- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: AGW Deniers - Seems Kind of Hopeless
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:02 am to AUbused
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:02 am to AUbused
quote:
Well the solution has pretty much been pounded into the ground and I believe you well know that. Reducing carbon output. Your retort would likely be "well but china, emerging countries etc" and my answer would be that there currently exists no clear path to a "solution" only a general direct we need to start traveling. The solution is complex and painful.
You seem to have a problem assuming what others are thinking. This may be part of the issue. Your OP is accusatory and you continually build strawmen to beat down. I have simply asked questions....your replies consistently put words in my mouth. That is an issue with your ability to debate and communicate....not me.
However...back to the point. "Reducing carbon output" is a method to get to a desired result, right? The desired result being cessation of man made global warming? Is that correct?
If so, then simply stating "reducing carbon output" isn't nearly sufficient. What is the output range we must get to to achieve the desired result? Surely, the consensus of scientists have identified the problem and the desired levels that would provide a solution. What is that number (or what are the levels)? Once we have that lets see a plan to get to those levels.
Do we have this information? If not...what is the point?
1
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:03 am to navy
quote:
Maybe we should just all kill ourselves ... you go first, please.
Ooooohhhhhhh touchy touchy ebadass. Must have been right on.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:03 am to AUbused
Scientist can't even agree what caused the little ice age or what caused the warming period afterwards. If they are not capable of understanding the past, what makes them think they can predict the future?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:07 am to AUbused
Here's a link that has images of the many news stories during the '70's that heralded a coming Ice Age. Even NASA was on board. Climate scientists and many internationnal scientific organizations are quoted at length about how we need to do something now to avoid an Ice Age. I lived through that scare and many others that didn't pan out.
LINK
LINK
quote:
The world's climatologist are agreed that we must prepare for the next Ice Age.
quote:
Every major climate organization endorsed the ice age scare, including NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.
quote:
International team of climate scientists see no end in sight to global cooling.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 9:12 am
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:07 am to AUbused
quote:I wonder why?
AUbused
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:10 am to AUbused
AUbused, Has the earth been warmer in the past? Has it been colder? If the answer to either was a yes, was this before the industrial revolution...
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:14 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Do we have this information? If not...what is the point?
That seems awfully short sighted. If we assume for a second that both of us agree that increased carbon emissions from human activity need to be reduced because of their definite negative impact on climate....then, while it would be nice to know specific targets it doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me.
Your argument seems like being in a desert without water....97 out of 100 scientists are standing there saying that you will find it to the west....but you're like "if you can't tell me precisely how far, I ain't trying".
Yeah sure, thats a stretch, but you're right about my assumptions. I simply find it hard to believe that anyone who chooses to believe what scientists are saying would conclude that throwing our hands up is the logical course of action...........when we know the general direct we need to start walking.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:15 am to AUbused
You might change some minds if you began to round up deniers and executing them Superstate style.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:15 am to AUbused
99% of all scientists agree that cancer sucks. Should I write Al Gore a check for that, too?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:16 am to Al Dante
quote:
Here's a link that has images of the many news stories during the '70's that heralded a coming Ice Age
Counter Link
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:17 am to AUbused
quote:Except that consensus is NOT proof. You do understand that, right?
I'd wager that if 97% of doctors agree'd that a certain operation would save your life we wouldn't hear jack shite about a "consensus not being proof".
In 1799, 97% of doctors agree'd that leeching would save your life. Washington was killed by that consensus "proof".
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:17 am to Rex
quote:
I'd say at the temperature that prompted hundreds of millions of people to settle along the Earth's sea coasts.
What if the earth without human intervention becomes hotter or colder over the next few centuries? Should we attempt to engineer a stable temperature range fighting the power of the sun or just accept that these changes will occur and most infrastructure needs to be replaced on a century scale that allows us to adapt over time?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:18 am to AUbused
quote:
conclude that throwing our hands up is the logical course of action...........when we know the general direct we need to start walking.
98.6756432% of Americans have arrived at a consensus that working for a boss who says, "I'll damn well know what I want when I see it" ... really sucks.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:18 am to dante
quote:
Scientist can't even agree what caused the little ice age or what caused the warming period afterwards. If they are not capable of understanding the past, what makes them think they can predict the future?
Yet 97% of the scientists who make climate their business feel that they can.......and you, for whatever reason, choose to disagree with them.
So basically......no, there is no scientific data that would change you're mind. If 100% of them said the same thing you'd still be saying the same thing too.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:19 am to AUbused
quote:
Are you saying that if 97% of scientists laid out a solution and a path to achieve it that it would change your mind?
NASA has already stated that massive global sea water rises are inevitable over the next two centuries. So what are you denying their expert analysis by bringing in a strawman claim of a solution?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:21 am to NC_Tigah
Right......you do realize people use the EXACT same argument against evolution right?
But I do appreciate your answering my question. If 100% of scientists were standing before you today stating that, after viewing the evidence, they conclude that humans are actively and meaningfully contributing to global warming, you would not find that a valid reason to act.
But I do appreciate your answering my question. If 100% of scientists were standing before you today stating that, after viewing the evidence, they conclude that humans are actively and meaningfully contributing to global warming, you would not find that a valid reason to act.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:22 am to AUbused
quote:
Yet 97% of the scientists
Who are these 3% that don't agree? I'm assuming they make climate their business as well. Why should I disagree with those people?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:23 am to AUbused
quote:
Yet 97% of the scientists who make climate their business feel that they can.......and you, for whatever reason, choose to disagree with them.
So we find out today that after 40 years of not eating fat that we can, with benefits it appears.
Yet you want us to trust scientists with theories? I'll pass.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:24 am to AUbused
Mars is going thru the same climate changes as the Earth is, please tell me how man is responsible for this, if you can't, then tell me why I am to believe people who get millions of dollars yearly in grant money to study climate change.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:27 am to AUbused
quote:
If 100% of scientists were standing before you today stating that, after viewing the evidence, they conclude that humans are actively and meaningfully contributing to global warming, you would not find that a valid reason to act.
quote:2013 - NASA Announces New Record Growth Of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent (That would be the same 'NASA' whose "scientists" claim the ice melt is unstoppable)
NASA - Consensus
2012 - Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record
Page 2 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News