Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Well - maybe some day the planet will start paying attention to experts « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 8

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46234
Offline
#15 : September 12, 2013, 10:37:57 PM

The part that is clear is those who warranted man made global would remove the ice cap from the poles this year were wrong. Of course when I was growing up we were being assured the cooling that was taking place was going to lead to another ice age.  Clearly that point didn't occur.
That's not true. The "global cooling" thing was a very was short-lived controversy, and NEVER broadly accepted by science. One guy published a paper and Time magazine ran a cover, and there was some interest for awhile. This is one of the most facile and anti-factual arguments that climate deniers issue.

As for global warming, it is supported by 97% of the peer-reviewed science on the subject for the last 20+ years. That is a fact.

It is settled science, and for every data point you can show that allegedly disproves it, there are probably hundreds that reaffirm it. Also, year to year fluctuations are normal and expected, but if you were to put all the various measurements onto graphs, the trend over time is undeniably in support of global warming, and the scientific CONSENSUS is that it is caused by humans. These are all facts, undisputed, unless you are listening to the Koch Bros. funded echo chambers of the Tea Party and FauxNooz.
Well - actually both of the statements I made are completely true.  There is ice at that poles, and quite a bit of it.  And the report(s) of global cooling was being offered as viable when I was growing up.  So - if you can accept ice at the poles and this being 2013 that point is correct.  Then, since you acknowledged the reports of global cooling - I suspect my comment was again right.

And I will ignore the gormless labels you offered in your conclusion.  I think we are done here.  Thanks. 

Oh yea, Al Gore is a bigger fool than one can imagine - don't compete with him. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Cyrus

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3138
Offline
#16 : September 12, 2013, 11:26:42 PM

"The science is settled."

I heard it was settled when it was "Anthropogenic Global Warming". Then it was settled *again* when it was suddenly changed to "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change"?

If I didn't know better it nearly sounds like someone's trying to hedge their bets.

Maybe it's that same politician that claims "the science is settled" lest the masses discover it's less about 'settled science" and more about "Do as I say and not as I do". 

BTW..will that be cash or check?

Also, can I interest you in our "Never Ending Threat from Terrorism" plan?

That too can be paid in annual installments.
: September 12, 2013, 11:28:33 PM Durango 95

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46234
Offline
#17 : September 12, 2013, 11:44:38 PM

My particular favorite is the return of the 97% of peer reviewed... right after (as in #2) is "settled science"

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

buccaneerNW

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1022
Offline
#18 : September 13, 2013, 12:00:36 AM

My particular favorite is the return of the 97% of peer reviewed... right after (as in #2) is "settled science"

I'm not sure I understand. Is it not true that 97% of peer reviewed scientific literature in the last 20 years supports global warming?

I would like to know how any of the denial offered by people who are not scientists holds any water against the work of people who spend their lives studying the issue.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


buccaneerNW

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1022
Offline
#19 : September 13, 2013, 12:05:55 AM

The part that is clear is those who warranted man made global would remove the ice cap from the poles this year were wrong. Of course when I was growing up we were being assured the cooling that was taking place was going to lead to another ice age.  Clearly that point didn't occur.
That's not true. The "global cooling" thing was a very was short-lived controversy, and NEVER broadly accepted by science. One guy published a paper and Time magazine ran a cover, and there was some interest for awhile. This is one of the most facile and anti-factual arguments that climate deniers issue.

As for global warming, it is supported by 97% of the peer-reviewed science on the subject for the last 20+ years. That is a fact.

It is settled science, and for every data point you can show that allegedly disproves it, there are probably hundreds that reaffirm it. Also, year to year fluctuations are normal and expected, but if you were to put all the various measurements onto graphs, the trend over time is undeniably in support of global warming, and the scientific CONSENSUS is that it is caused by humans. These are all facts, undisputed, unless you are listening to the Koch Bros. funded echo chambers of the Tea Party and FauxNooz.
Well - actually both of the statements I made are completely true.  There is ice at that poles, and quite a bit of it.  And the report(s) of global cooling was being offered as viable when I was growing up.  So - if you can accept ice at the poles and this being 2013 that point is correct.  Then, since you acknowledged the reports of global cooling - I suspect my comment was again right.


Let me restate. It is true that "global cooling" was an idea floated in the 70's. My point, which you chose to ignore, is that it was never accepted science. The lifespan on that discussion was pretty brief. On the other hand, global warming has been studied for 20+ years, it is accepted science by the vast vast majority of those who study climate. There's no fair comparison between the global cooling discussion and the global warming discussion. Any fair-minded individual can see that.


- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20290
Offline
#20 : September 13, 2013, 12:06:06 AM

I thought the "serious" uptick in hurricanes in Florida was the result of global warming? . . .that's what I heard in 2004-2005 . . . how many hurricanes hit Florida since then?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

buccaneerNW

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1022
Offline
#21 : September 13, 2013, 12:11:47 AM

"The science is settled."

I heard it was settled when it was "Anthropogenic Global Warming". Then it was settled *again* when it was suddenly changed to "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change"?

If I didn't know better it nearly sounds like someone's trying to hedge their bets.

Maybe it's that same politician that claims "the science is settled" lest the masses discover it's less about 'settled science" and more about "Do as I say and not as I do". 

BTW..will that be cash or check?

Also, can I interest you in our "Never Ending Threat from Terrorism" plan?

That too can be paid in annual installments.

Yup. Settled science. The only reason that people started to refer to it as climate change as opposed to warming was because many of the changes brought about by a warming planet would manifest in all sorts of ways. Some winters may be cooler. Some places may flood more. Some places may experience more drought. CLimate change. It was largely a name that attempted to make it easier for people to understand... but make no mistake, at the heart of it is a warming planet causing these shifts... No hedging. Just a rewording to attempt to get through to people who are too dense to get it.

The science is settled and has been for some time. Those of you who don't believe, just don't accept science. Probably a high overlap with people who don't believe in evolution. The flat-earth crowd.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


buccaneerNW

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1022
Offline
#22 : September 13, 2013, 12:18:25 AM

I thought the "serious" uptick in hurricanes in Florida was the result of global warming? . . .that's what I heard in 2004-2005 . . . how many hurricanes hit Florida since then?

Again, all you deniers are stuck in looking into individual examples. The effect of global warming is greater fluctuations, more extreme weather events, etc... The graph of any of the individual measurements is not a straight line. It's very erratic, but the trends in the graphs, whether it is for ground temperature, water temperature, precipitation, wind events... all are consistent with global warming and a changing climate over time measured not in days, months, or years, but in decades.... The trends are there. The greatest minds in the study of climate all agree...

So I don't really care about the example of hurricanes in Florida in the last 8-10 years.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


buccaneerNW

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1022
Offline
#23 : September 13, 2013, 12:22:30 AM

Bottom line is in who do you trust.

a) You can trust the fossil fuel industry and its wealthy supporters to be telling the truth about global warming/climate change... ignoring the fact that their information is completely self-serving.

-or-

b) You can trust the consensus of scientists who spend their lives studying the issue.

pick.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


Cyrus

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3138
Offline
#24 : September 13, 2013, 12:31:49 AM

"b) You can trust the consensus of scientists who spend their lives studying the issue."

That have absolutely no interest whatsoever in securing grant money. ::)

By the way, You forgot to tells about the anthropogenic part of your settled science argument. You're starting to slip on your group think.

Redwave

***
Second String

Posts : 120
Offline
#25 : September 13, 2013, 12:39:48 AM

Well then - many of us would make great meteorologists.   Reasoning..?    Humans often feel the need to explain anything & everything, whether or not they fully understand it or can prove it.  And they present it as fact.  Sounds a lot like the scientific community eh?   Hypothesize, research, present findings and it becomes accepted as fact until someone can prove it as wrong.

Cyrus

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3138
Offline
#26 : September 13, 2013, 12:44:35 AM

"Hypothesize, research, present findings and it becomes accepted as fact until someone can prove it as wrong."

You mean that "settled science" is often times no settled. Well I'll be damned.

i wanted to believe in the flat earth thing.

buccaneerNW

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1022
Offline
#27 : September 13, 2013, 12:50:21 AM

"b) You can trust the consensus of scientists who spend their lives studying the issue."

That have absolutely no interest whatsoever in securing grant money. ::)

By the way, You forgot to tells about the anthropogenic part of your settled science argument. You're starting to slip on your group think.

Do you really believe they have motivation to do bad science just to get grant money? Really? I mean, I've heard that ridiculous argument before. My response is twofold: (1) I would trust the integrity of scientists over business men 99 times out of 100, and (2) do you really think the money in those grants compares to the kind of money the Koch Bros., ExxonMobil, the Cato Institute, etc. are able to spend against the science? The Koch Bros. actually paid a scientist to do independent research to rebut climate change. Know what happened? He reported back to them his findings that were consistent with global warming. Now these opposition groups don't bother funding scientific research on the subject; rather, they just fund idiot denial groups, the Tea Party and dispense propaganda through FauxNoox, Rush Limbaugh, and the like.

As for the anthropogenic aspect, this is also accepted science. There is no controversy within science itself about it. Its only controversial in the minds of those who are not in the field, especially those who work in industries whose profits are directly affected.

I find it hilarious that you would accuse me of group-think... I don't know how your denial is any less group-think than my acceptance of the science... Seriously, where do you get your information from?

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


buccaneerNW

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1022
Offline
#28 : September 13, 2013, 01:03:31 AM

Well then - many of us would make great meteorologists.   Reasoning..?    Humans often feel the need to explain anything & everything, whether or not they fully understand it or can prove it.  And they present it as fact.  Sounds a lot like the scientific community eh?   Hypothesize, research, present findings and it becomes accepted as fact until someone can prove it as wrong.

Yup. It is settled until disproven. No one has disproven it. I would LOVE it to be disproven, and to not have to live with this information. Unfortunately, none of the anti-global-warming arguments floated these days has anything to do with science. It largely consists of ad-hominem attacks, disinformation, and mindless propaganda.

It's interesting how people selectively agree or disagree with science's conclusions, depending on how those conclusions impact their belief systems or the way in which they live their life.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


Cyrus

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3138
Offline
#29 : September 13, 2013, 01:06:29 AM

If the link between man made impact on global climate change is so strong why are you talking about Al Gore Rush Limbaugh and a flat earth?

Seems to me if the link was so demonstrably clear you would want to show us. You're drifting from "settled science" to politics. Therein lies your group think.
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 8
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Well - maybe some day the planet will start paying attention to experts « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools