Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?
Quote: MichaelBluejay
Second, maybe the readership here is too young to remember, but until recently there was an incredible stigma about being gay, to the point that many gays definitely didn't want to be gay. If it were a mere choice they would simply stop, and end the misery of either living with a "terrible" secret or being subject to the scorn of society.
It is not quite that simple. Please don't take it the wrong way, but consider a desire to eat for example, coupled with pleasures of sedentary lifestyle. Being fat is not predetermined at birth (for most people), yet look how many try to lose weight unsuccessfully or only to gain it right back after a short while. Consider smoking, drinking, gambling too.
It is not easy to just get rid of a well-formed habit, once you get into a routine. Some of these habits/reflexes are (much) harder to change than others.
While you don't hear about it as often for obvious reasons, there are actually people who (thought they) were gay, wanted to change that, and succeeded.
I don't mean to imply that it is somehow "bad" to be a gay, and everybody should try to get "cured", like quitting a bad habit. Just making an analogy to illustrate that when you don't like something about yourself, and cannot magically get rid of it in a day, it does not necessarily mean that you are born that way.
Quote: MichaelBluejayFirst, rather than armchair guesswork, this question has actually received a considerable amount of scientific attention. While there isn't yet a definitive answer, most scientists don't believe that homosexuality is a choice, at least in most cases. For example, one paper in a medical journal says, "most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual," and the position paper of the American Psychological Association says, "Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." I'm not cherry-picking my sources, either; there just aren't any sources that say that the scientific opinion is that homosexuality is a choice.
Quote: MichaelBluejaySo based on what the science knows so far, as well as a lot of pretty solid observational evidence, I'm of the opinion that sexuality is not a choice, at least in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Seems funny to me that everyone is basically ignoring this post; the scientific consensus is that it's not a choice, and (correct me if I'm wrong here) I don't think anyone on this forum has the appropriate education/experience to refute that. No one here even seems to have anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
Quote: UWPeteOQuote: MichaelBluejayFirst, rather than armchair guesswork, this question has actually received a considerable amount of scientific attention. While there isn't yet a definitive answer, most scientists don't believe that homosexuality is a choice, at least in most cases. For example, one paper in a medical journal says, "most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual," and the position paper of the American Psychological Association says, "Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." I'm not cherry-picking my sources, either; there just aren't any sources that say that the scientific opinion is that homosexuality is a choice.
Seems funny to me that everyone is basically ignoring this post...
23 out of 39 voted that it's not a choice. Hardly everyone...
Quote: texasplumrIt's just that in my lifetime I have seen so many scientific studies that seem to be published at a most convenient time to benefit some special interest group, only to be disputed by an opposing special interest group by their own scientists at a later date. Which "scientists" do you believe? Global warming comes to mind.
It's a popular myth that science is always drastically reversing itself on matters that have been studied intensely, but that's just not really the case. One could easily come to the conclusion that it is if they get their science info from the media, which consistently fails to put the newest research into context (and frequently gets the research flat-out wrong besides). If you go straight to the science itself, you don't find the kind of wild swings that many people seem to think exist.
Case in point: Climate change. Special interests have spent a lot of money to promote the myth that there are large numbers of scientists who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change (ACC), as a way of sowing doubt in the public's mind, and they've succeeded overwhelmingly. Among first-world countries, America is near the bottom for the percentage of its citizens who believe in ACC. One of the myths promoted is that there used to be a scientific consensus for global cooling, but the truth is that that theory never enjoyed widespread support. The reality is that, without exception, without exception, every single national and international science body which has taken a position on ACC says that it's happening and we're causing it. The science, and scientific opinion, on climate change is clear, consistent, and overwhelming. Now, if someone remains unconvinced, they're entitled to their opinion, but to say that there's no scientific consensus on climate change, or that scientific opinion has radically shifted on the subject, just isn't true.
Ken
Quote: MichaelBluejayIt's a popular myth that science is always drastically reversing itself on matters that have been studied intensely, but that's just not really the case. One could easily come to the conclusion that it is if they get their science info from the media, which consistently fails to put the newest research into context (and frequently gets the research flat-out wrong besides). If you go straight to the science itself, you don't find the kind of wild swings that many people seem to think exist.
