3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Global Warming Hoax
AK Rich
post Apr 4 2016, 05:56 PM
Post #21


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.564
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Apr 3 2016, 08:15 PM) *
More dissent!! smile.gif Always welcome. I'm pretty swayed by the American Medical Association as they give it more of a medical problem analysis and such. But there is no hard fast proof that we even exist much less that the climate is changing because of us. So in the end, one must take what evidence one can find and make up ones own mind. Personally, I think we are going to see the oceans rise quite a bit and Florida sink. But like I said, time will tell smile.gif

Absolutely more dissent smile.gif

1: Right, because the AMA are such experts on the climate and such. Anyway, the AMA is looking at possible medical probs etc based on a hypothetical reality, Right? There are studies that show how a warmer climate can be beneficial to mankind as well.

2: No proof we exist? Seriously? Or did you state that just for the sake of argument? Try using that as an argument in your defense if you ever get into trouble with the law. It could go like this: It wasn't me because I do not exist. And the prosecution has no standing because they don't exist either. And neither do you , your honor. mellow.gif

3: Sea level has not come close to the predicted rise made 20 years ago or longer. In fact, none of the predictions from then have come to pass to the level they were predicted. A good number of those predictions haven't happened at all.

Monkeys might fly out of my butt tomorrow but I am not going to plug it up today. smile.gif

Love ya, Todd.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 4 2016, 06:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Apr 4 2016, 07:53 PM
Post #22


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.458
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Yet more dissent smile.gif Always welcome.
Here is a link to NASA talking about the hard data on sea level rise caused by climate change.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Almost forgot! Here is the graphic from the nasa page and a spiff quote smile.gif

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

Attached Image

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Apr 4 2016, 08:10 PM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Apr 4 2016, 08:21 PM
Post #23


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.458
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



The next poster pointed out that these were back in 2009 so they must all be antiquated and wrong? Just kidding smile.gif But yeah, if that page full of info doesn't do it, then it's not getting done. But like I said, if everyone agreed it would be boring so we need folks to take a contrarian view no matter how much of a stretch is may seem.

QUOTE (yoncopin @ Mar 30 2016, 09:08 AM) *
This. /thread



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rammikin
post Apr 4 2016, 08:48 PM
Post #24


Experienced Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 784
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 11.529



Reading this thread and the debate about the relationship between facts and truth makes me think of this awesome word smile.gif:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/63ite2/the-c...rd---truthiness



This post has been edited by Rammikin: Apr 5 2016, 01:39 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rammikin
post Apr 5 2016, 02:50 AM
Post #25


Experienced Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 784
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 11.529



QUOTE (AK Rich @ Apr 4 2016, 04:56 PM) *
Absolutely more dissent smile.gif

1: Right, because the AMA are such experts on the climate and such. Anyway, the AMA is looking at possible medical probs etc based on a hypothetical reality, Right? There are studies that show how a warmer climate can be beneficial to mankind as well.

Not surprisingly, studies that try to show global warming is good for you are few and marginal, and what few studies there are, are primarily from sources like Happer in the video above, who was discredited in December as writing papers-for-hire for the oil industry.

QUOTE
2: No proof we exist? Seriously? Or did you state that just for the sake of argument? Try using that as an argument in your defense if you ever get into trouble with the law. It could go like this: It wasn't me because I do not exist. And the prosecution has no standing because they don't exist either. And neither do you , your honor. mellow.gif

I know it sounds funny, but Todd is correct. That's been an important topic for western philosophical thought for centuries. It can't be proven, but it is a predicate that serves as the basis for Cartesian based philosophy

QUOTE
3: Sea level has not come close to the predicted rise made 20 years ago or longer. In fact, none of the predictions from then have come to pass to the level they were predicted. A good number of those predictions haven't happened at all.

Without knowing the details of your model, it's hard to say why your predictions have failed. On the other hand, climatologists have been rather successful at predicting rising sealevel trends, so there might something to learn by studying their models.




--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Apr 5 2016, 07:20 PM
Post #26


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.728
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



Take a look at the youtube site of the guy featured on this thread. Environmentalists are just one of their targets, the others are the typcial ones of the right wing.

Here is one. He states that low IQ people (Muslims immigrants) can't compete with the high IQ people of European ethnicity, and that is the source of the civil problems associated with immigration.

More thoughts from Crazy

In the case of that other video with Happer, he is a physicist, he is not even an environmental scientist. He worked in the George W. Bush administration. They have to look hard to find anyone who they can pass off as an "expert".

And regarding my mention of the massive amounts of frozen methane under the tundra and oceans, this is a thread with the title "Global Warming Hoax". I would think that all green house gasses are in play here, not just CO2.

The frozen methane is very significant, it may in the long run even be more significant than CO2 in this matter. The Permian–Triassic extinction event may have been caused by release of methane from clathrates (frozen methane). An estimated 52% of marine genus went extinct, representing 96% of all marine species.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Apr 5 2016, 09:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Apr 5 2016, 07:48 PM
Post #27


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.564
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (Rammikin @ Apr 4 2016, 04:50 PM) *
Not surprisingly, studies that try to show global warming is good for you are few and marginal, and what few studies there are, are primarily from sources like Happer in the video above, who was discredited in December as writing papers-for-hire for the oil industry.


I know it sounds funny, but Todd is correct. That's been an important topic for western philosophical thought for centuries. It can't be proven, but it is a predicate that serves as the basis for Cartesian based philosophy


Without knowing the details of your model, it's hard to say why your predictions have failed. On the other hand, climatologists have been rather successful at predicting rising sealevel trends, so there might something to learn by studying their models.


Not sure how a paper funded by the oil industry should be disqualified. Shouldn't the paper be judged solely on it's content and reviewed just like the ones payed for by taxpayers. Maybe the gov funded studies should be disqualified as well by that logic. And when we have folks within the AGW community allegedly plotting to hide and manipulate data (East Anglia) well, that's a problem. Yes I know there was an internal investigation but I don't trust anyone to look into themselves for wrongdoing. If everyone could do that, no-one would ever be guilty of anything.

As far as the do we actually exist thing. I figured it was something like that. But to me it is just critical thinking gone off the deep end with no real purpose and a waste of time. What's the point? To me it just doesn't matter. Nor does it matter to anyone as far as I can tell. Except critical thinkers I guess.

As far as sea level rise goes, I think the claim of successful predictions of sea level rise is highly debatable. Maybe check this for starters.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/29/hans...ning-in-hubris/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/28/an-a...s-accelerating/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/28/ooop...wajalein-atoll/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benc...ng-predictions/

And finally, is this what AGW skeptics have to look forward to?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/04/pros...tics-with-rico/

I am open to the idea that mankind contributes to affecting the global climate. However, I just can't buy the idea that man's contribution is the primary factor driving climate change as the evidence does not appear to me to be anywhere near conclusive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rammikin
post Apr 5 2016, 08:15 PM
Post #28


Experienced Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 784
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 11.529



QUOTE (AK Rich @ Apr 5 2016, 06:48 PM) *
Not sure how a paper funded by the oil industry should be disqualified.


The problem was not that a paper was funded by the oil industry. The problem was that Happer was caught shopping himself around, volunteering to write any paper you want him to write, for an hourly fee. Yeah, that pretty much disqualifies him as an authoritative source smile.gif.


QUOTE (AK Rich @ Apr 5 2016, 06:48 PM) *
As far as sea level rise goes, I think the claim of successful predictions of sea level rise is highly debatable. Maybe check this for starters.


