What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[nbean16]

According to the scientists, 93% of them agree that global warming is an issue. I tend to believe scientists more than I believe Rush Limbaugh or professional politicians. Kind of like Apple. 93% of the world runs PC.

Do you think every scientist is on the take, or is maybe 1 or 2 of them is on the level?

No one is asking you to listen to Rush Limbaugh. I couldnt care less about what he says. You seem to have this ass backwards perception that you must be a republican to have anything to say against man made climate change. Do you think i must believe all scientists are on the take for them to be wrong? Do you know scientists have been wrong before right? Even in cases where more than 93% of them agreed. Do you believe the thousands that make up the other 7% are all paid by oil companies?

 

[kevin 714]

The thing is, worldwide, it tends to be American republicans who deny climate change. It IS a GOP thing, By and large

 

[byke]

The thing is, worldwide, it tends to be American republicans who deny climate change. It IS a GOP thing, By and large

Definitely. And, I love it when they point to historical references from a time which most of them don't even believe exists.

 

[DReg350]

Definitely. And, I love it when they point to historical references from a time which most of them don't even believe exists.

C'mon, Byke. All Republicans are not fundamentalists. Not by a long shot.

 

[nbean16]

The thing is, worldwide, it tends to be American republicans who deny climate change. It IS a GOP thing, By and large

So anyone that disagrees should be labeled as clearly just getting info from limbaugh? That would be like labeling you a democrat who only listens to keith olberman because you happen to have ideas that are commonly held by american democrats.

 

[byke]

C'mon, Byke. All Republicans are not fundamentalists. Not by a long shot.

We're in a sweet little California bubble, but it's like another planet when you step outside of it.

 

[kevin 714]

So anyone that disagrees should be labeled as clearly just getting info from limbaugh? That would be like labeling you a democrat who only listens to keith olberman because you happen to have ideas that are commonly held by american democrats.

I didn't say anything about Limbaugh. I responded to your line "you must be a republican if you have anything to say about climate change"


Chances are, if you do, you are

 

[nbean16]

Definitely. And, I love it when they point to historical references from a time which most of them don't even believe exists.

Yeah this is just as dumb as assuming all people who dont fully subscribe to climate change are republicans. Not all republicans are religious. Most people dont fit into a neat little box one way or the other. Unfortunately politicians tend to pander to their far left or right base.

Can you show some of these people citing times they dont believe exist? It would be amusing

 

[byke]

You guys keep inferring "all" in an absolute sense from obvious generalizations, so we can be on "Team Silly" together.

 

[nbean16]

I didn't say anything about Limbaugh. I responded to your line "you must be a republican if you have anything to say about climate change"


Chances are, if you do, you are

When arguing with an individual person, what fucking difference does that makes? Pointless assumption. Like me saying most democrats believe in climate change because democrats believe anything the party says without researching it. Youre foolish if you think democrats havent politicized this issue as much as the right.

You dont seem to hate the religious. But chances are if you do, youre a democrat. So clearly youre a republican kev. Just kind of pointless to label things this way

 

[byke]

Dems absolutely have. And red loves the bible, blue doesn't. Blue loves the weed and baby killing, red doesn't. Red hates the Mexicans, blue doesn't. There's all sorts of common associations that are generally true. There wouldn't even be any parties if there weren't some very rough commonalities. It's silly for people to get all uppity and want to disprove something in entirety and pretend it's not true just because they don't fall into the common theme.

 

[nbean16]

You guys keep inferring "all" in an absolute sense from obvious generalizations, so we can be on "Team Silly" together.

When a group of people are debating a topic i just dont see much point in throwing in the generizations like they have some bearing.

 

[byke]

Okay, but this isn't debating the topic. When Coors and Pierre offer their knowledge and present data, that's when you debate. This banter we're doing here is the pro wrestling equivalent of debating.

 

[CoorsLight]

The consensus is probably more like 97%, but that really depends on how you want to measure it. It's kind of a bullshit number. There's a short list of earth scientists who are agnostic or opposed to the AGW hypothesis. Some are well known to be funded by energy companies, and speak at industrial and Heritage foundation-type meetings. It helps to look at who is funding the research. Overall I doubt that more than a handful of the dissenting scientists are on the take, but I haven't really looked at their granting agencies. FYI most of the grants in climate science come from NASA, DOE, NSF, EPA, and the Air Force. So when you see a grant from some foundation you've never heard of....

Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

PDF

That said, using the consensus as an argument for the existence of AGW is a form of ignoring the physical observations, just like the naysayers do. No need to lower yourself to that level if the data already show the skeptics wrong.

 

[Brokenlink]

Ok. You clearly didnt understand my post. Maybe if you tell your car windows up story for the tenth time we will all get it.

Well please do clarify your post, rather than just make a snide comment.

I stated that there are at least three scientists that have posted in this thread. All seem to be in agreement. If a scientist had data to prove otherwise, it would be looked at and peer reviewed, just like the thousands of other studies on this subject. But while we wait patiently for this mysterious scientist to show up with this data, perhaps we could read some of the thousands of peer-reviewed, published articles demonstrating that climate change is happening.

Or we could waste time blaming each other.

 

[tzrider]

Some are well known to be funded by energy companies, and speak at industrial and Heritage foundation-type meetings. It helps to look at who is funding the research. Overall I doubt that more than a handful of the dissenting scientists are on the take, but I haven't really looked at their granting agencies. FYI most of the grants in climate science come from NASA, DOE, NSF, EPA, and the Air Force. So when you see a grant from some foundation you've never heard of....

Do you have an opinion or interpretation of Henrik Svensmark and his theories?

 

[nbean16]

Well please do clarify your post, rather than just make a snide comment.

I stated that there are at least three scientists that have posted in this thread. All seem to be in agreement. If a scientist had data to prove otherwise, it would be looked at and peer reviewed, just like the thousands of other studies on this subject. But while we wait patiently for this mysterious scientist to show up with this data, perhaps we could read some of the thousands of peer-reviewed, published articles demonstrating that climate change is happening.

Or we could waste time blaming each other.

Most of your non mushroom based posts are snide as fuck. You get the same back.

You keep referring to these three scientists. Who are they? What are their qualifications? What is their background on climate based science? Do they have any published work? Coors has great info, but im supposed to just believe something cause 3 dudes came on barf and said they were scientists? What are you talking about?

 

[CoorsLight]

Do you have an opinion or interpretation of Henrik Svensmark and his theories?

I know who he is, but I have read exactly zero of his papers

 

[Pierre I am]

Most of your non mushroom based posts are snide as fuck. You get the same back.

You keep referring to these three scientists. Who are they? What are their qualifications? What is their background on climate based science? Do they have any published work? Coors has great info, but im supposed to just believe something cause 3 dudes came on barf and said they were scientists? What are you talking about?

I have a BS in Meteorologry with a concentration in climate science. Nobody cares what you truly think, you ignore half the answers we give you and then proceed to flame other posters.

You either believe in the science or you don't. Since you clearly don't you might as well start living in a cave with no materials that came from scientific research and engineering feats.

Btw I heard the flat earth society is trying to recruit people.

 

[CoorsLight]

You either believe in the science or you don't. Since you clearly don't...

I think most people have not ever been actually given the opportunity to look at the science themselves. So how can people make a conclusion for themselves?

Most of the information people get is from institutions that already have their conclusions drawn based on their own best interests. In that way, Al Gore's propaganda isn't really much different from that of the Koch Bros.

People don't even have the chance to believe in the science or not, because they never really are exposed to it.

Why not use this opportunity to critically discuss the components of warming and cooling, and encourage people to draw their own conclusions based on some slightly better information than the media offers?