whey aren't climate change pushers open to the fact they could be wrong?
| whey aren't climate change pushers open to the fact they could be wrong?19-08-2014 13:58 | |
| just sayin☆☆☆☆☆ (23) |
isn't it unscientific to believe a theory to be truth? Isn't unscientific to call skeptic..deniers? i am open to the fact that almost anything is possible on this topic. i don't lower myself to name calling or personal attacks...my research has shown me with my best discernment that there is no evidence of human caused global warming...and the real data doesn't suggest the average temperature hasn't "changed" in any drastic way throughout the last century and into this century...wouldn't there have to be some sort of drastic change in temperature or natural disasters to claim that "climate change" whether human caused or not is actually happening? just some food for thought..and like always i'm open to debate and i won't resort to personal or political attacks
Edited on 19-08-2014 14:06 |
| 27-11-2014 15:39 | |
Abraham3 ★★☆☆☆(256) |
just sayin wrote: It would be ignorant. just sayin wrote: It is neither scientific nor unscientific and AGW deniers are not skeptics. Rejecting mainstream science while accepting the multitude of unsupported and unsupportable nitpicks that deniers throw up is the antithesis of skepticism. This group is called deniers on behavioral grounds. It is what they have in common. just sayin wrote: What does that mean? That anything is possible in climate science or that anything is possible in the debate? just sayin wrote: Some would say you already have by your use of the term denier. One of the more recent creations of the fossil fuel industry misinformation campaign is to accuse anyone using the term of dissing the memory of the six million Jews who died in the Holocaust. I'll let you sort that one out. just sayin wrote: I'm sorry but that statement is simply nonsense. There are mountains of evidence. Try www.ipcc.ch just sayin wrote: What "real data" would that be? Because the data from NCDC, GISS, Hadley, CRU, NOAA, NWS, JAWA and every other climatological organization on the planet shows that it has. just sayin wrote: There has been an increase in the Earth's temperature. A great deal of evidence says that the primary cause of this warming is the greenhouse effect acting on human CO2 emissions and deforestation. Can you explain why you disagree? |
| 13-12-2014 21:00 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
I'd still like to hear why you disagree. If anyone else would like to take up the argument I'd be glad to read what you've got to say. |
| 17-12-2014 00:04 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
well for some reason I can't login with my old screename justsayin. Here is the thing I don't really care to debate this anymore because the hate mongering around this issue is so thick and it has nothing to do with the science..it's about world politics and ideolgeis. how this got all wrapped up in a scientific issue is a complicated thing but i don't have the energy to discuss that now...I know you have great faith in the Ipcc...I can see that. you trust them.. i don not. they never make public thier process or record thier meetings...never.just put them on c-span..i will watch if nobody else... . I also have done the research and the logarithms pertaining to the greenhouse effect myself. i have also made calculations on average temperature increase throughout recorded temperature history myself.. i know you are no dummy..you know that this data in monopolized by Nasa and Noaa...but even with their data temperature hasn't increased more then .8 centigrade in the last 130 years..even the Ipcc panel agrees to that. ..without discussing the problems with the miniscule amount of co2 in our atmosphere and the greenhouse efffect and how they can't possibly know the effect of it...i will simply tell you that .8 centigrade in 130 years increase of average global temperature is nothing to be alarmed about,,it is hysteria..and as far as their being more natural disasters or more intense ones...well the evidence falls completely flat on that...if you love the ipcc and think they are ethical..fine..that is your opinion and I respect that..please respect my opinion which has nothing to do with politics.. special interests or whether I care about the environment..of course I care. i am a surfer and a avid fisherman.....im not a person that watches fox news with my johnson out..so you can forget about that....if you feel the need to take me to task with your self proclaimed surperior opinion..don't bother..i am done with discussing environmental issues...i will only research them.. and about the melting glaciers...i'll just ask you honestly do your own research indepedent of bias news sources,,by that i mean all news sources....it's not easy..but you can find the truth....respectfully yours.....denier |
| 17-12-2014 15:53 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
If you don't care to debate the issue, why the hell are you posting here about it??? Monologues are so boring... |
| 17-12-2014 15:59 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
i know you are no dummy..you know that this data in monopolized by Nasa and Noaa... That is certainly not true. Anyone can access the data. For instance, I can contact the state of Kentucky under a freedom of information request and obtain state measurements from every station in the state for whatever time period (including the entire database), and they will provide it. You can do this for every station on the planet that has an open data policy (which is most of them). The problem with people like you is that you expect all the work to be done for you. You expect the organizations you refer to do compile all that data and then just give it to you. Sorry Charlie, some may be willing to do it, but damn, why don't you just do it yourself? Then you can't complain that it is somehow bastardize because you will then have data all from the original sources. |
