Climate change/global warming....

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

You realize the businesses on the other side of the equation - fossil fuel companies - have political power as well, and massive incentive to maintain the status quo while denying anthropogenic climate change?

 

Link proving that?

 

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html Pretty good article including simplifying the math to where we can all understand it.

 

Letter from 2007 penned by 100 scientists to the U.N. Secretary General.

 

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-signatories.html

 

"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables."

[FeelingMN 273]

The very nature of science is to be skeptical. All the climate change skeptics have to do is publish their research that refutes man made climate change and the issue will go away. If the analysis is sound, it'll drive the issue in another direction. Pretty simple really.

 

There's no government conspiracy. If deniers had good science to back up their claims more people would listen.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,648]

Zealots have cost the cause credibility.

[drobeski 3,061]

The very nature of science is to be skeptical. All the climate change skeptics have to do is publish their research that refutes man made climate change and the issue will go away. If the analysis is sound, it'll drive the issue in another direction. Pretty simple really.

 

There's no government conspiracy. If deniers had good science to back up their claims more people would listen.

manipulation of data creates skepticism

[FeelingMN 273]

manipulation of data creates skepticism

Same thing this guy did: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/09/scientist-falsified-data-for-cancer-research-once-described-as-holy-grail-feds-say/?utm_term=.eacb2aab130e

 

Is all cancer research delegitimized because of it?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

There is no debate. Each of the 15 warmest years on record have been in the 2000s.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html

 

There's certainly enough conflicting data to show there IS a debate on this.

[Mike Honcho 4,034]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html

 

There's certainly enough conflicting data to show there IS a debate on this.

Your link is from 2007!!!! . :lol:

 

I is dumb.

[FeelingMN 273]

Your link is from 2007!!!! . :lol:

Where do you see that?

[FeelingMN 273]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html

 

There's certainly enough conflicting data to show there IS a debate on this.

From your link:

 

Zeke Hausfather of University of California Berkeley and five others, claims to confirm Karl’s findings.

If enough research confirms the findings, then it'll stand. If it doesn't, then the claim of fraud will stand. So right now, according to your link, there isn't any conflicting data. Just allegations.

 

Also.....who wrote this article? The brainroom at FoxNews? WTF is that?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

If enough research confirms the findings, then it'll stand. If it doesn't, then the claim of fraud will stand. So right now, according to your link, there isn't any conflicting data. Just allegations.

 

Also.....who wrote this article? The brainroom at FoxNews? WTF is that?

 

There are plenty of scientists refuting it but of course they're not getting equal airtime because it doesn't fit with the liberal agenda.

[Mike Honcho 4,034]

Where do you see that?

 

Damn it for reading on tablet without my glasses. It's 2017.

[FeelingMN 273]

There are plenty of scientists refuting it but of course they're not getting equal airtime because it doesn't fit with the liberal agenda.

The scientists refuting it don't need airtime, they need data. If climate change is a hoax, it should be pretty easy to disprove. And yet there is an overwhelming consensus supporting climate change.

 

If the study you linked was bogus, if Karl rushed his research to publication to coincide with the Paris Agreement and his numbers don't add up, then someone else can rework the data to prove it. It's literally right there. All the figures and analysis. If he did something wrong, it should be easy to verify.

 

But so far all we have is allegations from the brainroom.

[listen2me 23 1,542]

Pretty warm winter here again. Skiers are upset.

 

After this weekend we will already have 3 days 50 or higher this february. Usually this time of the year we seen consistant 20s and dips down to 0.

 

A buddy of mine golfed in mid January.

 

 

Not that im complaining. Bring on golf season early this year. Thank you pollution.

[penultimatestraw 473]

The scientists refuting it don't need airtime, they need data. If climate change is a hoax, it should be pretty easy to disprove. And yet there is an overwhelming consensus supporting climate change.

If the study you linked was bogus, if Karl rushed his research to publication to coincide with the Paris Agreement and his numbers don't add up, then someone else can rework the data to prove it. It's literally right there. All the figures and analysis. If he did something wrong, it should be easy to verify.

But so far all we have is allegations from the brainroom.

The anti-science crowd isn't going to change their minds. The emotional appeal of a liberal conspiracy is too compelling to critically review the data. Moreover, the subject is so esoteric most of us would have no clue what to make of it.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

The scientists refuting it don't need airtime, they need data. If climate change is a hoax, it should be pretty easy to disprove. And yet there is an overwhelming consensus supporting climate change.

 

If the study you linked was bogus, if Karl rushed his research to publication to coincide with the Paris Agreement and his numbers don't add up, then someone else can rework the data to prove it. It's literally right there. All the figures and analysis. If he did something wrong, it should be easy to verify.

 

But so far all we have is allegations from the brainroom.

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=463528&hl=%2Badmits+%2Bmmgw

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

 

 

Where were you on this bit of info coming out? Do you consider this just tinfoil hat stuff?

[FeelingMN 273]

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=463528&hl=%2Badmits+%2Bmmgw

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

 

 

Where were you on this bit of info coming out? Do you consider this just tinfoil hat stuff?

 

I could probably find 10,000 editorials about how the planet will be ruined in the next 100 years due to man made climate change. I don't necessarily believe them either.

 

If the science is bad, then the proof will come about in peer reviewed research. It's how we've been distinguishing between real and pseudoscience for the past couple of centuries. That process has proven to be pretty reliable. Again, if this is all a bunch of hot air, produce some statistical analysis that backs it up. But deniers seem content to offer up quotes. So to me, they seem less interested in disproving climate change than persuading people it isn't real. Why is that?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

But deniers seem content to offer up quotes. So to me, they seem less interested in disproving climate change than persuading people it isn't real. Why is that?

 

How do you prove data was manufactured? There are scientists claiming that but it's brushed aside by those that believe in man made climate change.

[SUXBNME 1,335]

. If climate change is a hoax,

Quit calling it that. Nobody denies climate change.

 

Call it what it was originaly called - Man Made Global Warming

[FeelingMN 273]

How do you prove data was manufactured? There are scientists claiming that but it's brushed aside by those that believe in man made climate change.

 

Either you replicate results or you don't. If you don't, then the original research should be called into question.

 

 

 

Quit calling it that. Nobody denies climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/world/asia/china-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

What great environmentalist these people are.

 

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/standing-rock-protesters-leave-gobs-trash-could-threaten-river

 

Fail.

[drobeski 3,061]

What great environmentalist these people are.

 

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/standing-rock-protesters-leave-gobs-trash-could-threaten-river

 

Fail.

filth, rubbish and leftist protesters go hand and hand.

 

Fact

[SUXBNME 1,335]

 

 

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/world/asia/china-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0

From that article - “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” Mr. Trump wrote.

 

Try again

[SUXBNME 1,335]

From that article - “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” Mr. Trump wrote.

 

Try again

bump

[FeelingMN 273]

bump

 

You highlighted global warming.

 

But it still says Trump thinks the Chinese made it all up.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

Worst Deal In History: $1.5 Trillion A Year To Reduce Global Warming By 0.048°C

 

Even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030 the only difference it will make to “global warming” by the end of this century will be to reduce the world’s temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

That’s 1/20th of a degree C.

Let’s put this into perspective.

Earlier this year, Climate Change Business Journal calculated that the annual cost of the global warming industry is $1.5 trillion.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/10/cost-climate-change-1-5-trillion-year-reduce-global-warming-0-048c/

[SUXBNME 1,335]

 

You highlighted global warming.

 

Because you said he called it Climate Change. The author of the piece you linked called it that, not Trump.

[FeelingMN 273]

Because you said he called it Climate Change. The author of the piece you linked called it that, not Trump.

I'm talking about the people who think it's all made up. Trump has stated such in the past. Dig through Phurfur's article....there's a link calling climate change/global warming a hoax.

 

I don't care what people call it. And I'm open to the possibility that whatever is going on really isn't that much of a big deal in the grand scheme of things. But....to frame the issue as a hoax or conspiracy or whatever is just flat out wrong in my opinion.

[drobeski 3,061]

How can we trust global warming scientists asks David Rose

http://dailym.ai/2kVgN7v

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

How can we trust global warming scientists asks David Rose

http://dailym.ai/2kVgN7v

 

I'm sure their opinion isn't affected by the fact that if their 'science' went away, they'd be out of a job because the funding dried up.

[Big Guy 1,400]

 

I'm sure their opinion isn't affected by the fact that if their 'science' went away, they'd be out of a job because the funding dried up.

 

Bingo!

[tanatastic 2,061]

The best science to study is something that can never be proven or disproven. There are people that get paid to be cryptozoologists, they study creatures that don't exist.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

The best science to study is something that can never be proven or disproven. There are people that get paid to be cryptozoologists, they study creatures that don't exist.

 

I myself am studying Liberal geniuses but can't find any proof they ever existed.

[FeelingMN 273]

How can we trust global warming scientists asks David Rose http://dailym.ai/2kVgN7v

http://www.popsci.com/regardless-house-science-committee-claims-noaa-scientists-probably-didnt-manipulate-climate-records

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

http://www.popsci.com/regardless-house-science-committee-claims-noaa-scientists-probably-didnt-manipulate-climate-records

 

http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/images/2017/02/adjusted_vs_raw_noaa.jpg?itok=S7ehLA91&fc=50,50

 

As previously stated, a fraction of a fraction in the span of the Earth.

