Quote: @greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Purple Haze said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
Imagine that. Pumpf is a denier.
Exactly !!!! I remember back in the 1970's when the alarmist were warning of the next ice age, now its global warming. Here is the thing, I think everybody from both sides of the argument agree that the climate is changing. Some like myself believe it is a natural occurrence. Others believe the climate change is due to mans actions. Nobody disputes the changes, just whether its caused by man or not. The upper great plains used to be a tropics, then it was a glacier and that changed to what we experience today. This all happened before mans influence on anything. Maybe there is some truth to the looney alarmist claims that cow shit adds to global warming and all the dinosaurs caused the first round of changes.
Well, that was the argument about 20 years ago, but now even its most vocal skeptics (even the author of the graphic Pumpf posted) believe that man is contributing to it. I think the only disagreement among educated people now is how severe it will be, the timeline and what to do about it.
But before we get too far down this rabbit hole, I've had weeks-long "debates" with other conservatives on boards like this for 20 years, and I won't do it anymore. Nothing more ridiculous than watching a bunch of pastors, designers, programmers and truck drivers post incomprehensible charts and graphs on temperature anomalies, CO2 levels and oceanic circulation. Nor will I "debate" with anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, birthers, deep staters, chemtrailers and people who think the government is run by lizard people.
Lizard People? Come on, have you seen Hillary?
Yes, pollution has an effect. Breathing has an effect. Plants and trees have an effect on the environment. Politicians flying their private jets to an environmental gathering have an effect. What is up for debate is what that effect is, what the proper response is and should the response be forced.
What isn't up for debate is that people will manipulate the data to prove their point. That people will use that manipulated data to make money and raise funding. And to combat that blowback on those items, they will call people all sorts of names to shut down debate.
Yes, there's manipulation of data alright. Personally, I find it amusing deniers are so skeptical about the motives of scientists, but think Exxon is telling them the truth. Especially given the fact that coal and oil interests have funneled millions of dollars to climate skeptics in order to create the illusion of disagreement--to, according to their own documentation, "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
Lizard People? Come on, have you seen Hillary?
Yes, pollution has an effect. Breathing has an effect. Plants and trees have an effect on the environment. Politicians flying their private jets to an environmental gathering have an effect. What is up for debate is what that effect is, what the proper response is and should the response be forced.
What isn't up for debate is that people will manipulate the data to prove their point. That people will use that manipulated data to make money and raise funding. And to combat that blowback on those items, they will call people all sorts of names to shut down debate.
Yes, there's manipulation of data alright. Personally, I find it amusing deniers are so skeptical about the motives of scientists, but think Exxon is telling them the truth. Especially given the fact that coal and oil interests have funneled millions of dollars to climate skeptics in order to create the illusion of disagreement--to, according to their own documentation, "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."
I am skeptical of any side that stands to profit off the manipulation of data. Right now that has been the side of the "scientists" that claim consensus is good enough. That fake data still matters. I don't put much stock into a scientist that tells everyone they should stop asking questions and accept a consensus. That speaks of money and politics, not science.
Put me in the camp that thinks Climate change is real, but
the manmade contributions are minimal. I
think we are seeing a natural phenomenon, rather than a manmade one. There’s clear climate change occurring on
most of the planets and some of the bigger moons in our solar system that can’t
be explained by seasonal changes. Our
magnetic field is weakening and our magnetic poles are wandering all over the
place. I do think that mankind is
affecting the Earth, but I think it’s more pollution based than CO2 based. We’re manufacturing so many chemicals that we
don’t know how it affects our human bodies or the ecosystem as a whole, and we’re
altering so many ecosystems in non-temperature related ways.
I think the science behind global warming is pretty sketchy,
in the sense that they are making a lot of conclusions on models that haven’t
been tested, and that as time elapsed models have had to be adjusted because
they weren’t accurate. I think it’s
pretty clear that there’s a political agenda that is dramatically outpacing the
level of science that we have.
That said, I think it’s great that people are interested in
doing the right things and making choices that are in the long term best
interest for all of us, but the extremely narrow focus on temperature and CO2
is a bizarre way of looking at things, as it excludes all the other ecological
damage we’re doing.
I think where we really need to make shifts is in reducing
materialism and reducing the unnecessary work that we do. Western civilization and the US especially
seems hellbent on spending a lot of time at work, not achieving a lot, and then
buying the cheapest garbage products from overseas that break way too soon and
need to be replaced. I think the
benefits we could receive by continually reducing the length of the work week
by eliminating unnecessary work such that people only work 4 days a week, then
3 days a week, etc. would dramatically outpace the efforts made in reducing CO2
emissions. I think that if people had a
sane workload, people would spend more time on activities making them happy,
they would need less widgets and consumption that are just there to waste time
and try to fill the voids we have. A key
part of this is fixing our economy such that our wealth isn’t being stolen by a
few super rich people that have created a society that allows them to exploit
the efforts of the masses. I think we have to reduce our manufacturing of unlimited chemicals, and focus on just the ones that are proven to have minimal impact to our health and the world. So much of our work is done to pay for medical issues because of all the chemicals that have never been tested that we are constantly exposed to.
In terms of energy, I think we need to focus on developing free energy technologies rather than continuing to try to whittle away at fossil fuels. There's a lot of people out there suggesting that we've already created these technologies and they're just hidden in black project programs. I think we need to audit all these programs and make them more transparent to the world. We know the pentagon "loses" money in astronomical amounts. We need to track down where all this goes and make sure it's towards the betterment of humanity. Even if these technologies don't exist, it'd be cheaper and easier to develop them than it would be to try to reduce CO2 emissions based on a fossil fuel system. It's like making a trip to our closest neighbor star. We're going to put people on a rocket based ship and it will take them many decades to get there, and in the meantime while they're in space, we'll just develop a better technology that gets us there in much less time and they'll pass the original team. We need to not focus so much on these antiquated technologies and instead focus on making a quantum leap towards a much better solution.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
Lizard People? Come on, have you seen Hillary?
Yes, pollution has an effect. Breathing has an effect. Plants and trees have an effect on the environment. Politicians flying their private jets to an environmental gathering have an effect. What is up for debate is what that effect is, what the proper response is and should the response be forced.
What isn't up for debate is that people will manipulate the data to prove their point. That people will use that manipulated data to make money and raise funding. And to combat that blowback on those items, they will call people all sorts of names to shut down debate.
Yes, there's manipulation of data alright. Personally, I find it amusing deniers are so skeptical about the motives of scientists, but think Exxon is telling them the truth. Especially given the fact that coal and oil interests have funneled millions of dollars to climate skeptics in order to create the illusion of disagreement--to, according to their own documentation, "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."
I am skeptical of any side that stands to profit off the manipulation of data. Right now that has been the side of the "scientists" that claim consensus is good enough. That fake data still matters. I don't put much stock into a scientist that tells everyone they should stop asking questions and accept a consensus. That speaks of money and politics, not science.
Do you feel the same way about evolution? Gravity? The idea that the earth revolves around the sun?
Can the minority be right? Of course it can. Truth is not determined by majority vote. But when they're outnumbered 10 to 1, don't you need a pretty compelling reason to side with the minority? You're probably as tired of this analogy as I am, but if 9 out of 10 mechanics say your car needs new brakes, isn't the burden now on you to prove to your family that the 1 dissenter is right and the 9 are wrong before you let them in the car?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
Imagine that. Pumpf is a denier.
Imagine that: Pumpf trusts real science, not pseudo-science.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
Lizard People? Come on, have you seen Hillary?
Yes, pollution has an effect. Breathing has an effect. Plants and trees have an effect on the environment. Politicians flying their private jets to an environmental gathering have an effect. What is up for debate is what that effect is, what the proper response is and should the response be forced.
