Climate Change Passé?

veremchuka said:
The issue is for those that believe in MMGW they think we can fix it since we caused it. Silly, but that's how they think.

The fact is that GW has always occurred and so has Global Cooling. About 600 M years ago the entire planet was frozen (and it is thought to have occurred more than that one time) though it is thought that it may have not been on the equator. That event lasted for hundreds of millions of years (!) and is called Snowball Earth.

Cycles come, cycles go. Greenland was once green and they grew grapes in England. The Earth's climate is not static.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, do you seriously imagine that the huge number of scientists involved in this have not considered this line of reasoning and found evidence against it ? Why would the scientific community, which gave us antibiotics and semiconductors and tritherapy and cellphones and jet aircraft and put a man on the moon, suddenly decide to be collectively stupid in a way which only a few pundits on the Internet can spot ?
 
Whether it's real or not, and whether there are human causes to it if it is real, the bottom line is that jobs and the economy trump too much concern about it. When the economy is strong people aren't too worried about the possibility of losing a few jobs with "greener" regulation. Heck, in a strong economy, the displaced workers can probably quickly find other work. When the real unemployment rate is around 17%, nothing that is perceived as "job killing" (whether accurate or not) gets much media play or attention from our elected officials.
 
BigNick said:
Out of interest, do you seriously imagine that the huge number of scientists involved in this have not considered this line of reasoning and found evidence against it ?
Click to expand...
I don't know what evidence against what line of reasoning you're referring to.
 
BigNick said:
Out of interest, do you seriously imagine that the huge number of scientists involved in this have not considered this line of reasoning and found evidence against it ? Why would the scientific community, which gave us antibiotics and semiconductors and tritherapy and cellphones and jet aircraft and put a man on the moon, suddenly decide to be collectively stupid in a way which only a few pundits on the Internet can spot ?
Click to expand...

I have read articles, watched on TV and listened to on radio many scientists and every single meteorologist from this state and the evidence is overwhelmingly against MMGW according to all of them. Every single meteorologist in this state (which is very very left wing) has stated on TV and radio that MMGW is just not true. I mention how left wing this state is because this is a left wing issue and I'd have thought at least some of them out of political correctness that is rampant in this state and country would advocate for MMGW, not one has. I have attended forums on MMGW by a prominent meteorologist in this state that completely debunks with facts the myth of MMGW. I have heard other meteorologists on TV and radio do the same. The UN and the left wing politicians in the USA have a vested interest in controlling and taxing us using MMGW as their tool. It is a myth, climates change over time and the sun is the driver. Now if you chose to believe otherwise that is fine, you won't change my opinion based upon the creditable sources I have heard speak out against MMGW.

GW has been occurring for at least 2 centuries but that is part of the cyclical nature of the earth's climate. Humans have not created GW and they can't reverse it either.
 
veremchuka said:
Every single meteorologist in this state (which is very very left wing) has stated on TV and radio that MMGW is just not true.
Click to expand...
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I urge you to find and use the "edit" button post haste.

Also, meteorologist ≠ climatologist
 
samclem said:
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I urge you to find and use the "edit" button post haste.

Also, meteorologist ≠ climatologist
Click to expand...


Yes it is! I see no reason to edit anything I have said.

I know meteorologist ≠ climatologist, both are specialists in their respective fields. I mention both because both have discussed this. I'm stating what I believe based upon the facts presented by experts in their respective fields.
 
veremchuka said:
Every single meteorologist in this state (which is very very left wing) has stated on TV and radio that MMGW is just not true.
Click to expand...
So, you live in a state in which every meteorologist has been on TV and radio? And every single one has stated that man-made global warming is not true. There's not a single meteorologist who has not been on TV? There's not a single one who is reserving judgement on this issue?

That must be one wee tiny state.
 
samclem said:
So, you live in a state in which every meteorologist has been on TV and radio? And every single one has stated that man-made global warming is not true. There's not a single meteorologist who has not been on TV? There's not a single one who is reserving judgement on this issue?

That must be one wee tiny state.
Click to expand...