 

Conclusion.............we have no focking clue if this is cyclic/normal or not.

[SUXBNME 1,335]

Quit calling it that. Nobody denies climate change.

 

Call it what it was originaly called - Man Made Global Warming

Your response was trying to prove that Trump Called it Climate Change

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/world/asia/china-trump-climate-change.html?_r=0

 

 

From that article - “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” Mr. Trump wrote.

 

Try again

[Kanil 519]

Climate change is very real, can be traced using the known methods. We know that over time the earth's temperature has changed.

 

I think the "debate" right now is whether or not the activities of man have contributed to global warming, and thus if a change in those activities might negate any such impact. I think to suggest that man has had no impact is clearly ignorant, but what remains to be seen is the level of that impact, and whether or not a response is warranted, and whether or not such a response will have a tangible impact. Moreover, what are the negative consequences of continued contribution by human activities vs the costs to reduce that impact?

 

That's not up for debate either. The emissions put out are real, and measureable. Since 1750 (about the start of the industrial age) Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 40% and the methane in the air has increased by 150%. The effects are real and measurable. Ocean temps rising every single year, which is the best way to measure how much Earth is warming.

 

97% of scientists agree that man-made global warming is legit. When 97% of scientists agree on something, it's a scientific consensus.

 

Now, what can be done about it is another issue. We're talking getting every person in the world to give a ###### about it. We can't even get privileged Americans to agree, how the hell are we supposed to get the starving father in China to?

 

And before anyone comes in and tries to make this a political thing, saying that the right is a bunch of anti-science morons, remember that the left is as bad or worse. The next mother dude that says "vaccines cause autism" or "GMOs are not safe because... Monsanto" is getting ###### pistol whipped.

 

And before I get too much on my high horse, I am just as bad about gun control. I know all the scientific studies say there would be a lot less homicides committed in America if no one was allowed to own a gun, but I'll be damned if I give mine away.

 

Scientific facts:

Man made global warming is real

Vaccines don't cause autism

GMOs are safe and better for the environment

There would be a significantly less number of homicides if no one was allowed to own a gun

Your mother is a wh0re

[drobeski 3,061]

 

That's not up for debate either. The emissions put out are real, and measureable. Since 1750 (about the start of the industrial age) Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 40% and the methane in the air has increased by 150%. The effects are real and measurable. Ocean temps rising every single year, which is the best way to measure how much Earth is warming.

 

97% of scientists agree that man-made global warming is legit. When 97% of scientists agree on something, it's a scientific consensus.

 

Now, what can be done about it is another issue. We're talking getting every person in the world to give a ###### about it. We can't even get privileged Americans to agree, how the hell are we supposed to get the starving father in China to?

 

And before anyone comes in and tries to make this a political thing, saying that the right is a bunch of anti-science morons, remember that the left is as bad or worse. The next mother dude that says "vaccines cause autism" or "GMOs are not safe because... Monsanto" is getting ###### pistol whipped.

 

And before I get too much on my high horse, I am just as bad about gun control. I know all the scientific studies say there would be a lot homicides committed in America if no one was allowed to own a gun, but I'll be damned if I give mine away.

 

Scientific facts:

Man made global warming is real

Vaccines don't cause autism

GMOs are safe and better for the environment

There would be a significantly less number of homicides if no one was allowed to own a gun

Your mother is a wh0re

you left out

The Broncos suck

[mobb_deep 917]

I believe it's real, and some of it is likely driven by man and carbon emissions. How much, I do not know.

 

But all of that aside, I think environmental regulations and cutting carbon emissions is absolutely essential, so we don't end up with 1/3 of our population dying from smog related illnesses, like our commie comrades in China.

[Kanil 519]

I believe it's real, and some of it is likely driven by man and carbon emissions. How much, I do not know.

 

But all of that aside, I think environmental regulations and cutting carbon emissions is absolutely essential, so we don't end up with 1/3 of our population dying from smog related illnesses, like our commie comrades in China.

 

I don't mean to attack personally, but this is a bad argument that a lot of people have. The experts know, and tell us. We just ignore them because we're too busy to listen and the petroleum industry is loud enough to place doubts in people's minds.

[Kanil 519]

you left out

The Broncos suck

 

What would you know about sucking? Your team has dominated the majority of your adult life. As with any scientific endeavor, we'll need experts to determine that.

 

Browns/Raiders fans, chime in?