What isn't up for debate is that people will manipulate the data to prove their point. That people will use that manipulated data to make money and raise funding. And to combat that blowback on those items, they will call people all sorts of names to shut down debate.
Yes, there's manipulation of data alright. Personally, I find it amusing deniers are so skeptical about the motives of scientists, but think Exxon is telling them the truth. Especially given the fact that coal and oil interests have funneled millions of dollars to climate skeptics in order to create the illusion of disagreement--to, according to their own documentation, "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."
I am skeptical of any side that stands to profit off the manipulation of data. Right now that has been the side of the "scientists" that claim consensus is good enough. That fake data still matters. I don't put much stock into a scientist that tells everyone they should stop asking questions and accept a consensus. That speaks of money and politics, not science.
Do you feel the same way about evolution? Gravity? The idea that the earth revolves around the sun?
Can the minority be right? Of course it can. Truth is not determined by majority vote. But when they're outnumbered 10 to 1, don't you need a pretty compelling reason to side with the minority? You're probably as tired of this analogy as I am, but if 9 out of 10 mechanics say your car needs new brakes, isn't the burden now on you to prove to your family that the 1 dissenter is right and the 9 are wrong before you let them in the car?
Do you understand science? Theory vs law?
and to belabor your belabored analogy, do the 9 mechanics gang up and pass a law that I have to believe them? Yes, you need a compelling reason to side with the minority. But often people side with the majority for a dubious compelling reason, money, personal gain.
As far as theories go, one can believe that the theory is correct without taking it to the same extreme conclusions that others do. The proven portions that animals evolve doesn't mean the unproven portion that we all evolved from a single cell. Or that matter was created from nothing without a creator. Now that takes some serious faith.
And I will add, going back to the OP. With a little humility, we can joke and poke fun at ourselves. Unless laughing may cause a crack in our rigidity.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
Lizard People? Come on, have you seen Hillary?
Yes, pollution has an effect. Breathing has an effect. Plants and trees have an effect on the environment. Politicians flying their private jets to an environmental gathering have an effect. What is up for debate is what that effect is, what the proper response is and should the response be forced.
What isn't up for debate is that people will manipulate the data to prove their point. That people will use that manipulated data to make money and raise funding. And to combat that blowback on those items, they will call people all sorts of names to shut down debate.
Yes, there's manipulation of data alright. Personally, I find it amusing deniers are so skeptical about the motives of scientists, but think Exxon is telling them the truth. Especially given the fact that coal and oil interests have funneled millions of dollars to climate skeptics in order to create the illusion of disagreement--to, according to their own documentation, "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."
I am skeptical of any side that stands to profit off the manipulation of data. Right now that has been the side of the "scientists" that claim consensus is good enough. That fake data still matters. I don't put much stock into a scientist that tells everyone they should stop asking questions and accept a consensus. That speaks of money and politics, not science.
Do you feel the same way about evolution? Gravity? The idea that the earth revolves around the sun?
Can the minority be right? Of course it can. Truth is not determined by majority vote. But when they're outnumbered 10 to 1, don't you need a pretty compelling reason to side with the minority? You're probably as tired of this analogy as I am, but if 9 out of 10 mechanics say your car needs new brakes, isn't the burden now on you to prove to your family that the 1 dissenter is right and the 9 are wrong before you let them in the car?
How many "scientists" would have said (in the dark-to-middle ages) that the earth was flat... or that the sun revolved around the earth? Or that leeches cured illness?
The problem with the global warming crowd is that all they have is "everyone agrees with us"; not REAL science.
By the way, REAL science says that we each have a specific gender; it's hard-wired into our DNA (not to mention our physical body). REAL science also says that a unique, individual human life resides inside of a pregnant woman. Where are all the pro-science folks when it comes to those issues?
