Do not believe in climate change caused by mankind?

[phaZed]

Phazed Lighten up. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. Your Nazi reference is offensive to me in the extreme. Only a Nazi would try to stifle or brow beat another's opinion, while if you reread my post I was simply offering mine.

Did I call you a Nazi? No, I didn't.. but now your calling me one... so you lighten up! What part of your Credo doesn't fit with Nazism? Answer that and I will concede that your credo isn't fitting for the Nazi's. Regardless, I see it as a horrible credo.. shunning books and literature.. pfft. Take me back to caveman days, please! What a ridiculous credo. I don't see you having any problems with coffee's OP as offensive when referring to Nazi's when it's referring to the other side. Why is that? When it's convenient for you, right? Talk about brow beating others. Be careful, your close to being a hypocrite. Offering opinions.. isn't this the problem we face? Somehow you guys have an opinion that goes against science (Not opinion) and think that the opinion beats the science. So, if you guys want to have a debate or post this kind of trite... bring your science and not your opinion.

Just because we disagree doesn't have to result in personal attacks regardless of how far toward the opposite pole one stands. I assure you long after we are gone someone will still be having this discussion.

And here's the big problem. I didn't personally attack you, yet, you take it as such when your opinion is questioned. I speak generally here, but this is how you guys deflect the hard questions on your opinions.. no solid answers, so lets resort to calling the attacks "personal". Your welcome to your opinions, no matter how ill-informed they are, but expect to face resistance when you provide no evidence, truths or logical paradigm for said public things.

Oh and for your edification ...
[ ˈweT͟Hər ]
NOUN
the state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.:
"if the weather's good, we can go for a walk"
synonyms: forecast · outlook · meteorological conditions · climate ·

It appears climate and weather are one in the same after all...

Thank you for confirming your ignorance of the subject. You think because a dictionary has "climate" as a synonym for the definition of "Weather", you win? Perhaps you should look up the definition of "Synonym" and see that a synonym doesn't have to mean exactly the same thing. Start with that, then you can explain how Local Weather and Global climate are the exact same thing because NASA and everyone else doesn't define it as such. This is 2nd grade stuff here, literally, seriously.. not being degrading. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

You see, we keep getting these "Weather" posts from coffee and others saying, "Look it's snowing here", as if your little 30 square mile patch of Earth, is all of the Earth. It isn't. So, why not go to California and check out their drought and hottest winter ever... how does that fit in with "Oh, MY winter has been really cold and snowy" idea? Or while the guy in Canada is complaining his door doesn't open from too much snow, citing that as proof Global Warming is a fake or how Hawaii got snow (Which they get normally) - I don't see anyone citing the fact that the Northern Plains saw record-warm temps for the middle of Winter or how the Sierra Snowpack is at a Record Low. These 20 cities had the WARMEST Winter on Record:
1. Key West, Florida
2. Miami, Florida
3. West Palm Beach, Florida
4. Fort Myers, Florida
5. Vero Beach, Florida
6. Punta Gorda, Florida
7. Venice, Florida
8. St. Petersburg, Florida
9. (tie) Tampa, Florida
9. (tie) Orlando, Florida
11. Lakeland, Florida
12. Plant City, Florida
13. Los Angeles, California
14. San Diego, California
15. (tie) Brownsville, Texas
15. (tie) Long Beach, California
17. Phoenix, Arizona
18. (tie) McAllen, Texas
18. (tie) Daytona Beach, Florida
20. Needles, California
http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/warmest-winter-on-record-2014-2015

Explain away! But you won't.. you guys will just keep citing only the events that "fit" your opinions, while shunning the Global data from so called "Authorities" or other places that doesn't fit. How convenient. Have at it Haas!

 

[Galdorf]

Explain this?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weath...ather-cold-snow-record-temperatures/23728379/

How can you break cold records on warmest winter? 72 record low temperatures from Marquette, Mich. to Miami.

Snow breaks Istanbul record in Mideast cold snap:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...record-in-Istanbul-Lebanon-shuts-schools.html

UK: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/552777/Cold-weather-to-claim-a-record-number-of-lives

 

[phaZed]

Explain this?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weath...ather-cold-snow-record-temperatures/23728379/

How can you break cold records on warmest winter?

Exactly. Now, is that Weather or Climate?

Right from the article:

"An eddy of the polar vortex is leading to the coldest weather of this recent cold spell, creating a deep layer of bitterly cold air, along with gusty winds," said meteorologist David Hamrick of the weather service's Weather Prediction Center.

So, I guess we could attribute it to a polar vortex. It's a weather event akin to a Tornado or Hurricane, etc.
Polar Vortex - Wikipedia

​

 

[oldtech]

"Thank you for confirming your ignorance of the subject. You think because a dictionary has "climate" as a synonym for the definition of "Weather", you win?" (Phazed)

And there's the rub. It's not a matter of win or lose - at least in my world I don't view it as such. Phazed like I said you need to lighten/grow the **** up. You completely misread my credo either by intent or compromised perspective I'm not sure. I am not here to convince anyone my view is right and you have little chance of convincing me. In your view anyone harboring a different world view is either a challenge, ignorant, uneducated or a facist.. I simply used my God given right to express a differing opinion. Deal with it or don't, what I wrote required no response from you or any other acolyte from the altar of climate change.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

What's the matter with you oldtech, you haven't learned the difference between weather & climate yet?

Very hot weather: We're all going to die!
Very cold weather: There's a difference between climate & weather, moron!

 

[phaZed]

And there's the rub. It's not a matter of win or lose - at least in my world I don't view it as such. Phazed like I said you need to lighten/grow the **** up. You completely misread my credo either by intent or compromised perspective I'm not sure. I am not here to convince anyone my view is right and you have little chance of convincing me. In your view anyone harboring a different world view is either a challenge, ignorant, uneducated or a facist.. I simply used my God given right to express a differing opinion. Deal with it or don't, what I wrote required no response from you or any other acolyte from the altar of climate change.

Now who's attacking who here? So, I can't say your credo resembles Nazism (Which is true, you have not rebutted that), but you get to call me an uneducated fascist for knowing science? So, YOU get to post opinions on this public forum but I should just not respond? How about you keep your opinions to yourself if you don't want a response, or do I not get the same GOD given right? I didn't attack you, you're attacking me. So, you grow up.

You have taken my "Win/Lose" the wrong way and contorted into meaning something different. I meant, and clearly did refer to "The Argument" at hand. There are winners and losers in debates. You tried to "win the debate" of "Climate is the same as Weather" statement by providing a dictionary reference and the fact that "Weather" is a synonym of "Climate". I'm telling you that a synonym doesn't mean "same", it means similar when referring to the English language and that Climate and Weather are very different things as defined by Science. If this is your "evidence" as such, well, that's just ludicrous.

EDIT: Ignorance is not an insult, if that's why your so upset. Everyone is ignorant about something and I will be the first to tell you I'm ignorant about a lot of things.. so chill out. Now, being "willfully" ignorant is a different matter all together and I have not called you as such nor meant to imply it.

 

[phaZed]

Snow breaks Istanbul record in Mideast cold snap:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...record-in-Istanbul-Lebanon-shuts-schools.html

UK: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/552777/Cold-weather-to-claim-a-record-number-of-lives

Nice EDIT. So, you post at 4:03PM, I reply at 4:19pm and then you edit your post to include the above at 4:29pm.
Why not just reply to the questions I posed instead of sneaking in more "Weather" references? If your on the side of "Weather is the Same as Climate" issue lets just skip all the little things and start proving weather is the same as climate... since, to me, that's what it sounds like your arguing, correct?

So, you go first.. why is Weather the same as Climate? Does Weather drive Climate or does Climate drive Weather, or neither? Does the science of Climate change not already predict wild weather swings or not? What type of Weather is expected in the short term, as defined by Climate Scientists?

 

[coffee]

I thought, Ok - Ill post this and probably get 1 reply or so. But I didnt expect so many. Then I got busy with work and Im just bushed. Im sorry I have not replied. Ill try and catch up on all the posts here.

Sorry.

 

[oldtech]

/sigh

 

[gunslinger]

/sigh

Its not worth it. You should see some of our back and fourths. PM me when you get the chance.

 

[phaZed]

Its not worth it. You should see some of our back and fourths. PM me when you get the chance.

It really isn't, especially if you aren't willing to answer questions and describe your position truthfully.

EDIT: If you guys are willing and cordial, I would be happy to have a real back and forth, question and answer debate. You can poke holes in my logic as long as I get to poke at yours. I could be wrong and you could be right.. so lets start answering some stuff to do that. Still, no one is answering basic questions of their claims, they just keep piling on examples. So at what basic level do we start? I propose we start with what I have already proposed: "Climate vs. Weather and how they are the same". If not there, where do you propose we start?

There's no reason to take things so personally here. I speak my mind and I really don't dislike or view lesser of any of us because of your personal views. I hope you do the same. From our community I can see we are all reasonable people and great techs. I'm not trying to change your mind, I want our minds to be changed by facts, logic and reason. So let's have a no BS discussion. If we make an extraordinary claim, we have to provide credible evidence to back it up. I expect you to hold me to the same standards, so long as I can do the same.

 

[TechLady]

 

[MobileTechie]

Like everyone else here I imagine, I've not read, in detail, all the scientific reports and studies on global climate change. Even if I did, I imagine it would be pretty complex stuff and I might not be able to understand it anyway. So I'm left with looking at what the scientists themselves are saying. And the vast majority are saying there is a very strong man-made element to it. I'm struggling to work out how I could justify siding with the minority rather than go for the consensus when I'm not capable of reviewing the evidence. And therefore I'm struggling to work out how other people are so willing to believe a very small minority. And I can only conclude that they are motivated by other factors to do so, such as political beliefs.