Case in point: Climate change. Special interests have spent a lot of money to promote the myth that there are large numbers of scientists who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change (ACC), as a way of sowing doubt in the public's mind, and they've succeeded overwhelmingly. Among first-world countries, America is near the bottom for the percentage of its citizens who believe in ACC. One of the myths promoted is that there used to be a scientific consensus for global cooling, but the truth is that that theory never enjoyed widespread support. The reality is that, without exception, without exception, every single national and international science body which has taken a position on ACC says that it's happening and we're causing it. The science, and scientific opinion, on climate change is clear, consistent, and overwhelming. Now, if someone remains unconvinced, they're entitled to their opinion, but to say that there's no scientific consensus on climate change, or that scientific opinion has radically shifted on the subject, just isn't true.
Scientific consensus is not proof. There was once consensus that the world was flat. There is no basis saying we are causing it as there is no real baseline of measurement nor can variables such as sun heat intensity changes be removed. Furthermore we do not know if stability is normal.
Even if we are warming warmer is historically better. Btw the special interests are more on the side of warming than the skeptic side. How much has Al Gore made selling global warming snake oil?
Quote: AZDuffmanScientific consensus is not proof.
That's not the point. Another member suggested that scientific opinion is all over the map. The point is, it's not. In any event, complaining that "scientific consensus is not proof" isn't constructive. When the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists try to warn humanity about a problem which they have a very good understanding of, using semantics to ignore them doesn't seem like a reasonable course of action.
Quote: AZDuffmanThere was once consensus that the world was flat.
There wasn't *scientific* consensus. And it was the *scientists* who tried to show the general population that the world was not flat. (Just like they're trying to do now with climate change.)
Quote: AZDuffmanThere is no basis saying we are causing it as there is no real baseline of measurement nor can variables such as sun heat intensity changes be removed.
So you're saying that your understanding of the science is superior to that of all the world's climate scientists. That's some chutzpah, I'll give you that. Have you contacted them to explain to them why you understand this issue better than they do and why their conclusions are wrong?
Quote: AZDuffmanBtw the special interests are more on the side of warming than the skeptic side. How much has Al Gore made selling global warming snake oil?
A hell of a lot less than Exxon-Mobil has reaped by spending millions to sow doubt, I assure you.
Quote: MichaelBluejayNow, if someone remains unconvinced, they're entitled to their opinion, but to say that there's no scientific consensus on climate change, or that scientific opinion has radically shifted on the subject, just isn't true.
There's a great deal of trouble with the climate change models regarding clouds. Some scientists think the effects of dust haven't been taken into account. And one physicist, Henrik Svensmark, has been making a very convincing case that clouds depend largely on the influx of cosmic rays, which depend a great deal on solar activity. He has even tentatively discovered correlations between nearby supernova explosions, which produce large amounts of cosmic rays, and swings in the Earth's climate.
Long story short, more cosmic rays mean more clouds. Higher solar activity means less cosmic rays and therefore less clouds. More clouds mean lower temperatures, less clouds mean higher ones.
Quote: MichaelBluejayThe reality is that, without exception, without exception, every single national and international science body which has taken a position on ACC says that it's happening and we're causing it. The science, and scientific opinion, on climate change is clear, consistent, and overwhelming. Now, if someone remains unconvinced, they're entitled to their opinion, but to say that there's no scientific consensus on climate change, or that scientific opinion has radically shifted on the subject, just isn't true.
There was a very strong scientific consensus (much stronger than this one) back in 1800s and 1900s on the question of luminiferous ether, ever since at least Maxwell, and all the way up to Einstein, for more than half a century, not a single scientific mind ventured to doubt it. And look where it is now.
This case is very different, and not in a good way.
I know there is nothing "scientific" about a "consensus", when I read that one had to conduct a survey to figure out whether the temperature has risen.
was run by facts. Concensus means 'An opinion or position
reached by a group as a whole'. What do opinions have
to do with scientific facts. When you don't have facts to
back you up, you issue opinions. With an opinion and a
dollar you can get coffee at McDonalds. Or with just a dollar,
keep the opinion to yourself.
You can twist the words any way you please, but what it comes down to is that you're suggesting that it's a good idea to *disregard* the expert opinion of the overwhelming majority of professionals who actually understand this stuff. That position is just...bizarre.
If 100 experts examined your house and 97-98 found a structural defect that put your family in imminent danger, do you think it would be prudent to take action, or would you dismiss it by saying "Consensus isn't proof!" and "Since when is science run by consensus?!"?
Good luck.
Quote: MichaelBluejaydo you think it would be prudent to take action, or would you dismiss it by saying "Consensus isn't proof!" and "Since when is science run by consensus?!"?
Concensus isn't science. Proof is science. Facts are science.