You object to models because they are semi-empirical? There's guy named Einstein who devised a semi empirical field equation which been extremely successful. You should probably take your objections up with him smile.gif.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Apr 5 2016, 09:58 PM
Post #29


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.564
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (Rammikin @ Apr 5 2016, 10:15 AM) *
The problem was not that a paper was funded by the oil industry. The problem was that Happer was caught shopping himself around, volunteering to write any paper you want him to write, for an hourly fee. Yeah, that pretty much disqualifies him as an authoritative source smile.gif.

You object to models because they are semi-empirical? There's guy named Einstein who devised a semi empirical field equation which been extremely successful. You should probably take your objections up with him smile.gif.


1: I can see how that would be a problem but I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing is going on with some of the folks applying for grants to study climate change. It also goes to show how data can be made to look pretty much however you want to make it look if you cherry pick and leave out or revise data that doesn't support your hypothesis. It's a 2 way street. Either side can be , and has been accused of this.

2: Ok sure, but at the time when this equation was devised, was there a consensus among other scientists that this equation was solid, or was he standing alone? If there were many scientists who disagreed, it just goes to show that one guy could be right while a group of others can be wrong. The point being that having a consensus can, but does not necessarily mean something is true or valid. Sometimes in science, the minority or just one person ends up having the most valid theory or hypothesis.

I just feel that there is quite a bit of exaggeration from the AGW crowd as to how much they think they know, the predictions they make, the data they use and the models created using that data, the margins of error in the papers etc. And then there are the further exaggerations of the viability of some of the alternative energy sources proposed which is getting off topic I guess, but I am just thinking we are moving too fast on something that we are really not that sure of. And that some of the things proposed may actually do more harm than good.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 5 2016, 10:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rammikin
post Apr 5 2016, 10:39 PM
Post #30


Experienced Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 784
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 11.529



QUOTE (AK Rich @ Apr 5 2016, 08:58 PM) *
Either side can be , and has been accused of this.

Actually, no. That's why that case was so notorious. It's highly unusual.

QUOTE
Sometimes in science, the minority or just one person ends up having the most valid theory or hypothesis.

Sure, but that doesn't say anything about whether the consensus is right or wrong on a particular issue. That would be like saying: As long as one person believes the earth is flat, the consensus view the world is round should not be believed. That's why the preponderance of facts and the accompanying consensus is important. Otherwise, we'd be paralyzed as a society and never get anywhere.


QUOTE
I just feel...


And that's really the heart of the matter here. For various reasons, there are people, on both sides of the issue, who are not swayed by the facts. That's ok. It's valid to have feelings about the issue. But, to paraphrase what I mentioned earlier, at the end of the day, scientific consensus is a rational basis for public policy. Gut feelings about the matter, whether they are mine or yours, is not smile.gif.



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Apr 5 2016, 11:48 PM
Post #31


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.728
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (AK Rich @ Apr 5 2016, 01:48 PM) *


Noteworthy that none of the authors of these articles has any listed credentials whatever, academic or otherwise. It is pretty hard to find people of that caliber who discount the seriousness of the global warming issue. You don't see a lot a Harvard or Stanford or MIT PhD's or such next to their names. And on the rare occasions where they actually are academic with advanced degrees, invariably they are from a discipline that is not even in the realm of Earth Science, such as with Hopper.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Apr 5 2016, 11:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Apr 6 2016, 06:25 AM
Post #32


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.564
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (fkalich @ Apr 5 2016, 01:48 PM) *
Noteworthy that none of the authors of these articles has any listed credentials whatever, academic or otherwise. It is pretty hard to find people of that caliber who discount the seriousness of the global warming issue. You don't see a lot a Harvard or Stanford or MIT PhD's or such next to their names. And on the rare occasions where they actually are academic with advanced degrees, invariably they are from a discipline that is not even in the realm of Earth Science, such as with Hopper.


Is a degree needed to compile data that was put together by people who do have degrees in order to make a presentation?
Al Gore doesn't have a PHD either.

Anyway, since I didn't feel like spending a lot of time digging up peer reviewed papers. I was simply showing that there are opposing views that are a reflection of studies that are put to together by qualified scientists. And that the claim that climate models have been good at forecasting sea level rise is debatable. And it seems to me the models haven't been very good at all in helping to predict annual sea ice either. Which is directly related.

It may be hard to find people of that caliber who discount the seriousness of the global warming issue. But it's not so hard to find those who disagree with mankind being the primary driver of it, and plenty who are qualified as far as I can tell.
In fact here is one who jumped the AGW ship to join the skeptics.

http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-r...ence-community/

https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/03/lennart-...son-speaks-out/

There are those within the AGW community that have written, or contributed to papers who also are "not in the realm" of study.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 6 2016, 05:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Apr 6 2016, 06:59 PM
Post #33


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.564
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (Rammikin @ Apr 5 2016, 12:39 PM) *
Actually, no. That's why that case was so notorious. It's highly unusual.


Sure, but that doesn't say anything about whether the consensus is right or wrong on a particular issue. That would be like saying: As long as one person believes the earth is flat, the consensus view the world is round should not be believed. That's why the preponderance of facts and the accompanying consensus is important. Otherwise, we'd be paralyzed as a society and never get anywhere.




And that's really the heart of the matter here. For various reasons, there are people, on both sides of the issue, who are not swayed by the facts. That's ok. It's valid to have feelings about the issue. But, to paraphrase what I mentioned earlier, at the end of the day, scientific consensus is a rational basis for public policy. Gut feelings about the matter, whether they are mine or yours, is not smile.gif.


No what? Scientists on the AGW side haven't been accused of impropriety? Of course they have , it's part of the reason why a good number of folks (quite possibly a majority) especially in this country either don't believe or don't see it as a priority.

I was merely pointing out that a consensus group can be wrong and has been in the past. As I have already stated , I am not so sure there is a consensus anyway. There are far too many problems with the models to be advancing far reaching policies with this particular issue in my opinion, consensus or not. Could it be that the so called consensus is just a conformity to a politically correct idea?

And we are not talking about facts here, at least not when it is said that man is the primary driver of climate change. That is in no way, shape, or form, a fact. Sure, there is some factual data, but there is also a lot of guesswork and unknown variables, or variables that are not fully understood yet, and the science has not progressed far enough to enact policy at this point the way I see it.

There may actually be a consensus of skeptics.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/20...s/#660e1d39171b

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 6 2016, 07:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rammikin
post Apr 6 2016, 10:46 PM
Post #34


Experienced Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 784
Joined: 4-November 10
Member No.: 11.529



Thanks. I think I'm pretty clear on your opinion at this point smile.gif.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Apr 6 2016, 11:07 PM
Post #35


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.458
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Much of the opposition (present company excluded if desired) for climate change stems from a concern/fear that embracing the idea of climate change will result in policy changes that push the Govt toward the left via sustained expenditures and growth of govt entitites. Of course posters here may have way different reasons, far be it from me to pigeon hole folks smile.gif Still, that idea of "growing govt" and extended expenditures, make many folks who lean to the right a bit sick to their stomach.

For folk leaning other directions, the evidence at hand seems to quite substantial and valid for making policy changes that could result long term expenditures of tax dollars and new branches/institutions of Govt. seem a small price to pay for preventing the worsening weather patterns, sea level rise, sinking islands and coastal regions etc.

But that's what forums are for and that's what democracy is for too smile.gif We get to try to vote somebody in to try to do something about it smile.gif Hopefully. Then again, we might just stick our head in the sand until the waves start to eat the shoreline here on home turf. smile.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jstcrsn
post Apr 7 2016, 02:19 AM
Post #36


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.773
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733



QUOTE (fkalich @ Apr 5 2016, 11:48 PM) *
Noteworthy that none of the authors of these articles has any listed credentials whatever, academic or otherwise. It is pretty hard to find people of that caliber who discount the seriousness of the global warming issue. You don't see a lot a Harvard or Stanford or MIT PhD's or such next to their names. And on the rare occasions where they actually are academic with advanced degrees, invariably they are from a discipline that is not even in the realm of Earth Science, such as with Hopper.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-...s-to-slow-down/
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blume...nce-latest-ipcc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

there are plenty mit. and other notable scientist that think there is plenty of time for an honest evaluation
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fkalich
post Apr 7 2016, 05:12 AM
Post #37


GMC:er
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.728
Joined: 12-February 07
From: People's Republic of Lawrence Kansas
Member No.: 1.189



QUOTE (jstcrsn @ Apr 6 2016, 08:19 PM) *
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-...s-to-slow-down/
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blume...nce-latest-ipcc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

there are plenty mit. and other notable scientist that think there is plenty of time for an honest evaluation


You keep providing this Internet references, not any scholarly peer reviewed sources, not something coming out of Stanford or Cal Tech, just Internet source crap.

This is going to sound pretentious. I don't even have TV in my home by choice, I read books, largely science and history to occupy myself. Books that are reasonably scholarly. Not necessarily academic, but which would still be read by academics and respected. I can't prove this, but I can establish the high probability that I am a scholarly type who would be inclined to be well read in science, as I have four University Diplomas from respected Universities, three of those advanced degrees, and two of those mathematically based. I could upload photos of diplomas if you doubt this. I worked as a subcontractor to NASA for a number of years, I could also prove that with documents. That is my point of reference.

I have never in my life heard from anyone with a background similar to mine in terms of education that discounts the seriousness of global warming, and the fact that man's activities are increasing the levels of green house gases. Yes Hopper has a PhD, but he is suspect of bing a hired gun for interests financially concerned. It is hard to believe, even with a non-earth science background, anyone with a PhD in any science could possibly really believe the things he says. Then again, Joseph Goebbles had a PhD and he clearly believed the Nazi nonsense.

Sure these levels of green house gasses have varied over the past 4.56 billion years or our planet's existence, but never in a time when we had to support over 7 billion people. Even what seem as small, a few degrees increases would have a dramatic effect, and deleterious scenarios are very easy to envision, beneficial scenarios very difficult to postulate. The oceans, that is where the real serious risk is, our very existence is dependent on the health of the oceans, and the continued flow of ocean currents.

This is just one of the time bombs out there, and probably not the worst one ecologically. The loss of top soil at 1% a year may be the worst one, we have already lost 30% of it world wide, we are losing it at a rate of 30 to 40 times the replenish rate. So much of agricultural output is dependent on ground water which will be largely depleted by the end of the century, and take centuries to replenish. And there are so many more ecological time bombs converging. It gets down to trying to feed a world population pushing 10 billion, and the inevitability of not being able to do so. Currently 3.7 billion people are malnourished. In a few decades they will be starving. Global warming will exacerbate this as it will cause lower crop yields due much of the world either getting a lot less rain, and much of it getting too much rain, the extremes caused by global warming is the issue here.

The only thing I can hope is that what I read in terms of comments on Internet, is not really the mindset of most people, but I am fearful that it is, too many people whose education is limited to watching videos and reading Internet crap, having very strong opinions.

I am out of this discussion, it is just too depressing. Not just this thread being so, I also looked at comments on a Hopper video and nearly every one of those people commenting fell for his dog and pony show. I am old, I don't have that much to lose, I can't complain if I die tonight, having lived in the best of times I would say. It is you young guys who are going to pay the price for living in a society that no longer puts any premium on the world that future generations will have to live in.

This post has been edited by fkalich: Apr 7 2016, 05:26 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SirJamsalot
post Apr 7 2016, 07:33 AM
Post #38


Learning Rock Star
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1.226
Joined: 4-May 10
From: Bay Area, California
Member No.: 10.312



I really do hate doomsday prophesies. 10 years ago we had 10 years before sea levels would create havoc - that was scientifically proven according to Al Gore. It never ends. Is climate affected by stuff? Of course. Some would say hurricanes are affected by butterflies on a different continent. I'm partly to blame every time I pass gas smile.gif I think we're stretching the bounds of what science can know given all the variables though. I mean, if there are any real culprits to climate change, I'd look at the sun-spot activity before john's lawnmower. but whatever. Spend 10 bucks on a light bulb if it makes you feel better. everyone dies eventually. We got worse things in this world to worry about.

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Apr 4 2016, 10:53 AM) *
Yet more dissent smile.gif Always welcome.
Here is a link to NASA talking about the hard data on sea level rise caused by climate change.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Almost forgot! Here is the graphic from the nasa page and a spiff quote smile.gif

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

Attached Image




--------------------
The more I practice, the more I wish I had time to practice!
My Band Forum: http://passionfly.site/chat

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Apr 7 2016, 08:02 PM
Post #39


Learning Guitar Hero
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2.564
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839



QUOTE (fkalich @ Apr 6 2016, 07:12 PM) *
I have never in my life heard from anyone with a background similar to mine in terms of education that discounts the seriousness of global warming, and the fact that man's activities are increasing the levels of green house gases. Yes Hopper has a PhD, but he is suspect of bing a hired gun for interests financially concerned. It is hard to believe, even with a non-earth science background, anyone with a PhD in any science could possibly really believe the things he says. Then again, Joseph Goebbles had a PhD and he clearly believed the Nazi nonsense.


You haven't heard of the over 1000 peer reviewed papers that dispute AGW? You seem to be all hung up on Hopper when there are plenty of other pre-eminent scientists, including many who are among the most notable scientists of our times, Nobel prize winners and the most heavily published and cited scientists of our days - in the hard sciences no less, who adamantly disagree with the idea of any significant AGW. And that suggest Natural Variation easily explains current warming and sea level rise since the Little Ice Age including the last 50 years or so where man has produced significant levels of CO2.

Below are some of the things that my opinion is based on:

The AGW hypothesis, fails to explain many periods of past warming which were analogous to present day warming. It also fails to explain why the historical records show clearly that temperature virtually ALWAYS increases roughly 800 years PRIOR to CO2 levels increasing, and then temperatures drop BEFORE C02 levels drop.

The only "line of evidence" which allows us to conclude that man is the cause of recent warming is from climate MODELS. Models programmed by AGW advocates and which cannot even backcast accurately, and which have dismally failed to predict future temperatures or match empirical evidence.

Models aren't evidence - they can be useful tools, but are notorious for GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. According to all of the official global temperature databases, we haven't even had any significant warming for over a decade, up to 23 years in some of them, and yet during that time CO2 has continued to increase every bit as fast, and 25% of all man-generated CO2 was produced. The AGW hypothesis is violated right there.

Is it so hard to believe that there could be ulterior motives behind this whole thing when in the past governments have done all kinds of sneaky, underhanded and even devious things to influence the populace to get behind them and advance their agenda? It would be foolhardy to not even consider the possibility.

PS: My Uncle is a graduate of Yale and holds degree's in Forestry and Environmental Management and has at least 40 years experience in the field and he is a skeptic too.

This post has been edited by AK Rich: Apr 7 2016, 09:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Apr 7 2016, 09:03 PM
Post #40


GMC:er
Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 14.458
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794



Skepticism is healthy smile.gif As are differing thoughts on any given issue. It do thees seem though that we have reached a point where folks have said their bit and it's starting to get repetitive. That's usually when it loses the attraction for me personally. Just like they said in cool hand luke, "what we have here is a failure to communicate. There are some people you just can't reach". I know we would all like to think that our minds are open to new ideas, even if they contradict our own, but sadly, it's often not the case.

The good news is that we have had a rousing back and forth on a very important issue. smile.gif So thanks everyone for sharing their thoughts. I"m going to go back to practicing smile.gif See you guys Saturday!!

Todd


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th May 2017 - 01:43 AM