Command that he take it on faith, then. That is what you are requiring. That he believe in a form of professed science because of an inability to completely invalidate it. Science and faith . . . together . . . at long last. The church in Rome that murdered the images of science centuries ago should now be so proud of people Just. Like. You.
Man Made Globing Warming,
- Thread starter RacerX.ksr
- Start date
Command that he take it on faith, then. That is what you are requiring. That he believe in a form of professed science because of an inability to completely invalidate it. Science and faith . . . together . . . at long last. The church in Rome that murdered the images of science centuries ago should now be so proud of people Just. Like. You.
Hear a lot of talk, see zero evidence. Y'all come up with it, let me know. Humanity will keep moving on.
I can not prove a negative. If something don’t exist, no one can prove it don’t exist. All I asked from you was one simple thing and will repeat it now. What is the one thing humans can do right now to stop ourselves from over heating the planet. Come on don’t be shy, let us hear it.
Proving natural effects are the dominant force behind global warming does not equal proving a negative. Try again.
The same models you put your FAITH in to predict the climate 100 years out, haven't even been able to predict the climate 5 years out. That's evidence.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you're given, your mind was made up as soon as you were told you were stupid not to believe it. You have faith and faith is hard to break.
If the IPCC came out tomorrow and said they were mistaken and that climate change was normal and what we've experienced over the last 150 years is nothing out of the normal, you would go to your grave saying they were paid off.
Just refuse to answer my question. Either answer it or stop posting. You are worse than UNC at deflecting. Grow some balls son and tells us what we need to do.
If they demonstrated that with evidence, I'd absolutely accept it. Something you all are unwilling and unable to do.
Seriously, if you need more evidence than the models being wrong, then you don't understand the subject enough to discuss it.
They believe and you'll die on a scorched Earth if you don't. Sound familiar?
You have a serious problem with dick sucking. Think it's time you just come out. Nobody will hate you for being gay, in fact everyone just hates you because you are a dumbass.
You guys still at it . . . four pages in? Wow. Fill me in on what I missed, anyone change anyone's opinion?
Climate Change/Global Warming seems to be one of those issues where even if we do someday get definitive evidence for one side of the argument or the other, there will still be a decent percentage of people who refuse to accept it. From talking with friends who do not believe that we are affecting the earth's climate, the general consensus is that man does not have that capability. Only God does. I do have one friend who is on the conspiracy bandwagon that it is a government designed hoax. Although I don't agree with it, I can't knock him because he stays informed and can site where/how he gets information instead of just making things up and going on emotion. For the ones who strongly believe in Climate Change, those in my circle who push this part of the argument generally have zero religious ties. That's why I don't think we'll have have an answer or result that is universally accepted. Religion is that polarizing, especially among the uber-religious and those who vastly deny any sort of higher power.
You keep bloviating all this crap. Tell us what these experts think man is doing and what can we do to stop it. It all these experts have found a problem, surely they have a solution, yes?
Climate change is constant. What is different now is the rate of change.
Yes, China is pumping **** in the air which is why they were included in the Paris agreement and why they are taking actions to reduce their CO2 emissions. The Chinese scientific community has come to the same conclusion as the overwhelming vast majority of the rest of the world's scientific communities.
Anyone who denies that there is a man made contribution to climate change is simply sticking their head in the sand and admitting that they either never took chemistry or that they failed the class when they did so. So the real question is just what is man's contribution? 5%?, 10%?, 20%
?, more?
At what contribution level would it matter to you?
The real answer is most science deniers more interested in a political win than a scientific understanding.
So, how can we stop it then? What are you doing about it personally. Serious question, I’m not being a smart ***.
It's hard for people to accept that we're on the verge of end times if we don't go green right now, when you walk outside and there is no change. I don't mean weather, I mean seasons. My grandfather was religious about marking the calendar on the first frost,killing frost, last frost, earliest date to get a garden in and so on. I have many of those calendars, and it is exactly as today, there is no difference. In fact, he always had April 7 as the safe date to plant a garden, well, this year we had a killing frost after that.
