- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: What are your reasons for believing climate change is "a hoax"
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:30 am to ApexTiger
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:30 am to ApexTiger
quote:
scientist have changed the term from global warming to climate change
The Bush administration did that.
Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy
Mon 3 Mar 2003 20.48 EST First published on Mon 3 Mar 2003 20.48 EST
The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.
The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".
LINK
0
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:31 am to Powerman
Liberalism
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:31 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Ace Midnight
I notice this post has a whopping zero replies after 14 pages
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:32 am to Powerman
quote:
So fuel savings don't somewhat offset the cost?
no.
quote:
How in the frick is your answer to that a hard no?
gee Wally, maybe you should open a textbook or do some Google searching. after 5 minutes, you'd see the answer to this 5th grade question.
quote:
Are you fricking stupid?
hardly.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:32 am to SoulGlo
quote:
Liberalism
Has nothing to do with science
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:32 am to Tiguar
quote:
I notice this post has a whopping zero replies after 14 pages
This is because the sum total of the Pman argument is "I Pman don't know jack shite.........but I can count and there are more people in the room with me..........so, you're all dumb".
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:32 am to Powerman
quote:
Right wingers happen to be wrong about climate change
Some are - most are not. Just like any other issue from any political stance.
I am for the scientific approach. I have dealt in science my entire professional life. I have spent 35 years in the aerospace profession - and in my particular line, my work depended extensively on simulations of physical phenomena. I understand how sensitive the results of a simulation is to the accuracy of the many coefficients involved in the simulation - and that you can never, ever, simulate physical processes with absolute accuracy. I know that you can cause a simulation to veer off exponentially in either a positive or negative direction by diddling with a few coefficients in the simulation.
I am given to believe that cilmateologists are still diddling with coefficients in their models to bring them into adherence to observed data. While this process continues, their conclusions are not absolute.
I know that water vapor is orders of magnitude more of a greenhouse gas than is CO2. And I know that more heat produces more water vapor. To me this is the more probable culprit for a 'runaway heating' phenomenon. Excess heat produces a lot more water vapor than it does CO2.
The amount of CO2 produced by man is insignificant compared to a couple of volcano eruptions. The earth has survived countless volcano eruptions in its history.
There is no doubt that the addition of CO2 from man's activities have increased the temperature of the earth. I am unconvinced that man's contribution introduces a significant amount.
The issue is the DEMOCRAT usage of 'climate change' as a blunt instrument to bludgeon public opinion towards a political agenda that they have been pursuing for decades using other equally disingenuous causes such as those I have listed in other posts.
It's not my fault that the DEMOCRATs have so watered down and neutered their messages that when they try to apply it to the ONE TRUE ISSUE I am not immediately attracted. Cry WOLF!!! to often and the wolf eats you when it finally does sneak up.
I believe that conservatives are not driven by the same "agenda more important than fact" that drive 'progressives.'
I believe that conservatives are more driven by true facts than are 'progressives'.
I believe that conservatives are far more concerned about the condition of the world they leave for their progeny than are 'progressives.'
I believe all that with every ounce of principle and logic that I possess.
Anything a known snake oil salesman tries to sell me will be rejected without further reflection.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:33 am to Powerman
quote:
I think the yes/no answer to that question would depend on multiple factors
It isn't a simple yes or no
It's a hard and obvious no.
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 9:33 am
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:33 am to MrCarton
quote:
So fuel savings don't somewhat offset the cost?
no.
So where does that money go?
Do you realize what the word "somewhat" means? I didn't say they fully offset the costs.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:34 am to Powerman
If you don't mind me asking again...Why did you choose to use the term "climate change" which is a natural every day occurrence and not " Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)" which is the correct term for your question?
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:34 am to msu202020
How did this idiotic thread make it this long.
Is CO2 bad for the climate?
At what levels is it bad for the climate?
What are the levels now?
What would happen in CO2 was 4 times what it is now? Hint animals (us included) and forests would be much healthier.
Just like all the globalist propaganda, the answer is the exact opposite of what they tell you.
Why was it hotter during Roman times?
CO2 is not bad for the earth or the people or the animals or the plants. Matter of fact it is vital and at the moment we are at the low end of the minimum CO2 it takes for photosynthesis to occur. Off the top of my head it takes 250 ppm for photosynthesis, last I checked we are sitting at 400 ppm.
Is CO2 bad for the climate?
At what levels is it bad for the climate?
What are the levels now?
What would happen in CO2 was 4 times what it is now? Hint animals (us included) and forests would be much healthier.
Just like all the globalist propaganda, the answer is the exact opposite of what they tell you.
Why was it hotter during Roman times?
CO2 is not bad for the earth or the people or the animals or the plants. Matter of fact it is vital and at the moment we are at the low end of the minimum CO2 it takes for photosynthesis to occur. Off the top of my head it takes 250 ppm for photosynthesis, last I checked we are sitting at 400 ppm.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:35 am to goatmilker
quote:
If you don't mind me asking again...Why did you choose to use the term "climate change" which is a natural every day occurrence and not " Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)" which is the correct term for your question?
Doesn't really matter
AGW is still real if you want me to take that hard stance
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:35 am to Tiguar
I told you that already.
Powerman is not here to get an answer to his OP.
He just wants to call all right-wingers stupid, without having to defend himself for saying so. . .
It is the same shite Afreaux and Rocket used to do. So I guess he can place himself in that pantheon of rigorous and honest intellect.
Powerman is not here to get an answer to his OP.
He just wants to call all right-wingers stupid, without having to defend himself for saying so. . .
It is the same shite Afreaux and Rocket used to do. So I guess he can place himself in that pantheon of rigorous and honest intellect.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:35 am to Powerman
quote:
quote:
So fuel savings don't somewhat offset the cost?
no.
So where does that money go
In all honesty, both of you are right. It simply depends on current fuel prices how long one owns the vehicle.
This post was edited on 3/7/18 at 9:38 am
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:36 am to MrCarton
quote:
It's a hard and obvious no.
So it wouldn't depend on the following factors:
Increased cost of vehicle (if any)
Cost of fuel
Miles driven
None of those considerations matter?
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:37 am to Powerman
Lol powerman shilling for political science lol
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:37 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Here's your rebuttal: your FACT is inaccurate. There is no drive to produce certain results over others in these studies - they would
False
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:37 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
In all honesty, both of you are right. It simply depends on how long one owns the vehicle.
It depends on a lot
Cost of fuel
Miles driven
Increased cost of vehicle (if applicable)
The idea that fuel savings can be summarily dismissed as having 0 economic impact is beyond stupid
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:38 am to Powerman
quote:
AGW is still real if you want me to take that hard stance
Well, the Pman stance on that is roughly equal to if I heard it from the McDonald's fry cook.
You both possess the same skill on the subject. You can count.
Posted on 3/7/18 at 9:38 am to Powerman
Wrong it does matter. You can't and don't have "hoax" over naturally occurring events.
Your trolling and your OP title and non answer proves it
Your trolling and your OP title and non answer proves it
Page 15 of 40
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News