Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Global warming out of this world?


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#91 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,331 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:04 PM

Posted Image


Take a moment. Give yourself a break. Let the adults talk for a bit without your pestering. Get some ice cream or something.

#92 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:11 PM

That's a sloppy Photoshop.

#93 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,512 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 06:17 PM

That is assuming a number of things to be true. It may well turn out that GHGs impose direct and indirect effects on global mean temperature in ways that we have yet to parse out. I would think it more prudent to first get a firm grasp on our global ecosystem to the point that we can trust a theoretical model to make consistent and accurate predictions before subjecting the world to policies that may or may not be based in truth.

There are still a number of scientists that are not driven by government grants and political ideology that can approach the subject with decorum and ethics. I would behoove us all to take a step back and ask the tough questions that pose some challenges to our preconceived notions that the science is a slam dunk. It is why I brought up the history of failed disciplines/theories. We have a far longer track record of being wrong than we are being right. As we are clever monkies, we are good at finding out what works well for us without fully understanding the why of it.


Because 98% of scientist endorsed phrenology.

Look, we get it. You don't want to believe so you won't, but please stop pulling out every page from Logical Fallacies for Dummies and throwing it up on this message board.

#94 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,331 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:44 PM

Because 98% of scientist endorsed phrenology.

Look, we get it. You don't want to believe so you won't, but please stop pulling out every page from Logical Fallacies for Dummies and throwing it up on this message board.


So easy to refute that you have yet to provide a shred of any contribution to the conversation

What's sad is that you think you are clever/smart. What's sadder is that other people think you are as well

#95 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,481 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:02 PM

Uhh, you think government grants bias scientists? Do you understand the grant process? Do you understand that most grants that are funded are actually attempting to critically examine current hypotheses, or propose new ones for observed phenomena? How exactly do you propose people *fund research* if you think that government grants make one devoid of decorum and ethics?

I'm curious who these scientists are that are approaching this subject with "decorum and ethics" that think that the jury is still out on if there is any influence of human activity on climate change... because they are in the minority, considering they have no data to support their positions, just speculation.

#96 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,331 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 02:47 AM

There is compelling testimony that Roger Randall Dougan Revelle thought that the political climate at the time was not conducive to reasonable policy based on sound science.

If you think it wrong to question one's motives based on political objectives and funding, then you are as removed from the real world as the opposite end of the spectrum.

#97 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,072 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 03:20 AM

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming

#98 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 08:34 AM

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming






The Senator poses a good question- what would the weather channel's ratings be without the threat of global warming? And I'm willing to bet scientists aren't even considering the effect of Mars wobbles on Earth's climate

#99 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,512 posts

Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:11 AM

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming


Decorum ain't cheap!

#100 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,331 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 05:34 PM

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming


"If you think it wrong to question one's motives based on political objectives and funding, then you are as removed from the real world as the opposite end of the spectrum."

Reading... the more you know

#101 SZ James

SZ James

    herd it on routers

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,567 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 06:33 PM

Posted Image

#102 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,072 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:22 PM

"If you think it wrong to question one's motives based on political objectives and funding, then you are as removed from the real world as the opposite end of the spectrum."

Reading... the more you know


i don't question their motives because of who funds their poo science. i question their poo science. it's you deniers who always end up suggesting that the, what, 99% of scientists who believe that man-made global warming is in fact a problem are just bought and paid for by the big "green" industry

#103 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,331 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:30 PM

i don't question their motives because of who funds their poo science. i question their poo science. it's you deniers who always end up suggesting that the, what, 99% of scientists who believe that man-made global warming is in fact a problem are just bought and paid for by the big "green" industry


Your post immediately before this says you question the science because of who funds it.

As usual... fail supreme. The reason you bring nothing of substance to the table is because you have nothing... unlike thatlookseasy

#104 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,072 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:35 PM

dude i'm p sure i already shut you down in another thread like a month ago so let's not say things we can't take back

anyway i said that they were investing in bad science; i didn't say that the science was bad because they were investing in it. however i will pull back on that one a little bit because i seem to remember a story about one of the koch brothers investing in some climate study that ended up actually being consistent with man made climate change so they obviously don't exclusively invest in bad science

#105 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,331 posts

Posted 21 February 2013 - 11:38 PM

dude i'm p sure i already shut you down in another thread like a month ago so let's not say things we can't take back

anyway i said that they were investing in bad science; i didn't say that the science was bad because they were investing in it. however i will pull back on that one a little bit because i seem to remember a story about one of the koch brothers investing in some climate study that ended up actually being consistent with man made climate change so they obviously don't exclusively invest in bad science


feel free to drop by when you want to post some pictures/drive-by comments that contribute nothing to the conversation


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.