had the 2 worst winters the last two years in NC since I moved here 15 years ago. Everyone freaks out about there being less ice in Antarctica, but there is now more ice in the arctic than there has been in 20+ years.

You're probably the worst scientist on the face of the earth. When you talk about 2 winters in NC and global warming in the same paragraph....scratching my head. You should read more about the polar ice caps because you are definitely misled. I really don't think you are a scientist. Correction, I know you're not a scientist.
 
if you worked for the VA you'd know their federal work for changes its priorities according to the party in power. If you understood command, you'd know the president identifies his/her mission statement and concept of operations and directs the secretary of defense to execute this. So it is political whether you want to accept it or not or change the nature of any political involvement to mean something you want it to mean.

If you worked for the Army Corps of Engineers you'd know how federal work force changes our priorities according to which party is in power. It filters down from the vision the president sets forth in official documents.

if you were a medical brigade or battalion commander in the military you'd know how party politics impacts the DOD, contracts to civilian entities in support of the DOD, or which communities in the US get medical missions in regions influenced by the state's senators in that region who come to the area served to speak to that commander. But you are not so you make false statements based on your idea of the facts. When you talk with a senator and an Air Force Colonel from the pentagon asking you want recommendations you have about policy and how it impacted your mission planning and execution, you should know it involves politics.

Because you don't have this experience listed above you make like you know what you are talking about. It is clear you don't. LOL

you know you lie in many of your posts when you change the context of what was said. you do this often and place yourself in the same room as Opie.
Lol, who the **** writes this long a post to tell me that politicians run the Department of Defense? I'd only be worried if the little mean girls club that watches each others backs on here agreed with anything I said. Such sanctimonious anger! I work for DCMA so thanks for explaining how defense contracts work! And I used to work for the Army Corp of Engineers so thanks for clearing up how each new president prioritizes the projects! Politicians control the purse but they don't tell the Navy what to worry about and they are big time worried about Global warming and advancing green power initiatives. Some of the contracts were let under W too, guess he missed them!
 
You're probably the worst scientist on the face of the earth. When you talk about 2 winters in NC and global warming in the same paragraph....scratching my head. You should read more about the polar ice caps because you are definitely misled. I really don't think you are a scientist. Correction, I know you're not a scientist.

I am a scientist... just in the pharmaceutical industry. I have a biology degree from WVU. I just threw out my real life experiences of colder than normal temperatures to try and make a point because the media makes it sound like everyone is going to drown and burst into flames at any moment. I'd love to see some solid science showing humans as the cause of rising temperatures... just remember, correlation and causation are two different things. The only real data I've seen is all based on ocean temperatures and the minute rise in the average temperature of the water over time. Of course, this could have many causes, and is most likely a convergence of many different things leading to the rise in temperature of the water in places (it's also cooled in other places).

I'd love to read this data, so please send it to me if you have it...
 
I am a scientist... just in the pharmaceutical industry. I have a biology degree from WVU. I just threw out my real life experiences of colder than normal temperatures to try and make a point because the media makes it sound like everyone is going to drown and burst into flames at any moment. I'd love to see some solid science showing humans as the cause of rising temperatures... just remember, correlation and causation are two different things. The only real data I've seen is all based on ocean temperatures and the minute rise in the average temperature of the water over time. Of course, this could have many causes, and is most likely a convergence of many different things leading to the rise in temperature of the water in places (it's also cooled in other places).

I'd love to read this data, so please send it to me if you have it...

I'm sure there's plenty of data online. It's not like it's a couple guys making this whole thing up.

The phenomenon that could cause the earths atmosphere to warm via an increase in carbon was discovered in 1860 by John Tyndall. And as world usage of fossil fuel has exploded there has been a corresponding increase of carbon in the atmosphere.

Here's a webpage if you want to read. This isn't tree huggers or someone with a political agenda, rather it's NASA. In general as you surf the web notice how more and more groups without a political agenda are signing on. It's not 1995 anymore and any real doubt about the larger phenomenon is gone. Lots of details to figure out though.

http://climate.nasa.gov/
 
You're probably the worst scientist on the face of the earth. When you talk about 2 winters in NC and global warming in the same paragraph....scratching my head. You should read more about the polar ice caps because you are definitely misled. I really don't think you are a scientist. Correction, I know you're not a scientist.

Did Humans cause the worldwide drought that virtually wiped out the Mayan civilization 1,200 years ago. Did Humans cause the rapid acceleration in global warming 10,000 years ago that melted the ice that covered New York? Did Humans behavior turn the Sahara into the barren wasteland it is now from the green lush land it once was? Yes, climate change is real and will always be part of the Earths story. Are you a scientist? If you and your friends are serious about reversing the current global warming trend, I suggest you take the hard steps that are needed. Like banning all planes, trains and cars that run on fossil fuels. Also while you are fixing that, plug up all volcanic activity we have on land and beneath the seas. Good luck......
 
I'm sure there's plenty of data online. It's not like it's a couple guys making this whole thing up.

The phenomenon that could cause the earths atmosphere to warm via an increase in carbon was discovered in 1860 by John Tyndall. And as world usage of fossil fuel has exploded there has been a corresponding increase of carbon in the atmosphere.

Here's a webpage if you want to read. This isn't tree huggers or someone with a political agenda, rather it's NASA. In general as you surf the web notice how more and more groups without a political agenda are signing on. It's not 1995 anymore and any real doubt about the larger phenomenon is gone. Lots of details to figure out though.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

I'll check out the website, but it was NASA scientists who admitted to falsifying the data... so....

My real stance is that even if we know we are causing it, and we don't have full cooperation of all countries to cut their output by 500% or whatever they need to do, then we shouldn't make any additional rules and requirements that will not make a dent in the overall amount generated. All that will do is make energy cost more for us in the USA and cost additional jobs due to the increased regulations and energy costs. It's all about risk analysis and determining a balance because it doesn't matter what we do if other countries continue to pollute like it's 1880. Of course, the government doesn't work that way... if the government was a business, it would last about 3 months before closing it's doors due to inefficiency.
 
Did Humans cause the worldwide drought that virtually wiped out the Mayan civilization 1,200 years ago. Did Humans cause the rapid acceleration in global warming 10,000 years ago that melted the ice that covered New York? Did Humans behavior turn the Sahara into the barren wasteland it is now from the green lush land it once was? Yes, climate change is real and will always be part of the Earths story. Are you a scientist? If you and your friends are serious about reversing the current global warming trend, I suggest you take the hard steps that are needed. Like banning all planes, trains and cars that run on fossil fuels. Also while you are fixing that, plug up all volcanic activity we have on land and beneath the seas. Good luck......

Don't forget cows... no more cows can live because they pollute more than humans with their farts... true story. :flush:
 
Did Humans cause the worldwide drought that virtually wiped out the Mayan civilization 1,200 years ago. Did Humans cause the rapid acceleration in global warming 10,000 years ago that melted the ice that covered New York? Did Humans behavior turn the Sahara into the barren wasteland it is now from the green lush land it once was? Yes, climate change is real and will always be part of the Earths story. Are you a scientist? If you and your friends are serious about reversing the current global warming trend, I suggest you take the hard steps that are needed. Like banning all planes, trains and cars that run on fossil fuels. Also while you are fixing that, plug up all volcanic activity we have on land and beneath the seas. Good luck......
I'll check out the website, but it was NASA scientists who admitted to falsifying the data... so....

My real stance is that even if we know we are causing it, and we don't have full cooperation of all countries to cut their output by 500% or whatever they need to do, then we shouldn't make any additional rules and requirements that will not make a dent in the overall amount generated. All that will do is make energy cost more for us in the USA and cost additional jobs due to the increased regulations and energy costs. It's all about risk analysis and determining a balance because it doesn't matter what we do if other countries continue to pollute like it's 1880. Of course, the government doesn't work that way... if the government was a business, it would last about 3 months before closing it's doors due to inefficiency.

