jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 9, 2015 20:59:04 GMT -5
If you can come up with a report from a Oil Co. saying that global warming is caused by Carbon emissions from man, then You Have me. on your side. When the first medical reports came out claiming smoking was bad for you, cigarette companies hired their own research firms to prove that not only did smoking not hurt you, it gave you energy and helped you lose weight. I can remember when the tobacco companies finally came clean in public that yes, cigarettes may not be that good for you - but it's your right to smoke them. I think that was in the late seventies, early 80s? Based on that experience, I would expect Big Oil to admit that use of the product has a harmful impact on the environment in about 100 years. And every prediction made by global warming scientists has not come to pass.
The UN scientists (or maybe they're just politicians in disguise ) claimed something like there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010 (so five years ago). Not a single climate refugee in 2010, nor five years later...there are quite a few refugees going to Europe these days, but that has nothing to do with climate And they've been talking for over a decade now about how snow will disappear from our winters...two years ago we had record snow in our area. They had snow at a global warming climate conference for crying out loud! So these lovely global warming alarmists changed their tune and started blaming all the extra snow on global warming!! All they ever do is just automaticlaly blame global warming for every single thing that happens in the world.
So how many years of failed predictions will go by before they finally admit they just don't know what the hell is going on climate-wise? And when will they stop with these stupid fearmongering predictions of theirs?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 9, 2015 21:02:51 GMT -5
When the first medical reports came out claiming smoking was bad for you, cigarette companies hired their own research firms to prove that not only did smoking not hurt you, it gave you energy and helped you lose weight. I can remember when the tobacco companies finally came clean in public that yes, cigarettes may not be that good for you - but it's your right to smoke them. I think that was in the late seventies, early 80s? Based on that experience, I would expect Big Oil to admit that use of the product has a harmful impact on the environment in about 100 years. this is a brilliant reply, happy- a GREAT counterexample. they actually paid DOCTORS to deliver their "studies". and it worked. people actually thought smoking was at worst, benign, for many many years. SOME STILL DO. at best, they thought cigarettes were HEALTHY. i don't think anyone thinks that anymore. And what do you call paying government grants to scientists to study global warming, but only if the studies are in SUPPORT of global warming? Kind of sounds the same to me...
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,885
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 10, 2015 6:50:47 GMT -5
this is a brilliant reply, happy- a GREAT counterexample. they actually paid DOCTORS to deliver their "studies". and it worked. people actually thought smoking was at worst, benign, for many many years. SOME STILL DO. at best, they thought cigarettes were HEALTHY. i don't think anyone thinks that anymore. And what do you call paying government grants to scientists to study global warming, but only if the studies are in SUPPORT of global warming? Kind of sounds the same to me... Do you have proof that government scientists are paid to provide data to support the theory of global warming? Proof that didn't come from FOX or one of those far right scientists who believe global warming isn't happening because Jesus loves us and wouldn't let it happen?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,885
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 10, 2015 7:06:27 GMT -5
When the first medical reports came out claiming smoking was bad for you, cigarette companies hired their own research firms to prove that not only did smoking not hurt you, it gave you energy and helped you lose weight. I can remember when the tobacco companies finally came clean in public that yes, cigarettes may not be that good for you - but it's your right to smoke them. I think that was in the late seventies, early 80s? Based on that experience, I would expect Big Oil to admit that use of the product has a harmful impact on the environment in about 100 years. And every prediction made by global warming scientists has not come to pass.
The UN scientists (or maybe they're just politicians in disguise ) claimed something like there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010 (so five years ago). Not a single climate refugee in 2010, nor five years later...there are quite a few refugees going to Europe these days, but that has nothing to do with climate And they've been talking for over a decade now about how snow will disappear from our winters...two years ago we had record snow in our area. They had snow at a global warming climate conference for crying out loud! So these lovely global warming alarmists changed their tune and started blaming all the extra snow on global warming!! All they ever do is just automaticlaly blame global warming for every single thing that happens in the world.
So how many years of failed predictions will go by before they finally admit they just don't know what the hell is going on climate-wise? And when will they stop with these stupid fearmongering predictions of theirs?
I haven't researched what the UN scientists have said, but I've tracked NOAA's predictions - and I say 'predictions' with an 's' because no real scientist would ever say he is 100% certain of what something will look like 10, 500 or 1000 years from now - especially not a system as complicated as the global climate system. NOAA publishes not one but multiple potential scenarios from multiple computer modeling systems and states that, most likely, what will actually happen will fall someplace in the middle of the pack. You may be looking only at the predictions that minimize the impact of climate change, and you're cat calling the predictions that maximize the impact, but I suspect the real impact will lay squarely in the middle of these two extremes, and so does NOAA. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.phpYou can say that climate change is a joke because the ocean hasn't flooded Florida yet, but that's not what most climate change models have predicted. And the people who live in Florida who are already having problems with sinks holes and salt water incursions on their freshwater wells probably don't think the ocean level rising by an inch in the next decade is a joke, either.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Sept 10, 2015 7:13:02 GMT -5
I believe that the research on global warming and the causes of it IS paid by government grants. What I don't believe is that our government is entirely run by people that wanna push down our throat their own beliefs. Isnt the government suppose to be impartial? I thought that's why we elect our officials. Aren't members of our government of both sides and varied beliefs as to represent us as a nation?
If the present government is paying the researchers to be partial to the liberal agenda then why did they have the same claim under all republican/ conservator leadership over the last 30-40 years?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 10, 2015 8:41:44 GMT -5
happyhoix, since you are on the opposite side of the fence in this discussion, from me. I have searched the internet up, down back and forth, for an honest answer on how much the sea level has risen in the last 100 years. it is not there. We have a 1000 predictions ( that may be a little high, 998 is a little closer. on what is is going to be in 100 years, Even those differ greatly. 100 years ago, we knew with some accuracy what MEAN Sea Level was. Today they know what Mean Sea Level is with great accuracy. That's all that I am asking for( I can't find it.) An unbiased scientific study showing the Mean Sea Level has risen in the last 100 years. No, NASA and NOAA are not unbiased.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,456
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 10, 2015 9:15:32 GMT -5
happyhoix, since you are on the opposite side of the fence in this discussion, from me. I have searched the internet up, down back and forth, for an honest answer on how much the sea level has risen in the last 100 years. it is not there. We have a 1000 predictions ( that may be a little high, 998 is a little closer. on what is is going to be in 100 years, Even those differ greatly. 100 years ago, we knew with some accuracy what MEAN Sea Level was. Today they know what Mean Sea Level is with great accuracy. That's all that I am asking for( I can't find it.) An unbiased scientific study showing the Mean Sea Level has risen in the last 100 years. No, NASA and NOAA are not unbiased. Seeing you know who are the biased sources of study, who then are the unbiased sources of study you would accept. You cannot determine who is biased without knowing who isn't biased. So please provide your list of unbiased sources.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Sept 10, 2015 9:51:02 GMT -5
happyhoix, since you are on the opposite side of the fence in this discussion, from me. I have searched the internet up, down back and forth, for an honest answer on how much the sea level has risen in the last 100 years. it is not there. We have a 1000 predictions ( that may be a little high, 998 is a little closer. on what is is going to be in 100 years, Even those differ greatly. 100 years ago, we knew with some accuracy what MEAN Sea Level was. Today they know what Mean Sea Level is with great accuracy. That's all that I am asking for( I can't find it.) An unbiased scientific study showing the Mean Sea Level has risen in the last 100 years. No, NASA and NOAA are not unbiased. Seeing you know who are the biased sources of study, who then are the unbiased sources of study you would accept. You cannot determine who is biased without knowing who isn't biased. So please provide your list of unbiased sources. I think it's limited to oil companies.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,456
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 10, 2015 9:55:54 GMT -5
Seeing you know who are the biased sources of study, who then are the unbiased sources of study you would accept. You cannot determine who is biased without knowing who isn't biased. So please provide your list of unbiased sources. I think it's limited to oil companies. Me thinks you're right. But I will wait for his unbiased reply.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 10:16:34 GMT -5
this is a brilliant reply, happy- a GREAT counterexample. they actually paid DOCTORS to deliver their "studies". and it worked. people actually thought smoking was at worst, benign, for many many years. SOME STILL DO. at best, they thought cigarettes were HEALTHY. i don't think anyone thinks that anymore. And what do you call paying government grants to scientists to study global warming, but only if the studies are in SUPPORT of global warming? Kind of sounds the same to me... if the data does not support their conclusions, then i agree. i have seen no evidence that "the government" paid scientists to LIE. edit: happy put it better in post 64.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 10:21:55 GMT -5
happyhoix, since you are on the opposite side of the fence in this discussion, from me. I have searched the internet up, down back and forth, for an honest answer on how much the sea level has risen in the last 100 years. it is not there. We have a 1000 predictions ( that may be a little high, 998 is a little closer. on what is is going to be in 100 years, Even those differ greatly. 100 years ago, we knew with some accuracy what MEAN Sea Level was. Today they know what Mean Sea Level is with great accuracy. That's all that I am asking for( I can't find it.) An unbiased scientific study showing the Mean Sea Level has risen in the last 100 years. No, NASA and NOAA are not unbiased. of course they are. what makes you think they are not?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 10:23:47 GMT -5
And every prediction made by global warming scientists has not come to pass.
