Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Global warming out of this world?


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#16 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,731 posts

Posted 11 February 2013 - 07:00 PM

I was talking to this climatologist the other day and he was talking about global warming. I was like "dude, what about the sun? It's the sun stupid" and he was like "holy poo, I never thought of that!" And then I was like "even more, man.....volcanoes" and he was like "damn dude, you're completely blowing my mind right now, I need to re-evaluate EVERYTHING."

#17 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,744 posts

Posted 11 February 2013 - 07:15 PM

well we all know scientists only act like nerds all through school, go years between dates to get in more study and lab time, etc. only to come up with ideas to get grant money.

#18 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,025 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 12 February 2013 - 11:34 AM

PL always great to hear from you



but really please come up with better topics

This got to two pages ... my work is done for a while.

Thanks for the very helpful critique ... you know I hang on your every word.

#19 Nicks To The Colts

Nicks To The Colts

    shitpost around the clock

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,291 posts
  • LocationChapel Hill

Posted 12 February 2013 - 12:50 PM

well we all know scientists only act like nerds all through school, go years between dates to get in more study and lab time, etc. only to come up with ideas to get grant money.


really people should hang around some geologists or climatologists. they're fuging super nerds who've devoted their lives to those pursuits. they generally aren't light, easy subjects that average people with average motivations in life just kind of decide to get PhDs in as a money-making scheme.

i don't know what makes it so easy for joe internet to dismiss climate scientists when you probably wouldn't find him first in line to argue with an aerospace engineer about the best way to design a jet engine.

#20 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:25 PM

Eugenicists, phrenologists, and Freudian psychologists were scientists too

#21 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,929 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:35 PM

Eugenicists, phrenologists, and Freudian psychologists were scientists too


So what part of the science are you disputing? Do you think CO2 levels are not actually rising/ have nothing to do with human activity? Do you not believe atmospheric CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?

There have been plenty of flawed scientific theories throughout history which have been proven wrong, but they weren't proved wrong by somebody saying, "well I dont care what evidence you have, other scientists were wrong before you so I dont believe anything you have to say"

#22 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:58 PM

CO2 being a greenhouse gas is no more in dispute than CFCs cause a breakdown of O3.

The catch for the latter is justifying how a heavier-than-air molecule gets miles above the surface to perform this breakdown. Yet is was accepted as a slam dunk for anyone in the know about science just two decades ago.

Now the crux of arguments that have yet to be made is just how significant is anthropomorphic contributions to global temperature with respect to all other variance that we know of. If what scientific inquiry has found is true, then the earth has gone through several cycles of warming and cooling LONG before people inhabited it. There are DEMONSTRATED accounts of variance of solar activity, volcanic activity, and oceanic activity that FAR OUTWEIGH anthropomorphic CO2 emissions.

Any climatologist that claims otherwise is a fraud. Hell, the trajectories that were projected just a decade ago are NOTHING CLOSE to what they claimed. Tom Brokaw ran with that widely accepted view and proclaimed that NYC would be underwater by this time due to rising sea levels due to global warming.


I would suggest reading State of Fear by Michael Creighton. His 20 page bibliography from a decade ago does FAR MORE actual research than that picture book by Al Gore that is still touted as indisputable science.

So the question remains, with everything that we were SO SURE about in the past and turned out to be SO WRONG about, are we certain that we should support policies that clearly have ulterior motives that have nothing to do with environmental concerns? Europe has already seen hundreds of billions of dollars exchange hands due to the carbon credit scam. Who made out the best? Surprise! Politicians!

#23 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,731 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 05:57 PM

Tom Brokaw? Michael Creighton? Al Gore? Now we're talking about SCIENCE!

I just called up my climatologist buddy and told him about those cycles of heating and cooling the earth went through in the past. He had never thought of that either. What an idiot.

#24 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:11 PM

Tom Brokaw? Michael Creighton? Al Gore? Now we're talking about SCIENCE!

I just called up my climatologist buddy and told him about those cycles of heating and cooling the earth went through in the past. He had never thought of that either. What an idiot.


Take a quick gander at the bibliography and references cited for State of Fear and then get back to me on that

#25 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,477 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:12 PM

Take a quick gander at the bibliography and references cited for State of Fear and then get back to me on that


Have you read said sources? Not the bibliography, but the actual sources?

#26 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:14 PM

Have you read said sources? Not the bibliography, but the actual sources?


A couple, yes. And I bet that's two more than you

#27 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,477 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:15 PM

A couple, yes. And I bet that's two more than you


Hah, you would be surprised. Good job being defensive for no reason though, jerk.

#28 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:17 PM

Hah, you would be surprised. Good job being defensive for no reason though, jerk.


I would be surprised given the utter lack of any effort for anyone to approach the substance of what I've put forth.

#29 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,477 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:19 PM

I would be surprised given the utter lack of any effort for anyone to approach the substance of what I've put forth.


I haven't been a part of this discussion before now - in this thread anyhow. Regardless, I'll leave you to it.

#30 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,688 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:20 PM

Eugenicists, phrenologists, and Freudian psychologists were scientists too





elucidate

elucidate

elucidate

elucidate



Spoiler



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.