Damn Global Warming....
- Thread starter Sand4x105
- Start date
- Status
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It gets so old responding to the same tired rehashed arguments over and over and over again..
Consensus of organized religion -that is unverifiable claims- is different than science -that is testable claims-... 100% of people believing in an unverifiable claim is not the same as the majority of those that have actually tested the claim and reached the exact same conclusion independent of one another.
Consensus in science is what builds progress. Like I said before, if 97% of doctors told you you would die unless you took this medicine, you would take it, because similarly to science, medicine is fact based, not opinion based. You simply do not accept the facts.
Opponents of AGW won't be turned away from fossil fuels until the alternative is cheaper. That day gets closer every passing minute. The people you listen to on this topic are financially invested in keeping opponents of AGW scientifically ignorant about climate change. Both sides are financially invested in it, the difference is your side is actively making life and the rest of the world worse off for financial gain and the reasonable side is trying to improve life and the environment for future generations.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If you're implying using alternative energy we wouldn't have those things, you're mistaken
No, actually the last 10 years have been some of the hottest on record;
You don't understand how science works (likely why you believe the things you do, no surprise there..), those that do understand what pattern means, global temperatures have risen since the start of the industrial revolution, that's the pattern, so if you get a few years with lower temperatures than what the pattern shows, it tells you nothing about the actual trend of the climate. Much like if it snows in July, it would be dumb to conclude it's all a hoax. Furthermore, and this is the point I hope you pay attention to the most, you are looking at a set of data with a clear trend, then picking the last decade and exclaiming it's a hoax, so you don't buy the entire rest of the table yet you sink your teeth into the last decade of that same set of data and claim it's bullshit..
That would be like me claiming penicillin is dangerous because a very small % of the population is allergic to it.
Honest question; Why don't you read about the actual science behind climate change, why people agree, how they've come to that conclusion, etc. instead of arguing unscientific talking points from conservative pundits?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
kelly4
Well-Known Member
I know what you are trying to say with that graph...in reality, it says nothing.
It's 36 degrees at my house right now. So, if we all changed our light bulbs to energy efficient LED's and sold our gas and diesel guzzling vehicles and bought a Chevy Volt, the temperature at my hose would go down to 35.5 degrees?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Why do the scientifically illiterate insist on making comments about science?
Before you make any further comment, just know, the answer will always be "because you don't understand how science works", it'll save me a lot of time!
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Alternative energy sources can't compete with fossil fuels, even with heavy subsidies. Your sources all seem to contradict each other. So, somewhat suspect. You should worry about the inevitable coming ice age, not some minor fluctuation of a couple of degrees F.If you're implying using alternative energy we wouldn't have those things, you're mistaken No, actually the last 10 years have been some of the hottest on record;You don't understand how science works (likely why you believe the things you do, no surprise there..), those that do understand what pattern means, global temperatures have risen since the start of the industrial revolution, that's the pattern, so if you get a few years with lower temperatures than what the pattern shows, it tells you nothing about the actual trend of the climate. Much like if it snows in July, it would be dumb to conclude it's all a hoax. Furthermore, and this is the point I hope you pay attention to the most, you are looking at a set of data with a clear trend, then picking the last decade and exclaiming it's a hoax, so you don't buy the entire rest of the table yet you sink your teeth into the last decade of that same set of data and claim it's bullshit.. That would be like me claiming penicillin is dangerous because a very small % of the population is allergic to it. Honest question; Why don't you read about the actual science behind climate change, why people agree, how they've come to that conclusion, etc. instead of arguing unscientific talking points from conservative pundits?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Why do libtards always insist on telling everyone else how to live because they "know better" than us?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Exactly what I just said, alternative energy sources won't happen until it's economically more efficient than fossil fuels, which is getting closer by the day.
In the end, you will say "we did it because it was cheaper" instead of admitting you were wrong about it to begin with. At least at that point progress can happen
What information is contradicting?
In the end, you will say "we did it because it was cheaper" instead of admitting you were wrong about it to begin with. At least at that point progress can happen
What information is contradicting?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
heckler73
Well-Known Member
I read "actual science". I am not "conservative" (just ask Kynes).
Why is not as important as what, at the moment.
What does the "consensus" say about the Sun's role in this?
"Consensus" says GHGs can cause heat to become "trapped" (although there seems to be some negligence in addressing the degrees of freedom problem) which has been known for 60+ years. Anyone denying that is an idiot.
But that's about it...most other areas which also have effect are either in the low to medium confidence category or ignored entirely.
Yet a measly 4W/m^2 drop (~0.3% and the sun has a natural 0.1% fluctuation, as it is) in TSI will seemingly plunge us back into a Little Ice Age regardless of GHG concentrations.
So perhaps we should focus on developing confidence in the analyses of those less understood variables--and how they are connected--before trumpeting the distorted conclusions of "consensus" as being definitive, do you agree?
FYI this chart is from the official "consensus" report. That means there is "consensus" we don't know enough.
And for the record, I support "green-tech". Anything that helps to reduce environmental waste and destruction has positive externalities for society, in general, even though they may not manifest in the short-term.
For example, Cattail Reeds (i.e. Typha) used in sewage treatment is fucking GENIUS! Give me more of that, not another study on GHGs, please.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
More data can only increase the confidence in it, so of course I agree. My problem is with people who refuse to accept any amount of data, as candidly admitted by the opposition in this thread
Probably the same reason business illiterate people insist on making comments about business.
You got me there, I don't understand half the scientific jargon and graphs you guys post on here but I don't see why that should stop me from giving an opinion, it doesn't stop you!
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Oh yeah? Well I'm rubber, you're glue... How far do you wanna take this, man?
We know you don't
Then teach me something, what does RA aero-cloud interac mean?
Hey Pada, where did you go?
He went to do some studying.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Enough of this shit.
- Status
Similar threads