But when REAL science reaches conclusions that aren't popular, they are denied / rejected. Let me know when REAL science can prove that the theoretical models about Global Warming (which, so far, have been WRONG) finally get it right. Or when they are willing to consider opposing research and results, rather than dismiss them out of hand and "bully" any scientist who goes against the GW orthodoxy. Then maybe I'll listen.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
Lizard People? Come on, have you seen Hillary?
Yes, pollution has an effect. Breathing has an effect. Plants and trees have an effect on the environment. Politicians flying their private jets to an environmental gathering have an effect. What is up for debate is what that effect is, what the proper response is and should the response be forced.
What isn't up for debate is that people will manipulate the data to prove their point. That people will use that manipulated data to make money and raise funding. And to combat that blowback on those items, they will call people all sorts of names to shut down debate.
Yes, there's manipulation of data alright. Personally, I find it amusing deniers are so skeptical about the motives of scientists, but think Exxon is telling them the truth. Especially given the fact that coal and oil interests have funneled millions of dollars to climate skeptics in order to create the illusion of disagreement--to, according to their own documentation, "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."
I am skeptical of any side that stands to profit off the manipulation of data. Right now that has been the side of the "scientists" that claim consensus is good enough. That fake data still matters. I don't put much stock into a scientist that tells everyone they should stop asking questions and accept a consensus. That speaks of money and politics, not science.
Do you feel the same way about evolution? Gravity? The idea that the earth revolves around the sun?
Can the minority be right? Of course it can. Truth is not determined by majority vote. But when they're outnumbered 10 to 1, don't you need a pretty compelling reason to side with the minority? You're probably as tired of this analogy as I am, but if 9 out of 10 mechanics say your car needs new brakes, isn't the burden now on you to prove to your family that the 1 dissenter is right and the 9 are wrong before you let them in the car?
The 9 out of 10 mechanics example isn’t really a 1-1
comparison. Neither is Gravity or orbits
or whatever. In the mechanics example,
the mechanics can look at your brakes, measure the pad thickness, etc. They can functionally verify that they are
working. They have seen thousands of
different sets of brakes, and the system has a handful of moving parts that all
work in a simple manner. With regards to
gravity and planetary orbits, we have centuries of observations and data to
more or less confirm that the theories are accurate enough to use. We’ve used those equations to send men to the
moon, we’ve sent probes and slingshotted them around planets on carefully
planned routes. We have thoroughly tested those equations.
With climate change, we only have computer models that are
trying to model a living planet with millions of variables that interact with
each other in complex ways and they’re trying to figure out which variables are
the ones that really matter. But how do
you know a computer model is accurate? You
have to test it and see if it correctly predicts the outputs based on the
inputs. How do you test something that
will take decades or centuries to provide an answer to you?
See!!!!! What yall don't understand is global warming IS causing the cold:
A polar vortex is engulfing the US. Here's what that really means, and why these events might be getting more common.
https://www.businessinsider.com/polar-vo...019-1?r=US&IR=T&utm_source=reddit.com
Look, I know we've got plenty of "climate experts" on VF but I'm kinda sick of any and every weather related event being caused by humans/global warming.
I think even to the most conservative of us we realize that humans burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the air. What most would question is:
1. To what extent can we curb fossil fuel use without blowing up the economy?
2. Even if we made a say 50% or 75% or 99% reduction in CO2 would it make any difference?3. Most of these doomsdayers have huge financial incentives to manipulate/massage data to make it say what they want to. Why should we trust them?4. The 99% of climate experts agree statement was fake news before the term was invented. Why do you keep using it?5. After everything is said and done as the liberals see it.....does Al Gore still get to fly on his private jet and live in his +10K square foot house?
|
![[Image: 5ae462e9e5f185a0e70b2adbddcaea49--stupid...ralism.jpg]](https://i.pinimg.com/236x/5a/e4/62/5ae462e9e5f185a0e70b2adbddcaea49--stupid-liberals-liberalism.jpg)
![[Image: 1239459_582781141763540_473008476_n.jpg]](http://code-interactive.com/ad-in/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1239459_582781141763540_473008476_n.jpg)