You're "It was NASA scientists falsifying data" bit doesn't fill me with confidence. It sounds like you're one of those folks that are going to believe any and every kind of conspiracy about how it's all being imposed on us, yadda, yadda.

You're right that poor countries aren't going give up cheap, dirty energy because they can't afford to. They'll say, with reason, you guys got rich off it so why can't we? The way things work is that the wealthy countries come up with the innovations and the poor countries adopt them and become less poor in the process and thus they can do some innovating themselves.

But the larger point is that the USA is the leader of the world. You can't be leader and then say "Screw you guys, we'll do what we want." That is especially true if the issue is pollution and climate change because pretending a problem isn't happening won't keep the air from other places coming into our airspace and won't keep the ocean levels from rising on our shore. Water covers the earth. When the levels rise, they rise everywhere.

ETA: Oops, I don't know how I managed to quote two people in one reply, that was an accident.
 
When the levels rise, they rise everywhere.

Did Humans cause the sea level to rise approximately 20 m over a 500-year period about 14,200 years ago? This is a rate of about 40 mm/yr. Oh, by the way, we know that science has provided us with these numbers.
 
Did Humans cause the sea level to rise approximately 20 m over a 500-year period about 14,200 years ago? This is a rate of about 40 mm/yr. Oh, by the way, we know that science has provided us with these numbers.

I don't know about 14,200 years ago but I know that there are different sources of variation. So if there was variation in the past before humans could cause anything than of course humans didn't cause it, whatever the real cause may have been.

So there is natural variation due to whatever reason but the idea behind climate change is that humans are doing something over and above the natural variations. If more carbon causes things to heat up and if humans are putting more carbon in the air then maybe that will cause things to heat up. Someone might reply about carbon levels changing in the past or something but again, the point is that the carbon going into the atmosphere now is going there over and above what is already there.

ETA: THE doesn't believe your story about 14,200 years ago because there are no eyewitness reports of it.
 
I don't know about 14,200 years ago but I know that there are different sources of variation. So if there was variation in the past before humans could cause anything than of course humans didn't cause it, whatever the real cause may have been.

So there is natural variation due to whatever reason but the idea behind climate change is that humans are doing something over and above the natural variations. If more carbon causes things to heat up and if humans are putting more carbon in the air then maybe that will cause things to heat up. Someone might reply about carbon levels changing in the past or something but again, the point is that the carbon going into the atmosphere now is going there over and above what is already there.

ETA: THE doesn't believe your story about 14,200 years ago because there are no eyewitness reports of it.

That's the whole point... noone has proven that humans are causing any of this... there is a correlation, but no causation has been proven. Just because two things show an apparent correlation, doesn't mean that one causes the other... Acting further before causation can be proven and countries like China and India agree to cut emissions to our current level, would be foolish and counterproductive.

Check out this article...
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/
 
That's the whole point... noone has proven that humans are causing any of this... there is a correlation, but no causation has been proven. Just because two things show an apparent correlation, doesn't mean that one causes the other... Acting further before causation can be proven and countries like China and India agree to cut emissions to our current level, would be foolish and counterproductive.

Check out this article...
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/

Breitbart? Really? Skip the political websites, on the left or the right. Why would anyone go to an overtly political website for science? If you're really a scientist then you should do some reading on science sites.

You said you're a biologist. What if I pointed you to a site that insisted evolution wasn't true? Would you believe it?

ETA: How about this. Before you surf anywhere, think of some organizations, be they in the media or a professional organization like whatever umbrella professional organization there is for biologists, or whoever else you can think of. Think of groups that you think have credibility and that if you came across a scientific issue that you knew nothing about and if you wanted to go to a good source to learn about the issue, you'd go to these groups. Make sure these are non-partisan, non-political groups.

Okay, make up your list and then when you're done go to the website of each and see what they say about global warming.
 
Last edited:
The DoD is a political organization? WTF? I had no idea! Which positions get elected? Lol. Do you know what all falls under the Department of Defense?
Lol, who the **** writes this long a post to tell me that politicians run the Department of Defense? I'd only be worried if the little mean girls club that watches each others backs on here agreed with anything I said. Such sanctimonious anger! I work for DCMA so thanks for explaining how defense contracts work! And I used to work for the Army Corp of Engineers so thanks for clearing up how each new president prioritizes the projects! Politicians control the purse but they don't tell the Navy what to worry about and they are big time worried about Global warming and advancing green power initiatives. Some of the contracts were let under W too, guess he missed them!

So you admit it is a political organization. When you "lol'd" the idea, were you laughing at yourself?

Do you really think that Biglick or I was talking about the generic joe's who do what they are told when it was correctly stated that the DOD is a political organization?
 
Breitbart? Really? Skip the political websites, on the left or the right. Why would anyone go to an overtly political website for science? If you're really a scientist then you should do some reading on science sites.

You said you're a biologist. What if I pointed you to a site that insisted evolution wasn't true? Would you believe it?

When you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.
 
When you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.

If someone tried to prove to you that global warming was real by linking to an article on Daily Kos, how would you react?
 
If someone tried to prove to you that global warming was real by linking to an article on Daily Kos, how would you react?
I would read the article then research the claims being made to see if there is any validity to them. In this case, the manipulating of data, did in fact occur. There are numerous climatologists that have been coming out and expressing concern over this in recent weeks. Many have been linked here on this site and each time you guys that worship Al Gore discount them for whatever reason.

You all also continue to miss the point being raised by confusing and misquoting the opposition's narrative. None of us really dispute Global Climate change. What I have seen repeatedly is questions as to man's impact to cause, our ability to impact change for improvements, and what impacts the US could make to offset China and India. You all confuse that argument with people being science deniers and then conflate it into saying the argument being presented is in opposition to Global Warming.

Have the models previously used to predict the impacts failed? Yes. Repeatedly.
Has data been massaged? Yes. Both in previous years, and in recent years.
Has a position been made to prove man's impact? Nothing concrete, its speculative.
Has an achievable solution been proposed? No.
 
I would read the article then research the claims being made to see if there is any validity to them. In this case, the manipulating of data, did in fact occur. There are numerous climatologists that have been coming out and expressing concern over this in recent weeks. Many have been linked here on this site and each time you guys that worship Al Gore discount them for whatever reason.

You all also continue to miss the point being raised by confusing and misquoting the opposition's narrative. None of us really dispute Global Climate change. What I have seen repeatedly is questions as to man's impact to cause, our ability to impact change for improvements, and what impacts the US could make to offset China and India. You all confuse that argument with people being science deniers and then conflate it into saying the argument being presented is in opposition to Global Warming.

Have the models previously used to predict the impacts failed? Yes. Repeatedly.
Has data been massaged? Yes. Both in previous years, and in recent years.
Has a position been made to prove man's impact? Nothing concrete, its speculative.
Has an achievable solution been proposed? No.

Why would you read the article from the Daily Kos? Considering that on this issue and others, political websites on the left will always come to one conclusion while political websites on the right will always come to the opposite conclusion, why would you waste ANY time reading articles on these subjects on these websites, especially when there are many other websites that are non-partisan and whose aim is to enlighten on the subject matter rather to persuade to a particular political position?
 
Why would you read the article from the Daily Kos? Considering that on this issue and others, political websites on the left will always come to one conclusion while political websites on the right will always come to the opposite conclusion, why would you waste ANY time reading articles on these subjects on these websites, especially when there are many other websites that are non-partisan and whose aim is to enlighten on the subject matter rather to persuade to a particular political position?
I like to read and understand opposing view points to further educate myself on an issue. They usually point to a specific data set and from there I can research further and form my own conclusions. Additionally, opposition websites are where a lot of actual news is broken. They have a vested interest in shitting on the other guy. I don't toe a specific line, I like to think for myself. I have no issue calling out or acknowledging a member of the GOP for doing/saying dumb shit.

On this specific issue of Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever its being called today, we are in the infancy stages of research and all of the alarmists jumped in like it was a bitch in heat. There are so many unknowns and faulty conclusions being drawn that are accepted as gospel that it's frightening. Any one that is going after Global Climate Change with the zealous approach I am seeing on here only tells me they aren't doing independent research, they formed their opinion when they watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and became convinced. They are being told what to believe. If they were researching, they would have more questions and less answers.

Let me ask you a question, why do you think the narrative changed from Global Warming to Climate Change? Are the man made C02 increases (the leading theory of Gore) still considered the main culprit?
 
If someone tried to prove to you that global warming was real by linking to an article on Daily Kos, how would you react?
Why does it matter where the link is? Do you understand the difference between news and opinion columns? You are discounting the facts in the article because of the link. How are facts there different from any other fact except that you dont like those facts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mtneerinraleigh
I would read the article then research the claims being made to see if there is any validity to them. In this case, the manipulating of data, did in fact occur. There are numerous climatologists that have been coming out and expressing concern over this in recent weeks. Many have been linked here on this site and each time you guys that worship Al Gore discount them for whatever reason.

You all also continue to miss the point being raised by confusing and misquoting the opposition's narrative. None of us really dispute Global Climate change. What I have seen repeatedly is questions as to man's impact to cause, our ability to impact change for improvements, and what impacts the US could make to offset China and India. You all confuse that argument with people being science deniers and then conflate it into saying the argument being presented is in opposition to Global Warming.

Have the models previously used to predict the impacts failed? Yes. Repeatedly.
Has data been massaged? Yes. Both in previous years, and in recent years.
Has a position been made to prove man's impact? Nothing concrete, its speculative.
Has an achievable solution been proposed? No.
I disagree. I dont think they misconstrue the argument. I think they call anyone who doesnt fall in line as deniers because they simply cant accept disagreement.
 
I disagree. I dont think they misconstrue the argument. I think they call anyone who doesnt fall in line as deniers because they simply cant accept disagreement.
I've seen the same thing come from the other side. I checked out the article, brief though it was. It was all on one side. Maybe they tried to get some comments from NASA or NOAA, but that isn't stated in the article. Do I think it's impossible to believe that some data was cooked? Nope. Do I think that article provided much in the way of substance to support its claim? Nope. The link they use to provide data is from someone who is making a career out of saying that climate change is bunk. He presents data about a U.S. heat wave in the 1930's that he claims (without evidence) was similar in the rest of the world. The article lacks substance, but it makes some pretty strong assertions.
 
I like to read and understand opposing view points to further educate myself on an issue. They usually point to a specific data set and from there I can research further and form my own conclusions. Additionally, opposition websites are where a lot of actual news is broken. They have a vested interest in shitting on the other guy. I don't toe a specific line, I like to think for myself. I have no issue calling out or acknowledging a member of the GOP for doing/saying dumb shit.

On this specific issue of Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever its being called today, we are in the infancy stages of research and all of the alarmists jumped in like it was a bitch in heat. There are so many unknowns and faulty conclusions being drawn that are accepted as gospel that it's frightening. Any one that is going after Global Climate Change with the zealous approach I am seeing on here only tells me they aren't doing independent research, they formed their opinion when they watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and became convinced. They are being told what to believe. If they were researching, they would have more questions and less answers.

Let me ask you a question, why do you think the narrative changed from Global Warming to Climate Change? Are the man made C02 increases (the leading theory of Gore) still considered the main culprit?

Sites like Breitbart don't give opposing viewpoints, they give propaganda. The fact that you think "the narrative is changing" says you're all into politics about this. "The narrative is changing" is politics talk. Also, "An Inconvenient Truth" isn't science, nor is Al Gore a scientist. Forget Al Gore.
 
Sites like Breitbart don't give opposing viewpoints, they give propaganda. The fact that you think "the narrative is changing" says you're all into politics about this. "The narrative is changing" is politics talk. Also, "An Inconvenient Truth" isn't science, nor is Al Gore a scientist. Forget Al Gore.

Let me provide you with inconvenient truths. We are emerging from the mini ice age. The earth hasn't warmed in 18 years. ALL The models predicted additional, significant warming. They are ALL wrong. Much real scientific work left to do. Those who disagree are DENIERS.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT