Quote: @savannahskol said:
Will the Vikings be destroyed by fire or ice?
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
@ medaille said:
@ 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?
You just answered your own question. Theres a reason China abandoned coal plants. Theres a reason NASA, the military and numerous government agencies agree on climate change theory.
The earth has gone through changes of warming and cooling. However those changes took place over tens of thousands, millions of years. Now its happening over decades and centuries. It is the accelerated rate of change that's alarming. Coral reefs are dying for a reason. Ecosystems are being destroyed as the rapid change doesn't allow them to gradually adapt over time.
By the time Pumpf gets his necessary demand for 100% scientific proof it will be too late.
Pumpf also missing the irony here ... a man of faith, with no proof God exists but revolves his entire life around this concept and a story he can not prove is true, refuses to accept any information from scientists and climatologists without proof that they are 100% accurate.
Christians reject the accuracy of modern science but ask everyone to believe the validity of a 2000 year old book of eye witnesses as gospel.
Lets take your opinion on global warming at face value. The climate is warming/changing and we're all going to suffer. What would you change that has any chance of even happening.
(Example: you could get rid of all the cars but nobody is willing to do that because we all like/need to travel)
Where is the line in the sand as far as things that we can change that will actually make one iota of difference yet allow humans to live like we've become comfortable doing? For this example lets stick to individuals. Its kind of a cop out to say it all has to happen at a corporation level when those corporations are supplying individuals with the goods and services that individuals are asking for.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ savannahskol said:
Will the Vikings be destroyed by fire or ice?
Lingchi"Death by a thousand cuts"
I'm far less confident it with be as quick and painless as either of those options.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ greediron said:
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.
Right???? I mean who hasn't made a joke about global warming when its so dang cold out? Even for us Southerners its pretty cold out. I've wanted to sign on for global warming all winter!!!!! 
Yes, even I have. We all know Trump is joking. It's what he does. The left/right game, the fight, the division...just read his twitter feed. It's why MAGA'merica loves him so much. But let's not forget that many in his base actually believe shit like that. And before you think that's harmless, I'll remind you of Death Panels and Birth Certificates and the War on Christians and the Border Crisis and Obama's Coming for your Guns and Black Panthers and Creeping Sharia...
I think the Donald is a bit "tongue and cheek" about this - but not completely.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ medaille said:
@ 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?
You just answered your own question. Theres a reason China abandoned coal plants. Theres a reason NASA, the military and numerous government agencies agree on climate change theory.
The earth has gone through changes of warming and cooling. However those changes took place over tens of thousands, millions of years. Now its happening over decades and centuries. It is the accelerated rate of change that's alarming. Coral reefs are dying for a reason. Ecosystems are being destroyed as the rapid change doesn't allow them to gradually adapt over time.
By the time Pumpf gets his necessary demand for 100% scientific proof it will be too late.
Pumpf also missing the irony here ... a man of faith, with no proof God exists but revolves his entire life around this concept and a story he can not prove is true, refuses to accept any information from scientists and climatologists without proof that they are 100% accurate.
Christians reject the accuracy of modern science but ask everyone to believe the validity of a 2000 year old book of eye witnesses as gospel.
Lets take your opinion on global warming at face value. The climate is warming/changing and we're all going to suffer. What would you change that has any chance of even happening.
(Example: you could get rid of all the cars but nobody is willing to do that because we all like/need to travel)
Where is the line in the sand as far as things that we can change that will actually make one iota of difference yet allow humans to live like we've become comfortable doing? For this example lets stick to individuals. Its kind of a cop out to say it all has to happen at a corporation level when those corporations are supplying individuals with the goods and services that individuals are asking for.
This is a ridiculous post. You build an extreme, artificial position ("we're all going to suffer, get rid of all cars") and then mock it. And then you set limitations for the debate: Give you one change that will make one iota of difference, but restrict it to "individual changes." Changes that will, granted, not make one iota of difference. Climate change, obviously, is a problem that must be tackled globally with policies that reduce emissions and promote renewable energy on a large scale.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
@ AGRforever said:
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?
#3 makes no sense. Who stands to profit more - big oil companies who have trillions of profits at stake to discredit scientists around the world to have the green light to pollute the planet, or the people who are conducting research with the motivation to save the planet. It's ridiculous to suggest climatologists have something to gain financially, but climate change deniers do not.
