Global Warming is fake (Page 5) hellbhoy: In December 2009 the worlds leaders met to discuss global warming ? Immediately before the meeting the U.K. and several other countries in the northern hemisphere had some of the worst winter weather in recent years.So much so the U.K.s infrastructure ceased to function for 3 weeks over 6 to 9 inches of snowfall ?. After the meeting ended they decided to take action on "climate change" and ditched the phrase "global warming" because the climate changed back to what is deemed normal weather patterns for the northern hemisphere.Are they just intent on stuffing a new green tax up our "A" holes in any disguise ?.  LiptonCambell: Lol I love how they changed the term to mean polar opposites though- both global warming and global cooling- basically, if they can argue SOMETHING is happening, that's good enough to deny us our rights and take our money(to pay for denying us our rights)  Outbackjack: Where do all these climate change deniers come from? Why dont you all go and find a thread somewhere else that suits you like UFOS or 911 conspiracies? quigley: the world has been hot before and the world has been cold before..........big deal we have already poisoned ourselves to the edge of extinction so don't you all bother about worrying about a few degrees here or there we will poison ourselves out of existence before the heat takes over. turn up your air conditioners and suck in the beautiful toxic fumes LiptonCambell: Jack, as we've said again and again, its not that we deny that the global climate is changing- it's that we challenge that humanities the cause.  StuckInTheSixties: I gotta go with Jack and the vast majority of the scientific community on this one, Lipton. LiptonCambell: Sorry 60- I gotta side with the skeptics. Theres too many variables that are simply being ignored, and too many opportunitistic politically motoviated people who are attempting to use this as a means for negative political change to support such a concept. StuckInTheSixties: "Theres too many variables that are simply being ignored and too many opportunitistic politically motoviated people who are attempting to use this as a means for negative political change to support such a concept." Are all of those scientists, and scientific organizations "opportunitistic politically motoviated people"? Why would they do that? Why would all of those scientists conspire that way? What's in it for them? Many of those skeptics of climate change are also motivated, not only by politics, but also by economics. They get paid handsomely to be skeptical. How long would the list of skeptics be if you removed all of those in the employ of a business that would be economically hurt by efforts to combat climate change? Quite a bit shorter, I'm guessing. LiptonCambell: >>>Why would they do that? Why would all of those scientists conspire that way? What's in it for them? I'm not suggesting they're conspiring. Rather, I believe they are jumping to the conclusion that socialists and theists have been pushing for their entire lives- that man is evil, and that man will lead to the destruction of the planet unless they repent- and this is part of that mindframe. People are desparate to ask for forgiveness for their lifestyle, and its these politically motivated people who feed on such a beleif. >>>Many of those skeptics of climate change are also motivated, not only by politics, but also by economics. They get paid handsomely to be skeptical. And is the same not true for people who support that humanity causes global warming? Again, this seems to be an off-shoot of the anti-capitalist/corporation message that socialists seem to chirp ad-nauseum. I have little doubt people such as Jack would still be pushing for the changes he suggests reguardless if the Globe was warming, cooling, or remained unchanged. >>>How long would the list of skeptics be if you removed all of those in the employ of a business that would be economically hurt by efforts to combat climate change?Quite a bit shorter, I'm guessing. How long would the list of human-blamed climate change be if you removed the politically motivated persons who would be hurt if they didn't convince people that we must sacrafice freedoms? Quite a bit shorter, I'm guessing. hellbhoy: There is not enough scientific data to say that humanity is the main cause or it would be FACT we are causing global warming and is still in theory status at the moment. This may sound stupid but cattle fart a lot of methane that causes global warming as well and has been stated for years.Should we consider cattle culling as well or stop eating beef. Natural disasters like forest fires recently Russia,U.S. and Australia have added to the carbon dioxide in a big way. Paleontology shows that regions in the past and not too far back show that the likes of the U.K. have had sub tropical climates as well as ice ages.100.000 years and the U.K has been through both. I'm not dismissing that humanity has no affect on the climate.The simple fact is that we do not have enough actual scientific data over a period of tens of thousands of years from all regions of the planet to argue what level humanity is at fault.Polar ice cap core samples still do give enough actual data either. The 17th and 18th century in the U.K. records without all mans achievements in industry have the the climate to vary by as much as 4 degrees. In saying all that before I get a reply to take my head out my ass.YES we should still take steps