Do not believe in climate change caused by mankind?

[TechLady]

Because you are a scientist and you know this for a fact? Interesting, maybe a career change is in order? I don't have a problem with moving towards cleaner, safer,energy sources. I'm not pro-oil spill or pro-radioactivity. Thats not even the issue here. You have your left wing, liberal, "scientists" that say man made climate change is a thing. Then there are the other scientists, the ones you choose to ignore, who strongly disagree.

Show me these scientists that disagree. Show me their work in peer-reviewed journals. Show me their proofs. That's what we've been saying for the last four pages, and you haven't done it.

You may hate libruhs with every fiber of your being (wooo!), but as this isn't actually a partisan issue we're just asking you to engage the logic part of your brain, not the emotional and prejudicial. How much you hate libruhs is irrelevant.

 

[coffee]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03...-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/

We all know that MAN MADE climate change doesnt really exist.

 

[TechLady]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03...-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/

We all know that MAN MADE climate change doesnt really exist.

Ah, yes...a link to the site by Marc Morano. Marc Morano is not a scientist and has no scientific background whatsoever. Prior to starting Climate Depot, he worked as a producer for Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s where he was known as Limbaugh's "Man in Washington." Morano is paid by a fossil fuel industry-funded organization for his numerous media appearances and his website--that is a fact.

You just wasted our time again.

 

[gunslinger]

Ah, yes...a link to the site by Marc Morano. Marc Morano is not a scientist and has no scientific background whatsoever. Prior to starting Climate Depot, he worked as a producer for Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s where he was known as Limbaugh's "Man in Washington." Morano is paid by a fossil fuel industry-funded organization for his numerous media appearances and his website--that is a fact.

You just wasted our time again.

And who are the "scientists" who are pushing man made climate change? Who pays them? Could it be the climate god himself?

 

[coffee]

Ah, yes...a link to the site by Marc Morano. Marc Morano is not a scientist and has no scientific background whatsoever. Prior to starting Climate Depot, he worked as a producer for Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s where he was known as Limbaugh's "Man in Washington." Morano is paid by a fossil fuel industry-funded organization for his numerous media appearances and his website--that is a fact.

You just wasted our time again.

 

[TechLady]

And who are the "scientists" who are pushing man made climate change? Who pays them? Could it be the climate god himself?

And now you're just basically trolling. I know you aren't going to hear anything I say. I've got a giant red L on my forehead and you are apparently unable to see anything else. But you might re-read what Stonecat (a fellow conservative!) said a few pages back.

 

[TechLady]

@coffee Your sources are getting better. Keeping digging. Not sure where you were going with that graphic, but yup, there is more consensus about climate change among those with training and doctorates than those with pretty faces on news hour shows. Correct.

 

[gunslinger]

And now you're just basically trolling. I know you aren't going to hear anything I say. I've got a giant red L on my forehead and you are apparently unable to see anything else. But you might re-read what Stonecat (a fellow conservative!) said a few pages back.

I have not claimed to be a conservative. I don't align myself with any political party and prefer to think for myself and not have masters that do that for me. My views seem to fall somewhere between libertarian and right wing extremist.

 

[TechLady]

I have not claimed to be a conservative. I don't align myself with any political party and prefer to think for myself and not have masters that do that for me. My views seem to fall somewhere between libertarian and right wing extremist.

Tea Party, basically. Guess what. I don't care. Neither do the rest of us. This is about facts and evidence, not opinion and party lines.

 

[gunslinger]

Tea Party, basically. Guess what. I don't care. Neither do the rest of us. This is about facts and evidence, not opinion and party lines.

Well, we seem to have a problem when all the scientists cant agree on the "evidence".

 

[TechLady]

Well, we seem to have a problem when all the scientists cant agree on the "evidence".

That's funny. I haven't seen you list an actual scientist yet.

 

[coffee]

@coffee Your sources are getting better. Keeping digging. Not sure where you were going with that graphic, but yup, there is more consensus about climate change among those with training and doctorates than those with pretty faces on news hour shows. Correct.

Brought to you by MediaMatters........

BLAH........

 

[SilverLeaf]

So, lets look at this from a different angle. Assuming one side of this debate is wrong and is intentionally misleading, misinforming, and distorting the truth, which side would it likely be? What are their motives? What are they trying to accomplish? What are they afraid of? Who's interests are threatened? How powerful and influential are they? How is the deception being financed and publicized?

Spend some time thinking about this from both sides of the equation. Then ask yourself which scenario is the most likely, and the answer will become clear.