I by no means insinuate that as a scientific procedure, but it's real life evidence. I went to Ephesus in 1994, the sea was approx 8 KM from it. It was a seaport when it was founded, why did the sea line recede, man didn't do it. In a thousand years the same will happen here, or towns will be underwater, with or without man.
You can't stop change but you can lessen the impact.
A lot of people don't vote because they say their vote doesn't matter. True it is rare that elections come down to a single vote...but collectively to do matter.
What do I do? Most of power/lawn tools are electric...and I've got a 400w solar panel that helps charge them. I am seriously considering a Tesla for my next vehicle...and I support initiatives to expand non-carbon based energy creation like wind, solar, geothermal, etc. I do a lot of other things like frequently bicycle to work...I've even run to work. Those are more fitness inspired activities but they also serve that dual purpose of lessening my carbon footprint.
East Kentucky would never answer that question , doubt fuzz will either, because they can’t.
Kudos to you. You think will help? While you sacrifice Al Gore flys around the world belching CO2 out. He polluted more in one hour than you can save in your lifetime, and yet you still put up with it.
I have zero religious ties and I don't agree with it. I have cited a simple reason why the temperature appears to have risen. The vast majority of temperature readings are taken in and close to urban areas. Look at Louisville for example. The official temp is taken at the airport where there are a thousand acres of asphalt and concrete to capture and radiate heat. That is not indicative of the climate for surrounding rural areas.
The warmists have stated the urban heat island effect could possibly add 1 or 2 degrees to the temp. Well, isn't that what we're talking about? This past winter my wife's car was in the shop and I had to drive her to work. When we left the house my car said it was 4 degrees. 30 minutes later in downtown Louisville it said it was 13 degrees. I went straight back home and it said 5 degrees. That was the difference that day between urban and rural.
I certainly don't need a god to tell me that our cities have grown at an accelerated rate that coincides with the supposed temperature rise. Since most of the Earth is not covered in city, wouldn't it make sense to measure away from the cities to get a more accurate number?
I don't see how in this day and age that anyone could take anything the government tells you at face value. You people cry about the money that fossil fuel provides to people who are strong enough to stand up to tyranny, but you overlook the billions of dollars your government spends to continue the ruse. The NOAA is a subsidiary of NASA which is under the purview of the US Dept. of Commerce. It doesn't get any more government than that.
Give a hoot don't pollute, but CO2 is not pollution any more than Oxygen is and it is just as necessary for life since we live on a planet with Carbon based life.
I can't understand why the people who question the science are being denigrated. Questioning accepted science is the reason we have progressed to the place we are now.
Not long ago scientists said people would die on a train if it went faster than a horse could run because they wouldn't be able to breathe. But I think there are many climate scientists who don't want to give up their good gig and just go along. They know there is nothing to worry about but not worrying doesn't put food on their table.
Do some research with an open mind, I did.
I was trying to figure out why you were responding to my post in such a defensive manner, "You people cry....", "Do some research with an open mind", and I see now it's probably because I wrote about a conspiracy bandwagon/government hoax. So I can see why you took offense to that. I'm all for hearing every side of the argument and researching such debatable topics with an open mind. I would probably suggest the same advice to you, especially in regards to anything government related. I made the observation that "generally" those who deny climate change have a religious presence in their life. That certainly isn't an absolute.
If it was definitive science then I would accept it. I was probably including thoughts regarding fuzz's drivel in my post as well.
You fell back on the argument that if someone denies there is a worry about global warming then there must be a reason beyond science. Political, religious, whatever.
The left, and make no mistake about it... MMGW is driven by lefty politics... can't seem to understand the concept of garbage science... maybe because they're fooled by it so easily.
That's my point. They don't understand it and that's the reason they are so easily duped. Eastky has repeatedly asked for reasons and I've given him several of the main ones. What has been his response?
I believe a large part of the reason they changed the terminology was due to the fact the satellite data was showing there was no warming on a global basis. Probably because satellites aren't located in large cities. That's when they started saying that the heat was being hidden in the deep oceans and that it would some day come back to cook us.
The name isn't settled yet, but the science is. Trust them. Have faith.
Be honest...if it were said and could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that we had 300 years then how many would change their position? People would rationalize that they, their children and grandchildren will all be long dead and gone so why should they worry about it.
The overall average temperature change over the last 100 years has been slightly over 1 degree. Not sure 1 degree of change would be noticed given the random nature of weather. It isn't the extremes high or low but the averages over time that matter. It's going to be difficult to observe by walking outside especially in temperate climates like we have here in Ky. But go to the polar ice caps where they form over decades and observe that they are noticeably smaller.
"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said that 2016 set a new record high annual temperature (along with 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015) and marked “the 40th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average.”
Last year continued that trend. At likely the third warmest year on record, 2017 marked the 41st consecutive year above the 20th century average."
It doesn't help anyone when the idiot in the White House says in an interview on tv; "The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, so OK, they’re at a record level." Jan 28, 2018. When asked to back the claim...Trump doesn’t specify whether he means record high ice cap levels or record low, though from the context he suggests high. He also doesn’t specify which ice caps he’s referring to or what time periods. We reached out to the White House for clarification and support for Trump’s claim. The White House has yet to get back to us. And good luck ever getting an answer. The same person probably advised him on the polar ice caps as advised him on "the biggest tax cut", "biggest landslide victory", that his job approval ratings are "better than most"...that the Russians didn't interfere in the election or that there was massive voter fraud. Not true, not true, not true, not true and not true.
Temperature readings are taken in thousands of places both near cities and in remote outposts.
But let's run with your scenario that it's the thousands of acres of asphalt and concrete that capture and radiate heat. That doesn't happen in a vacuum. That captured and radiated heat warms the air that drifts into more rural areas. It sits over and warms the Ohio River which is joined by the waters that were warmed as they passed by Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and other cities and towns along the Ohio. That warmer water warms the air above it or cools it less than if it had not been affected.
Definitive science... you're likely one of those who thinks tobacco doesn't cause cancer because there are people that smoke their whole life and live to be 80, 90 yrs old.
Be honest...if it were said and could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that we had 300 years then how many would change their position? People would rationalize that they, their children and grandchildren will all be long dead and gone so why should they worry about it.
The overall average temperature change over the last 100 years has been slightly over 1 degree. Not sure 1 degree of change would be noticed given the random nature of weather. It isn't the extremes high or low but the averages over time that matter. It's going to be difficult to observe by walking outside especially in temperate climates like we have here in Ky. But go to the polar ice caps where they form over decades and observe that they are noticeably smaller.
"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said that 2016 set a new record high annual temperature (along with 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015) and marked “the 40th consecutive year (since 1977) that the annual temperature has been above the 20th century average.”
Last year continued that trend. At likely the third warmest year on record, 2017 marked the 41st consecutive year above the 20th century average."
It doesn't help anyone when the idiot in the White House says in an interview on tv; "The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, so OK, they’re at a record level." Jan 28, 2018. When asked to back the claim...Trump doesn’t specify whether he means record high ice cap levels or record low, though from the context he suggests high. He also doesn’t specify which ice caps he’s referring to or what time periods. We reached out to the White House for clarification and support for Trump’s claim. The White House has yet to get back to us. And good luck ever getting an answer. The same person probably advised him on the polar ice caps as advised him on "the biggest tax cut", "biggest landslide victory", that his job approval ratings are "better than most"...that the Russians didn't interfere in the election or that there was massive voter fraud. Not true, not true, not true, not true and not true.
My opinion has nothing to do with Trump, or politics. The 20th century normal temp means little, we're using entirely different methods, and many more locations to monitor temp now, and better accuracy, the rest is filled in data.
You're missing the point Trump was making, all the models have been wrong to this point. Why would you look at them now, and not be skeptical?
Nice dodge. Can't address the application of simple cause and effect so make a personal attack.
Gotcha![winking]