| 17-12-2014 16:06 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
I'll be getting back to you as soon as I can. I have some meetings going on at the moment. |
| 17-12-2014 16:42 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
with all do respect..orginicmen I was kindly replying to abraham because he asked me things on multiple posts. Unlike you and other people on both sides of this issue he has been repsectful thus far I mean at least compared to most others..so i gave him a response..please don't include me in any more of your posts
Edited on 17-12-2014 16:46 |
| 17-12-2014 17:36 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
with everything aside i do agree on your insertion of the effect of deforestation...i know this a climate change forum(well actually deforestation could be under localized climate change) at any rat i would be open to discussing or debating that here or elsewhere...as with that issue i probably stand a chance of not being constantly insulted or wishing death among my family etc...im at least willing to give it a try |
| 18-12-2014 00:09 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
mywifesatan wrote: That is certainly the case at many discussion forums, but, so far, it has not been the case here. mywifesatan wrote: I'd suggest it has two causes: One: Al Gore is despised by the more devout members of the RNC for his defeat of George W Bush in the popular election and Mr Gore was, initially, strongly identified with the issue. Two: the issue threatens the fossil fuel industry which has long been a strong financial supporter of the RNC who, in turn, likes to support established American industries. None of these points have any bearing whatsoever on the scientific validity of AGW. mywifesatan wrote: The IPCC has been more than sufficiently transparent. A certain amount of privacy and discretion is necessary to obtain the unrestrained opinions of scientists working with the program. The IPCC's assessment reports are accurate syntheses of the state of climate research at the time of their publication. Historically, due to government influence, they have actually been more conservative than mainstream science as to what is happening, what it at risk and what needs doing. That has gotten better as governments have gotten better educated on these issues, but the charge that mainstream science or the IPCC are fearmongering is simply not supportable. mywifesatan wrote: Can you give expand a bit on what research you've actually done; what reference sources you've accessed? To what conclusions has your research led you? And could you please explain your use of the term "logarithm" here? mywifesatan wrote: Have your calculations led you to some conclusion different than that of the various climatological organizations who've been producing and studying the very same data? And have you actually had difficulty accessing NASA or NOAA or GISS or HADLEY or JAS or BEST or UAH or anyone else's data because I believe every bit of it to be freely available to the public. mywifesatan wrote: The amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere might seem trivial but it is easily demonstrable that it has the warming affect to which mainstream science has attributed it for more than a century. That it's proportion has increased 43% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution IS significant as is a 0.9C increase since 1910 and a 0.6C increase between 1979 and 1998. The general reaction has been lacking, not hysterical. mywifesatan wrote: You might want to speak to the Filippinos about that first. mywifesatan wrote: I do not "love" the IPCC. I have a great deal of respect for the quality, objectivity and thoroughness of their work. mywifesatan wrote: Yes, I think they are, in general, ethical. Their work involves a significant number of people. I cannot speak for every one of them. But I think they are more ethical and significantly smarter than the average population mywifesatan wrote: I respect your right (everyone's right) to your own opinion. As Senator Moynihan said, though, please respect the fact that none of us have a right to our own facts. mywifesatan wrote: That's fine. mywifesatan wrote: I don't recall have ever claimed that my opinion was superior. I claimed that it was extremely likely that a consensus opinion of a very large majority of the experts in a field is correct. I align myself with such opinions. If you wish to set yourself up in opposition to the opinions of mainstream science, you should be expecting to see a strong response to precisely that point. mywifesatan wrote: Then what is the purpose of this post? mywifesatan wrote: I get very little AGW information from news sources. So, once again, can you identify the source(s) which tell you that the world's glacial mass has increased during the period of anthropogenic global warming? Can you identify the sources that tell you the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is trivial and will not cause warming? Can you identify the source(s) that tell you we needn't be concerned with the warming we've undergone in the last 150 years or that it falls within the range of natural variation or that there are natural causes for that warming? You have made all these claims and I have asked you to explain why you hold such opinions. You've yet to do so. I'll be here, standing by. Edited on 18-12-2014 00:11 |
| 18-12-2014 00:35 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