 

[coffee]

So, lets look at this from a different angle. Assuming one side of this debate is wrong and is intentionally misleading, misinforming, and distorting the truth, which side would it likely be? What are their motives? What are they trying to accomplish? What are they afraid of? Who's interests are threatened? How powerful and influential are they? How is the deception being financed and publicized?

Spend some time thinking about this from both sides of the equation. Then ask yourself which scenario is the most likely, and the answer will become clear.

Well, lets see.........

I really think there are people out there that honestly believe that MMCC is a real thing. However, What I also believe is that there are people that prey on these believers for money (carbon credits anyone?). They have no intentions of helping with the MMCC cause. They are there to use the debate to their advantage. Twenty years down the road your going to find that the only change is the money that shifts from their pockets to those exploiting MMCC.

Then there are the "Scientists" that are looking for their 15 minutes of fame.

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

 

[Galdorf]

There have been warmer periods in the past than we have now, also colder Obama said the last 2 winters were the warmest on record maybe this century in SOME places but not in the past and other parts of the world.
Climate change is caused by Jet stream/polar vortex, ocean currents, and solar activity both heat and magnetic and electrical not by man ,man only contributes 4% Co2 the the atmosphere, nature is over taking this due to permafrost melt enormous amounts of organic matter are now subjected to bacteria causing the release of huge amounts of methane CH4 <-carbon.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html

Can pollution ie. particle pollution have an effect on climate yes to a degree not man made Co2:

 

[TechLady]

@coffee I just laid proof right in front of you that a bunch of 'your' guys are actually paid lackeys for the fossil fuel industry, and we're the corrupt ones, the ones looking for payoffs? Really now?

And again, not one of you has been able to direct us to an actual "expert" whose credentials don't read "paid for by Exxon" in small letters.

You know, there was an interesting study done a while back on why otherwise smart people deny climate change:

"Americans tend to clump into two groups on [this measure], one hierarchical-individualistic (let people alone and respect authority) and the other egalitarian-communitarian (reduce inequality and look out for the good of society). And it turned out that this measure of value was a much stronger predictor of concern about global warming than was scientific literacy or reasoning skill. Egalitarian-communalists* were far more worried about global warming, and a better score on the science competence tests in their group correlated with slightly greater concern. But among the hierarchical-individualists, there was a stronger link between scientific literacy and less concern. That was what was responsible for the overall group result."

And here's how that plays out:

"...while gases don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican, people sure as hell do. An opinion about global warming is one of the flags we fly to show that we're down with our fellow Tea Partiers (or fellow members of the NRDC). Unless you're required to face reality (maybe you're planning the system that will deal with massive storm surges in a future New York or London), that flag-flying is much more motivating than geophysical facts. So you to engage in what Kahan has called 'protective cognition' to prevent science from driving a wedge between you and your peers."

So much for independent thinking. Frankly, this is one of those issues that if every liberal on the planet denied global warming was real, I would absolutely disagree with them and gladly.

*This is why you find a lot less Europeans caught in the climate denial net.

 

[TechLady]

@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?

 

[Galdorf]

@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?

Just because someone created a graph with available data which i have checked the data is very accurate, just because say a student in elementary school creates a weather graph from data in a book or weather office make that information invalid because they are a child?, look at Al Gore he is a politician the person pushing the global warming bandwagon.

Even the top climatologist Michael E. Mann : http://www.steynonline.com/6333/michael-e-mann-liar-cheat-falsifier-and-fraud

So who can you trust?

 

[oldtech]

Surprised no one brought this up but ok here goes:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1946337/greenpeace-founder-climate-change-is-actually-climate-hysteria/

I believe his credentials should suffice, and you can blow who funds who out your collective a$$es because both sides are funded by someone who believes in their position. THAT is the problem/issue with science currently. Not only on this debate but others as well.

 

[TechLady]

@Galdorf I can barely parse what you're saying here. Gore's opinion is great and all, but in the end he is simply bringing attention to what the guys with the credentials are saying. I'm afraid your chemtrail guy is out of the running when it comes to the "expert" title.

...and you can blow who funds who out your collective a$$es because both sides are funded by someone who believes in their position.

What? You make even less sense than Galdorf. In any case, Patrick Moore is yet another wolf in sheep's clothing. The part about how he co-founded Greenpeace is crap:

"Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cotes, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970. Patrick Moore applied for a berth on the Phyllis Cormack in March, 1971 after the organization had already been in existence for a year."

...aaaaaand:

"Patrick Moore, a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry, frequently cites a long-ago affiliation with Greenpeace to gain legitimacy in the media. Media outlets often either state or imply that Mr. Moore still represents Greenpeace, or fail to mention that he is a paid lobbyist and not an independent source…

For more than 20 years, Mr. Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace."

Thanks for playing, though. I'm going out for cocktails now