Global Warming/Climate Change

[UNT90]

Yes, but I have bigger problem with Corporations paying people to LIE about what is happening for their own benefit, monetary and political.

I care about the future of our planet.

Do you?

It all comes down to you are a liberal and I am a conservative. You love government and hate business. I believe in limited government and easing regulations on business are a good thing.

You will always see "corporations" as evil. I will always see them as employing hundreds of thousands of Americans, allowing those Americans to provide for their families and put money back into the economy.

You will always question anything a "corporation" does, believing there is evil behind every move. I will always question what government does. I wonder which has been more evil throughout history (rhetorical question).

Your beliefs border on Marxism, mine are very close to Goldwaterism.

Like I said, this is purely a political issue.

Edited February 24, 2014 by UNT90

[GTWT]

First, UNT90 says it's all about the money, now he says it's all about the politics. If you insist on over-simplifying the issue then please be consistent.

The truth is, for UNT90, it's about anything except the science.

Edited February 24, 2014 by GTWT

[UNT90]

First, UNT90 says it's all about the money, now he says it's all about the politics. If you insist on over-simplifying the issue then please be consistent.

The truth is, for UNT90, it's about anything except the science.

For you, it's only about science YOU agree with. You have refused to even acknowledge science on the other side of your POLITICAL opinion.

Also, if you don't understand the connection between politics and money, you are just really naive.

[GTWT]

There's damn little science on the side of climate science denial. Just a few contrarians like Roy Spencer or John Christy who believe God is in charge so we need not fear anything,

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/feb/featgospel

[paste]Also, if you don't understand the connection between politics and money, you are just really naive.

[UNT90]

There's damn little science on the side of climate science denial. Just a few contrarians like Roy Spencer or John Christy who believe God is in charge so we need not fear anything,
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/feb/featgospel

[paste]Also, if you don't understand the connection between politics and money, you are just really naive.

If the issue for you is politics then you're an ideologue.

If the issue for you is money then you're short-sighted.

Edited February 24, 2014 by UNT90

[UNT90]

Skepticism is a good thing. Skepticism means with-holding judgement until you understand the evidence.

Science denial is a bad thing. Science denial is disagreeing with the science because it threatens your religion, your economics, your preconceptions.

Yet you vilify me for having skepticism.

Lol.

[UNT90]

Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso, Chip Knappenbergee, Patrick Michaels, and Sallie Baliunas are just a handful of many who have peer reviewed published work that doubts man made global warming.

But the global warming fear mongers (including John Kerry) ignore this work and choose to believe what they want to believe (although for Kerry, I'm sure it has far more to do with politics than belief).

People like GTWT who want to lie to you and say this is complete science have bought the political sell hook, line, and sinker. They will tell you that there isn't one doubt that it is happening and that we will suffer dire consequences in the future.

It's the politics of fear. It's been practiced for years. This is just a new face on an old, old game.

Here are the names again, GTWT.

All have peer reviewed pieces with literature casting doubt on the THEORY of man made global warming.

Care to address any of these authors? At all? They aren't religious nuts, as you so carefully tried to characterize any scientists that didn't agree with your opinions.

Well?

Let me help you out a bit. Below is the wikepedia page of just one of these guys. I'd say he is a pretty qualified scientist (assuming the page is correct. Verify if you must). BUT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH HIM, SO YOU SAY HE DOESN'T EXIST AND REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIS PRESCENCE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_Idso

That is intellectually dishonest.

Like I said, purely political.

[Censored by Laurie]

Here are the names again, GTWT.

All have peer reviewed pieces with literature casting doubt on the THEORY of man made global warming.

Care to address any of these authors? At all? They aren't religious nuts, as you so carefully tried to characterize any scientists that didn't agree with your opinions.

Well?

Let me help you out a bit. Below is the wikepedia page of just one of these guys. I'd say he is a pretty qualified scientist (assuming the page is correct. Verify if you must). BUT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH HIM, SO YOU SAY HE DOESN'T EXIST AND REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIS PRESCENCE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_Idso

That is intellectually dishonest.

Like I said, purely political.

Why is that you chose to give credence to the above scientists...the one's skeptical of global warming...after having for pages and pages proposed that the motives of those scientists with mainstream (I know you love that word) views on global warming are driven by financial/political/ideological agendas?

