- 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 10:17 am to AUbused
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:17 am to AUbused
quote:
My post addressed the current natural carbon cycle
exactly, and those carbon cycles were natural too....with statistically higher CO2 concentrations.
Tell me, why is more CO2 bad? What level is "bad"?
0
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:19 am to AUbused
quote:
I couldn't tell you. But Im really no expert.
so you're religious....good to know.
quote:
point of this thread was that you guys don't believe 97% of experts.
97% of the experts DO NOT agree with the IPCC.
Why are you religious acolytes all liars?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:19 am to stuntman
quote:
So, these scientists have models that they they created based on their hypotheses 20 years ago. What percentage of those models have been spot on? If the models aren't spot on, then your going on FAITH that their hypotheses are correct.
This is a fair point. I am not a climatologist, astrophysicist, neurologist etc. I am a software engineer. When faced with facets of life I have neither the time nor inclination to dedicate my life to, what choice do I have other than placing my confidence in those who did exactly that?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:20 am to AUbused
I guess because CO2 concentrations have increased over the past 17 years and there has been zero positive feedback (stable temperature) CO2 should be re-categorized as a NON-greenhouse gas and considered a NON-pollutant (which it actually is).
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:21 am to AUbused
quote:
Think about it seriously for a moment.....if 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are, in fact, at least partially responsible for climate change.
Without reading through 5 pages, has anyone pointed out this number is complete bullshite?
LINK
quote:
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:22 am to AUbused
quote:No kidding.
Im really no expert
quote:Did you read the link regarding construct of that claim?
you guys don't believe 97% of experts
Do you have a clue as to the significance of cyclical prehistoric CO2 variance?
Do you have any reasonable thought regarding origin and control of that variance?
Do you have any reasonable curiosity about AGW "Theory at all?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:22 am to GumboPot
quote:
This is a consensus because of the word "partially". Do know what partially means? Do you understand the range of outcomes partially brings to the table?
Good point. My favorite word is 'may'. The AGW reports say "The oceans may rise 4 feet by 2050." OK, that means they may lower 4 feet. They may not do anything at all. I may get hit by a bus when I go out to check the mail 10 minutes from now.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:23 am to AUbused
quote:
Man-made
Man is part of nature so really it's 100% natural.
Don't worry, be happy.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:23 am to CptBengal
quote:s
97% of the experts DO NOT agree with the IPCC.
Does telling yourself this make you feel better about the fact that you choose to disagree with a scientific majority......likely to better fit in with your political agenda?
Face it.....if every single fricking scientist on the face of the earth was saying there is no doubt that humans are contributing negatively to climate change you'd just continue to stick your weak-arse head in the sand.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:25 am to AUbused
quote:
Does telling yourself this make you feel better about the fact that you choose to disagree with a scientific majority......likely to better fit in with your political agenda?
I am a scientist who actually works on climate related projects. Tell me, DA/otto/spidey, why after everyone has posted what bullshite the 97% number is, do you continue to trot it out?
quote:
Face it.....if every single fricking scientist on the face of the earth was saying there is no doubt that humans are contributing negatively to climate change you'd just continue to stick your weak-arse head in the sand.
Since I'm a scientist...this is a statistical improbability with the current research.
FAIL.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:26 am to AUbused
quote:you admit you have no expertise in this field yet you choose to accept the "science" about AGW. I have no expertise in this field either and I choose Not to accept the science
This is a fair point. I am not a climatologist, astrophysicist, neurologist etc. I am a software engineer. When faced with facets of life I have neither the time nor inclination to dedicate my life to, what choice do I have other than placing my confidence in those who did exactly that?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:27 am to AUbused
quote:
guys don't believe 97% of experts....so 100% of experts isn't going to make a damn bit of difference
Did it ever give you pause that these 97% are predicting with a lot of certainty the temperatures, sea levels and ice levels 100-200 years into the future but can't tell you where a hurricane will land, rain for tomorrow or if your town will lose 5000 homes to flooding? (my town 14 days ago)
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:27 am to Zach
quote:
Good point. My favorite word is 'may'. The AGW reports say "The oceans may rise 4 feet by 2050." OK, that means they may lower 4 feet. They may not do anything at all. I may get hit by a bus when I go out to check the mail 10 minutes from now.
Whenever these "scientist" use hedging language like partially, may, if, could, mostly, etc. without offering probability and confidence levels what follows is 100% bull shite. And I say that with 100% confidence.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:29 am to GumboPot
quote:
And I say that with 100% confidence.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:31 am to AUbused
quote:So, you're too stupid or lazy or both, to think for yourself or do any research on your own and now you're bragging about how easily you offer yourself up for propaganda.
When faced with facets of life I have neither the time nor inclination to dedicate my life to, what choice do I have other than placing my confidence in those who did exactly that?
Kuddos to you sir for at least admitting to being a sheople. The vast majority who post regularly on this board will kick and scream before admitting as much.
Congratulations, you may advance to the front of the sheople line.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 10:36 am
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:32 am to ChoupiqueSacalait
quote:
50,000 years ago, the gulf of Mexico's shoreline was 10 miles farther out than at present, and 60' lower.
so using those numbers.....
50,000 years........ so it rises .0012 per year for 50,000 years.... so in 100 years 'something I can relate to' the sea will rise .12 feet. I think people will be able to get out of the way from this...
So I actually will not be around to see ocean front property in Arkansas?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:34 am to Morgan56
If you were not so selfish you would invest in Arky land for your decendants
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:37 am to BBONDS25
quote:
What is the solution and how do we achieve it?
The biggest problem is the ever increasing human population. There are things we can do in this country to discourage large families. I don 't have a solution for what we can do with the rest of the world.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 10:39 am
Page 6 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News