The UN scientists (or maybe they're just politicians in disguise ) claimed something like there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010 (so five years ago). Not a single climate refugee in 2010, nor five years later...there are quite a few refugees going to Europe these days, but that has nothing to do with climate And they've been talking for over a decade now about how snow will disappear from our winters...two years ago we had record snow in our area. They had snow at a global warming climate conference for crying out loud! So these lovely global warming alarmists changed their tune and started blaming all the extra snow on global warming!! All they ever do is just automaticlaly blame global warming for every single thing that happens in the world.
So how many years of failed predictions will go by before they finally admit they just don't know what the hell is going on climate-wise? And when will they stop with these stupid fearmongering predictions of theirs?
I haven't researched what the UN scientists have said, but I've tracked NOAA's predictions - and I say 'predictions' with an 's' because no real scientist would ever say he is 100% certain of what something will look like 10, 500 or 1000 years from now - especially not a system as complicated as the global climate system. NOAA publishes not one but multiple potential scenarios from multiple computer modeling systems and states that, most likely, what will actually happen will fall someplace in the middle of the pack. You may be looking only at the predictions that minimize the impact of climate change, and you're cat calling the predictions that maximize the impact, but I suspect the real impact will lay squarely in the middle of these two extremes, and so does NOAA. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.phpYou can say that climate change is a joke because the ocean hasn't flooded Florida yet, but that's not what most climate change models have predicted. And the people who live in Florida who are already having problems with sinks holes and salt water incursions on their freshwater wells probably don't think the ocean level rising by an inch in the next decade is a joke, either. ocean levels rise more due to thermal expansion than melting ice in the early phase of global warming, because only LANDED ice contributes to ocean rise. the trend should accelerate as time goes on, but most of us will be dead and gone by then. tough tittie for our grandkids, i guess.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 21:59:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2015 12:14:02 GMT -5
If you can come up with a report from a Oil Co. saying that global warming is caused by Carbon emissions from man, then You Have me. on your side. When the first medical reports came out claiming smoking was bad for you, cigarette companies hired their own research firms to prove that not only did smoking not hurt you, it gave you energy and helped you lose weight. I can remember when the tobacco companies finally came clean in public that yes, cigarettes may not be that good for you - but it's your right to smoke them. I think that was in the late seventies, early 80s? Based on that experience, I would expect Big Oil to admit that use of the product has a harmful impact on the environment in about 100 years. Big oil wouldn't exist if we didn't buy their product. Do you buy their product ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 21:59:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2015 12:21:14 GMT -5
Yes, but let's see all the data...not just the cherry-picked and/or manipulated UN bullshit i think where i part ways with climate change deniers is that they are not interested in ANY data: bullshit or no. But the term "climate change" merely means it changes. It has always changed since the formation of this planet. What point are you trying to make ?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 12:23:43 GMT -5
i think where i part ways with climate change deniers is that they are not interested in ANY data: bullshit or no. But the term "climate change" merely means it changes. It has always changed since the formation of this planet. What point are you trying to make ? i don't worry about the climate getting cooler. does that help?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 10, 2015 12:23:45 GMT -5
Really? You don't see evidence of extreme global weather events? Really?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 12:25:30 GMT -5
Really? You don't see evidence of extreme global weather events? Really? you can add rising CO2 levels to that. it is a very stubborn trend.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 21:59:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2015 12:25:36 GMT -5
If you can come up with a report from a Oil Co. saying that global warming is caused by Carbon emissions from man, then You Have me. on your side. When the first medical reports came out claiming smoking was bad for you, cigarette companies hired their own research firms to prove that not only did smoking not hurt you, it gave you energy and helped you lose weight. I can remember when the tobacco companies finally came clean in public that yes, cigarettes may not be that good for you - but it's your right to smoke them. I think that was in the late seventies, early 80s? Based on that experience, I would expect Big Oil to admit that use of the product has a harmful impact on the environment in about 100 years. How is the impact harmful ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 21:59:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2015 12:27:55 GMT -5