Do the one's you've referenced lack agendas?

Are their scruples both morally and professionally purer than the one's for whom you've asked us to "follow the money"?

Or...is it simply that they fall in line more with your politics? Because if it is the latter, that strikes me as intellectually dishonest...drawing a conclusion first, then finding support.

Oh...and from the Wikipedia page you provided (so as one can't question a Wiki source), if you scroll down to the link "List of scientists opposing global warming consensus"...this gem:

"As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature."

[UNT90]

Why is that you chose to give credence to the above scientists...the one's skeptical of global warming...after having for pages and pages proposed that the motives of those scientists with mainstream (I know you love that word) views on global warming are driven by financial/political/ideological agendas?

Do the one's you've referenced lack agendas?

Are their scruples both morally and professionally purer than the one's for whom you've asked us to "follow the money"?

Or...is it simply that they fall in line more with your politics? Because if it is the latter, that strikes me as intellectually dishonest...drawing a conclusion first, then finding support.

Oh...and from the Wikipedia page you provided (so as one can't question a Wiki source), if you scroll down to the link "List of scientists opposing global warming consensus"...this gem:

"As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature."

I'm not the one saying that global warming absolutely exists.

I'm the one saying there isn't enough science to determine if it exists, and if it does, if it is actually caused by man.

Meanwhile, people like GTWT will attack my views, saying that global warming UNEQUIVOCALLY exists and UNEQUIVOCALLY is caused by man.

And they ignore the other side of science when they make these unequivocal statements.

That is the problem with global alarmist. They have been politically conditioned to accept no quarrel with the politically correct position. If someone dares disagree, call them stupid, right wing extremist, and religious nuts instead of addressing any legitimate points they may have (we have seen this throughout this thread) in an attempt to marginally any contrary argument.

Again, the politics of fear. Practiced for generations.

Edited February 25, 2014 by UNT90

[UNT90]

And since no one will address the researchers listed, here are a couple more wiki pages (yes, I know, but wiki is good for overall biography and providing links):

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Balling

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas

These are highly educated, extremely smart individuals that have been vilified, in some cases, by the left for their "controversial" views on global warming.

Just a quick read through these and you should realize that global warming is far from an unequivocal event that is absolutely occurring.

If you are intellectually honest, that is.

[Censored by Laurie]

And they ignore the other side of science when they make these unequivocal statements.

Is it politics, as you suggest...or...maybe...is it that there appears to be so little science that supports "the other side"?

Again...using your source...fewer than 10 peer-reviews.

[UNT90]

Is it politics, as you suggest...or...maybe...is it that there appears to be so little science that supports "the other side"?

Again...using your source...fewer than 10 peer-reviews.

Actually, you are using a link from Isdo's wiki page that takes you to an obviously politically slanted wiki page that believes unequivocally in global warming, not a link that I posted.

But that isn't intellectually dishonest, is it?

Again, the wiki pages are only posted to provide a biography for scientist that GTWT say don't exist and for links to those scientists work.

Edited February 25, 2014 by UNT90

[Censored by Laurie]

Actually, you are using a link from Isdo's wiki page that takes you to an obviously politically slanted wiki page that believes unequivocally in global warming, not a link that I posted.

But that isn't intellectually dishonest, is it?

Again, the wiki pages are only posted to provide a biography for scientist that GTWT say don't exist and for links to those scientists work.

Oh. Em. Gee.

I've asked two, straight-forward questions. Rather than even efforting at answers, I've received defensive replies, 2 mentions of GTWT and the seemingly default stance of that which doens't suit me is politically slanted.

[UNT90]

Oh. Em. Gee.

I've asked two, straight-forward questions. Rather than even efforting at answers, I've received defensive replies, 2 mentions of GTWT and the seemingly default stance of that which doens't suit me is politically slanted.

"Appears to be" is a question? Can you be just a bit more vague? Does it "appear to be" because of a wiki page?

Did you read the biographies of the names that I posted? Ever check out anything they have written? Just choose to write them off?

Point being their IS research on both sides of the issue. There is a pile of government money waiting on only one side.

I wonder which side is more prevalent?

[FirefightnRick]

Let me guess...the term "Climate Denier" is a slamming reference that anyone skeptical of man made global warming is parallel to a "Holocaust Denier"?