Yes Sam that is what I said isn't it? EVERY one of them has been on TV or radio or both. And every one has said as plainly as I am saying to you that there is NO such thing as MMGW. They attribute changes in the climate to natural processes that ebb and flow that are driven by the sun. I guess this doesn't jive with what you have hear and believe but that's the story.
 
veremchuka said:
And every one has said as plainly as I am saying to you that there is NO such thing as MMGW.
Click to expand...
I don't think it should be a political judgment. It is a scientific issue, and in science (as I understand it), you don't vote on the truth. When you can't tell, you look for more evidence or a better theory. Maybe veremchuka's state's experts agree that GW is is not MM and maybe samclem's authorities agree that it is MM. Who cares? We don't want to know who says it's true, but whether it is true. That is, if you think it matters whether GW is MM (and, as I said earlier, I don't think it does).
 
veremchuka said:
Yes Sam that is what I said isn't it? EVERY one of them has been on TV or radio or both. And every one has said as plainly as I am saying to you that there is NO such thing as MMGW. They attribute changes in the climate to natural processes that ebb and flow that are driven by the sun. I guess this doesn't jive with what you have hear and believe but that's the story.
Click to expand...
Can you give us the names and academic affiliations of one (1) of these meteorologists ?

Oh, and do you know the difference between a meteorlogist and a climatologist? It's much the same as the difference between weather and climate. If that's too hard: it's like the difference between the Dow and the economy.
 
Can't seem to find my 10 foot pole...but I've pulled up a chair and made some popcorn.
 
BigNick said:
Can you give us the names and academic affiliations of one (1) of these meteorologists ?

Oh, and do you know the difference between a meteorlogist and a climatologist? It's much the same as the difference between weather and climate. If that's too hard: it's like the difference between the Dow and the economy.
Click to expand...


Interesting article that kind of supports what he said...

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News


"In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict"
 
Whatever credibility that article may have is severely damaged by the author's repeated use of the term "alarmist". I smell bias...
 
I love the smell of bias in the morning... :p

Granted, MMGW may be true, and there may still be "alarmists" exaggerating the severity, consequences, and necessary reactions to it.
 
All that the press release (and the actual scientific paper) tells us, is that measuring the impact of greenhouse gases is hard. It doesn't tell us anything about the underlying model.

It's characteristic of deniers (in any field) to sieze on any publication which remotely begins to slightly suggest that <thing which they don't like> might not be exactly as it's been described (such description being, typically, the media's approximation rather than the factual position anyway) totally debunks whetever it is that they are ideologically opposed to; whereas the 99% of scientific papers or serious enquiries which confirm <thing which they don't like> are all authored by dishonest shills in the pay of the evil establishment. Both right and left are guilty of this. On the right you have denialists of MMGW and evolution; on the left, vaccine denial and (mostly on the left) alt-med; and, wrapping around the back where the far left tends to meet the far right, 9/11 conspiracists and "zOMG Bilderberg lizards!!" types.
 
The author is from a libertarian think tank. I agree that the resort to tricky and misleading language is very irritating. In addition to the circularity of the adjective "alarmist", assuming the conclusion the author is arguing, there's its ambiguity between an appositive interpretation (the computer programs happen to be alarmist) and a restrictive interpretation (computer programs which are alarmist are the only ones being referred to). Facts supposedly refuting the previous studies are called "objective NASA satellite data", implying the other studies used subjective data, and are also called "real-world facts", as though, previously, imaginary facts were used.
 
GregLee said:
The author is from a libertarian think tank. I agree that the resort to tricky and misleading language is very irritating.
Click to expand...
I really want to agree with the libertarian point of view on some issues, but it seems that their dedication of objectivity and scientific reason stops at climate change.
 
BigNick said:
I really want to agree with the libertarian point of view, but it seems that their dedication of objectivity and scientific reason stops at climate change.
Click to expand...
That's a big "their." There's not much of a libertarian "community" to speak of, and if there were, I doubt there would be consensus on climate change/global warming/we-don't-think-we-like-this,-whatever-it-is-and-whatever-is-causing-it,-so-spend-lots-of-resources-to-make-it-stop-just-in-case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
March 2022 in a warmer climate
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
JK7255407
J
frayne
SQOTD, Hurricanes, Climate Change, Investing Opportunities
Replies
8
Views
883
OldShooter
OldShooter
W
need advice from people who have done a lot of crazy things in life
5 6 7
Replies
157
Views
49K
Jeffman52
J
R
How things have changed..
Replies
4
Views
1K
Red Badger
Red Badger
street
Christmas Story
Replies
6
Views
890
travelover
travelover

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom