it's starting to happen, is this the future for the Stinger? Volvo S60

[MerlintheMad]

So now we know the article you posted is, well, a complete lie, what's the real scientific consensus on climate change? It's 97% of scientists publishing in the climate science field.

These are not a particularly numerous body of scientists: climatologists are actually a very small group, and yes, groupthink permeates their shared studies and conclusions: check this out, for an exposure of what I just said, and the entire phenomenon of how we got to where we are today because of that groupthink.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf
It's long, but well worth the time. Take your time. None of this is going anywhere.

 

[MisterMac]

While it is true that the earth's climate has changed in the past and will change in the future, on it's own, that doesn't diminish the consequences of us changing it right now. That's like saying "oh yeah, these category 5 hurricanes happen every year, don't worry about the one heading toward you right now". A disaster is a disaster, the climate rapidly changing is a global disaster. Rapid climate change has been the reason for several mass extinctions in the past, we do agree that mass extinction is a bad thing right? If we could do something to stop it, shouldn't we? Our current climate shift is happening at a much faster rate than the last ice age and subsequent thaw, it's the rate of change that makes this so much worse than the last one.

I get it, you don't believe in climate change, not because of any scientific data, but you just don't. Let's just say for arguments sake that the earth is going through a rapid climate shift and it is due to us (insert whatever forcing factor you want), that if we don't do anything about it there will be a massive die off of plants and animals, throwing the human population into chaos with billions of people dying due to famine. Atmospheric scientists would be the first ones to see start of this change right? How would you want them to convey to us that this is about to happen, or is already happening? What kind of action would you want the world's governments to take? Or is there nothing scientists and the government can do to convince you, and the world is just doomed in this scenario?

This earth is a closed system. There is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing new on this earth. Mankind has never created a single thing from nothing and never will. We merely rearrange what already existed. Some things that were once deposited in the earth are now in the atmosphere and visa versa.

Yes, this earth is doomed and there is absolutely nothing any human, group of humans, government or scientist can do to change that. Yet, the fall of this earth didn't start with the burning of fossil fuels. It started with a garden, a tree, a serpent, and get this - of all things, a piece of fruit. There is an entire book on this subject, written over many years with input from many knowledgable authors. It is the longest lasting book, the most published book, and the most prolifically read book of all time. I find it to be much more reliable than any other book, article, internet post, scientific study, blog, forum or opinion....

You obviously don't agree with my position and I only agree with part of yours.

Now, back to our regularly schedule programming.....

 

[Helo58]

How is the US not the problem? We have the highest per capita CO2 emissions of any country, including China. Our emissions have also increased in the last year. Did you know China actually decreased their emissions the last 5 or so years, until the most recent year? China is not expected to have "massive" increases, their population is starting to demand less pollution.


God forbid we pay more money for goods to insure future generations have a healthy planet to live on. What a horrible trade off! Before we started buying everything from China, goods here were more expensive. We survived then, we'll survive it again. I rather buy stuff made in the USA anyway.



I much rather the government spend money subsidizing industries that create goods that improve our lives than, lets say, $200 plastic screwdrivers for the military. We're spending close to 700 billion a year in defense, please don't tell me subsidizing the solar industry is "unsustainable" when it's peanuts in comparison. I don't have access to APC's finances, I can't tell you why their rates didn't increase much. As I said above, if I have to wear an extra layer in the winter, or use more fans in summer to keep my energy costs down in order protect the planet for future generations, I'm willing to make that "tremendous" sacrifice. We are so freaking spoiled in this country.

You may understand the scientific method, but you have a hard time separating the "wheat from the chaff" so to speak. I know plenty of people in STEM fields that I work with that have the same problem, doesn't mean they aren't intelligent, it just means their own biases overwhelm their ability to think critically about this particular subject. Please link these peer reviewed scientific studies that are "politically motivated" that later revealed what they truly are, I would love to read them. Yes, Big Oil is contributing a lot into green energy because a smart company diversifies their portfolio, they know there will continue to be more and more pressure on the oil and gas industry. They're actively working to protect their current product while creating new ones for the probable future, that's smart business.



Well if the climate isn't changing the climate is in a steady state. It's a hypothetical situation, so let's say in 40 years. So this is what I was saying above, you may be an intelligent person, you may even be in a STEM profession, and you may have incredible knowledge into science and scientific method, but that doesn't matter if you can't see through your own bias and the bias of others. That article you just linked, did you even read it? Did you even read the scientific journal they cited? Did you research the author of the article to see his background? Or did you just do a quick google search, skimmed the article, saw it supported your opinion, and assumed it was 100% factual? You do see that as being a problem right? Well I did everything above and this is what I found, and it's usually what you find with virtually every single "anti climate change" article.

Let's start with the Author, James Taylor. First and foremost, he isn't a journalist, he doesn't work for Forbes, this is an opinion piece. He's the president of the "Spark of Freedom Foundation", he absolutely has no science background, he actually has a government background, and the company he runs is a senior fellow for the environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. So already we know we have someone writing an article who isn't a journalist, who isn't a scientist, who runs a heavily biased political organization who gets massive donations from the oil and gas companies, his opinion doesn't get any more biased than that. But he does cite a real peer reviewed scientific journal! So let's read it. The context of the article on Forbes seems to indicate that a study was done that indicated that the majority of scientists and engineers do not believe in anthropogenic climate change. What does the actual study say though?

"We reconstructed the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries"

WAIT! HOLD ON A SECOND! If this isn't raising all the red flags for you, it should. The research specifically ONLY interviewed experts in the petroleum and related industries, not only did they not interview a single scientist that actually studies atmospheric science, they explicitly only interviewed unrelated professionals in the primary industry that is fighting against climate science. What's even more astounding is that according to that research 36% say that anthropogenic climate change is real, 17% said that climate change is happening but they think we're screwed so there's nothing we can do, and 5% said they weren't sure but greenhouse gases needed to be regulated. That's 58% that acknowledge climate change is real and happening, 58% of people working in the oil and gas industry! The article on Forbes doesn't mention any of that because it was written by a pawn that is trying to manipulate you into thinking something that simply isn't true. The oil and gas companies are literally paying people to put out articles like this to keep people skeptical. Fool you once shame on them, fool you twice.... well you won't let them fool you again right? You do understand science as you said.

So now we know the article you posted is, well, a complete lie, what's the real scientific consensus on climate change? It's 97% of scientists publishing in the climate science field. So you're telling me that the only way you would accept this is something that is actually happening is that if it's 100%? That's like saying "I have this weird lump I had checked out, 97 doctors said it was cancer, 3 said it was nothing, it wasn't 100% so I guess I'll just ignore it". But that's just absurd right? Here's an article from NASA proving what I just said, along with direct quotes from several scientific societies, they have cited peer reviewed research into the scientific consensus. Don't take my word for it though, you should read through them yourself if you're skeptical in the accuracy of the article. Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


So we have come to the conclusion, through peer reviewed scientific research, that there is an absence of a majority of scientists disagreeing with anthropogenic climate change. So welcome aboard! It took some time, way too much time on my part, but I'm glad we got you here.

I will begin by saying that it should be fairly obvious that I am not a climate scientist. I will also say that climate science is not even closely related to what I do or have a knowledge base in. Quite frankly, I prefer my branch of science because it is less susceptible to "interpretation." Nobody argues about whether or not Newtonian physics work. Quite frankly, that was an intentional choice. You know why, climate science is about as hokey as psychology. I consider them pseudo-sciences because they are largely rely on unproven theory and uncompleted research, are largely driven by opinion, and seem to be found to be wrong very often. I'm pretty sure my mom's house is supposed to be under water by now according to the "sea-level is rising people" 20-30 years ago. So although I am not a climate scientist, I do posses critical thinking skills. One of those skills is to be skeptical of "scientists" with agendas that demonize others with fear and emotional pleas and arguments.

As for finding studies to support my "side" of the discussion, I looked through about 10 google search results pages just to find that one Forbes article. I had to wade through more liberal propaganda than it was truly worth. The only reason I chose it because it was from a mainstream publication, seemed to support my viewpoint, and I was tired of looking. Do you have any idea how many mass media outlets/forms of media support a conservative viewpoint such as alternative views to climate change? Well, lets just say it like finding a needle in a haystack. Personally, I really have no desire to look any further than I did. Why? You won't be deterred in your paranoia. I found others, but you'll find reasons to destroy them too. This one might be harder, but I have faith in you... Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

You seem to be stuck on the idea that I and others like me have a bias. I am pretty sure we all do, don't we? To think that only scientists can interpret data is a bias. Why are you so sure that Heartland has a bias but 350.org doesn't? To think that scientists who work in competing fields or fields other than climate science, aren't capable of putting together factual reports or opinions without bias, is a bias. You think big oil is the boogeyman and I think big government is. You question the motives and intent of big oil, I question the motives and intent of big government. You don't trust conservative climate scientists, I don't trust progressive climate scientists. That should precisely define our differences of opinion. That is just how it is and neither of us is going to change, correct?

Trust me, we are still a long way from agreeing, despite all of the "evidence" and propaganda from the government "sources" you list. Don't forget to read the paper above! I'm sure you will tear that the shreds in no time. So, I'll leave you with this. If I go and swim in the arctic ocean, the ocean will be warmer and the sea level will rise, but you will not be able to prove how much warmer or higher it got, or that it was caused by me and not something else... conclusively. Now, please excuse me, I have to go and find a back brace to help me deal with the weight of the world.

 

[Doel]

I will begin by saying that it should be fairly obvious that I am not a climate scientist. I will also say that climate science is not even closely related to what I do or have a knowledge base in. Quite frankly, I prefer my branch of science because it is less susceptible to "interpretation." Nobody argues about whether or not Newtonian physics work. Quite frankly, that was an intentional choice. You know why, climate science is about as hokey as psychology. I consider them pseudo-sciences because they are largely rely on unproven theory and uncompleted research, are largely driven by opinion, and seem to be found to be wrong very often. I'm pretty sure my mom's house is supposed to be under water by now according to the "sea-level is rising people" 20-30 years ago. So although I am not a climate scientist, I do posses critical thinking skills. One of those skills is to be skeptical of "scientists" with agendas that demonize others with fear and emotional pleas and arguments.

Many aspects of climate science are just as well understood and proven as Newtonian physics. You probably chose to work with Newtonian physics for the same reason I did, because it's easier to understand and it's easier to work with, plus I really didn't want to be a researcher. So let me get this right..... climate scientists that are pro climate change have agendas, other scientists that are against climate change but get millions of dollars (not grants, millions in their pockets) don't have agendas? Doesn't that sound just a little crazy and hypocritical to you? Show me the study that said your mom's house was supposed to be underwater, I would love to read it.

As for finding studies to support my "side" of the discussion, I looked through about 10 google search results pages just to find that one Forbes article. I had to wade through more liberal propaganda than it was truly worth. The only reason I chose it because it was from a mainstream publication, seemed to support my viewpoint, and I was tired of looking. Do you have any idea how many mass media outlets/forms of media support a conservative viewpoint such as alternative views to climate change? Well, lets just say it like finding a needle in a haystack. Personally, I really have no desire to look any further than I did. Why? You won't be deterred in your paranoia. I found others, but you'll find reasons to destroy them too. This one might be harder, but I have faith in you... Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

It's so hard to find articles on your "viewpoint" because, like I said earlier, 97% of climate scientists are in support of anthropogenic climate change. Of course it's going to be hard to find articles against it, there are very very few credible scientists publishing work that line up with your "view point". That's why you ended up posting something that was easy to verify as fake. So do you acknowledge what you posted was fake? I mean it was pretty obvious once I broke it down. Or do you just simply trust anything Forbes puts out? Then here, this must be true since Forbes published it.
96% Of American Meteorological Society Members Think Climate Change Is Happening

I'll look over that journal if you'll acknowledge the last article you posted was as fake as wax fruit. I spent way too much time breaking that down to do the same for this for you just to ignore it.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that I and others like me have a bias. I am pretty sure we all do, don't we? To think that only scientists can interpret data is a bias. Why are you so sure that Heartland has a bias but 350.org doesn't? To think that scientists who work in competing fields or fields other than climate science, aren't capable of putting together factual reports or opinions without bias, is a bias. You think big oil is the boogeyman and I think big government is. You question the motives and intent of big oil, I question the motives and intent of big government. You don't trust conservative climate scientists, I don't trust progressive climate scientists. That should precisely define our differences of opinion. That is just how it is and neither of us is going to change, correct?

Trust me, we are still a long way from agreeing, despite all of the "evidence" and propaganda from the government "sources" you list. Don't forget to read the paper above! I'm sure you will tear that the shreds in no time. So, I'll leave you with this. If I go and swim in the arctic ocean, the ocean will be warmer and the sea level will rise, but you will not be able to prove how much warmer or higher it got, or that it was caused by me and not something else... conclusively. Now, please excuse me, I have to go and find a back brace to help me deal with the weight of the world.

Sure, everyone has bias, but part of science is being able to see past the bias and analyze just the facts to come to real conclusions, even if they don't support your preconceived notion. The Heartland institute gets a ton of funding from oil and gas for the purpose of climate denial. 350.org gets money from who exactly to promote climate change? If you read the article I linked earlier, you'll see that over 96% of scientists in the climate field that DON'T work on climate change (aka they get 0 funding to study climate change) still agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening, why is that? It seems all the anti climate change people are getting funded by conservative groups to put this stuff out, most of them aren't even climate scientists, they have more reason to have a bias than anyone. You keep acting like a a guy with a degree in government, who has never done scientific research in his life, has the same credibility as a climate scientist when it comes to analyzing climate data, that's absurd. Do you want a physical therapist doing open heart surgery on you? Heck no, this is no different. We trust experts in everything, doctors, accountants, engineers, mechanics, contractors, electricians, yet when it comes to this one issue all of a sudden being an expert doesn't mean anything and their opinion means no more than anyone else, ooooook. The 97% includes all scientists, both "conservative" and "regular" ones. All I care about is the work they put out, their political affiliation is non consequential, you should try to do the same. Life doesn't revolve around politics, and science definitely doesn't.

Also yes, it would be very easy to calculate just how much you're warming the ocean, how much water you're displacing and prove both things with empirical evidence. If you really do work with Newtonian physics, this should be really easy for you to calculate as well.

I guess for me to believe it, there would have to be the absence of a majority of scientists disagreeing with the proposal that what you stated was actually the case.

Let's get back to this. You said this is what it would take for you to believe something like anthropogenic climate change was happening, I linked an article with two peer reviewed sources but I guess that didn't cut it for you. So again, tell me exactly what you need because either you were lying or what I sent you wasn't good enough.

 

[Helo58]

Many aspects of climate science are just as well understood and proven as Newtonian physics. You probably chose to work with Newtonian physics for the same reason I did, because it's easier to understand and it's easier to work with, plus I really didn't want to be a researcher. So let me get this right..... climate scientists that are pro climate change have agendas, other scientists that are against climate change but get millions of dollars (not grants, millions in their pockets) don't have agendas? Doesn't that sound just a little crazy and hypocritical to you? Show me the study that said your mom's house was supposed to be underwater, I would love to read it.


It's so hard to find articles on your "viewpoint" because, like I said earlier, 97% of climate scientists are in support of anthropogenic climate change. Of course it's going to be hard to find articles against it, there are very very few credible scientists publishing work that line up with your "view point". That's why you ended up posting something that was easy to verify as fake. So do you acknowledge what you posted was fake? I mean it was pretty obvious once I broke it down. Or do you just simply trust anything Forbes puts out? Then here, this must be true since Forbes published it.
96% Of American Meteorological Society Members Think Climate Change Is Happening

I'll look over that journal if you'll acknowledge the last article you posted was as fake as wax fruit. I spent way too much time breaking that down to do the same for this for you just to ignore it.



Sure, everyone has bias, but part of science is being able to see past the bias and analyze just the facts to come to real conclusions, even if they don't support your preconceived notion. The Heartland institute gets a ton of funding from oil and gas for the purpose of climate denial. 350.org gets money from who exactly to promote climate change? If you read the article I linked earlier, you'll see that over 96% of scientists in the climate field that DON'T work on climate change (aka they get 0 funding to study climate change) still agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening, why is that? It seems all the anti climate change people are getting funded by conservative groups to put this stuff out, most of them aren't even climate scientists, they have more reason to have a bias than anyone. You keep acting like a a guy with a degree in government, who has never done scientific research in his life, has the same credibility as a climate scientist when it comes to analyzing climate data, that's absurd. Do you want a physical therapist doing open heart surgery on you? Heck no, this is no different. We trust experts in everything, doctors, accountants, engineers, mechanics, contractors, electricians, yet when it comes to this one issue all of a sudden being an expert doesn't mean anything and their opinion means no more than anyone else, ooooook. The 97% includes all scientists, both "conservative" and "regular" ones. All I care about is the work they put out, their political affiliation is non consequential, you should try to do the same. Life doesn't revolve around politics, and science definitely doesn't.

Also yes, it would be very easy to calculate just how much you're warming the ocean, how much water you're displacing and prove both things with empirical evidence. If you really do work with Newtonian physics, this should be really easy for you to calculate as well.



Let's get back to this. You said this is what it would take for you to believe something like anthropogenic climate change was happening, I linked an article with two peer reviewed sources but I guess that didn't cut it for you. So again, tell me exactly what you need because either you were lying or what I sent you wasn't good enough.

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

 

[Helo58]

Also yes, it would be very easy to calculate just how much you're warming the ocean, how much water you're displacing and prove both things with empirical evidence. If you really do work with Newtonian physics, this should be really easy for you to calculate as well..

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Try this, take what I say literally as what I mean. Do not add to it or take away from it. Here is what I said exactly, "If I go and swim in the arctic ocean, the ocean will be warmer and the sea level will rise, but you will not be able to prove how much warmer or higher it got, or that it was caused by me and not something else... conclusively." I didn't ask you to prove my thermal contribution to the ocean or how much water I displaced. I asked you to provide numbers for the change and them conclusively state that it was entirely as a result of my interaction (AND NOT SOMETHING ELSE).

I just laughed when I read an article where climate "scientists" stated that the reason the oceans haven't risen as much as they predicted is because they were measuring it wrong (a mistake?? what??). They then went on to say it is even worse than they thought (shocker). They stated that the ocean floors were falling and that is why the oceans weren't rising. Brilliant, because it can't be proven. BTW... loved the implication that I might not actually work with Newtonian Physics. You are so good at this!!

Many aspects of climate science are just as well understood and proven as Newtonian physics. You probably chose to work with Newtonian physics for the same reason I did, because it's easier to understand and it's easier to work with, plus I really didn't want to be a researcher. So let me get this right..... climate scientists that are pro climate change have agendas, other scientists that are against climate change but get millions of dollars (not grants, millions in their pockets) don't have agendas? Doesn't that sound just a little crazy and hypocritical to you? Show me the study that said your mom's house was supposed to be underwater, I would love to read it.

Both sides have their agendas, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, as usual. This is what everybody was crying about in 1989. U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

It's so hard to find articles on your "viewpoint" because, like I said earlier, 97% of climate scientists are in support of anthropogenic climate change. Of course it's going to be hard to find articles against it, there are very very few credible scientists publishing work that line up with your "view point". That's why you ended up posting something that was easy to verify as fake. So do you acknowledge what you posted was fake? I mean it was pretty obvious once I broke it down. Or do you just simply trust anything Forbes puts out? Then here, this must be true since Forbes published it.

Let's be honest, can we? Who funds the research? Do you know what the ratio of liberals vs. conservatives in higher education is? I have seen estimates in the 12:1 range. So if most research is conducted in academia and both the funding elements and the researchers are overwhelmingly liberal/progressive, it stands to reason that the percentages of research generated will reflect this. Without government funding and a more balanced political campus environment, you would certainly see a whole lot less "climate" research, for sure.
Global Warming: Follow the Money | National Review

Do I need to go through the historical scientific examples of the majority making bad decisions or being wrong or will this suffice? One day, I expect to find anthropogenic climate change on that list.
Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia

I'll look over that journal if you'll acknowledge the last article you posted was as fake as wax fruit. I spent way too much time breaking that down to do the same for this for you just to ignore it.

I agree, you did spend way too much time breaking it down. I can't/won't acknowledge that it is fake because I know nothing about it other than what I skimmed through on the page.

Sure, everyone has bias, but part of science is being able to see past the bias and analyze just the facts to come to real conclusions, even if they don't support your preconceived notion. The Heartland institute gets a ton of funding from oil and gas for the purpose of climate denial. 350.org gets money from who exactly to promote climate change? If you read the article I linked earlier, you'll see that over 96% of scientists in the climate field that DON'T work on climate change (aka they get 0 funding to study climate change) still agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening, why is that? It seems all the anti climate change people are getting funded by conservative groups to put this stuff out, most of them aren't even climate scientists, they have more reason to have a bias than anyone. You keep acting like a a guy with a degree in government, who has never done scientific research in his life, has the same credibility as a climate scientist when it comes to analyzing climate data, that's absurd. Do you want a physical therapist doing open heart surgery on you? Heck no, this is no different. We trust experts in everything, doctors, accountants, engineers, mechanics, contractors, electricians, yet when it comes to this one issue all of a sudden being an expert doesn't mean anything and their opinion means no more than anyone else, ooooook. The 97% includes all scientists, both "conservative" and "regular" ones. All I care about is the work they put out, their political affiliation is non consequential, you should try to do the same. Life doesn't revolve around politics, and science definitely doesn't.

The majority of funding for people who promote climate change comes from the government and left-wing foundations as mentioned in the article above. No different than your "big oil" example. It is almost like you are trying to imply that the "deniers" are all right-wing loonies who are uneducated savages and the people who believe climate change are akin to altruistic, politically indifferent, global saviors. I assure you that both sides are at their respective and opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Let's get back to this. You said this is what it would take for you to believe something like anthropogenic climate change was happening, I linked an article with two peer reviewed sources but I guess that didn't cut it for you. So again, tell me exactly what you need because either you were lying or what I sent you wasn't good enough.

You do understand the dangers of surrounding yourself with people who agree with you right? If all climate-change research is monolithic consensus, then there is surely a chance for groupthink, thus lessening the value of "peer review."

Let me save you a little more time. There is nothing that you will say to me that will change how I feel. In fact, after discussing the matter with you I want to go and chop some trees down, start a dairy farm, and create a huge tire fire. Okay, maybe not the tire fire... unless it is the two rears on the Stinger.

 

[Liljaeger]

Holy crap, out all the places, we have climate hange deniers here?

Can we poll, are you american?

As a Swede, who grew up in the forest, just felt like posting this post.


The hottest years ever recorded here has been 2010-2018, 2014-2018, each year has surpassed all temp records and drought records.

Since 1720.

Since recording started, that isnt weather change, that is climate change.

I for one think they are lying about it all, though, but lying in the sense, that we are much closer to more fun weather than they want to let us know. I am a firm believer that it is allready too late, and that is actually why I got my GT2 Stinger, LOL.

This is the last few years a car like this will be legal here!

Why is 1720 so important though? Well, that is when we seriously started burning stuff to make steel. Hard, world famous Swedish steel.

But, atm, I am like, why the f*ck should I care about the rest of the planet, when we up here in Scandinavia tried, and set a example, but nobody listened?

We didnt need our scientists to tell us something was up, after the swings in the climate during the 70's, and now, most of us are like, well, wth, lets atleats have fun on the ride out.

(This time period include various volcanic eruptions, that contrary to popular belief do not affect climate in the same way, they will happen regardless.)

Sorry guys, but I am actually rubbing my hands in glee, as the worst polluters in the world, by happenchance due to how the global climate moves, will also get hit the hardest, by more hurricanes, more typhoons, more extreme summers with droughts and wildfires, and also deeper winters, that are dry, and, like here, too f*cking long. Did we mention more wildfires?

So I happen to live in one of the few places that might benefit, I am always going to clap and applaude the deniers around the world that will make my country richer again.

More China burning coal, more Putin, more oil burning USA, will actually make life for my kids, easier.

 

[Liljaeger]

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Try this, take what I say literally as what I mean. Do not add to it or take away from it. Here is what I said exactly, "If I go and swim in the arctic ocean, the ocean will be warmer and the sea level will rise, but you will not be able to prove how much warmer or higher it got, or that it was caused by me and not something else... conclusively." I didn't ask you to prove my thermal contribution to the ocean or how much water I displaced. I asked you to provide numbers for the change and them conclusively state that it was entirely as a result of my interaction (AND NOT SOMETHING ELSE).

I just laughed when I read an article where climate "scientists" stated that the reason the oceans haven't risen as much as they predicted is because they were measuring it wrong (a mistake?? what??). They then went on to say it is even worse than they thought (shocker). They stated that the ocean floors were falling and that is why the oceans weren't rising. Brilliant, because is can't be proven. BTW... loved the implication that I might not actually work with Newtonian Physics. You are so good at this!!


Both sides have their agendas, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, as usual. This is what everybody was crying about in 1989. U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked



Let's be honest, can we? Who funds the research? Do you know what the ratio of liberals vs. conservatives in higher education is? I have seen estimates in the 12:1 range. So if most research is conducted in academia and both the funding elements and the researchers are overwhelmingly liberal/progressive, it stands to reason that the percentages of research generated will reflect this. Without government funding and a more balanced political campus environment, you would certainly see a whole lot less "climate" research, for sure.
Global Warming: Follow the Money | National Review

Do I need to go through the historical scientific examples of the majority making bad decisions or being wrong or will this suffice? One day, I expect to find anthropogenic climate change on that list.
Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia


Let me save you a little more time. There is nothing that you will say to me that will change how I feel. In fact, after discussing the matter with you I want to go and chop some trees down, start a dairy farm, and create a huge tire fire. Okay, maybe not the tire fire... unless it is the two rears on the Stinger.

I love the denseness of people who do not understand, regardless of global is real for warming or anything. :=)

When you burn a tree, that is more than likely emission neutral compared to digging up/pumping up oil or burning stonecoal, that has been taken out of our ecosystem, and by nature, stored in the ground. When its stored, its out of the system, when you dig it up, and burn again, its added back.

When you burn a tree, you can replant it, and reabsorb, but if you dig up more stuff than is in the system, you, add to it, whatever it is that you dig up.

So, most climate change people would actually love for you to burn trees, if you replant them.

 

[Helo58]

I love the denseness of people who do not understand, regardless of global is real for warming or anything. :=)

When you burn a tree, that is more than likely emission neutral compared to digging up/pumping up oil or burning stonecoal, that has been taken out of our ecosystem, and by nature, stored in the ground. When its stored, its out of the system, when you dig it up, and burn again, its added back.

When you burn a tree, you can replant it, and reabsorb, but if you dig up more stuff than is in the system, you, add to it, whatever it is that you dig up.

So, most climate change people would actually love for you to burn trees, if you replant them.

So, do all climate alarmists use the same tactics? I am labeled "dense" and then I have lengthy whinge about burning a tree explained to me for no obvious reason. Since I am too dense to understand, let me spell it out for the smart responsible people. I didn't fully understand your post except for the insults, so I can only assume any mention of my denseness and a tree relates to my last sentence in which I stated, "In fact, after discussing the matter with you I want to go and chop some trees down, start a dairy farm, and create a huge tire fire." I made no mention of burning a tree or replanting it. This was a simple reference to deforestation. You know, chopping down something that removes CO2 and not replacing it. And the dairy farm... worst carbon footprint for a "meat" farm... Geez, you think you would know your own talking points. But I'm the dense one...

 

[GRStinger]

Holy crap, out all the places, we have climate hange deniers here?

Can we poll, are you american?

As a Swede, who grew up in the forest, just felt like posting this post.


The hottest years ever recorded here has been 2010-2018, 2014-2018, each year has surpassed all temp records and drought records.

Since 1720.

Since recording started, that isnt weather change, that is climate change.

I for one think they are lying about it all, though, but lying in the sense, that we are much closer to more fun weather than they want to let us know. I am a firm believer that it is allready too late, and that is actually why I got my GT2 Stinger, LOL.

This is the last few years a car like this will be legal here!

Why is 1720 so important though? Well, that is when we seriously started burning stuff to make steel. Hard, world famous Swedish steel.

But, atm, I am like, why the f*ck should I care about the rest of the planet, when we up here in Scandinavia tried, and set a example, but nobody listened?

We didnt need our scientists to tell us something was up, after the swings in the climate during the 70's, and now, most of us are like, well, wth, lets atleats have fun on the ride out.

(This time period include various volcanic eruptions, that contrary to popular belief do not affect climate in the same way, they will happen regardless.)