Concensus is opinion. We don't panic over opinions, we panic
over verifiable facts. There are no verifiable facts on GW, thats
why there are so many worthless opinions.
Quote: EvenBobConcensus is opinion. We don't panic over opinions, we panic
over verifiable facts. .
Sure we do.
People freak out if they hear that a spot on an x-ray might be cancer. Spots turn out to be nothing, or sometimes cancer.
We use to treat rabies even if we weren't sure it was actually rabies because you can't wait around for the facts to be verified.
edit: or is that, sure we don't, well whatever.
Quote: EvenBobConcensus isn't science. Proof is science. Facts are science.
Concensus is opinion. We don't panic over opinions, we panic
over verifiable facts. There are no verifiable facts on GW, thats
why there are so many worthless opinions.
Nearly everything you've said in that quote is flat-out wrong, and the rest is irrelevant.
"Concensus [sic] isn't science." -- No, and nobody said otherwise. What the consensus does is tell you what the overwhelming majority of scientists think. That's damn useful information, to anyone who thinks it's a good idea to listen to those who actually have expertise in an area.
"Proof is science." -- No, it is absolutely not. And by making this claim, you're simply revealing how little you understand about what science actually is. Here's a good explanation:
Quote: SatoshiKanazawaThere is no such thing as scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not science....The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely. (source)
"We don't panic over opinions, we panic over verifiable facts." You're ignoring the fact that opinion is based on facts. When the overwhelming majority of expert opinion says there is great cause for alarm, it makes sense to take action. In the example I gave, 97-98 out of 100 experts couldn't tell you it was a *fact* that your house would suffer an impending collapse, but that the *facts* of what they examined led to their *belief* that it assuredly would. A reasonable person would take action. An unreasonable one would complain that "We don't panic over opinions," and "Consensus isn't science."
"There are no verifiable facts on GW." Are you kidding me?! There are *tons* of verified facts about AGW. For starters, the earth is warming and carbon dioxide is involved. In *the scientific community*, those are considered facts, and there are lots more. Just because you might be unfamiliar with something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
"There are no verifiable facts on GW." Are you kidding me?! There are *tons* of verified facts about AGW. For starters, the earth is warming and carbon dioxide is involved. In *the scientific community*, those are considered facts, and there are lots more. Just because you might be unfamiliar with something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Actually, we have the verifiable fact that these scientists conspired to fake the data. We have seen that if a scientist goes off the AGW reservation they are suject to ridicule and even firing.
The fact is that there are many more special interests pushing this global-wrming hoax than any other in our lifetime. From Al Gore to the UN, the answer is always, "Higher taxes and more control over your life!" Let look at it logically:
1. There is no reason to believe we can get a trendline on a 4.5MMM year old planet based on <100 years of data. And that is how old the world is and that is at best how many years of accurate temperature readings we have.
2. Even if there is AGW, there is no reason to believe that today's temperature is the "right" one and that more severe weather will happen if there is an increase. An increase can just as easily bring more stable weather.
3. There is no reason to believe warmer is not better. History shows better times when the growing season is longer and starvation in times such as the Little Ice Age and Year Without a Summer when it was colder.
4. There is no mechanism to seperate the natural flucuations of temperature from the so-called AGW effect. This is similar to doing a pharmaceutical study with no blind-control group. The FDA would never accept such research, yet we want to destroy our economy based on it?
"Global Warming" has become a religion for atheists. Most people need something to believe in, and AGW fits the bill for many.
One time an old-timer told me most people are born with a bucket of common sense but the more fancy education you put into the bucket the more common sense spilled out. Believers in AGW are filling their bucket with all this "consensus" and spilling out the common sense.
I am familiar with what the scientific community says are "facts about global warming" and my guess it the other doubters here are as well. It is just that we are not swallowng the scare-tactics being put out about it. The alarmism alone shows it to be a classic tactic to curtail freedom. See "Animal Farm" where the pigs convinced the animals that "if you don't put us in charge, Jones will come back!"
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: MichaelBluejay
"There are no verifiable facts on GW." Are you kidding me?! There are *tons* of verified facts about AGW. For starters, the earth is warming and carbon dioxide is involved. In *the scientific community*, those are considered facts, and there are lots more. Just because you might be unfamiliar with something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Actually, we have the verifiable fact that these scientists conspired to fake the data. We have seen that if a scientist goes off the AGW reservation they are suject to ridicule and even firing.
