Global Warming/Climate Change

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

[yyz28]

Xyy, Lonnie, 90,

Please post something, anything, in the scientific literature that supports your position. Not Newsweek, not the New York Times, not New American but Nature or Science or Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Until you do I'll hold the opinion that you are all representative of right-wing ideologues - short-sighted, simple-minded, and ignorant. I say that with all due respect.

I did. 90 has. TFLF, both in real and satire mode has. Volumes worth. Volumes that I know without a doubt in my mind you haven't even read. The news articles I post that quote scientists, you reject because they are news articles. The blogs and posts and articles by scientists I post you reject because they aren't the right (by your judgement) scientists. ...and then you conclude with name calling. ROTFLMAO! Thank you for proving my (and our) point.

Name Calling and refusal to actually address the content = weak argument. Done. Game. Set. Match.

[GTWT]

GTWT...Gone To West Texas? Just asking?

Rick

Years ago I was GTNT.

[Censored by Laurie]

97% is a pretty overwhelming concensus for science in 2014.

JustSayin'

I won't believe it until it's at least 103%.

[Quoner]

I did. 90 has. TFLF, both in real and satire mode has.

He hasn't two modes in like 3 years. Therefore, I refuse to read the rest of your post.

[KingDL1]

OK boys thank you!

Don't make me stop the car.

[mattmartin817]

Did this thread finally get derailed?

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

[FirefightnRick]

Years ago I was GTNT.

Figured so.

Rick

Edited March 7, 2014 by FirefightnRick

[UNT90]

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

I mean, it's not peer reviewed...

[GTWT]

An apparently anonymous article in the Economist telling scientists how science ought to be done. Yeah, that's convincing.

[UNT90]

An apparently anonymous article in the Economist telling scientists how science ought to be done. Yeah, that's convincing.

Shocked by your response...

Death of Innocents. Read it. See what consensus building science can lead to.

Or continue your religious like devotion to a weather prediction. Your choice.

Edited March 9, 2014 by UNT90

[FirefightnRick]

USA Today: "Democrats plan all-night 'talkathon' on climate change".

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/09/senate-democrats-talkathon-climate-change/6172647/

The issue of climate change is politically volatile, and Congress has shied away from serious legislative efforts since 2010, when House Democrats narrowly approved a bill to cap carbon emissions. That bill was ultimately viewed as contributing to the party's electoral losses that year. Senate Democrats never took it up.

Democrats have 28 senators scheduled to speak through Monday night, but some of the party's most vulnerable senators facing re-election this yearMary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolinaare notably missing from the lineup.

Rick

[oldguystudent]

I'm struggling to find a balanced report of this. Somebody please tell me he wasn't serious.

[FirefightnRick]

I'm struggling to find a balanced report of this. Somebody please tell me he wasn't serious.

He was being facetious. Here is the full quote.

"Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can't transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It's just something to think about."

Still, Joe has been a lifetime politician. 26 years and counting. Like so many others its time for him to go make his own living and stop feeding off the rest of us.

Rick

Edited March 10, 2014 by FirefightnRick

[KRAM1]

30 pages and going...and to think, no one has changed their opinion or view yet. Telling I think.

[EagleGreen]

He was being facetious. Here is the full quote.

Still, Joe has been a lifetime politician. 26 years and counting. Like so many others its time for him to go make his own living and stop feeding off the rest of us.

Rick

Wow! I always knew this guy was an asshat and now it is confirmed. Stopping the heat will stop the wind which will make it hotter? That's just dumb.

[FirefightnRick]

Wow! I always knew this guy was an asshat and now it is confirmed. Stopping the heat will stop the wind which will make it hotter? That's just dumb.

He was.....ugh,... Never mind.

Rick

[yyz28]

“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels,” she said at one point. Natural gas “is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels,” she said at another.

This is what Nancy Pelosi said on Wednesday about Natural Gas, which IS a fossil fuel. Shall we lampoon her, call her an idiot, or simply accept that it was a mistake and move on?

Using one sentence soundbites to discredit someone makes NOBODY smarter, or more educated on a subject. I plead, again, with the folks engaged in this thread to stop trying to discredit the opposition, and rather listen to what they have to say and argue the MATERIAL, instead of try and destroy the person delivering it.

..the point being, we don't elect politicians because they are scientific geniuses, but because we agree with their philosophies overall, and feel they will evaluate what is presented them and come to conclusions similar to what we come up with.

Edited March 14, 2014 by yyz28

[MeanGreenTexan]

“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels,” she said at one point. Natural gas “is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels,” she said at another.

This is what Nancy Pelosi said on Wednesday about Natural Gas, which IS a fossil fuel. Shall we lampoon her, call her an idiot, or simply accept that it was a mistake and move on?

Using one sentence soundbites to discredit someone makes NOBODY smarter, or more educated on a subject. I plead, again, with the folks engaged in this thread to stop trying to discredit the opposition, and rather listen to what they have to say and argue the MATERIAL, instead of try and destroy the person delivering it.

...the point being, we don't elect politicians because they are scientific geniuses, but because we agree with their philosophies overall, and fell they will evaluate what is presented them and come to conclusions similar to what we come up with.

I learned about politicians' "philosophies" at a very early age. Chances are, you did too:

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

..Most people when they hear the term fossil fuel think solid and liquid... coal and oil. ...

[LongJim]

..Most people when they hear the term fossil fuel think solid and liquid... coal and oil. ...

You never met my grandpa after a dinner at Joe T's. Come to think of it, solid and liquid apply also.

[GreenMachine]

..Most people when they hear the term fossil fuel think solid and liquid... coal and oil. ...

Just did a quick survey and 100% of the people I asked knew natural gas was a fossil fuel. Who are these "most people" you refer to?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Just did a quick survey and 100% of the people I asked knew natural gas was a fossil fuel. Who are these "most people" you refer to?

.

Of course it is ... but did you ask "is gas it a fossil fuel" or to just "name fossil fuels".if you did they likely will name oil and coal first and likely stop.... you likely will get a big difference in responses..... They know it is a fossil fuel but don't think to answer that way.. A lot in random sampling questions is how you ask..... and unfortunately people who often report results don't report results as the question was asked... and the results reported is flawed. I teach stat. ..

A lot if not most fossil fuel discussions is about pollution and usually they are talking about oil and coal.. Going to electricity eliminates a lot but where that come come.. in much of the USA... gas fired generators mostly at least in this area ( not Nukes, wind, solar or water power so much) and we have decreased oil and coal usage which messed up the atmosphere more..... That is also why a lot of people dislike the Keystone pipeline... that would be very dirty oil coming in from Canada (highly polluting oil) Oil from inside of USA is much cleaner burning and/or processing.... Don't hear West Texans* or American oil areas yelling "build that pipeline". Better for Texas economy if it is not built. Besides another big objection is the route proposed... it is awful and very political as well .. It would provide temporary jobs (and brags) for some Congressmen's districts..that explains the stupid route mostly.. over developed areas instead of further west over sparser areas and cheaper to build.. .

*People who don't live here or Texans that don't understand it often do.

.

Edited March 17, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GreenMachine]

.

Of course it is ... but did you ask "is gas it a fossil fuel" or to just "name fossil fuels".if you did they likely will name oil and coal first and likely stop.... you likely will get a big difference in responses..... They know it is a fossil fuel but don't think to answer that way.. A lot in random sampling questions is how you ask..... and unfortunately people who often report results don't report results as the question was asked... and the results reported is flawed. I teach stat. ..

A lot if not most fossil fuel discussions is about pollution and usually they are talking about oil and coal.. Going to electricity eliminates a lot but where that come come.. in much of the USA... gas fired generators mostly at least in this area ( not Nukes, wind, solar or water power so much) and we have decreased oil and coal usage which messed up the atmosphere more..... That is also why a lot of people dislike the Keystone pipeline... that would be very dirty oil coming in from Canada (highly polluting oil) Oil from inside of USA is much cleaner burning and/or processing.... Don't hear West Texans* or American oil areas yelling "build that pipeline". Better for Texas economy if it is not built. Besides another big objection is the route proposed... it is awful and very political as well .. It would provide temporary jobs (and brags) for some Congressmen's districts..that explains the stupid route mostly.. over developed areas instead of further west over sparser areas and cheaper to build.. .

*People who don't live here or Texans that don't understand it often do.

.

Just yanking your chain and making fun of Pelosi at the same time.