Debate time: Global Warming

[Keight]

NOT AT THE RATE OR EXTENT THAT WE ARE SEEING TODAY

How many times have I had to tell you that!?

hate to be the one to break the news..... well NO i love being the one to break the news however

IT WILL BE A SHITLOAD WORSE BY THE TIME YOU ARE 30 Have fun with that

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

:ninja

 

[Dana]

hate to be the one to break the news..... well NO i love being the one to break the news however

IT WILL BE A SHITLOAD WORSE BY THE TIME YOU ARE 30 Have fun with that

:ninja

:24::24::24:

 

[thatguyjeff]

Evidence = Proof (correct?)

:wtf:

No.

Evidence is that which can suggest proof, but does not automatically establish proof.

Here's the thing. There is substantial evidence to the contrary (as to the cause of global climate change). And some evidence conflicts with other evidence. There is even evidence that global climate (regardless of the cause) will benefit the planet.

Like I said, I'm not an expert. I'm not a scientist. So I'll defer to them. They don't all agree. And it isn't just a rogue few who disagree. There are thousands around the world.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

No.

Evidence is that which can suggest proof, but does not automatically establish proof.

Here's the thing. There is substantial evidence to the contrary (as to the cause of global climate change). And some evidence conflicts with other evidence. There is even evidence that global climate (regardless of the cause) will benefit the planet.

Like I said, I'm not an expert. I'm not a scientist. So I'll defer to them. They don't all agree. And it isn't just a rogue few who disagree. There are thousands around the world.

He's right:clap

Here is the issue with "Global Warming" "Climate Changes" etc.

They have become scientific think tanks, millions upon millions of dollars of federal funding going into the studies, both sides thinking they are the most intelligent, and let's face it, if Pondexter the Climatologist doesnt keep the grants rolling in...where is he going to find work?

You think some news station is going to give a job to some kid who's been looking down his own nose at them?

The problem is simple....It's far beyond scientific, it's political and monetary.....A dangerous combo folks.

 

[Alien Allen]

hate to be the one to break the news..... well NO i love being the one to break the news however

IT WILL BE A SHITLOAD WORSE BY THE TIME YOU ARE 30 Have fun with that

Interesting

Umm, looks like every 30 years we kind of change our mind.

This from a Newsweek article in 2005

[SIZE=-1]To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale, warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.[/SIZE]

So I call the current BS on this matter and raise it 2 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

No.

Evidence is that which can suggest proof, but does not automatically establish proof.

Here's the thing. There is substantial evidence to the contrary (as to the cause of global climate change). And some evidence conflicts with other evidence. There is even evidence that global climate (regardless of the cause) will benefit the planet.

Like I said, I'm not an expert. I'm not a scientist. So I'll defer to them. They don't all agree. And it isn't just a rogue few who disagree. There are thousands around the world.

So many people bring up that there are thousands of scientists who disagree, but what they fail to realize as that only a very small few are in climatology (AKA, the oregan petition that has 32'000 signatures, only 40 of them were from climatologists) and that most of them are completely not credible. Groups that are actually credible that agree with Anthropogenic Global Warming, include:

* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
* American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

 

[Goat Whisperer]

You're quick to accuse me of selective reading, but in the 10 pages of this thread you've never answered a post I made on the first page:

Of course the global average temperature is rising, we eliminated hundreds of monitoring stations in the coldest part of the world! :willy_nilly:

Here's another website you'll like, detailing the erroneous data given by our own weather monitoring stations:
Watts Up With That?: weather_stations Archives or Home

You think I read selectively, but you know nothing about me. I spent 5 years of my life working exclusively on weather equipment. Radars, satellite receivers, wind sensors, temperature sensors, you name it and I've fixed it. Doing this brought me in contact with literally hundreds of weather forecasters, observers, people with degrees in meteorology, and certified meteorologists. Not a single one of them that I've met believes in global warming. Believe me, they'll talk about it. But they all think it's garbage. So you're absolutely right that nothing you say will change my mind, because I've learned everything I know about global warming first-hand, speaking with experts in the field. And they disagree with the very basis of what you propose.

The earth’s temperature is rising. This is indisputable. You believe that we can not record the data correctly, in order to determine the Earth’s global average temperature is in fact warming, but this is untrue. When scientists recorded the data, whether it be in Fiji or Canada, both had a common statistic, temperatures were going up. It’s these rates that have decided a warming trend. Not just the ‘average’ global temperature.

​

It's trends were interested in, not average global temperatures.