Sorry guys, but I am actually rubbing my hands in glee, as the worst polluters in the world, by happenchance due to how the global climate moves, will also get hit the hardest, by more hurricanes, more typhoons, more extreme summers with droughts and wildfires, and also deeper winters, that are dry, and, like here, too f*cking long. Did we mention more wildfires?

So I happen to live in one of the few places that might benefit, I am always going to clap and applaude the deniers around the world that will make my country richer again.

More China burning coal, more Putin, more oil burning USA, will actually make life for my kids, easier.

I’m guessing that if they had polling 12,000 years ago, 99% of the population would have responded that global warming was a good thing (1%- “not sure” – there’s always a few of those).

Personally – having lived most of my life near or above latitude 45, I’m not seeing a big down side to the whole “global warming” thing. Longer golf, boating and fishing season; lower heating bills; less time in traffic jams; nicer skin tone; less chance of a heart-attack shoveling my driveway; less chance of injury in auto accidents on icy roads – not to mention damage to my GT2! Global warming? I say: bring it on!

Actually, It’s been colder than average here so far, and they are calling for a particularly cold January. If we get much more of this warming we’re going to freeze to death! Where’s Al Gore when you need him?

 

[MerlintheMad]

This earth is a closed system. There is nothing new under the sun. There is nothing new on this earth. Mankind has never created a single thing from nothing and never will. We merely rearrange what already existed. Some things that were once deposited in the earth are now in the atmosphere and visa versa.

Yes, this earth is doomed and there is absolutely nothing any human, group of humans, government or scientist can do to change that. Yet, the fall of this earth didn't start with the burning of fossil fuels. It started with a garden, a tree, a serpent, and get this - of all things, a piece of fruit. There is an entire book on this subject, written over many years with input from many knowledgable authors. It is the longest lasting book, the most published book, and the most prolifically read book of all time. I find it to be much more reliable than any other book, article, internet post, scientific study, blog, forum or opinion....

You obviously don't agree with my position and I only agree with part of yours.

Now, back to our regularly schedule programming.....

So we take science, overlap with politics, and divide with religion. Gorgeous. If this thread doesn't get consigned to a virtual dustbin by the mods I will be surprised. So far it has been civil and intriguing. But we can't count on that continuing. It never does.

 

[Liljaeger]

I’m guessing that if they had polling 12,000 years ago, 99% of the population would have responded that global warming was a good thing (1%- “not sure” – there’s always a few of those).

Personally – having lived most of my life near or above latitude 45, I’m not seeing a big down side to the whole “global warming” thing. Longer golf, boating and fishing season; lower heating bills; less time in traffic jams; nicer skin tone; less chance of a heart-attack shoveling my driveway; less chance of injury in auto accidents on icy roads – not to mention damage to my GT2! Global warming? I say: bring it on!

Actually, It’s been colder than average here so far, and they are calling for a particularly cold January. If we get much more of this warming we’re going to freeze to death! Where’s Al Gore when you need him?

You do realize that it means, just as is has been, warmer summers, colder winters, more extremes on both sides, kinda like we have seen in the last few?

 

[MerlintheMad]

You do realize that it means, just as is has been, warmer summers, colder winters, more extremes on both sides, kinda like we have seen in the last few?

That makes no sense. If it is getting warmer, it can't swing the other way. Just this year "they" were going on about how at the N. Pole it was above freezing for the first time in like forever. If the earth warms generally, it won't snap back to colder winters than ever in between "deadly warm" summers. You are falling for the classic blunder of anecdotal evidence as proof (I said this before; it keeps needing to be said). Most of us seem incapable of resisting this impulse. Weather is not global climate.

 

[GRStinger]

So we take science, overlap with politics, and divide with religion. Gorgeous. If this thread doesn't get consigned to a virtual dustbin by the mods I will be surprised. So far it has been civil and intriguing. But we can't count on that continuing. It never does.

Yes, the debate… on THIS forum, is kind of strange to me. Statements about the effects of fossil fuel and CO2, the evils of “big oil”, the impending spontaneous-combustion of the planet, and hurling of the “denier” epithet by owners of a car that gets really lousy gas mileages is confusing and… funny.

 

[DaJackson]

Yeah this is done, go debate this on Facebook.