The fact is that there are many more special interests pushing this global-wrming hoax than any other in our lifetime. From Al Gore to the UN, the answer is always, "Higher taxes and more control over your life!" Let look at it logically:
1. There is no reason to believe we can get a trendline on a 4.5MMM year old planet based on <100 years of data. And that is how old the world is and that is at best how many years of accurate temperature readings we have.
2. Even if there is AGW, there is no reason to believe that today's temperature is the "right" one and that more severe weather will happen if there is an increase. An increase can just as easily bring more stable weather.
3. There is no reason to believe warmer is not better. History shows better times when the growing season is longer and starvation in times such as the Little Ice Age and Year Without a Summer when it was colder.
4. There is no mechanism to seperate the natural flucuations of temperature from the so-called AGW effect. This is similar to doing a pharmaceutical study with no blind-control group. The FDA would never accept such research, yet we want to destroy our economy based on it?
"Global Warming" has become a religion for atheists. Most people need something to believe in, and AGW fits the bill for many.
One time an old-timer told me most people are born with a bucket of common sense but the more fancy education you put into the bucket the more common sense spilled out. Believers in AGW are filling their bucket with all this "consensus" and spilling out the common sense.
I am familiar with what the scientific community says are "facts about global warming" and my guess it the other doubters here are as well. It is just that we are not swallowng the scare-tactics being put out about it. The alarmism alone shows it to be a classic tactic to curtail freedom. See "Animal Farm" where the pigs convinced the animals that "if you don't put us in charge, Jones will come back!"
An AGENDA....there are thousands of them out there. I will NEVER be caught up in one.
Ken
Quote: AZDuffmanOne time an old-timer told me most people are born with a bucket of common sense but the more fancy education you put into the bucket the more common sense spilled out.
You should write to Rob Singer, John Patrick, and Walter Thomason with that quote. I think they would love to use it.
I also notice you're playing the game of just ignoring all the times you're shown to be blatantly wrong, just hopping to the next set of arguments you want to throw at the wall, hoping that one of them will stick. It doesn't work like that: When you go out of your way to demonstrate that you don't even know what words like "consensus" and "proof" mean in a scientific context, you've essentially already shown to be completely uninformed.
And the false statements keep on coming. Here we go:
Quote: AZDuffmanActually, we have the verifiable fact that these scientists conspired to fake the data.
No, that's not true. You clearly have no idea how much data has been amassed and how many scientists have been studying these issues. You're way out of your element here.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe fact is that there are many more special interests pushing this global-wrming hoax than any other in our lifetime.
Fine, let's ignore the special interests and look at what the science says. Again, the scientific consensus is clear, overwhelming, and consistent.
Quote: AZDuffmanThere is no reason to believe we can get a trendline on a 4.5MMM year old planet based on <100 years of data.
Here again, you're just revealing how little you know about what's actually involved in climate science. The trend is *not* based on less than 100 years of data. I could explain further, but it would be pointless. What's amazing is that even showing that you have no idea what's involved in climate science, somehow you think you know better than all the world's scientists. Why are you wasting your time arguing with me on a message board? Call up the scientists at the universities and explain to them how they've got it wrong and how your understanding of climate science is superior.
Quote: AZDuffmanThere is no reason to believe warmer is not better.
There's plenty of reason. Again, just because you make sure you never learn about something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Look it up.
Quote: AZDuffmanThere is no mechanism to seperate the natural flucuations of temperature from the so-called AGW effect.
Here again, you should explain to the world's scientists how you know so much more than they do.
Quote: AZDuffmanMost people need something to believe in, and AGW fits the bill for many.
I believe it because every single science body of national and international standing on the face of the planet says that that's what the science shows. It's the same reason I believe in gravity, the germ theory of disease, and the fact that vitamin D deficiency causes rickets. When the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists are in agreement about an issue, that ought to tell you something.
Quote: MichaelBluejayYou keep spouting off things that just have no basis in reality. Look, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.
My signature line!
Quote: AZDuffmanThere was once consensus that the world was flat.
God at first was making a pancake. Then he got an idea.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWhen the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists are in agreement about an issue, that ought to tell you something.
The fix is in?
Quote: QuadDeucesThe fix is in?
Very good line, and very true. The fix is in, indeed.
Quote: MichaelBluejay
You can twist the words any way you please, but what it comes down to is that you're suggesting that it's a good idea to *disregard* the expert opinion of the overwhelming majority of professionals who actually understand this stuff. That position is just...bizarre.
If 100 experts examined your house and 97-98 found a structural defect that put your family in imminent danger, do you think it would be prudent to take action, or would you dismiss it by saying "Consensus isn't proof!" and "Since when is science run by consensus?!"?