thank you for being civil but i honestly don't have the energy to discuss this any further..i certainly don't have the energy to explain to you how and why the ipcc is unethical and not practicing science with any kind of integrity. now of course either are some of the monkeys on the other side...you seem like a reasonable person. I would only ask you to do a little research on the ipcc itself..not the science they throw out in their reports and projections..leave the climate debate out of it for a moment and just research how this organization came about..how it operates..and how it forms consensuses..who is on the panels..who writes the reports..how they pick people to invite to these tours and what the ipcc dropouts and vets say about their expeirence I am too curious to let this go... I f you can prove to me that the amount of c02 currently in our atmosphere was able to be proven to demonstrate a warming effect attributed to the greenhouse effect in a controlled study using that exact co2 ratio i will not disagree with you. If it is a valid study that has nothing to do with conjecture or consensus science but just the greenhouse effect in controlled conditions....a study from the scriips institute or MIT would be great...I haven't found any. there are variables and negative outputs in our atmosphere that we can't duplicate in this setting but i still will accept such a finding Edited on 18-12-2014 00:37 |
| 18-12-2014 01:54 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
PS: the IPCC has included deforestation as a human activity that has contributed to global warming (by reducing the amount of CO2 taken OUT of the atmosphere) since its first assessment report. |
| 18-12-2014 02:21 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
ps iv'e read the IPCC report yes. all of it. |
| 18-12-2014 06:20 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5weFQYBL5w this lady is not a monkey...if you are interested you can watch this video to break up the research |
| 18-12-2014 15:19 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
mywifesatan wrote: And yet we will find that you are too curious to let it go. mywifesatan wrote: Then I hope you won't be disappointed if I fail to accept your unsubstantiated assertion. mywifesatan wrote: An assertion that all the members of the IPCC and its functional structure are unethical and are not practicing science with integrity is a generalization that I could not accept without an enormous amount of evidence. And no such evidence exists. That certain individuals of any position might be unethical and practicing poor science is an assertion that can be supported with evidence. mywifesatan wrote: Thank you. I am trying. mywifesatan wrote: I have a few better ideas. First, let's come to the common understanding that the IPCC does NOT conduct climate research. Their chartered task is to review the literature; to determine the current state of science concerning the possibility and risks of global warming caused by human activity. Thus, the most basic check on the validity of their work would be to have a look on our own at the very same material: climate research published in peer reviewed journals and the opinions of the authors of those studies. These points have been reviewed by a number of researchers and, given the broad-ranging research you've conducted and your extensive reading, I am confident you are aware that all such studies have found overwhelming support for AGW. There IS a consensus among climate scientists that the Earth is warming as a result of human GHG emissions and deforestation. mywifesatan wrote: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm The greenhouse effect is accepted by better than 99% of the world's scientists. If you'd like to claim it is NOT valid, it is you that has the burden of proof. mywifesatan wrote: I'm still waiting for you to identify the sources which you say have led you to the conclusions you've espoused here. The only link you've provided so far is your journalist talking about the IPCC. You've made claims about the science: those are NOT supported by unsubstantiated assertions concerning the IPCC. They could be supported by physics, by chemistry, by climatology. Show me the science if you can. If you cannot, I'd appreciate an admission of such. Edited on 18-12-2014 15:20 |
| 18-12-2014 15:31 | |
| mywifesatan★☆☆☆☆ (59) |
you juump to conclusions in beliefs i have that are not founded...i admit i am curious. I will ask again if you can produce a study of what i asked before on the current amount of co2 in the atmosphere used in a controlled study to prove it's effect on temperature caused by the greenhouse effect...of course i believe the greenhouse effect is valid...i didn't ask for an article for the validity of the greenhouse effect...i know you know this..if you can't site such a study..just admit that and i will then be even more curious...and i will answer all these questions you ask me...i will even put up with your condecsention.... because at least then i will know you are here to debate and not to take people to task that you feel have no basis for their opinion..if you do not produce the study and can't admit to that..I am done here and merry christmas
Edited on 18-12-2014 15:33 |
| 18-12-2014 17:00 | |
| Abraham3★★☆☆☆ (256) |
Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. |
| 18-12-2014 17:32 | |
| orogenicman★☆☆☆☆ (57) |
mywifesatan wrote: Excuse me but this is an open forum. When you make unfounded, and down right false assertions in an open forum, you should expect others to call you on it. Otherwise, you are probably posting on the wrong forum. Good day. 'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.' -- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens |
Join the debate whey aren't climate change pushers open to the fact they could be wrong?:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Every time I say that this board is dead, someone says something to prove me wrong, but | 9 | 01-01-2024 05:08 |
| It is not if, but when will North become South and the Geese will fly the wrong way | 78 | 24-11-2023 03:35 |
| WHEN IS OPEN SOURCE AI NOT OPEN SOURCE AI? | 42 | 26-07-2023 02:56 |
| A conservative website that gets it wrong about Global Warming | 3 | 20-06-2023 19:34 |
| As I said, Quantum Experiment Shows How Einstein Was Wrong | 4 | 16-05-2023 21:31 |