How's that Global Warming working out for you?
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
andyt @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:24 am
Well what's the point of having those things if you never use them. There's lots of posters who advocate using them on say North Korea or some other limited use, as if that would solve anything. They're just pussies. It's like when you had firecrackers - didn't you ever just light all of them up at once, just to see what kind of bang it would make?
Lemmy @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:28 am
Brenda Brenda:
So how do you want to turn it around? If it is not man made, what can we do? Exactly, NOTHING...
So we have to blame it on us.
So we have to blame it on us.
What we do is stop listening to ANYTHING the climate change deniers say and start listening to the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
Zipperfish @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:44 am
Gunnair Gunnair:
Frankly, though I'm a tree hugger, I'm less and less inspired by 'green' energy. Wind turbines, tidal turbines, solar, - all might have local uses but as far as a national strategy, I don't think so.
I'm more for better transit and more efficient consumption to begin with.
Wind and power turbines are small thinking.
Space-based_solar_power
Or nuclear power with a few fission-fusion reactors to deal with the waste:
Nuclear Fusion-Fission Hybrid Could Destroy Nuclear Waste and Contribute to Carbon-Free Energy Future
Brenda @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:44 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
Brenda Brenda:
So how do you want to turn it around? If it is not man made, what can we do? Exactly, NOTHING...
So we have to blame it on us.
So we have to blame it on us.
What we do is stop listening to ANYTHING the climate change deniers say and start listening to the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
Who are not on par with each other either...
You don't really say we should listen to what Al Gore had to say, right? BTW, I don't think there are many climate change deniers, I think there are a lot of "Man caused it all"-disbelievers, and I am one of them.
Sure we should take care of our planet, and be as green as we possibly can, start with ourselves, no littering, stop the plastic packaging around everything, be wise with energy usage, that kind of stuff. But we will never be able to turn it all around, because nature takes its course. Nature is more powerful than humanity...
Lemmy @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:05 am
Brenda Brenda:
Lemmy Lemmy:
Brenda Brenda:
So how do you want to turn it around? If it is not man made, what can we do? Exactly, NOTHING...
So we have to blame it on us.
So we have to blame it on us.
What we do is stop listening to ANYTHING the climate change deniers say and start listening to the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
Who are not on par with each other either...
Exactly. That's the nature of a debate when one group knows what they're talking about and one does not.
Brenda Brenda:
You don't really say we should listen to what Al Gore had to say, right? BTW, I don't think there are many climate change deniers, I think there are a lot of "Man caused it all"-disbelievers, and I am one of them.
Are you a climate scientist? If not, then, no offence, but I don't care what you believe. You can believe any damn thing you want.
Brenda Brenda:
Sure we should take care of our planet, and be as green as we possibly can, start with ourselves, no littering, stop the plastic packaging around everything, be wise with energy usage, that kind of stuff. But we will never be able to turn it all around, because nature takes its course. Nature is more powerful than humanity...
Nice theory. I have a theory that I play better golf when I wear my favourite striped shirt. But fortunately for others I don't teach golf. The time has come to stop listening to people that don't know what they're talking about.
Brenda @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:37 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
Brenda Brenda:
Lemmy Lemmy:
What we do is stop listening to ANYTHING the climate change deniers say and start listening to the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
Who are not on par with each other either...
Exactly. That's the nature of a debate when one group knows what they're talking about and one does not.
$1:
Brenda Brenda:
You don't really say we should listen to what Al Gore had to say, right? BTW, I don't think there are many climate change deniers, I think there are a lot of "Man caused it all"-disbelievers, and I am one of them.
Are you a climate scientist? If not, then, no offence, but I don't care what you believe. You can believe any damn thing you want.
$1:
Brenda Brenda:
Sure we should take care of our planet, and be as green as we possibly can, start with ourselves, no littering, stop the plastic packaging around everything, be wise with energy usage, that kind of stuff. But we will never be able to turn it all around, because nature takes its course. Nature is more powerful than humanity...
Nice theory. I have a theory that I play better golf when I wear my favourite striped shirt. But fortunately for others I don't teach golf. The time has come to stop listening to people that don't know what they're talking about.
And you do know what you are talking about when it comes to Climate Change? I thought you were an economist? So your opinion is just as much worth as mine. Let me do my thing, I'll let you do yours, and you stop telling me what I should do or think, and all will be happy.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:02 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
The time has come to stop listening to people that don't know what they're talking about.
Great advice. Now perhaps you can tell me which group of ppl knows what they are talking about. The climatologists that are ringing the alarm bells and blaming humans for such a "dramatic" increase in global temps?
Or the climatologists that don't agree with that assessment and claim that man's influence is minimal?
Brenda @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:54 pm
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Lemmy Lemmy:
The time has come to stop listening to people that don't know what they're talking about.
Great advice. Now perhaps you can tell me which group of ppl knows what they are talking about. The climatologists that are ringing the alarm bells and blaming humans for such a "dramatic" increase in global temps?
Or the climatologists that don't agree with that assessment and claim that man's influence is minimal?
Thank you. That was exactly what I meant and what flew right over Lemmy's head...
N_Fiddledog @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:04 pm
There's a new list of 1,000 international scientists dissenting over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.
http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL- ... IPCC--Gore
Yeah, it's from Marc Morano, and, of course, warmists hate that guy, mostly, because there's never been a case of any of them winning a debate with him, and many have tried.
Nevertheless the list sites other sources verifying the claims on each of the 1,000 scientists.
ASLplease @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:01 pm
andyt andyt:
ASLplease ASLplease:
just wtf is global warming science about anyway?
You take temperatures from this side of the world and crunch them together with temperatures from the other side of the world, it forms a meaningless number that we then trend over time.
need I say more? anyone that calls this good science needs to give their heads a shake.
You take temperatures from this side of the world and crunch them together with temperatures from the other side of the world, it forms a meaningless number that we then trend over time.
need I say more? anyone that calls this good science needs to give their heads a shake.
Why is Global average temperature a meaningless number?
they take a temperature from france and combine it with a temperature from california,then use it to project the future climate in Nova Scotia by watching how the number trends. anyone with a background in science or statistic would see the serious flaw in their approach.
ASLplease @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:10 pm
just wtf is global warming science about anyway?
You take temperatures from this side of the world and crunch them together with temperatures from the other side of the world, it forms a meaningless number that we then trend over time.
need I say more? anyone that calls this good science needs to give their heads a shake.[/quote]
You've got degrees relating to climatology do you?[/quote]
That logical fallacy is called argumentum ad auctoritas ( appeal to authority ) You are argueing that a climatologist should be correct, and that I should be incorrect based solely on my climatology credentials.[/quote]
No. One would hope though, that if you are going to make a statement that a climatologist's science is incorrect, you are basing it on some kind of in depth scientific research, you have some advanced sceintific training, or a combination of both.
It appears you've done neither, so maybe you are indeed incorrect.[/quote]
there is no need to have knowledge of their 'advanced scientific training' if their basic fundamental logic is flawed. I'm saying they failed right at the begining, long before their credentials became relevant. Do you not have a direct response to my comment? Why is it that you can take a complex system like world climate, and draw conclusions from a couple thousand weather stations?What exactly is a global index? can I touch it or feel it? what doesit represent? I can add up all the phone numbers in the yellow pages and create a global phone index, but it doesnt mean that I've created something of use or value.
sandorski @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:35 pm
ASLplease ASLplease:
just wtf is global warming science about anyway?
You take temperatures from this side of the world and crunch them together with temperatures from the other side of the world, it forms a meaningless number that we then trend over time.
need I say more? anyone that calls this good science needs to give their heads a shake.
You've got degrees relating to climatology do you?
That logical fallacy is called argumentum ad auctoritas ( appeal to authority ) You are argueing that a climatologist should be correct, and that I should be incorrect based solely on my climatology credentials.
No. One would hope though, that if you are going to make a statement that a climatologist's science is incorrect, you are basing it on some kind of in depth scientific research, you have some advanced sceintific training, or a combination of both.
It appears you've done neither, so maybe you are indeed incorrect.
there is no need to have knowledge of their 'advanced scientific training' if their basic fundamental logic is flawed. I'm saying they failed right at the begining, long before their credentials became relevant. Do you not have a direct response to my comment? Why is it that you can take a complex system like world climate, and draw conclusions from a couple thousand weather stations?What exactly is a global index? can I touch it or feel it? what doesit represent? I can add up all the phone numbers in the yellow pages and create a global phone index, but it doesnt mean that I've created something of use or value.
You take temperatures from this side of the world and crunch them together with temperatures from the other side of the world, it forms a meaningless number that we then trend over time.
need I say more? anyone that calls this good science needs to give their heads a shake.
You've got degrees relating to climatology do you?
That logical fallacy is called argumentum ad auctoritas ( appeal to authority ) You are argueing that a climatologist should be correct, and that I should be incorrect based solely on my climatology credentials.
No. One would hope though, that if you are going to make a statement that a climatologist's science is incorrect, you are basing it on some kind of in depth scientific research, you have some advanced sceintific training, or a combination of both.
It appears you've done neither, so maybe you are indeed incorrect.
there is no need to have knowledge of their 'advanced scientific training' if their basic fundamental logic is flawed. I'm saying they failed right at the begining, long before their credentials became relevant. Do you not have a direct response to my comment? Why is it that you can take a complex system like world climate, and draw conclusions from a couple thousand weather stations?What exactly is a global index? can I touch it or feel it? what doesit represent? I can add up all the phone numbers in the yellow pages and create a global phone index, but it doesnt mean that I've created something of use or value.
/facepalm, Strawman.
Brenda @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:44 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
There's a new list of 1,000 international scientists dissenting over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.
http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL- ... IPCC--Gore
Yeah, it's from Marc Morano, and, of course, warmists hate that guy, mostly, because there's never been a case of any of them winning a debate with him, and many have tried.
Nevertheless the list sites other sources verifying the claims on each of the 1,000 scientists.
http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL- ... IPCC--Gore
Yeah, it's from Marc Morano, and, of course, warmists hate that guy, mostly, because there's never been a case of any of them winning a debate with him, and many have tried.
Nevertheless the list sites other sources verifying the claims on each of the 1,000 scientists.
From that:
$1:
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Which is exactly what I am saying. Thanks for agreeing with me
ASLplease @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:51 pm
this is frustrating.
i cant seem to keep ice off my front steps, even if I go crazy with salt and gravel. yet, without even trying, I've successfully caused the world to warm up, floods, tornados, blizzards, and ozone depletion.
Gunnair @ Sat Dec 11, 2010 3:23 pm
"ASLplease" wrote
$1:
there is no need to have knowledge of their 'advanced scientific training' if their basic fundamental logic is flawed.
Well, if you judge that their fundemnental logic is incorrect, you would have to have some of the training that they have achieved in order to do this, lest it be said you're just guessing here.
$1:
I'm saying they failed right at the begining, long before their credentials became relevant.
You judge this how?
$1:
Do you not have a direct response to my comment? Why is it that you can take a complex system like world climate, and draw conclusions from a couple thousand weather stations?What exactly is a global index? can I touch it or feel it? what doesit represent?
In my own words, if you gather data from a 1000 weather stations over several decades and they tell you that the avaerage temperature is rising, then I'd say the temperature just might be rising.
$1:
I can add up all the phone numbers in the yellow pages and create a global phone index, but it doesnt mean that I've created something of use or value.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next