Also the "explain this" challenges are irrelevant to the data-set, models and science as a whole. They're not even worth considering and appear to be perfectly well explained within the consensus hypotheses anyway.

Let's say all the 1000's of scientists in agencies and university etc working for years and years all turn out to be wrong and we didn't need to worry about burning fossil fuels or finding alternative energy sources that are renewable....well we're going to run out of fossil fuels pretty soon anyway and will have to take all these steps. But before that point oil, coal and gas will be in short supply and insanely expensive, impacting all of our lives. So we need to be working on it now anyway.

 

[gunslinger]

Anyone else here see the strong connection between being liberal and believing in global warming? Not trying to open up a whole other can o worms, simply an observation. Not just on this forum either. There seems to be a very strong connection between the two pretty much all over.

 

[SilverLeaf]

Not trying to open up a whole other can o worms.....

Certainly seems that way. Why else would you even bring it up?

 

[gunslinger]

Certainly seems that way. Why else would you even bring it up?

Twas a simple observation based on what I have seen in other forums and twitter combined with the 70 or so times this topic has come up here. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say since you seem mildly offended you are indeed on the left and do believe in global warming. Am I right? Be honest.

 

[SilverLeaf]

Twas a simple observation based on what I have seen in other forums and twitter combined with the 70 or so times this topic has come up here. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say since you seem mildly offended you are indeed on the left and do believe in global warming. Am I right? Be honest.

My view on global warming has nothing to do with any political affiliation or ideology. As I mentioned earlier, when one views the facts through the lenses of politics/religion/etc., the truth gets distorted or obscured entirely. My stance on this topic is my own. Can you say the same?

 

[gunslinger]

My view on global warming has nothing to do with any political affiliation or ideology. As I mentioned earlier, when one views the facts through the lenses of politics/religion/etc., the truth gets distorted or obscured entirely. My stance on this topic is my own. Can you say the same?

You are avoiding the question. That leads me to believe even more strongly that you lean to the left with your political views. You did not deny it. You can say that your political affiliation has nothing to do with your views on the subject matter but experience and your own reluctance to say what your political affiliation is tells me a different story.

 

[jbartlett323]

You are avoiding the question. That leads me to believe even more strongly that you lean to the left with your political views. You did not deny it. You can say that your political affiliation has nothing to do with your views on the subject matter but experience and your own reluctance to say what your political affiliation is tells me a different story.

This isn't a debate on Political affiliations. I believe in man-made global warming (although I don't believe all the scare mongering going along with it), so does that make me lean left/liberal? Cause I'm pretty confident I don't lean at all.
As a matter of fact, I think we can all agree that both directions are pretty f-ed up and need to be shot. Can't we all just lean down the middle and have rational, logical conversations regarding our personal opinions without any need to bring other unnecessary/unrelated topics into the mix?

That being said, I am a bystander in many of these debate, and often I see one side present opinions, the other presents research, and it ends in much the same way a religious debate would; those that brought facts walk away, those that brought opinion get mad. Doesn't make for a good read! If we can stick to the facts, with opinion thrown in, these discussions are great. When you stick to opinion, with facts optional... well you get the point.

I'm gonna try to make this a big a wall of text as possible right now, so as to derail this topic before bad things happen. Maybe (I have seen it before), it can get back to the points at hand in a reasonable way. Currently it is devolving fast.

Oh, and to the actual topic: Yes GW is real. No Climate is not the same as weather, although synonymus. Yes we are all going to die a tragic death at the hands of our planet. No, it will not be tomorrow, or even the next day. Yes, we will run out of fossil fuels, and yes nuclear is the much better option than most all the other "green" technologies out there from an ease of use, renewable, and safety stand-point. No, most people do not believe that last and will hold up 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukishima as proof. Of what, I'm not really sure. Been more deaths caused by coal in a year that cause by nuclear in its life time. oh, and heres a link to that! But, we do need to move our fuel to something, anything, better before the dino's run out. We use oil for far to many other things...

 

[SilverLeaf]

You are avoiding the question. That leads me to believe even more strongly that you lean to the left with your political views. You did not deny it. You can say that your political affiliation has nothing to do with your views on the subject matter but experience and your own reluctance to say what your political affiliation is tells me a different story.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to facilitate your misguided efforts to turn this into a political discussion. Although, I will say that my answer might not be what you expect. But again, I'm not out to prove anything or try to convince others that my point of view is correct. My only point is that, if you want to get to the truth, one needs to look at the facts without the interference of ideology and dogma. Otherwise, you are just a puppet.