Well, if 97 experts simply insist on "believing" their point, while three others offer reason and facts, if not hard proof, in support of theirs, I would seriously consider that, yes. If I was interested in beliefs, I would call a priest to examine my house, not a hundred of engineers.
Such is the situation with global warming theory. I examine the arguments, offered by the opponents of it, and find them compelling. I look for the rebuttal from the other side ... and find none. I look for any arguments from there ... same result. They keep telling me they believe in it, but never explain why. From where I sit, there is science on one side, and a bunch of surveys on the other. I simply choose science over religion (a system of beliefs), and I don't think there is anything "bizarre" about it at all.
Quote: MichaelBluejayAgain, the scientific consensus is clear, overwhelming, and consistent.
"Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. Name any other issue in science that has been decided by consensus. That is not how science operates. Science is, and has always been about critical thinking, and overturning stereotypes and accepted consensus views. Aristotle once said that a fly had eight legs. There was a "consensus" of scientists for almost a thousand years since then, who believed it. Then somebody finally counted them.
Consensus is needed to settle political, philosophical, religious debates, such as this one (yes, all three), where the science does not matter, and other interests are at play. It makes it easy to ignore facts, that don't fit, as "semantics" and focus on "big picture". Great for political debate, and social engineering, terrible for science.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWhen the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists are in agreement about an issue, that ought to tell you something.
Yes. It tells me two words: "luminiferous ether" :)
That theory at least did not require surveys to be supported, it was heavily grounded in science (albeit misinterpreted at the time), and the "consensus" was just a side effect, not the only thing offered for proof as in this case.
Quote: WongBoi was not referring to michael's opinions which seem to be largely based in fact.
So, are you saying that Michael is not an expert then? Is it a requirement for somebody's opinion not to be based in fact in your view in order for that person to be considered an expert?
Quote:just a little hard to take seriously when there is no reference to anything other than opinion.
Yeah ... as opposed to wikipedia :)
Seriously though. Michael's references are all about supporting his point that the opinion of the majority of scientists is in support of GW. et it? Opinion.
You are actually making exactly my point here. Exactly. "It is a little hard to take seriously" a scientific theory based on a bunch of surveys, examining people's opinions.
just wow.
life is WAY to short to even attempt a discussion with you.
Quote: weaselman"Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. Name any other issue in science that has been decided by consensus..
However, lots of issues have to depend on expert consensus which should also be reevaluated. Experts consult for instance on the best way to treat pandemics at various levels even if they won't have all the possible information for treatment or cause.
Someone has got a plan in response to nuclear war (massive or limited). I'm not talking about retaliation but logistics of post-survival needs.
Climate change of the most dire effects may never happen, nuclear war may never happen, certain massive deadly pandemics may never happen on a world wide scale.
Quote: WongBoyou and AZ seem to agree on nearly everything.
which one of you should i deem unnecessary?
No, not at all. We disagree big time on the health care issue, gun control, legality of taxation, quality of life in San Francisco, and (I think) the drugs policy, just to name a few points. I suspect, there are more things he and I disagree about, than those that we agree on. Why do you care anyway?
HOWEVER, the whole "Global Warming is Real/Fake" screaming reminds me a lot of how casual gamblers view Basic Strategy on Blackjack.
Consider the casual gambler playing blackjack with a dealer who's been dealing the game for years, but rarely gambles. When the casual player asks "What does the book say?" the dealer responds "The book was written by the casinos, so you shouldn't follow the rules. Why else would they sell the cards in the gift shop??"
We've probably all played with a dealer who's said this, and most of us on here probably cringe when we hear that logic. Basic Strategy is based on empirical evidence after years of observing and calculating percentages of hands. It was developed by someone who wanted to help players understand the game better, not to protect the casino's interests. It's tried and tested and has been shown time and time again, if fully employed will reduce the house edge against the player.
Now say all of that to the dealer, and in the least, you'll be rebuffed, possibly chastised in front of other players because "he's the dealer and he knows what he knows." You'll NEVER change his mind, even if you show him the facts and articles and math...
There's a quote from South Park on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory episode where they conclude that 1 out of every 4 people are morons and thus believe ridiculous ideas...
Take what you will from that.
Quote:Now say all of that to the dealer, and in the least, you'll be rebuffed, possibly chastised in front of other players because "he's the dealer and he knows what he knows." You'll NEVER change his mind, even if you show him the facts and articles and math...
I gather that, in your post, "the dealer" represents the leadership of the American political left.
The same people who looked at you like you were stepping on kittens if you chose a paper grocery bag and are now working to ban the plastic ones?
Prius or gas/diesel/nat. gas, fossil fuels are consumed.
The Prius is powered by electricity, a large majority of the grid is powered using fossil-fuel. Though in certain locations, hydro-electric, wind may prevail.
Behind the choice of generating the electricity, is the method used to biuld the power-plant... see where I'm going yet??
THERE IS NO ESCAPE, just a shift in who burns the fossil-fuel. All forms of fossil-fuel are commoditized, that means as long as you burn some, you have a stake in the price: else you lose control by shifting away from direct fossil-fuel consumption. In other words, conservation does work, but are you willing to trust corporations to conserve, if you "opt-out"?
Quote: MichaelBluejayYou can twist the words any way you please, but what it comes down to is that you're suggesting that it's a good idea to *disregard* the expert opinion of the overwhelming majority of professionals who actually understand this stuff. That position is just...bizarre.
Several hundred years ago the vast majority of professionals and expert opinion said the earth was flat... Chris Columbus thought that was bizarre. Also, it is bizarre to me that "Professionals" have decided that the earth’s current temp is "normal"; it has fluctuated greatly for millions of years. Without human intervention. I guess it's a good thing that modern professionals and expert opinion were not around during the Ice Age or they would have determined that to be normal.
I'm not going to supply any links to articles since Socialists don't care about facts - they run their lives on emotions.
Climate Change used to be know as Global Warming before that is was know as Global Cooling - it really doesn't matter to the Socialists involved since domination of citizens is their ultimate goal; I'm going to call it Global Warming (GW) since that's what the scam is now focused on - back in the 1950's it was Global Cooling and probably in 20 years they will cycle back to cooling.
GW is based on the insane idea that the average temperature of Earth now is perfect and that if the average temperature of the Earth goes up this is bad; and man is to blame.
So has Earth ever been hotter? History says yes, and man wasn't around then.
Has the Earth ever been cooler? Sure, just 10,000 years ago is was a lot cooler and then warmed up - man was around but we were living in caves.
We don't have to go any further - Socialists have no idea if the current temperature is too hot or too cold or just right - they don't care since your money is their ultimate goal, dominate you and take your money for their use. In the past 10,000 years Earth has been in a warming phase and man has nothing to do with it.
This is really about the sun and earth which GW nuts never ever consider since it takes about 30 seconds to reveal their true purpose - spreading Socialism via "science"...................
What's so wrong with wanting to lower my 'carbon footprint'. What if I want to drive a Prius and convert my home to mostly or all solar or wind power? To say that we don't need to be alarmed about global warming is about like saying, "it could be beneficial". I think everyone should agree that our presence has SOME effect on the environment. I would imagine nobody thinks it's positive, but either negative or negligible. I just think it would be better to use no fossil fuels for energy. We either RISK having a negative impact, or we can assure having no impact at all, on the environment, by switching how we get our energy.
The only reason I think a person would so harshly argue against global warming is if they have stock in "BIG OIL" or "BIG COAL" stock. Switch over to some wind turbine stock, because I'm seeming those things pop up all over the place.
What do I believe? We can't keep using everything (oil) forever. We need realistic policies that lead to change in production of energy without benefiting specific folks over actual progress in the right direction. Tax breaks possibly, huge government grants, probably not...
Does anyone really believe that more pollution is good? That we should toss plastic bags all over the place? That it is okay to just toss your smoking cigarette butt out the window? That litter looks better and is better for the environment than cleaning your crap up and placing it where trash belongs? That we should not try to find alternative energy sources while their is still oil (as opposed to after the retrievable supply runs low)? That we actually have NO IMPACT on the environment?
Both sides live in their own little worlds. Al Gore and his proteges want to make money off of selling Global Warming; Big Oil wants to make money off of convincing us everything is just peachy.
Both sides do a good job of keeping ANYTHING from happening by not trying to come up with reasonable responses to the potential problems...
Quote: ewjones080What's so wrong with wanting to lower my 'carbon footprint'.
Nothing.
If you had cancer and wanted to treat it by reading comic books and keeping an upbeat attitude, there would be nothing wrong with that, either.
But if you wanted to lower everyone's "carbon footprint," or treat everyone's cancer with a non-treatment, that would not be ok.
Quote:To say that we don't need to be alarmed about global warming is about like saying, "it could be beneficial".
Some scientists have spelled out benefits. Look up Bjorn Lomborg.
Quote:I think everyone should agree that our presence has SOME effect on the environment. I would imagine nobody thinks it's positive, but either negative or negligible. I just think it would be better to use no fossil fuels for energy. We either RISK having a negative impact, or we can assure having no impact at all, on the environment, by switching how we get our energy.
You contradict yourself. Not to mention you make unwarranted assumptions and don't define a standard of value (good or bad for whom?).
By your reasoning the only way humanity can have no impact on the environment is by going extinct.
Quote:The only reason I think a person would so harshly argue against global warming is if they have stock in "BIG OIL" or "BIG COAL" stock.
I don't even own one share of either. How about that?
Quote:Switch over to some wind turbine stock, because I'm seeming those things pop up all over the place.
So you favor global warming hysteria only because you own wind turbine stock, then.
Quote: ewjones080Okay, so after reading 1.5-2 pages of this thread, here's what I have to say about it.
What's so wrong with wanting to lower my 'carbon footprint'. What if I want to drive a Prius and convert my home to mostly or all solar or wind power? To say that we don't need to be alarmed about global warming is about like saying, "it could be beneficial". I think everyone should agree that our presence has SOME effect on the environment. I would imagine nobody thinks it's positive, but either negative or negligible. I just think it would be better to use no fossil fuels for energy. We either RISK having a negative impact, or we can assure having no impact at all, on the environment, by switching how we get our energy.
The only reason I think a person would so harshly argue against global warming is if they have stock in "BIG OIL" or "BIG COAL" stock. Switch over to some wind turbine stock, because I'm seeming those things pop up all over the place.
As a Conservative I believe you are entitled to do what you can afford - just don't require me to support you; either financially or emotionally.
So is the temperature of the Earth too hot, too cold, or just right?
Quote: MauiSunset
I'm not going to supply any links to articles
isn't that convenient...
you aren't going to provide any proof of your position because the OTHER side are the ones who base their view on opinion...
Quote: WongBoisn't that convenient...
you aren't going to provide any proof of your position because the OTHER side are the ones who base their view on opinion...
I have hundreds of links to support my position - I just know that they are meaningless to Liberals.
So why show them when they are just ignored?
Good grief just type in "Global Warming Hoax" into Google (with the quotes) and you will get 2.2 million pages - let me know when you finish reading them.
Global Warming is just another political agenda that Socialists/Marxists have to 1) Get more money from me and 2) Get more control over me.
Global Warming is dying and will be replaced with another hoax designed to 1) Get more money from me and 2) Get more control over me.
So, is the Earth too warm, too cold, or just right?????
Quote: ewjones080
What's so wrong with wanting to lower my 'carbon footprint'.
Nothing. Like I said earlier, the mass hysteria going on around the global warming isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are benefits the society gets from it in the end, so, it's ok.
It's just all the "scientific" talk about it that is insult to intelligence, that does more harm than good. If only we could get rid of that, and just focus on the surveys and opinion studies, the domain where this question really belongs.
Why not include the question in the ballot this November for example? This is the usual way to decide this kind of questions in democracy after all. I would vote for it.
even ufo's get 230 million.
i guess the highly educated folks who think it is a hoax
need to pump out some more position papers.
if they can tear themselves away from
denying evolution, long enough.
Quote: 98Clubs
The Prius is powered by electricity, a large majority of the grid is powered using fossil-fuel. Though in certain locations, hydro-electric, wind may prevail.
The Pirus is NOT powered by electricity. It is powered by gasoline. The electricity it uses in hybrid mode is just cartured power when the car slows down, instead of that energy being "wasted" by braking it turns a turbine, charging a battery.
NOTE: There is a "plug-in" version that lets you get a little juice for short trips. Does not change the fact that unless you go no further than a few miles the car is powered by gasoline.
What the reduce-my-carbon-footprint-types never take into account is all the "carbon" expelled in the production of the electric motor and battery pack. If all they acre about is their so-called "carbon footprint" then they are playing a losing game, they will never recover it. But they say, "I drive a Pirus so I care" as they go twice as far to Whole Paycheck than Wal-Mart to get their organic food.
Quote: ewjones080
What's so wrong with wanting to lower my 'carbon footprint'. What if I want to drive a Prius and convert my home to mostly or all solar or wind power? To say that we don't need to be alarmed about global warming is about like saying, "it could be beneficial". I think everyone should agree that our presence has SOME effect on the environment. I would imagine nobody thinks it's positive, but either negative or negligible. I just think it would be better to use no fossil fuels for energy. We either RISK having a negative impact, or we can assure having no impact at all, on the environment, by switching how we get our energy.