Rick

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

As I read through the beating this thread is, its looking alot like the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate.

Bill Nye: Here is all this evidence from decades of research from thousands of reputable scientists that support the theory of evolution.

Ken Ham: Well there are these few reputable scientists that support the theory of creationism. Therefore it is on equal footing with the theory of evolution and should be given equal time in our public schools. (insert bible verse reading here)

Bill Nye: While I admit evolution is not an absolute proven theory, the evidence is overwhelming.

Ken Ham: See! You're not sure, therefore the theory of creationism is just as, if not more, plausible. (insert another bible verse here)

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Let me guess...the term "Climate Denier" is a slamming reference that anyone skeptical of man made global warming is parallel to a "Holocaust Denier"?

Rick

Annnnndddd we have a Nazi reference...that's the first time I've ever heard that. Congrats on making a connection that no one else here has made.

Would "Climater", "Carboner", or "Cooler" be more appropriate as I see more parallels with the "Birther" movement?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

It is cold today ... I guess global warming is over... another ice age is approaching...

[UNT90]

As I read through the beating this thread is, its looking alot like the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate.

Bill Nye: Here is all this evidence from decades of research from thousands of reputable scientists that support the theory of evolution.

Ken Ham: Well there are these few reputable scientists that support the theory of creationism. Therefore it is on equal footing with the theory of evolution and should be given equal time in our public schools. (insert bible verse reading here)

Bill Nye: While I admit evolution is not an absolute proven theory, the evidence is overwhelming.

Ken Ham: See! You're not sure, therefore the theory of creationism is just as, if not more, plausible. (insert another bible verse here)

You saw decades of research in this thread?

Or are you just repeating what you are told.

[UNT90]

It is cold today ... I guess global warming is over... another ice age is approaching...

Kinda like "the glaciers are melting. Must be man made global warning. The oceans will rise any minute now. Just wait."

[yyz28]

There is NO DOUBT that climate change is real. Anyone who would ignore that FACT is a denier. ...and not particularly well educated.

What there IS, however LOADS OF DOUBT about, is the conclusion that man's activities are the cause and/or do we have the power to effect change? I don't think there there is good evidence either way. ...and when the wild eyed predictions of the global warming alarmist crowd get blown out of the water (first it was global cooling, the next ice age was coming, then it was warming and the ice caps (the same ones that trapped several ships this winter) would be GONE by 2013 causing world wide floods, a story the BBC recently recanted on, the fact that the record shows cooling rather than warming over the last decade, the credibility of the movement gets called into question.

There is no doubt, when recorded history and the fossil record is studied that the climate changes a lot. It has had wild swings, to far more exaggerated extremes than we have had since the dawn of the industrial age, and that our planet goes through cyclical drought, ice age, wet periods, etc, much of which have to do with solar activity and our position relative to the sun.

...so it REALLY comes down to "are we to blame for a portion of this change, and if we are can we do anything about it? ...and if the answer to that is YES, then how much effect, and SHOULD we? Should we allow the world economy, and thus humanity to suffer for potential and undiscovered gains by making changes? Should we allow local, federal or world governments to impede on individual liberties for these unrealized gains? It isn't "climate change" that is debated, it is really the cause, effect and reaction that is debated.

This is a topic I have studied a great deal, as someone who is very much a scientific mind, someone who doesn't have a religious point of view to cloud my thoughts on this, and even I keep coming back to the absolute irrefutable fact that we don't have all the fact, and most of the theories and predictions have holes in them (usually put there by the climate itself) and then consider the corrupt political movement around the subject and find myself coming down on the side of individual liberties should not be trampled, energy prices should not be artificially inflated in the name of man-made climate change.

We should regulate to keep the air and water clean, you'll get no debate from me on that front. ...and we have made HUGE progress on that front since the 70's when things were at their worst. ...but we should not be making policy that has major economic and liberty limiting consequences based on unsettled science.

Edited February 25, 2014 by yyz28

[Coffee and TV]

Let me guess...the term "Climate Denier" is a slamming reference that anyone skeptical of man made global warming is parallel to a "Holocaust Denier"?

Rick

Need a boost up on that cross you just made for yourself?

[MeanGreenTexan]

What really needs to be understood by everyone who wants to point to the history of the earth and it's cycles for clues/answers to why the Earth will continue to cycle as it always has, is the enormous population change that has occurred in the past 200 years. This is the variable that is certainly capable of being an agent of change. The population of the earth before the mid 1800's was less than 1 billion people. It's over 7 billion now.

The history of the earth prior to the mid 1800's needs to be set as more of a control. It shouldn't really be cited by anyone today for or against climate trending. However, ~200 years is not really enough time to see measurables to prove/deny that the population explosion (and whatever energy methods that population are utilizing) is contributing anything to the climate. But, it's certainly interesting to look at.

Christian here; and from my point of view, anyone who cites someone saying, "God is in control, so we have nothing to worry about... keep doing what you're doing!" should be discarded. At best, this person's motives are overzealous. At worst, they're political posturing, having nothing to do with God at all.
God is certainly in control. BUT, the Earth is part of His creation and we need to treasure it as such. Gen 1:28 (before the fall) says to be fruitful and multiply, & subdue the earth... It does not say to exploit it.

[UNT90]

There is NO DOUBT that climate change is real. Anyone who would ignore that FACT is a denier. ...and not particularly well educated.

What there IS, however LOADS OF DOUBT about, is the conclusion that man's activities are the cause and/or do we have the power to effect change? I don't think there there is good evidence either way. ...and when the wild eyed predictions of the global warming alarmist crowd get blown out of the water (first it was global cooling, the next ice age was coming, then it was warming and the ice caps (the same ones that trapped several ships this winter) would be GONE by 2013 causing world wide floods, a story the BBC recently recanted on, the fact that the record shows cooling rather than warming over the last decade, the credibility of the movement gets called into question.

There is no doubt, when recorded history and the fossil record is studied that the climate changes a lot. It has had wild swings, to far more exaggerated extremes than we have had since the dawn of the industrial age, and that our planet goes through cyclical drought, ice age, wet periods, etc, much of which have to do with solar activity and our position relative to the sun.

...so it REALLY comes down to "are we to blame for a portion of this change, and if we are can we do anything about it? ...and if the answer to that is YES, then how much effect, and SHOULD we? Should we allow the world economy, and thus humanity to suffer for potential and undiscovered gains by making changes? Should we allow local, federal or world governments to impede on individual liberties for these unrealized gains? It isn't "climate change" that is debated, it is really the cause, effect and reaction that is debated.

This is a topic I have studied a great deal, as someone who is very much a scientific mind, someone who doesn't have a religious point of view to cloud my thoughts on this, and even I keep coming back to the absolute irrefutable fact that we don't have all the fact, and most of the theories and predictions have holes in them (usually put there by the climate itself) and then consider the corrupt political movement around the subject and find myself coming down on the side of individual liberties should not be trampled, energy prices should not be artificially inflated in the name of man-made climate change.

We should regulate to keep the air and water clean, you'll get no debate from me on that front. ...and we have made HUGE progress on that front since the 70's when things were at their worst. ...but we should not be making policy that has major economic and liberty limiting consequences based on unsettled science.

You and I, we agree.

[UNT90]

What really needs to be understood by everyone who wants to point to the history of the earth and it's cycles for clues/answers to why the Earth will continue to cycle as it always has, is the enormous population change that has occurred in the past 200 years. This is the variable that is certainly capable of being an agent of change. The population of the earth before the mid 1800's was less than 1 billion people. It's over 7 billion now.

The history of the earth prior to the mid 1800's needs to be set as more of a control. It shouldn't really be cited by anyone today for or against climate trending. However, ~200 years is not really enough time to see measurables to prove/deny that the population explosion (and whatever energy methods that population are utilizing) is contributing anything to the climate. But, it's certainly interesting to look at.

Christian here; and from my point of view, anyone who cites someone saying, "God is in control, so we have nothing to worry about... keep doing what you're doing!" should be discarded. At best, this person's motives are overzealous. At worst, they're political posturing, having nothing to do with God at all.

God is certainly in control. BUT, the Earth is part of His creation and we need to treasure it as such. Gen 1:28 (before the fall) says to be fruitful and multiply, & subdue the earth... It does not say to exploit it.

Also have no problem here.

The people I completely disagree with are the ones that say this is concrete science, global warming is absolutely occurring and man is the cause, and there are dire consequences right around the corner.

These people are voicing a political opinion, not a scientific opinion.

Edited February 25, 2014 by UNT90