But the term "climate change" merely means it changes. It has always changed since the formation of this planet. What point are you trying to make ? i don't worry about the climate getting cooler. does that help? No, because you live in a warmer spot on the planet and have considerable comfort zone below your mean temperature.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 21:59:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2015 12:29:56 GMT -5
Really? You don't see evidence of extreme global weather events? Really? you can add rising CO2 levels to that. it is a very stubborn trend. And yet in 2009 when there was a substantial reduction in the use of fossil fuels due to economic conditions, the CO2 levels still rose.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 12:30:44 GMT -5
i don't worry about the climate getting cooler. does that help? No, because you live in a warmer spot on the planet and have considerable comfort zone below your mean temperature. has nothing to do with where i live. does that help?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 12:32:01 GMT -5
you can add rising CO2 levels to that. it is a very stubborn trend. And yet in 2009 when there was a substantial reduction in the use of fossil fuels due to economic conditions, the CO2 levels still rose. had nothing to do with my point. you said that "every prediction was wrong", and that is totally false. CO2 levels are quite predictable, and rising.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 21:59:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2015 12:34:20 GMT -5
Really? You don't see evidence of extreme global weather events? Really? Weather events are not climate events. Better to compare the increase in weather events along the line of increased weather data points (stations).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 21:59:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2015 12:38:09 GMT -5
And yet in 2009 when there was a substantial reduction in the use of fossil fuels due to economic conditions, the CO2 levels still rose. had nothing to do with my point. you said that "every prediction was wrong", and that is totally false. CO2 levels are quite predictable, and rising. I never said every prediction was wrong. (that was jkapp) Your point doesn't explain how global atmospheric CO2 levels can increase during a decrease of global fossil fuel usage. Are you one of those that only acknowledge the data that pertains to what you believe ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 21:59:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2015 12:41:49 GMT -5
No, because you live in a warmer spot on the planet and have considerable comfort zone below your mean temperature. has nothing to do with where i live. does that help? Yes, it means you feel that your temperature standard is the correct one without regards to your planetary placement.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 12:42:55 GMT -5
had nothing to do with my point. you said that "every prediction was wrong", and that is totally false. CO2 levels are quite predictable, and rising. I never said every prediction was wrong. you are right. jk did. i apologize. the post i saw didn't have attribution. as to the rest of that argument, i am not interested in straw man arguing- particularly in light of the fact that you never made that statement.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 12:43:56 GMT -5
has nothing to do with where i live. does that help? Yes, it means you feel that your temperature standard is the correct one without regards to your planetary placement. no, it means precisely the opposite. it means my local climate is not material to the analysis.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 21:59:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2015 12:48:05 GMT -5
Yes, it means you feel that your temperature standard is the correct one without regards to your planetary placement. no, it means precisely the opposite. it means my local climate is not material to the analysis. Great, now I feel we're getting somewhere. What is material to your analysis? Simple layman terms are fine for expediency.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 10, 2015 12:53:40 GMT -5
no, it means precisely the opposite. it means my local climate is not material to the analysis. Great, now I feel we're getting somewhere. What is material to your analysis? Simple layman terms are fine for expediency. the data. all i am saying is that global warming is taking place. that is the width and breadth of my analysis. i have never made any assertions otherwise. if you think i have, you are mistaken.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 21:59:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2015 13:03:06 GMT -5
Great, now I feel we're getting somewhere. What is material to your analysis? Simple layman terms are fine for expediency. the data. all i am saying is that global warming is taking place. that is the width and breadth of my analysis. i have never made any assertions otherwise. if you think i have, you are mistaken. Of course global warming is taking place. It has since the last little ice age. You do realize there is a difference between simple "global warming" versus "Anthropogenic global warming". Which are you referring to ? Your previous statements on increasing CO2 levels says "AGW" but you never actually said which one. You repeatedly say just "global warming" or "climate change". I can only apply data to a specific term for sake of argument. This one applies to AGW. www.earth-climate.com/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
|
|