And it isn't weather we are interested in it is climate.

Why haven't any of your climatology buddies signed the petition? All of their friends certainly have not.

Also, are you going to believe random people you have meant, or the cold science and facts?

 

[Alien Allen]

So many people bring up that there are thousands of scientists who disagree, but what they fail to realize as that only a very small few are in climatology (AKA, the oregan petition that has 32'000 signatures, only 40 of them were from climatologists) and that most of them are completely not credible. Groups that are actually credible that agree with Anthropogenic Global Warming, include:

They the guys on the local news predicting the weather

 

[Goat Whisperer]

They the guys on the local news predicting the weather

You mean meteorologist not climatologists. Weather and climate are not the same thing.

 

[Alien Allen]

You mean meteorologist not climatologists. Weather and climate are not the same thing.

It was a joke

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Sorry this thread is riddled with serios posts and jokes, I am getting confuzed *Blonde moment*

 

[Alien Allen]

Sorry this thread is riddled with serios posts and jokes, I am getting confuzed *Blonde moment*

well I think the Climatologists went to the same school as the meteorologists.

Anybody can take data and make it do what they want if they are good at it. I have seen the govt use it to worm their way for changes in the industry I work in. If anything comes from an enviro backed group I will always be very skeptical about it as I have seen the tactics used to skew data results.

The issue is not whether things are changing. The earth always changes and there have been massive changes from the dawn of the ice age to the melting of the glaciers eons ago.

We think we are so damn smart and can come up with data to support things and it is all theory. For example tell me how they can have 300 year flood plain delineation? Nobody kept records in 1709 on stuff like that and only a tiny part of this country was occupied back then for there to be any kind of a passed down observation.

I have yet to ever see anybody detail why the hole in the ozone is over Antarctica. Why is the hole down there when there are no inhabitants other than a very small group of scientists. A skeptic would probably ask why is the hole there and what the hell are those scientists doing down there.

When it comes to global warming and theories all one has to do is follow the money. People that have an agenda drive this stuff

 

[dt3]

The earth’s temperature is rising. This is indisputable. You believe that we can not record the data correctly, in order to determine the Earth’s global average temperature is in fact warming, but this is untrue. When scientists recorded the data, whether it be in Fiji or Canada, both had a common statistic, temperatures were going up. It’s these rates that have decided a warming trend. Not just the ‘average’ global temperature.​

It's trends were interested in, not average global temperatures.

And it isn't weather we are interested in it is climate.

Why haven't any of your climatology buddies signed the petition? All of their friends certainly have not.

Also, are you going to believe random people you have meant, or the cold science and facts?

So average global temperatures aren't part of the trends you're talking about? If the trend is of the global average temperature, then the accuracy of the temperature monitoring can be called into question to determine the validity of the data. Both websites I provided the link to provide valid reasons to question the accuracy of our measuring stations. There's monitoring stations in the path of air conditioner exhaust, there's stations in the middle of vast asphalt parking lots, etc... The data cannot be considered scientifically accurate until all the variables are removed.

Random people I've met? These are people who I have literally lived with and worked with for 5 years. I already established their credentials. They aren't people I meet in the street, they're experts in their fields.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Still, don't listen to people or websites. Get the facts, understand the science, and let it change you.

 

[Alien Allen]

Still, don't listen to people or websites. Get the facts, understand the science, and let it change you.

well people form into groups and organizations. they present to the govt agencies stuff.

As to understanding the science I think that is a bit wee too simplistic. This is stuff that takes more to learn than the average person can understand. Sorry but unless you get a degree in the science you will be very limited. Plus there are plenty of differing opinions.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Fine, understand the basics of the science, as I did, you could see how one arguments falls apart but the other stays plausible.

 

[Alien Allen]

Fine, understand the basics of the science, as I did, you could see how one arguments falls apart but the other stays plausible.

It takes more than basics.

If basics were enough there would be no disagreement.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

But they are and since you haven't studied them, you don't understand. It took me at least a few months for me to understand the 'basics'

 

[ConTRo13R]

The fact that the atmosphere in mars is completely different or that it has a completely different distance from the sun doesn't have anything to do with it? What about the fact that it doesn't even have water?

How can you possibly compare the earth and mars!?

You lack of knowledge here makes me laugh! do some research before posting a comment like that.

How do you think mars has ice if it doesn't have water? how can you explain evidence of rivers on the surface of mars with out water?

Mars and the earth have a lot more in common than you care to think, the recent rise in methane gasses have also lead scientist to believe there is life on mars