Do not believe in climate change caused by mankind?

[gunslinger]

@Galdorf Ah, material from "climatologist" Cliff Harris. His background is insurance law and has no science publications. Also a Jesus-freak and chemtrails-conspiracy theorist. Hilarious. Are you even trying?

Did you really just use a religious insult? Wow...an all new low even for you.

 

[oldtech]

and ...there it is again..... if the facts don't suit your world view you simply discard or discount them or claim to discredit because of the sources' affiliation/funding. I joined several start-ups a year in to their development but in every case was considered one of the founders. It is more a reflection of what you contribute to the growth than the employee number. But let's certainly discount his contributions there and I'm sure it is inconvenient to listen to his scientific opinions of course.

 

[TechLady]

Since you're now the arbiter of civility and politeness...I believe this was you a while back, speaking of people that don't particularly feel the need to have guns in their homes?

Let's only hope that Darwinism is alive and well.

That's pretty nice. Pacifists are so annoying--they should all just shut up and die.

@oldtech You don't think it's a problem that literally every "expert" you guys have come up with is on the payroll of some oil company or another? You don't think that creates some kind of...I dunno...conflict of interest? If a guy spent 5% of his time with Greenpeace, and the other 95% with various destructive industries and corporations, how is he not discrediting himself?

Then there is US who just want all these people to leave us alone and quit trying to take our money.

I think this probably comes closest to the real reason some people resist the concept of climate change. You can keep your head in the sand...the real cost of ignoring reality is coming.

 

[TechLady]

P.S. Goodnight and I'm done. @seedubya is right, and I have work to do.

 

[coffee]

@Galdorf Also a Jesus-freak

Shame on you.

 

[Galdorf]

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming

The real question is can you believe any of the top climatologist data has it been fabricated?.
Therefore any graphs, papers how accurate is the information?.

Even science and text books get things wrong take magnetic fields of the earth:

Anyone see something wrong with this picture?
When i was in high school i was taught the earths north magnetic pole is really the south magnetic pole the north geographic is north pole the books at time were changed to reflect this.

http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-53601/A-basic-law-of-magnetism-is-that-like-poles-repel


So what i was taught in high school was wrong? or is it both..

Then when you read this it is even more confusing : http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/1000302/
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Magnetosphere/earth_magnetic_poles.html

Then they throw in another term in the mix: Like the North Magnetic Pole, the North Geomagnetic Pole attracts the north pole of a bar magnet and so is in a physical sense actually a south magnetic pole.

So wait they say north pole of magnet attracts to north magnetic pole hold on a second that breaks basic laws of magnetism but its really a south magnetic pole lol confused yet?.

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

So what is correct information?? see what i am getting at.

 

[Metanis]

...Outside of some political or ideological influence, I don't see how anyone could rationally be opposed to this.

Because nearly every scheme advanced to "fix" global warming makes poor people poorer. You speak of rationality. Is it so hard to understand that there are consequences for artificially raising the price of energy?

You try to make the point that there would be zero negative consequences of "erring on the side of caution". But there is a huge consequence in the reduction of useful economic activity as resources are diverted toward schemes that may be both corrupt and inefficient. Economic progress cannot be regained once it is squandered. That is a science too! It's called compound interest.

As electricity prices rise it diverts resources that might be used better for a whole variety of purposes like research & development or even employee compensation. Or God forbid, new computer equipment or better Internet security!

What about simply the aesthetics of the environment? Have you ever driven by an area with a wind turbine farm? Not in my backyard! Those suckers are ugly, bird-killing, noise-polluting salutes to infantile thinking. Sort of like hooking a pair of mules up to my Buick.

There are political and policy decisions which need to be made. The truthfulness of both sides is going to be constantly evaluated. Arguing that the science is settled is nothing more than saying "Shut up and move to the back of the bus".

 

[Galdorf]

Man only accounts for 4% of the total co2 so no matter how much we change it will have no effect on climate.
What could be causing climate change? change in moons orbit having effect on ocean currents of the earth.
On the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon
Now check the news and see strange changes in the ocean currents causing blobs of warm water to spread this will cause havoc with the climate.
Blob of warm Pacific water threatens ecosystem, may intensify drought
If something is effecting orbit of the moon then it is also effecting the orbit of the earth and has proven by science to have happened in the past during main ice ages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/cl...ed-to-know-about-earths-orbit-and-climate-cha

 

[phaZed]

 

[coffee]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

 

[red12049]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Not sure where climate change is going, but, if you're going to do research, you can do better than Booker.

http://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/hall_of_shame#booker

Rick

 

[coffee]

Not sure where climate change is going, but, if you're going to do research, you can do better than Booker.

http://www.campaigncc.org/climate_change/sceptics/hall_of_shame#booker

Rick

I had seen some articles on drudgereport.com concerning data fraud but it had been about a month.

Seems a lot of the talk about climate change just addresses climate change in general. Not that its man made. I do not think its man made. Most all the graphs I see are short term - like 30 years or whatever and show whatever anyone wants them to show depending on the time line. However, If you look at a graph of temps over the history of the actual earth then it really evens out and just shows a series of spikes and drops in the average temps. If you look at periods of say, the 1900s, 1940s, 1960s, You will see that we had "strange weather patterns" and cold temps. This of course was during the heavy industrial age. So, More recently a lot of people are talking about global warming. Now, Since we find that the north pole is still the north pole and full of ice we have to call it climate change.

BTW -- Katherine Hayhoe is on the staff at Texas Tech in the Politics department. That makes me a bit curious about her. I am sure she has her agenda - probably investing in carbon credits? who knows.

 

[red12049]

I had seen some articles on drudgereport.com concerning data fraud but it had been about a month.

Seems a lot of the talk about climate change just addresses climate change in general. Not that its man made. I do not think its man made. Most all the graphs I see are short term - like 30 years or whatever and show whatever anyone wants them to show depending on the time line. However, If you look at a graph of temps over the history of the actual earth then it really evens out and just shows a series of spikes and drops in the average temps. If you look at periods of say, the 1900s, 1940s, 1960s, You will see that we had "strange weather patterns" and cold temps. This of course was during the heavy industrial age. So, More recently a lot of people are talking about global warming. Now, Since we find that the north pole is still the north pole and full of ice we have to call it climate change.

BTW -- Katherine Hayhoe is on the staff at Texas Tech in the Politics department. That makes me a bit curious about her. I am sure she has her agenda - probably investing in carbon credits? who knows.

You might find this of interest... http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...change_five_arguments_for_why_one_should.html

BTW, Hayhoe at least has the appropriate bona fides... Booker... Not so much.

Rick

 

[phaZed]

World passes critical global warming milestone

MICHAEL CASEY CBS NEWS
May 6, 2015 2:59 PM EDT

For the first time, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced Wednesday that global concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in March passed 400 parts per million.

The landmark has long been expected, given that nations led by the United States, China and India continue to pump huge quantities of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. But the fact it has now been reached could provide additional urgency to reaching a global pact to cap emissions when world leaders meet in Paris on the issue later this year.

"It was only a matter of time that we would average 400 parts per million globally," said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. "We first reported 400 ppm when all of our Arctic sites reached that value in the spring of 2012. In 2013 the record at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory first crossed the 400-ppm threshold. Reaching 400 parts per million as a global average is a significant milestone."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-passes-critical-global-warming-milestone/

 

[frase]

aRGHHHHH

everyone can post statistics and blah - representing from website rah. Where are the solid logistics from a or B?

 

[TechLady]

 

[coffee]

 

[Galdorf]

I would believe the Eskimos before the government on climate change.
There is alot of talk around the world that sun is not rising in the correct place in other parts sun not setting in the proper place would suggest something is effecting the tilt of the earths axis which would have direct impact on climate.

 

[red12049]

aRGHHHHH

everyone can post statistics and blah - representing from website rah. Where are the solid logistics from a or B?

Hmmm. Where are the "solid logistics" for or against a God? For or against evolution? For or against creationism? Science is ALWAYS a work in progress.

Rick

 

[Moltuae]

Hmmm. Where are the "solid logistics" for or against a God? For or against evolution? For or against creationism? Science is ALWAYS a work in progress.

Rick

While science is always open to new discoveries and theories, evolution is pretty much a given. The evidence is so overwhelming that, even though it directly contradicts many religious myths, those who want their religions to retain any credibility have been forced to accept the concept of evolution and modify their beliefs accordingly.

As for the numerous Gods or 'creation', there is zero evidence to support these myths. You could never disprove them any more than you can disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. People have made stuff and stories up since mankind first walked the earth. To be taken seriously, the onus is on those making the fantastical claims to provide evidence to support their theories. Only then would the onus pass to those refuting the theories to provide contrary evidence.

To put it another way: There has to be at least a grain of evidence to prove that something exists before there is any point trying to find evidence that it does not.