RE: Climate Change

RE: Climate Change (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 10:13:04 PM)
Ah yes, thanks very much for the link. Now that's what I call real science. The credentials of the thought police officer explaining Robert Laughlin's "error in thinking" are in International Relations. Other listed contributors to your font-of-wisdom website include: Angela Bischoff, Outreach Director for the Ontario Clean Air Alliance Emily Horn (unidentified) Tristan Laing, B.A. History and Philosophy, M.A Philosophy "Lauren" (unidentified) Cheryl McNamara, "background" (unidentified) in public relations, marketing and project management Amanda Starbuck, Rainforest Action Network’s Global Finance Campaign Director I mean, hey, with talent like that arrayed against him, who cares what a mere Stanford University physicist says! Thanks again! K.

joether -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 10:16:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 i feel a little like im piling on but ... here's the science guy at cato: "Patrick J. Michaels is the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He was a research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for 30 years. Michaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. "His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials worldwide. He is the author or editor of six books on climate and its impact, and he was an author of the climate “paper of the year” awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004. He has appeared on most of the worldwide major media. "Michaels holds AB and SM degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a PhD in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979." http://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels Study the people and organizations, bounty. Carefully! Doesnt matter if they are conservative, moderate, or liberal. Be they voting Republican or Democrat. Study them carefully. Patrick Michaels sounds like an interesting guy. However, the CATO Institute is a conservative think tank. You may find it shocking, but I am often weighing the information from sites (on this topic and others) against where the information originates. I dont just look for something to counter something someone else stated in a thread. I look at the site itself. Judge the site for its merits. Is the information feel legitimate or not. Even if I have 'that piece' that blasts someones position, but comes from a questionable location, I wont use it. An you will never know just how many times that's happen. Well over a hundred with you alone. The concept of Climate Change should serves as quite an example of this. That there are tens of thousands of sites that will give bad information for hundreds of reasons. Finding good information, thus, becomes much harder. I'm 'OK' if you wish to explain the information known by some other reason; but I would require the evidence and knowledge of where the information is originating from. An you would need to be able to handle the questions. Just try not to give an obvious right-wing site.

lovmuffin -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 10:24:17 PM)
So how do we know your information is good joether ?

CreativeDominant -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 10:28:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin So how do we know your information is good joether ? Because it comes from left of center sources and studies funded by left leaning sources and think tanks. The only credible sources. Come on, muffin!!!

joether -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 10:29:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Ah yes, thanks very much for the link. Now that's what I call real science. The credentials of the thought police officer explaining Robert Laughlin's "error in thinking" are in International Relations. Other listed contributors to your font-of-wisdom website include: Angela Bischoff, Outreach Director for the Ontario Clean Air Alliance Emily Horn (unidentified) Tristan Laing, B.A. History and Philosophy, M.A Philosophy "Lauren" (unidentified) Cheryl McNamara, "background" (unidentified) in public relations, marketing and project management Amanda Starbuck, Rainforest Action Network’s Global Finance Campaign Director I mean, hey, with talent like that arrayed against him, who cares what a mere Stanford University physicist says! Thanks again! Nice thing with science. I can wait you out. Yes the individuals you listed are....CONTRIBUTORS. They have contributed things (that's why they are called contributors). But they are not the only people. Likewise, many of the articles take information from....OTHER ....places. Also, they are each educated individuals. Do you have a problem with their education? Likewise, what is yours? I've asked you quite a few times. I think you resent more intelligent and educated people than you are. Your jealous. An the mechanism to 'fight' and 'hide' the truth, is your normal combative mannerism.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 10:30:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin So how do we know your information is good joether ? Because it comes from left of center ssources...the only credible sources. Come on, muffin!!!

joether -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 10:31:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin So how do we know your information is good joether ? Which information? I've made 3465 posts (including this one). That's alot of information. I think you need to be...abit...more specific.

joether -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 10:35:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin So how do we know your information is good joether ? Because it comes from left of center ssources...the only credible sources. Come on, muffin!!! When I can find a right-wing site that demonstrates it understands science (giving truthful and factual examples that explain things) and can separate the science from the political bullshit; I'll use them too! Unfortunately most sites do not understand science, let alone, able to explain things factually and truthfully. The ones that remain push a political position rather than a scientific argument.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 10:40:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant See? There again is that remarkable capacity for tolerance of differing viewpoints. No matter how many times joether has been shown scientific viewpoints differing than his, his oh-so-open mind...which he will tell you is capable of accepting of ideas contrary to his own and treating them with respect even though he disagrees...instead goes intolerant and gets around the contradiction by calling it bullshit. Its an amusing game your playing Creative. You believe that since your so innocent of guilt, therefore anything you state MUST be accepted as the same as actual scientific evidence that has been peer reviewed and retested again. Your word of the week is 'tolerance', isn't it? Here is a tolerance for you: Either put up or shut up! You think the Theory of Climate Change is false....PROVE IT! Put your money in your mouth....and....PROVE IT. The first question I'll ask, to be up front and fair is: What is your scientific credentials and can you prove it? AKA where are your PhD's from? I already know the games your going to play, Creative. So this material of yours better be hardcore intriguing stuff and not 'I never took a science class in high school and it shows here'. If I can counter it, you lose! Show me YOUR PhD, boy. Oh, that's right...you have a B.S. degree. You CITE the work of PhDs...as I have...And others have. One big difference between you and me? I never claimed that your scientist's work is bullshit...just that I disagree with it, especially the changing of it. I tolerate and welcome their views.

lovmuffin -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 10:51:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin So how do we know your information is good joether ? Which information? I've made 3465 posts (including this one). That's alot of information. I think you need to be...abit...more specific. Nahhhh.....but the next time I need information I'll wait to find it out from you.

joether -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 11:07:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Show me YOUR PhD, boy. Oh, that's right...you have a B.S. degree. You CITE the work of PhDs...as I have...And others have. One big difference between you and me? I never claimed that your scientist's work is bullshit...just that I disagree with it, especially the changing of it. I tolerate and welcome their views. In order to get a PhD, one has to have acquired a BS or BA. I never stated I didn't have a PhD..... Also, let me apologize. Certain...other...individuals annoy the fuck out of me. I believe some of that may have been pushed on to you. I don't pull them on ignore, because I believe in the free flow of information. Even the crap they shovel, has its merits. Its just not what they think it is! It feels as if you are targeting honest scientists and their work. Your dissing people who have spent their life times researching, studying, and explaining concepts on our planet. Notice I didn't 'diss' Prof Laughlin above. He has his views. I tried to state what those views were as factually as they are known. I didn't say his views were wrong, just that they don't believe with Climate Change and why. He could be right, and Planet Earth is an organism. I could give a spoiler for a video game about the concept if you want in private mail? Why does it change? The absolutely, fucking, truthful answer: We understand more than we previously did. The Theory of Climate Change is NOT a religion. As I stated before, I'm sure some view it that way. But the concept is a scientific theory. A concept does not become a theory 'straight out the door'. There is a HUGE amount of evidence to gather, study and re-test. The theory is often the simplest way of explaining things. Even then, it can be complex. How is it not a religion? That if some new piece of information comes along that 'throws a wrench' into the 'works', it doesn't kill everything previously understood. Just means scientists look at how this new piece interacts with everything else. People will take the new found knowledge, and check it against everything previously known. For fun in many cases! To me, science is fascinating and cool stuff. Yes, ballistic physics is not something I study up on often. But I do enjoy information about the human mind and how it operates. To a side degree, medicine, biology, and biochemistry. To use a metaphor: everyone has their favorite section of history.

joether -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 11:09:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin So how do we know your information is good joether ? Which information? I've made 3465 posts (including this one). That's alot of information. I think you need to be...abit...more specific. Nahhhh.....but the next time I need information I'll wait to find it out from you. When in doubt, Google it! Or just go to the library....

Kirata -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 11:10:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata You obviously haven't the slightest idea what a logical fallacy is, or even how and when to use "whom". That strikes me as exceedingly peculiar, you being a proud college fellow and all. Plus, you're making shit up again. They don't know that man is causing it, and the reason they don't know is precisely because their models "eliminate variables," which is also why the predictions generated by those models have been consistently wrong. An you have no clue what your babbling about....like this is some how different from the other 447 times (yes, I am counting). Here ya go, make it 448 times... In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ~IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2 quote: ORIGINAL: joether You want to attack me on my education, what's yours? I want to hear it. Oh that's right, you slink back into the shadows because you dont have the BALLS. I'm not attacking you on your education. I'm only questioning, on the basis of a lack of evidence, your claim to having one. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Mankind and its technology are creating the problems. The evidence is there. You dont like it, I dont give a flying fuck! If you think its different, present the information to the scientific community. Oh that's right, you think the whole thing is a shame! So therefore it has to be the Devil's doing, right? Please, spare me your religious babble.... Nobody is denying that we've caused environmental problems, joether. And you really must try to put more effort into remembering that your mind-reading superpowers are only a hallucination. quote: ORIGINAL: joether If I upset your 'Grammer Nazi' mind, take it as 'even penalty' for posting shit that you make up all the time! Counting the IPCC quote, 448 times! K.

lovmuffin -> RE: Climate Change (3/11/2015 11:58:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin So how do we know your information is good joether ? Which information? I've made 3465 posts (including this one). That's alot of information. I think you need to be...abit...more specific. Nahhhh.....but the next time I need information I'll wait to find it out from you. When in doubt, Google it! Or just go to the library.... So that's how ya do it. I've been so impressed with your education, scientific knowledge and such I thought you were a leading expert on this subject. Can't wait to try it, next time I'll just google joether.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/12/2015 2:52:22 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/kochs-no-way-dems-probe-climate-research-funding-005243924--finance.html Dem go after conservative contributors to the climate change debate. I wonder, does the first amendment apply only to those that are progressive? Why aren't they equally looking at progressive doners?

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/12/2015 3:11:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://news.yahoo.com/kochs-no-way-dems-probe-climate-research-funding-005243924--finance.html Dem go after conservative contributors to the climate change debate. I wonder, does the first amendment apply only to those that are progressive? Why aren't they equally looking at progressive doners like the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation?

bounty44 -> RE: Climate Change (3/12/2015 4:13:27 AM)
its flabbergasting that this thread has moved past the first page. the climate change priests and prophets' position is like the terminator---its on a mission and it just wont die. there is this to know also... [image]local://upfiles/1936645/A2B33856C4F24361A3DC8F24D5C8D064.jpg[/image]

Aibo -> RE: Climate Change (3/12/2015 4:53:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 its flabbergasting that this thread has moved past the first page. The only thing that is flabbergasting are the people who are so completely in denial that they do not even react when the climate conditions have gone from 'unusual' to a repeated pattern of a weather that can only be described as weird. Right where I am, we've had an entire winter without snow and temperatures between +5 to 8 degrees Celsius. That's 40-48F When a normal winter during the 1970-80 had 1½ to 2 meters of snow for 7 months and temperatures of -5 to -35. That's 23 to -31F This used to be 'winterland' but the nearest skislope have gone bankrupt. Snowmobile salesmen still have their machines displayed for sale, but who would buy when there had not been any snow and the temperatures are as high as it is spring thorough the winter. We've had 5 hurricanes, in a part of the world that used to have none whatsoever, certainly not in the middle of the winter. And some of you guys still have your head in the sand like an osprey when it is not just 'climate change' but now have switched to an ongoing environmental catastrophy! Jesus, save us from people who manage to get so caught in their own verbal diatribe to be unable to see the facts even when they are just outside the window!

MercTech -> RE: Climate Change (3/12/2015 6:10:27 AM)
Yes, the changes that are called "climate change" can be described as geologic changes. We are restoring the climate to the chemical balance that existed when the dinosaurs roamed the planet by returning all those pesky carbon compounds to the atmosphere that were bound up in the soil when the great die off occurred.

KenDckey -> RE: Climate Change (3/12/2015 7:04:36 AM)
From National Geographic http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html Seems mars and earth are both experiencing global warming due to solar irradiance. I've always considered National Geographic to be political neutral.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02