Quote from: taxed on November 24, 2013, 09:38:07 PM
I know, you keep bringing up what others say I should think. 

Wrong.  These studies don't say "think this way because I say so", they present facts and evidence and make clear their methodologies so you can feel free to refute or critique their findings.  There's no coercion involved.

Your "think on my own" doublespeak is about as reasonable as refusing to believe in Einstein's theory of general relativity.  After all, no need to think what a German tells you to think, right?   

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 08:23:08 PM
The scientific community seems to think it's a bigger deal than you do.  Maybe it's because you have absolutely no context or measuring stick to conclude that 1.5 degrees is "small", aside from your own gut feeling?

Despite all the wrong predictions they've made, from melting Himalayas to rising sea levels, Hansen's prediction of peak ice loss in the Antarctica, hockey stick lie, or the devastation of the Emperor Penguin failed BS, do you, and yes, I'm asking you.
Do you honestly believe a 1.5 degree increase will amount to anything?
At what point does a person stop and ask, why did all the so called scientists lie, if what they were proposing was true?

Do failed predictions mean anything to you? Doesn't all the lying mean one thing, or the fact that using the UN, a political organization with an socialist agenda raise RED flags in your mind? (red as in commie Red)

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 09:39:48 PM
Wrong.  These studies don't say "think this way because I say so", they present facts and evidence and make clear their methodologies so you can feel free to refute or critique their findings.  There's no coercion involved.

Your "think on my own" doublespeak is about as reasonable as refusing to believe in Einstein's theory of general relativity.  After all, no need to think what a German tells you to think, right?   

You mean like the prediction of more and deadly hurricanes?

November 25, 2013
NOAA: Slow Atlantic hurricane season coming to a close
No major hurricanes formed in the Atlantic basin - first time since 1994

The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season, which officially ends on Saturday, Nov. 30, had the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982, thanks in large part to persistent, unfavorable atmospheric conditions over the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and tropical Atlantic Ocean. This year is expected to rank as the sixth-least-active Atlantic hurricane season since 1950, in terms of the collective strength and duration of named storms and hurricanes

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20131125_endofhurricaneseason.html

Quote from: Solar on November 26, 2013, 07:03:42 AM
You mean like the prediction of more and deadly hurricanes?

Notice how all of your studies are either disguised anecdotes (ie. no hurricanes at this particular body of water at this particular time) or political rather than scientific analysis of the issue.  At no point have you repudiated evidence obtained from isotropic analysis and satellite monitoring of the Earth's net energy absorption, nor have you addressed the simple algebra that reveals natural processes have not only decreased in CO2 emissions over the past century but are actively combating global warming, albeit not effectively, and that manmade fossil fuels are the only source of emissions that could account for the decreasing proportions of carbon-13 and carbon-14 in the atmosphere.  You cannot refute any of these pieces of evidence because there is nothing to refute them with; hence why, as I have outlined for you in the opening post, every scientific organization on Earth explicitly affirms the notion of manmade climate change.

You still do not understand how absurd and narcissistic you sound when you insist that you, who once claimed that "gases are not significantly affected by gravity", have figured something out the whole scientific community, academia, industrial and government alike, has missed.  Because apparently those with tens of thousands of hours of experience in their fields should defer to a message board owner who would fail a middle school physics exam.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 26, 2013, 12:39:32 PM
Notice how all of your studies are either disguised anecdotes (ie. no hurricanes at this particular body of water at this particular time) or political rather than scientific analysis of the issue.  At no point have you repudiated evidence obtained from isotropic analysis and satellite monitoring of the Earth's net energy absorption, nor have you addressed the simple algebra that reveals natural processes have not only decreased in CO2 emissions over the past century but are actively combating global warming, albeit not effectively, and that manmade fossil fuels are the only source of emissions that could account for the decreasing proportions of carbon-13 and carbon-14 in the atmosphere.  You cannot refute any of these pieces of evidence because there is nothing to refute them with; hence why, as I have outlined for you in the opening post, every scientific organization on Earth explicitly affirms the notion of manmade climate change.

You still do not understand how absurd and narcissistic you sound when you insist that you, who once claimed that "gases are not significantly affected by gravity", have figured something out the whole scientific community, academia, industrial and government alike, has missed.  Because apparently those with tens of thousands of hours of experience in their fields should defer to a message board owner who would fail a middle school physics exam.

So you're accusing NOAA.gov of bias?

Quote from: Solar on November 26, 2013, 12:52:22 PM
So you're accusing NOAA.gov of bias?

Where do I say that?  I don't think what I said means what you think it means, sweetie.

Oh, right, you're in way over your head on this issue and have absolutely no idea what we're talking about.  But you're the same person who thinks that "gases aren't significantly affected by gravity", so how the fuck do you expect to contradict literally every scientific organization on the planet?  Are NASA physicists just not getting it?

Here's part of a brilliant quote from Stephen Colbert:

"we would rather believe what feels true to us than what the facts would support"

I want to ask all of you which came first: "research" on global warming or your conclusion that it was a fabrication?  You realized that the scientific theory was ideologically inconvenient for you, that combating such a menace would require regulation of the free market and a concession that cooperative action sometimes takes precedence over individual economic liberty, and that big oil companies would have to curtail their free dominion over planet Earth.  And so you decided, and then you probably searched on google "evidence that global warming is a fraud" and, after skimming over the first yahoo news or heritage foundation article written by a community college journalist, validated your beliefs and concluded that the scientists with tens of thousands of work and academic experience must be mistaken, or lying.

The laws of physics are not political.  The laws of physics do not bend to your gut feeling or to your ideological bend.  2012's elections were the perfect example of conservatives' trying to play God with even mathematics under the delusional belief that reality can be constructed with think tanks and traditional family values. 

Wanting us to be burning up and under water doesn't really matter.  We have facts, science, and reality on our side.  You don't.  Stay in academia where you can be nice and safe.

Quote from: taxed on December 03, 2013, 09:16:57 PM
We have facts, science, and reality on our side. 

Then why so few scientists?  Why less than 3%?

And when will you realize that science is not based on intuition?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on December 05, 2013, 07:12:28 PM
Then why so few scientists?  Why less than 3%?

That's you who believes that.  Like most idiots, you think others buy into your own idiocy.

Quote
And when will you realize that science is not based on intuition?

I know when something is a fallacy and a scam.  My intellect isn't bound by academia.

Quote from: taxed on December 05, 2013, 07:24:03 PM
That's you who believes that.  Like most idiots, you think others buy into your own idiocy.

Then where are the scientific organizations who don't agree with my statement?

Name one.

Quote
I know when something is a fallacy and a scam.  My intellect isn't bound by academia.

Science is not the same as running a business, taxed.  Science is academia.  Newton did not derive his laws of motion by feeling with his gut - indeed his groundbreaking discoveries were derided by ignoramuses such as yourself for being counterintuitive and contrary to their "intuition".

So, try again.  Give actual scientific evidence beyond "I just know, with a total lack of any experience in the field".

The scientific community, while delivering wonders in our time, is nevertheless susceptible to superstitious and hysterical beliefs. Global climate change is a real phenomenon, but it is nowhere near the severity that is reported, and anthropogenic warming is still hotly debated.

At least three times in the last 400,000 years it was actually warmer than it is today, and the dinosaurs had it much much hotter.

Quote from: Montesquieu on December 12, 2013, 11:19:08 PM
The scientific community, while delivering wonders in our time, is nevertheless susceptible to superstitious and hysterical beliefs. Global climate change is a real phenomenon, but it is nowhere near the severity that is reported, and anthropogenic warming is still hotly debated.

At least three times in the last 400,000 years it was actually warmer than it is today, and the dinosaurs had it much much hotter.

It's not superstition and it's not hysteria. It is power politics, plain and simple, and that's all it's ever been.

Quote from: TboneAgain on December 13, 2013, 09:00:12 AM
It's not superstition and it's not hysteria. It is power politics, plain and simple, and that's all it's ever been.

To the leftist. It's a religion.
I find it funny, libs love to destroy religion, yet they willingly put themselves in 3rd place, Gaia 2nd, and govt 1st.
Do these piss-ants not worship strange Gods?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 07:42:40 PM
That's a retarded question.  The temperature at what time?  Where?  Did you know that temperature varies from place to place?   

But go ahead and continue to think that your "common sense" questions refute scientific data.  There's a reason why you've never gotten any of your anti-global warming stances published in a peer reviewed journal, you know diddly squat and think you can act on your "gut feelings" or whatever sentimental feelings you think the laws of physics act on.

Here is the problem with your pro-progressive, liberal argument.
Take for instance the liberal, anthropomorphic global warming nuts who scream about cars and their pollution.

Yet one, one active volcano, emits more pollutants into the ecosystem of the Earth, than all the cars on Earth combined.

Not a theory, FACT.

We know, for a scientific fact, that the Earth was much, much warmer at times in it's history, than it is now today.

We know for a fact, that the planet was so warm in fact, there were forests growing at the south pole.

We know for a fact, that the planet was so warm, there were Dinosaurs living in what we would call the arctic regions of the planet today.

And lastly we know for a fact, that there weren't any men, and man made factories to make the planet warmer then too.

So we can clearly, and easily deduce that the planet warms and cools on it's own.

There is no doubt about that. Indeed no one questions that fact.

What is in question however is the impact human activity makes on that natural warming and cooling cycle.

If one volcano puts that much "pollution" into the biosphere, and for a fact there are several active Volcano's at any given time on this planet.

It's pretty clear then that the Earth's biosphere is not so delicate that it cannot easily handle what we are doing driving our cars down the road.

Yet here come the liberal hippy nuts, telling us "oh no, drive your car to the store and your killing the planet!"

Which is laughable.

Why is it laughable to say man is killing the Earth?

Because while we may lose the race called evolution, while our species might reach it's end.

Just as we can see in the fossil record, the planet will still be here, life will still be here no matter what we as a species may or may not do.

Funny how even a brief look at the fossil record destroys the liberal anthropomorphic global warming argument.