Both have something to gain. For some it's financially... for others it's power. You left that part out. Those who support the idea of man-made Global Warming are the same folks who want to give power to a chosen few, who will then force Americans to give up their freedoms for the greater good. That's why I will continue to be a "denier" until REAL science proves that man is responsible for the changing cycles of our world's climate. There are always some people eager to give up their freedoms... because they think that- when THEIR side is in power- they'll (somehow) get their freedoms back. History would tell us otherwise. Benevolent dictators are still dictators. Speaking of history:
Strangely, there were warming periods and cooling periods in the past, before the industrial age. I wonder who was to blame back then?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ medaille said:
@ 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?
You just answered your own question. Theres a reason China abandoned coal plants. Theres a reason NASA, the military and numerous government agencies agree on climate change theory.
The earth has gone through changes of warming and cooling. However those changes took place over tens of thousands, millions of years. Now its happening over decades and centuries. It is the accelerated rate of change that's alarming. Coral reefs are dying for a reason. Ecosystems are being destroyed as the rapid change doesn't allow them to gradually adapt over time.
By the time Pumpf gets his necessary demand for 100% scientific proof it will be too late.
Pumpf also missing the irony here ... a man of faith, with no proof God exists but revolves his entire life around this concept and a story he can not prove is true, refuses to accept any information from scientists and climatologists without proof that they are 100% accurate.
Christians reject the accuracy of modern science but ask everyone to believe the validity of a 2000 year old book of eye witnesses as gospel.
Lets take your opinion on global warming at face value. The climate is warming/changing and we're all going to suffer. What would you change that has any chance of even happening.
(Example: you could get rid of all the cars but nobody is willing to do that because we all like/need to travel)
Where is the line in the sand as far as things that we can change that will actually make one iota of difference yet allow humans to live like we've become comfortable doing? For this example lets stick to individuals. Its kind of a cop out to say it all has to happen at a corporation level when those corporations are supplying individuals with the goods and services that individuals are asking for.
This is a ridiculous post. You build an extreme, artificial position ("we're all going to suffer, get rid of all cars") and then mock it. And then you set limitations for the debate: Give you one change that will make one iota of difference, but restrict it to "individual changes." Changes that will, granted, not make one iota of difference. Climate change, obviously, is a problem that must be tackled globally with policies that reduce emissions and promote renewable energy on a large scale.
So the biggest offenders must make the biggest changes? Until that happens, it is just a political tool to control people.
And your brake post wasn't ridiculous?
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
By the time Pumpf gets his necessary demand for 100% scientific proof it will be too late.
Pumpf also missing the irony here ... a man of faith, with no proof God exists but revolves his entire life around this concept and a story he can not prove is true, refuses to accept any information from scientists and climatologists without proof that they are 100% accurate.
Christians reject the accuracy of modern science but ask everyone to believe the validity of a 2000 year old book of eye witnesses as gospel.
Ha ha ha...
Have you ever read about the Challenger explosion? Or about the Columbia explosion? Have you seen the massive cover-up of information that NASA carried out, to cover it's own ass? And they depend on the gov't for funding... so: yeah, I'm sure that they can be trusted to be truthful and forthcoming. They would never lie, even if it benefits them, right?
Military? Let's hear what military studies have defended the idea that human being are causing Global Warming.
Gov't agencies? You mean the ones that stand to gain more power over American citizens by being able to force whatever legislation they want (restricting freedoms), all in the name of the greater good? Are these the same agencies that say a person with a penis and a scrotum is a woman... if they feel like a woman? Hmmm... not exactly alot of "science" behind that statement. And yet, the majority of Americans know that- if you don't go along with transgenderism- you are evil and wrong.
As for the "getting the scientific proof 100% right": you're damn right that's what I want. I'm not giving up my freedoms (or my money) for some boondoggle that the gov't funds and supports- unless there is a verified reason for it. If this is all about "science", then it ought to be observable and falsifiable. Neither of those things are true for GW. You know what is observable? That the earth has gone through periods of heating and cooling- all before the industrial age. So, what was causing "climate change" back then? And what is causing "climate change" on other planets (where there aren't any human beings)? And why haven't ANY of the past GW models been accurate? Let's face it, the only way that those models have been close to "accurate" is that the data was manipulated to make it so. It will be too late? For what? All the doomsday predictions were supposed to have taken place by now. But, like true cultists, when a prediction doesn't come true, the Global Warming enthusiasts just ignore that unfulfilled prophecies... and say that "this time, we mean it... it's really gonna happen... you'll see..."
If I said that the Lord Jesus Christ was coming back tomorrow... and that you better repent and believe before it's too late... you might believe me... or you might not. But if I said that a week ago... and then it didn't happen... what would your reaction be if I said- again- "The Lord Jesus Christ is coming back tomorrow! You better repent and believe before it's too late!" You'd ignore me... even though there is a chance I could be right... because you've heard the prediction before- and it didn't come true. So why would you believe me the next time I say it? That's how I feel about Global Warming.
As for the irony: it's only irony if my faith if blind. It's not. (And there's certainly not any negative examples that can prove that God doesn't exist... which can't be said of Global Warming- in which case there is plenty of evidence that it doesn't exist.)
There are 3 different evidential supports for my faith. First, the universe exists. It had to come from somewhere. The most brilliant scientists and philosophers in history have all believed in a "creator", even if they did not agree on who- or what- He was. Creation requires a creator. That's pretty logical (as opposed to evolution... or the idea that the universe could- somehow- just magically exist apart from any kind of beginning). Second, there is a "law" that is hard-wired into each human heart. From birth, somehow, we know the difference between right and wrong. There was a study that came out a few years ago that marveled at how 6 month old children were already cognizant of the difference between right and wrong. And one of the reasons that adults can call the actions of others into question is that we ASSUME (you do it, too) that everyone has the same laws written in their hearts. That's why we don't excuse "evil" things as being products of that person's own perspective: because we know- and expect them to know- that those things are wrong. That's why we can call them on their "evil" and even call it that. One of the most evil things that people often reference is Hitler's treatment of certain people- especially the Jews. Well, the thing that makes us able to call him- and his actions- evil... is that we expect that he should've known those things were wrong and, therefore, not done them. And it's why we held the Nuremberg trials: because we held those Nazi criminals responsible for their actions- expecting that they should've known better. There is right and wrong- and we all know it (even if we don't abide by it). That "natural law" is what enables us to make- and enforce- civil laws.
And, finally: there were men (and women) who claimed to be eye-witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. They had nothing to gain from such testimony- and everything to lose. Yet they steadfastly maintained that they were telling the truth (even when it cost them their lives). That- to me- makes their testimony credible. As has been pointed out: we should always be skeptical of what people say- when we know that they stand to benefit from saying it. But there was no benefit to the first eye-witnesses. In fact, they suffered terribly for it. Yet the never wavered in their testimony.
So, yes: I have faith. But it is not an illogical, blind faith. And that's why the comparison to those who believe in man-made Global Warming is not really comparable.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ SFVikeFan said:
@ AGRforever said:
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?
#3 makes no sense. Who stands to profit more - big oil companies who have trillions of profits at stake to discredit scientists around the world to have the green light to pollute the planet, or the people who are conducting research with the motivation to save the planet. It's ridiculous to suggest climatologists have something to gain financially, but climate change deniers do not.
Both have something to gain. For some it's financially... for others it's power. You left that part out. Those who support the idea of man-made Global Warming are the same folks who want to give power to a chosen few, who will then force Americans to give up their freedoms for the greater good. That's why I will continue to be a "denier" until REAL science proves that man is responsible for the changing cycles of our world's climate. There are always some people eager to give up their freedoms... because they think that- when THEIR side is in power- they'll (somehow) get their freedoms back. History would tell us otherwise. Benevolent dictators are still dictators. Speaking of history:
Strangely, there were warming periods and cooling periods in the past, before the industrial age. I wonder who was to blame back then?
What freedoms do you stand to lose exactly? You keep throwing this term out like big brother and his solar panels are going to take away your coal furnace.
You're a riot dude. You cant trust NASA, because they are gov't funded and they're totally shady and suspect, all that man on the moon conspiracy theory and shit. But big oil interests on the other hand, now they make a legit unbiased case because they'renot government funded. LOL!
You can believe the story of an ark loaded with animals 2 by 2 surviving a catastrophic flood, but the notion that man polluting the planet is having an impact on the planet's health and its climate is not believable ... all cause it's gov't funded and trying to take your freedoms away.
God bless you Christian conservatives ... the mental gymnastics you endure to get through life must be exhausting.
|
