|
Post by SmokedPears on Oct 9, 2018 13:22:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Purplemachine on Oct 9, 2018 14:10:00 GMT -6
The screaming leftist shills were wrong. Go figure.
|
|
VikingBob
I am the Host of THOR'S HAMMER and proud member of the VWO.
Viking (5,583)
Feb 3, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by VikingBob on Oct 9, 2018 14:38:29 GMT -6
SHOCKER.... Not! It was all a way for Obama to give our money away to foreign countries in the UN. I hope Trump goes after Soros Obama and Hillary and all the others for treason. And Kavanaugh has the deciding vote. Hahahahaha
|
|
OkieDokie
Surviving
Jarl (22,857)
Feb 5, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by OkieDokie on Oct 9, 2018 15:23:49 GMT -6
Its always been a money making scheme. Gore got rich off of it while living in his castle and jetting around. Hypocrite
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Oct 10, 2018 7:06:20 GMT -6
I take it the DaileyWeird didn't like this UN report. Shocked I tell you. So they find one Mr Rodgers and quote the shit out of him to discredit the rest. Am I supposed to take the DailyWeird at its word? If that unbiased publication is to be believed. Or one bought off Mr Rodger Pielke jr. Jeez seriously. Maybe Nikki Haley gets it. Sorry guys I believe in the science. Sigh... I am an engineer. I love science. I HATE the over reaction to cherry picked science.
|
|
|
Post by angryguy77 on Oct 10, 2018 7:49:31 GMT -6
Sigh... I am an engineer. I love science. I HATE the over reaction to cherry picked science. No need to sign. You can believe or not. I just brought up that the entire article that you guys are stating proves your case are all quotes from the same guy. This guy Roger Pielke, Jr and his father Sr have their own history of cherry picking. I view them as bought off. Making a good living writing books that "prove" their opposition to the established science. Maybe it's more the messenger then the message There is no science behind AWG. You can't have science when one side claims the debate is over and there is consensus over their theories. That's closer to a religion than actual science.
|
|
|
Post by tempevike on Oct 10, 2018 7:53:26 GMT -6
I take it the DaileyWeird didn't like this UN report. Shocked I tell you. So they find one Mr Rodgers and quote the shit out of him to discredit the rest. Am I supposed to take the DailyWeird at its word? If that unbiased publication is to be believed. Or one bought off Mr Rodger Pielke jr. Jeez seriously. Maybe Nikki Haley gets it. Sorry guys I believe in the science. Some people believe in ghosts but they cannot reproduce one or explain the details of their existence. I do not know if ghosts are real but I understand those who do believe in them are conjuring faith and not science.
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Oct 10, 2018 8:28:04 GMT -6
There is no science behind AWG. You can't have science when one side claims the debate is over and there is consensus over their theories. That's closer to a religion than actual science. I only stated I believe the science. I believe that greenhouse gasses caused by the burning of fossil fuels is causing the earth to warm. Even Rodger agreed to that at one point. Somewhere along the way he changed or scaled back it seems. I have my believe why. That said all I'm admitting is I believe we should look to live cleaner. There will soon be 10 billion of us sharing this planet. If we don't clean up our yards the planet will. I don't know and never stated it's as dire as this report. At least I sure hope not. Still don't mean I take this guys word for it that it isn't. I wasn't going to add any more to this thread but you've softened your tone (at least my perception of it) so I'll go with this: I totally agree we need to take reasonable steps to clean up our yards. We are commanded to be good stewards after all. But the definition of reasonable is the issue. I think there is also a point of diminishing returns where you've spent X to clean up 90% and to clean up 95% you might need 2X. I need to see some science and math on that but where is it? The "settled science" argument kills this debate and that is very dangerous. Personally, I am not willing to spend 2X for 5% when you have countries like India and China contributing much more pollution to the world and spending something less than 0.5X. I also agree the earth is warming somewhat. But why is it so difficult to pin down how much? And how much of that warming is man made? These are much more difficult questions to answer. I have no direct experience in environmental modeling but I DO have extensive experience in hydrologic and hydraulic modeling so I have a good understanding of what goes into these models. Because I work for a water utility in a semi-arid climate, I have exposure to long term projections to water supply studies. I can tell you there is HUGE uncertainty in these types of models. The answer comes down to a matter of probabilities. Much like you see with hurricane tracking. Models I have seen that were prepared for the water utility I work for indicate the MOST LIKELY scenario has the earth warming some but then leveling off. Guess what. All on it's own. These are the models I trust most because I can personally vouch for the motivating factor behind them. Additionally, I see all this hand wringing over the earth warming but why? Who is to say it's necessarily a bad thing to warm up some. People are all up in arms but don't even know why. Warm weather is good for some things like farming. Yet, we have never seen all the dire predictions come true of coastal flooding or extinct polar bears etc. We also know the earth has always warmed and cooled without our help. Things survived. It's the way of things. My whole point is to take a measured look and react accordingly. Al Gore types (who has made a ton of money off this btw) would have you react first and look second. Get the emotion out of the discussion so we can figure out what to do reasonably.
|
|
|
Post by Bezerker88 on Oct 10, 2018 8:29:23 GMT -6
If anyone denies Climate Change... then they're a dumbass. It's proven by ice core data going back at least 400,000 years by most charts and 800,000 years by this one. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-changeNow looking at that I, you, everyone can see that there were three times that the temperature had been warmer than it is today. Going back in time the first one would be around 125,000 years ago, then again about 225,000 years ago, and finally around 410,000 years ago. So tell me... what human activity caused those spikes? Looks to me like the Earth has warming and cooling periods that is cycles thru. Now of course the dates may be wrong as our "dating system" is often questioned itself,(first Modern Humans are tracked back to "Mitochondrial Eve" who is believed to have lived some 50,000 to 500,000 years ago... see?.. that's a HUGE gap! 450,000 years? how can we(science) NOT trim that down a bit?) but one can really see a pattern of cycles in the global temperatures, long before the use of fossil fuels were introduced. Now a person could argue that "the temps are rising faster than they ever have" but that is unknown as looking back into the past 400,000 years is not as clear of a picture as looking back 40 years. So the rate of change would be difficult to say for 100% certainty. All those lines look very similar to the modern day one. Should we take care of the enviroment? Yes. I'm a huge hippy when it comes to that. Recycle, reuse and reduce. I love the outdoors and can't stand urban areas. I need rocks, trees, water and open spaces. The earth has been around for quite a long time and it will still be here after we have either died off or (hopefully) left it for other worlds. Should we take care of it? Yes, the term don't shit where you eat comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by angryguy77 on Oct 10, 2018 8:30:30 GMT -6
There is no science behind AWG. You can't have science when one side claims the debate is over and there is consensus over their theories. That's closer to a religion than actual science. I only stated I believe the science. I believe that greenhouse gasses caused by the burning of fossil fuels is causing the earth to warm. Even Rodger agreed to that at one point. Somewhere along the way he changed or scaled back it seems. I have my believe why. That said all I'm admitting is I believe we should look to live cleaner. There will soon be 10 billion of us sharing this planet. If we don't clean up our yards the planet will. I don't know and never stated it's as dire as this report. At least I sure hope not. Still don't mean I take this guys word for it that it isn't. OK you believe in AWG and the science behind it. There's plenty of other science to point to climate change not being caused by man. You can say these guys cherry pick which makes them untrustworthy, but then I could say the hacked emails from some years back show that Mann and his buddies were fudging numbers to make their assumptions seem true. You can see multiple reports of pro AWG scientists who have cherry picked their own sources of data, like where and how they measure water temps.
The earth has gone through climate change before well before the fossil fuel was burned. Meanwhile, we're told that this time we are the cause. Now how are we supposed to believe that when every apocalyptic prediction these scientists have said was going to happen by now hasn't?
I don't think you'll find people disagreeing on the notion of being smart and keeping the environment clean. The disagreement you'll see from people like me is going to be over giving up our way of life, our liberties, property rights, paying more for basic needs etc all over a theory who's backers have been shown to have an agenda. I'm not ready to give things up just because one side was successful at silencing the dissent.
Environmentalism is a back door way for our country to go completely socialist where all the elites will enjoy access to things we currently enjoy. Through this cause, the gov can control every aspect of your life. Think I'm a nut or the gov would never use this as a way to control? Go buy a new toilet or washer machine and tell me how good they are compared to those 20 years ago.....
BTW I'm not accusing you personally of being some crazy environmentalist who has some agenda.
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Oct 10, 2018 9:09:17 GMT -6
I wasn't going to add any more to this thread but you've softened your tone (at least my perception of it) so I'll go with this: I totally agree we need to take reasonable steps to clean up our yards. We are commanded to be good stewards after all. But the definition of reasonable is the issue. I think there is also a point of diminishing returns where you've spent X to clean up 90% and to clean up 95% you might need 2X. I need to see some science and math on that but where is it? The "settled science" argument kills this debate and that is very dangerous. Personally, I am not willing to spend 2X for 5% when you have countries like India and China contributing much more pollution to the world and spending something less than 0.5X. I also agree the earth is warming somewhat. But why is it so difficult to pin down how much? And how much of that warming is man made? These are much more difficult questions to answer. I have no direct experience in environmental modeling but I DO have extensive experience in hydrologic and hydraulic modeling so I have a good understanding of what goes into these models. Because I work for a water utility in a semi-arid climate, I have exposure to long term projections to water supply studies. I can tell you there is HUGE uncertainty in these types of models. The answer comes down to a matter of probabilities. Much like you see with hurricane tracking. Models I have seen that were prepared for the water utility I work for indicate the MOST LIKELY scenario has the earth warming some but then leveling off. Guess what. All on it's own. These are the models I trust most because I can personally vouch for the motivating factor behind them. Additionally, I see all this hand wringing over the earth warming but why? Who is to say it's necessarily a bad thing to warm up some. People are all up in arms but don't even know why. Warm weather is good for some things like farming. Yet, we have never seen all the dire predictions come true of coastal flooding or extinct polar bears etc. We also know the earth has always warmed and cooled without our help. Things survived. It's the way of things. My whole point is to take a measured look and react accordingly. Al Gore types (who has made a ton of money off this btw) would have you react first and look second. Get the emotion out of the discussion so we can figure out what to do reasonably. That's all I'm asking. I know that we will never follow the recommendations in this report. Hell they even admitted that. Maybe their dire predictions are exaggerated. They might be trying to push hard to move a little. I don't think so. There is no reason we can't explore ways to clean up the yard or home. Air fresheners maybe. The shit we pump up is the shit we breath. Also I never softened my stance on the article. That was my main complaint. You guys were all "see we're right" based off an article from a publication that one look at their front page tells you they are anything but unbiased. Then the whole article is nothing but quotes from the same guy who is known for his stance. On that part my stance has not changed. To be honest I cringed a little at those two posts. But that wasn't my point.
|
|
|
Post by angryguy77 on Oct 10, 2018 9:33:00 GMT -6
OK you believe in AWG and the science behind it. There's plenty of other science to point to climate change not being caused by man. You can say these guys cherry pick which makes them untrustworthy, but then I could say the hacked emails from some years back show that Mann and his buddies were fudging numbers to make their assumptions seem true. You can see multiple reports of pro AWG scientists who have cherry picked their own sources of data, like where and how they measure water temps.
The earth has gone through climate change before well before the fossil fuel was burned. Meanwhile, we're told that this time we are the cause. Now how are we supposed to believe that when every apocalyptic prediction these scientists have said was going to happen by now hasn't?
I don't think you'll find people disagreeing on the notion of being smart and keeping the environment clean. The disagreement you'll see from people like me is going to be over giving up our way of life, our liberties, property rights, paying more for basic needs etc all over a theory who's backers have been shown to have an agenda. I'm not ready to give things up just because one side was successful at silencing the dissent.
Environmentalism is a back door way for our country to go completely socialist where all the elites will enjoy access to things we currently enjoy. Through this cause, the gov can control every aspect of your life. Think I'm a nut or the gov would never use this as a way to control? Go buy a new toilet or washer machine and tell me how good they are compared to those 20 years ago.....
BTW I'm not accusing you personally of being some crazy environmentalist who has some agenda. Yes the earth has gone through climate change in the past. During recorded time has there been one giant asteroid hit or a super massive volcano eruption which could have caused this? Is it totally inconceivable that a slow steady rise could not be the result of slower process like the one being described. Look I don't expect you to change your mind. You won't change mine about wanting to live in now and leave my grandson a cleaner world. He and the next after be the ones screwed if they are right. I'll be dead. There's evidence there hasn't been a slow and steady rise. The earth has also seen changes that were not due to cataclysmic events as well. This is the crux of the matter. Are your ready to downgrade the standard of living you enjoy, as well as what could be for your kids/grandkids over something that hasn't been proven? There's been data showing the sun also causes fluctuations as well, more so than green house gasses.
This isn't about being mindful of wasting resources, the changes many of the environmentalists want to see is limiting the amount of resources you as and individual can use. Much of this in the international community is an attempt to bring the industrialized world down because to them, they unfairly keep poor countries down with their resource consumption. Make no mistake, this is more to do with distributing wealth than it is saving the world.
I understand your concerns and I also am for keeping the place clean, but there has to be some room made for reason here as well. I'm not denying the climate changes, but I have yet to be convinced it's due to man.
|
|
|
Post by eternalpurple on Oct 10, 2018 13:39:26 GMT -6
You will hear not one peep. If it doesn't fit the narrative it doesn't exist. My question is how many times is your average liberal willing to be lied to and still believe everything they are being told. Climate change has always been...............man made climate change is a scam.
What did man do to cause the ice age and I ask this question realizing it may very well have never happened...............Man knows nothing.
|
|
|
Post by eternalpurple on Oct 10, 2018 13:46:59 GMT -6
I take it the DaileyWeird didn't like this UN report. Shocked I tell you. So they find one Mr Rodgers and quote the shit out of him to discredit the rest. Am I supposed to take the DailyWeird at its word? If that unbiased publication is to be believed. Or one bought off Mr Rodger Pielke jr. Jeez seriously. Maybe Nikki Haley gets it. Sorry guys I believe in the science. And therefore you follows blind men.
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Oct 11, 2018 7:03:42 GMT -6
One more thing I should have said in my rant above: The climatological, water supply models done by the City that I talked about above show no increase or decrease in water supply. The only changes have to do with timing. This, in part, corroborates the IPCC report and the article.
|
|