to not influence the climate other than a natural phenomena change.Sad fact is that we are going to influence the climate but to what level are we going to accept on how much we influence it without affecting the rest of life on the planet too much ?. hellbhoy: It's not just the CO2 theory involved,there was the CFC scare a while back with the ozone and methane released by billions of cattle,massive tropical deforestation and other toxic chemicals released by man affecting the atmosphere.so there is a worry. But I'm totally certain that this is another way for companies and government in cahoots to extract more money from us by a green stealth tax.Even scientists are funded by companies and government so their ethics could be called into question. StuckInTheSixties: Lipton says: "I believe they are jumping to the conclusion that socialists and theists have been pushing for their entire lives- that man is evil, and that man will lead to the destruction of the planet unless they repent- and this is part of that mindframe." Talk about jumping to conclusions. Um ... and what do you base that conclusion on? Why would you think that scientists would just abandon science for the sake of socialism or theism? Again, I ask: Why would they do that? What's in it for them? Lipton says: "People are desparate to ask for forgiveness for their lifestyle, and its these politically motivated people who feed on such a beleif." Oh puh-leeeeeze! Now you're mass-psychoanalyzing the scientific community. Irrational to the MAX. This kind of thinking is right out of Risen's playbook. (In response to my saying, "Many of those skeptics of climate change are also motivated, not only by politics, but also by economics. They get paid handsomely to be skeptical." Lipton says: "And is the same not true for people who support that humanity causes global warming?" No, it's not remotely the same. It's funny and ironic that you equate to someone with religious motivations. That analogy works PERFECTLY for climate-change deniers and the companies they work for. The religious often pervert science. They have an agenda to start with (say, the literal words of the Bible), and they try to tailor their "science" to fit that agenda. Same with these scientist-whores. Their agenda is the profit statements and share holders of the companies they work for. Do you doubt those companies exist, or that those scientists working for them get paid? That is the objective, tangible proof I always want to see. If you think the rest of the scientific community has an agenda of socialism and theism, offer some proof for that. Lipton says: "Again, this seems to be an off-shoot of the anti-capitalist/corporation message that socialists seem to chirp ad-nauseum." Again I'll say, show some proof of that accusation. Lipton says: "I have little doubt people such as Jack would still be pushing for the changes he suggests reguardless if the Globe was warming, cooling, or remained unchanged." Perhaps so. Who knows? But I don't think Jack is a member of American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, the European Science Foundation, the European Science Foundation, the American Geophysical Union, the European Federation of Geologists, the European Geosciences Union, the Geological Society of America ... Okay, I'll stop now. This just scratches the surface. But you get the point. Do you really think all of these people are socialists and theists? Any chance at all that they just might be scientists practicing science? Lipton says: "How long would the list of human-blamed climate change be if you removed the politically motivated persons who would be hurt if they didn't convince people that we must sacrafice freedoms? Quite a bit shorter, I'm guessing." Again, the companies that those other guys work for speak for themselves. They sell coal, petroleum, etc. They have reason for their agenda. You're charge that all of their opposition as being "politically motivated" is utterly without evidence. If not, present that evidence. LiptonCambell: >>>Why would they do that? What's in it for them? And like I said- I don't think they ARE doing that. I don't think theres a conspiracy. >>>Now you're mass-psychoanalyzing the scientific community. Isn't that what you asked me to do? Isn't that what you are asking me to do above? >>>Their agenda is the profit statements and share holders of the companies they work for. Now who's mass-psychoanalyzing? >>>Do you doubt those companies exist, or that those scientists working for them get paid? No, I don't. Do you doubt that companies are not made to promote climate change, as well as to discredit it? >>>If you think the rest of the scientific community has an agenda of socialism and theism, offer some proof for that. That its possible for a scientist to have a political, philospohical, or theocratic belief that impairs their judgement when dealing with matters where their stance may alter legislature of many countires? You want me to prove that? >>>Again I'll say, show some proof of that accusation. Well, I'd love to see a climate change argument that doesn't insist that corporations are brainwashing everyone, as we've seen above, and their actions must be stopped. Something about that gives me the vibe that the climate change argument is anti-corporation. >>>Okay, I'll stop now. I'm pretty sure he'd hafta join one of those Australian ones, but yea.... >>>They sell coal, petroleum, etc. They have reason for their agenda. And selling people "Carbon Credits" is a billion dollar industry- isn't that an equally valid "agenda"? What of the tax hikes we see because of "climate change"- do these taxes have any real effect, other than to cash in or to lay blame? StuckInTheSixties: Man, this is getting bogged down in one of those things where You make a point... Then I make a poing based on your point ... Then you make a point based on the points I made on the points you made ... Then I make points based on the points you made based on the points I made based on the points you made ... (to infinity) I'm not sure I'm up to it. StuckInTheSixties: Let me try to condense my point to a single, fairly simple concept. Ideally, scientists practice science for the sake of science, to find out how the world works. I think it's fairly safe to assume that science, overall, actually works this way. That's what leads to all of the discoveries that they make, etc. etc. (F@&*, I sound like an elementary school teacher or something.) I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of scientists, and the organizations, universities, research foundations, laboratories, etc. that employ them are after science, and that in the overall sense, there's no agenda besides figuring out how the world works. Undoubtedly, you could find aberations, just like you can find actual scientists that believe in Noah's Ark, or UFO abductions, or whatever. But that community as a whole, and the way that they work, has only the agenda of figuring out how the world works. Science is worthless, otherwise. So why is it that the vast majority of that scientific community has accepted the concepts of climate change? If there's no basis for climate change, then that must mean that ... 1. That vast majority is all somehow just making identical mistakes about it. or ... 2. They have some agenda that would cause them all to abandon science principle on this issue. Neither of those seem like plausible explanations to me. LiptonCambell: >>>I think it's fairly safe to assume that science, overall, actually works this way. Isn't this wishful thinking, though? And, if you feel this way, why are you so quick to conclude that anyone who disagrees sold their soul to the 'corporations'? Do you honestly believe the kind of money that the 'Side that Attempts to Disprove Climate Change' will turn people against this idealized scientist, but the kind of money that the 'Side that Attempts to Prove Climate Change' doesn't alter their opinions at all?(Seriously, those were the most neutral titles I could come up with) You're talking about the Billions the Fuel industry can entice scientists with- I'm talking about the Trillions Politicans can entice scientists with. I'm not saying the scientists aren't being bought out- but you seem to believe that only one side is buying scientists. >>>I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of scientists, and the organizations, universities, research foundations, laboratories, etc. that employ them are after science, and that in the overall sense, there's no agenda besides figuring out how the world works. But certainly we can agree that, at least on the basis of universities, that there is a strong left wing political push. People are influenced by thexe institutions- and I feel it reveals itself more than you're giving it credit for. >>>just like you can find actual scientists that believe in Noah's Ark, or UFO abductions, or whatever. But that community as a whole, and the way that they work, has only the agenda of figuring out how the world works. Science is worthless, otherwise. Conclusions they make on the existence of aliens or the existence of Noah's Ark does not effect Federal Policies, however. >>>Neither of those seem like plausible explanations to me. Again- you seem to accept this when it comes from the 'Side that Attempts to Disprove Climate Change' StuckInTheSixties: "Isn't [science for the sake of science, etc.] wishful thinking, though?" If you think it's "wishful thinking," then I assume you'll refrain from citing scientific principle in future arguments in other threads. Otherwise you'll be trying to have your cake, and eat it too. It can't be wishful thinking when it doesn't serve you, but reliable fact when it does. LiptonCambell: I made my distinctions clear 60's; the stance a scientist takes on issues such as these influence politics and national legislature. The stance a scientist takes on where Noahs Ark, however, does not. Whereas you seem to believe that scientists cannot venture away from the idealized being...... unless they disagree with you..... which then they and only they can be courrpted, not anyone you agree with- because the people who oppose Climate Change have something to gain, while the people who do not are acting completely altruistic and self-serving. Riiiiight. damieson61: You could debate its existence until the cows come home, the data right now is too ambiguous. But there are two options for action; 1. We don't give in to the concept of man-made climate change and continue to pollute harmful gases and toxins at an increasing rate since there is no market incentive to reduce emissions and become greener. 2. We go with the idea of man-made climate change, and even if we are wrong we reduce emissions and promote green and renewable energy through market mechanisms. Number two, the worst case scenario is that we are wrong and in the process of it, clean up the way we harness and develop energy. Not a bad option. |