Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Climate Change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nilanka wrote: View Post
    So humans have some effect, but not enough effect?

    If we can't trust scientific agencies to provide us with proof, it's safe to conclude that there is no proof that would convince you.
    I don't know if humans have an effect and it'll be up to me to decide if I'm convinced by the "science". Right now, I'm not. You just listen to the government and Sierra club though, they'll tell you what to believe.
    Sunny ways my friends, sunny ways
    Because its 2015

    Comment


    • Uncle_Si wrote: View Post
      I don't know if humans have an effect and it'll be up to me to decide if I'm convinced by the "science". Right now, I'm not. You just listen to the government and Sierra club though, they'll tell you what to believe.
      Ironically, it's very hippie mentality to distrust the government to that extent. Da man is out to get us, dude!

      My trust is in the scientific method. I trust PhDs who have dedicated their lives to study these environmental processes. Their work carry much more weight than self-proclaimed Google PhDs who spent a few days reading blog posts.

      Regardless, if the government and taxation is your biggest beef, why deny the robust science? Why not deny the taxation tactic instead, and propose alternative ways to clean the planet that doesn't affect the average citizen's wallet?

      Comment


      • mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
        I've provided evidence and links throughout the thread that question if climate change is happening in the manner the alarmists portray.

        In the big picture, the climate is always changing. The climate operates on cycles but climate change alarmists are very linear in the manipulated evidence they produce.
        You've provided links, but to call them "evidence" is questionable.

        I can also provide links (but from multiple, independent sources) which refute the claims you've linked to.

        Comment


        • Nilanka wrote: View Post
          You've provided links, but to call them "evidence" is questionable.

          I can also provide links (but from multiple, independent sources) which refute the claims you've linked to.

          There is nothing independent unless self-funded and with "no skin in the game".


          Most of the links supporting climate change in this thread are from very biased sources, skepticalscience.com being the main culprit.


          The debate back and forth is the whole issue....there is nothing conclusive on the matter yet drastic action is ready to be taken.


          The problem has now become that the pro-climate change have taken a "hands over the ears" it has all been settled approach when it is anything but.

          Comment


          • I don't think there should be a carbon tax.. but I think there should be a tax on parents that have more than one child. Need to curb over population someway. Maybe that's a start.

            Tax payers would never go for it because everyone seems to want to have a kid these days.

            Comment


            • There are 190+ countries who took part in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They all got into a big room and decided they need to fabricate a reason to raise taxes.

              This is some Jenny McCarthy level tinfoil hatting.

              Comment


              • mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                There is nothing independent unless self-funded and with "no skin in the game".
                Everyone is funded by someone. That's no reason to distrust the process.

                Do you question whether airbags are safe? Data is funded by Big Auto.

                Do you question whether GMOs are safe? Data is funded by Big Agri.

                Do you question whether vaccines are safe? Data is funded by Big Pharma.

                Comment


                • Nilanka wrote: View Post
                  Everyone is funded by someone. That's no reason to distrust the process.

                  Do you question whether airbags are safe? Data is funded by Big Auto.

                  Do you question whether GMOs are safe? Data is funded by Big Agri.

                  Do you question whether vaccines are safe? Data is funded by Big Pharma.

                  They should all be questioned and scrutinized....and they are.

                  No different with climate change.

                  The difference in climate change, of course, is that there is much skepticism to be had because the debate is not as simple as "are airbags safe" and the consequences are far more severe to our everyday life.

                  Comment


                  • Nilanka wrote: View Post
                    There are 190+ countries who took part in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They all got into a big room and decided they need to fabricate a reason to raise taxes.

                    This is some Jenny McCarthy level tinfoil hatting.

                    Hmmmm, no, not quite.

                    But thanks for not insulting an opposing view intelligence.


                    What has happened is the original research is piled on and taken as fact when a review of it shows many inaccuracies.

                    The whole 97% is a perfect example.


                    Not to mention the whole group think complex on the subject.

                    Comment


                    • http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog...2015-Hype-2008



                      Great read.


                      We can predict anything and have no accountability if no one bothers to question.

                      Comment


                      • mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                        They should all be questioned and scrutinized....and they are.

                        No different with climate change.

                        The difference in climate change, of course, is that there is much skepticism to be had because the debate is not as simple as "are airbags safe" and the consequences are far more severe to our everyday life.
                        Questioning is one thing. Rejecting data based on unfounded, under-the-table, financial incentive conspiracies, is another.

                        Comment


                        • mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                          Hmmmm, no, not quite.

                          But thanks for not insulting an opposing view intelligence.

                          What has happened is the original research is piled on and taken as fact when a review of it shows many inaccuracies.

                          The whole 97% is a perfect example.

                          Not to mention the whole group think complex on the subject.
                          This is not how the scientific method works. Peer-review involves scientists constantly trying to prove each other wrong. Studies can be funded on the sole basis of attempting to prove previous work wrong. This is what science is. Questioning, questioning, and more questioning. To suggest that 1 conclusion was universally accepted without anyone double, triple, quadruple checking the results, is basically impossible.

                          Comment


                          • mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                            http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog...2015-Hype-2008

                            Great read.

                            We can predict anything and have no accountability if no one bothers to question.
                            God can destroy us in the blink of an eye
                            lol - What little credibility this blogger had was lost.

                            Comment


                            • Uncle_Si wrote: View Post
                              The so called "science" has no reliable baseline. When you're taking about changes of tenths of a degree over 100 years, one would think a solid baseline would be required.

                              Just think, what were temperature measurement and logging/documenting standards then compared to now. How do we know that the information then is as reliable as it is now? How do we know that it wasn't manipulated then? We don't even have temperature monitoring systems in all the places we have temperature data
                              We're questioning if people knew how to use a thermometer 100 years ago? C'mon now.

                              Comment


                              • Nilanka wrote: View Post
                                lol - What little credibility this blogger had was lost.

                                I'm sorry, Nilanka, but I'm losing interest in this.

                                You take one line and ignore the rest?

                                C'mon.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X