The only reason I think a person would so harshly argue against global warming is if they have stock in "BIG OIL" or "BIG COAL" stock. Switch over to some wind turbine stock, because I'm seeming those things pop up all over the place.
If you want to lower your so-called "carbon footprint" be my guest. Just stop asking me to pay for it via tax-credits and subsidies. FWIW, our effect on the envrionment has been positive in many places and negative in others. But you cannot expect that we are going to live on a planet and that planet look like we didn't live here.
Fossil fuels are one of the greatest discoveries we ever have had. Very high power-concentration means vdery little land must be used to build a coal-generated powerplant vs how many more acres of wind turbines that need to be built for the same output. One oil well takes how many fewer acres than all the corn that must be grown for ethanol.
Your post repeats the liberal-pointy-headed-intellectual viewpoint that even though the earth's temperature has never been constant, today's leveh just has to be the perfect level. And that perfect level would not be changing if not for all those SUVs.
CO2 is plant food. As we put more into the air, trees and other plants grow better. "Carbon" is the building bllock of life as we know it. Eventually the CO2 will break off into O2 and the carbon will be used for other uses. (The later happens as plants ingest the CO2) To think you need to be "in balance" to me is quite a bit silly. Nature will balance it all out over time.
But again, if you want to spend twice as much for half the result for an electric car, have at it. You lower demand for gasoline, making the price lower for me.
Quote: AZDuffman
CO2 is plant food. As we put more into the air, trees and other plants grow better.
Quote: WongBoonly 2.2 million pages?
even ufo's get 230 million.
i guess the highly educated folks who think it is a hoax
need to pump out some more position papers.
if they can tear themselves away from
denying evolution, long enough.
See, no matter how many links I could supply, 2.2 million isn't enough to folks who believe in Global Warming; that's why I don't supply them.
Facts mean nothing to you guys - it's all about control.
So is the Earth too hot, too cold, or just right?
I keep asking this question of Global Warming fanatics and they keep ignoring the question since Global Warming has nothing to do with temperature of the Earth.....
since you wont even identify to what you are referring.
"facts mean nothing to you guys."
nice touch.
Quote: WongBosort of hard to disagree with you
since you wont even identify to what you are referring.
"facts mean nothing to you guys."
nice touch.
Oh come on, the question that needs to be answered is simple:
Is the Earth too hot, too cold, or just right?
If Earth is too cold, coming out of the last ice age, then Global Warming fanatics are hurting mother earth - it needs to get much hotter.
This means that all those folks buying the Chevy Volt, all 10 of you, are misguided and need to buy an 18 wheeler and have the sucker idling 24/7 spitting out more green house gasses; running your lawn mowers 24/7 would help too.
If you believe the Earth is too hot then you must believe that man is Mother Nature's thermostat and can run your home on windmills and solar panels and this will solve our problem of a too hot Earth. Just hope that the wind blows and the night is for sleeping and that your antics help in any way.
If you believe that the temperature is "just right" then you should be monitoring the average temperature of the Earth which means that in the past 10 years you should have been running your 18-wheeler and lawn mowers 24/7 to heat up a cooling Earth.
But if you are like me, I blame the sun for all this..............good or bad it's the sun's fault and not mans, nor farting cows, nor hundreds of crazy Global Warming ideas...........
A current example of commonly held "common sense" being overturned by more advanced scientific methods is oxygen production. We all learned how important the tress in the Amazon basis were for oxygen levels in the world. We can now measure atmospheric oxygen levels from space. This has shown that although the trees raise the oxygen levels during the day it is all re-absorbed at night. The gain in oxygen comes from the plankton in the delta that process the tremendous amount of debris carried to the ocean.
Quote: kenarmanAccepted science has to change it's position all the time as more facts become available...
Correct; you describe the "Scientific Method" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Sadly not one "scientific" study exists proving "Global Warming" using the Scientific Method- just the one highly controversial one that did not follow the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method invites every opposing viewpoint that challenges a theory and must refute 100% of them to remain viable. The current one from the University of East Anglia is so tainted that it can't remain the ONE sole scientific theory.
The Scientific Method is the reason you believe 2 + 2 = 4, but if you can show and prove that the real answer is 5 then you will win a Nobel prize and be famous - just prove it and then defend it, using the Scientific Method, until someone proves it really adds up to 6.
So where are the other Scientific Studies on Climate Change that take on all challengers and defeats all of them?????
