Where is good ole Al Gore

[Dan_Ashley]

At one time there was "Overwhelming" evidence that the world was flat, that the 'Recapitulation' theory was true and that Finches on the Galapagos islands were evidence of evolution.

It seems more likely that what is 'Overwhelming' about this whole debate is the manipulation of the data to fit the intended outcome.

The hoops that people jumped through to sustain the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe was significant. To get the theory to match the data they used "epicycles" (Google that). Then they used epicycles within epicycles. The theory matched the data--but, wow, what a complexity!

People also used a lot of effort to explain how "miasma" (Google that) causes disease. Once the germ theory was popularized, a lot of lives were saved.

in the 1980's a lot of people were afraid of "gay man's disease." A lot of effort went into protecting people from that. It was eventually ascertained that AIDS was not a "gay man's disease," but a virus.

The statistical methods used by the climatologists is just plain wrong. I have the credentials to say that.

This is does not mean the climate is not changing--it means we simply don't know what is going on--and in my opinion, we will not know unless researchers are allowed to practice their craft without political influence.

 

[BajaRon]

The hoops that people jumped through to sustain the belief that the Earth was the center of the universe was significant. To get the theory to match the data they used "epicycles" (Google that). Then they used epicycles within epicycles. The theory matched the data--but, wow, what a complexity!

People also used a lot of effort to explain how "miasma" (Google that) causes disease. Once the germ theory was popularized, a lot of lives were saved.

in the 1980's a lot of people were afraid of "gay man's disease." A lot of effort went into protecting people from that. It was eventually ascertained that AIDS was not a "gay man's disease," but a virus.

The statistical methods used by the climatologists is just plain wrong. I have the credentials to say that.

This is does not mean the climate is not changing--it means we simply don't know what is going on--and in my opinion, we will not know unless researchers are allowed to practice their craft without political influence.

There are, of course, endless examples of 'Overwhelming' evidence in our history. In many cases the facts finally won out and the original contrivances seem ridiculous to us now.

There are really 2 main issues in this debate. But many do not separate them and I think this leads to much of the controversy.

1- Climate Change. I don't know how anyone could argue this point as the climate has been changing since the dawn of time. I would agree that this is pretty much a settled fact.

2- Man is the cause for climate change. This is where all the manipulation and politics (read - Struggle for Power) comes in.

Since it is clear that our world has been both hotter (fossils of Alligators in Tennessee), and colder (evidence of glacier activity in Tennessee). Both occurring long before man's industrialization. It has to make a thinking person at least stop and ponder if we are not again using flat earth science here.

 

[DragonSpyder]

Lot's of evidence for Climate Change! Can't seem to find any evidence that says it is NOT occurring!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/glob...d-impacts/global-warming-science#.VPSK5ELuf8s

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Lot's of evidence for Climate Change! Can't seem to find any evidence that says it is NOT occurring!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/glob...d-impacts/global-warming-science#.VPSK5ELuf8s

There's no argument climate change is occurring. What IS in dispute is the existence and validity of hard long term scientific data proving to what extent humans are responsible for causing it. Keep in mind we have temperature data for about, what, 150 to 200 years? That's less than one millionth of one tick of the clock in the timeline of earth's existence. Correlation does not equate to causation!

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

If Al Gore lived in Boise he'd have the evidence he needs to argue his point! Boise just had the warmest February in recorded history!

 

[BajaRon]

There's no argument climate change is occurring. What IS in dispute is the existence and validity of hard long term scientific data proving to what extent humans are responsible for causing it. Keep in mind we have temperature data for about, what, 150 to 200 years? That's less than one millionth of one tick of the clock in the timeline of earth's existence. Correlation does not equate to causation!

Exactly... (Though I would disagree with one assumption. But it is not pertinent to the discussion) :thumbup:

 

[Dan_Ashley]

The Sea Ice Did Te Exact Opposite of What the Models Predicted

Lot's of evidence for Climate Change! Can't seem to find any evidence that says it is NOT occurring!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/glob...d-impacts/global-warming-science#.VPSK5ELuf8s

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/02/antarctic-sea-ice-did-the-exact-opposite-of-what-models-predicted/

Clearly that is not evidence of climate change being caused by man. It is also not evidence that climate change is not caused by man.

It IS evidence that the science is not settled. In other words, we do not understand long term climate change.

did you know that termites create more green house gasses than all of man's activities combine Do? ( No, not one termite, but all of them from all over the world.)

 

[Dan_Ashley]

-it means we simply don't know what is going on--and in my opinion, we will not know unless researchers are allowed to practice their craft without political influence.

This is the kind of thing I was referring to. Shades of the Catholic Curch in the Middle Ages. http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/21469/

 

[DragonSpyder]

There's no argument climate change is occurring. What IS in dispute is the existence and validity of hard long term scientific data proving to what extent humans are responsible for causing it. Keep in mind we have temperature data for about, what, 150 to 200 years? That's less than one millionth of one tick of the clock in the timeline of earth's existence. Correlation does not equate to causation!

The problem is the people that are disputing the data have no expertise on the subject. The ones that do have expertise and dispute the scientific consensus are few and far between.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

The problem is the people that are disputing the data have no expertise on the subject. The ones that do have expertise and dispute the scientific consensus are few and far between.

Even if we do not dispute the data, all the data shows is that as man's activities have increased the climate has been warming up. That correlation does not make it a hard fact that man caused the warming. In fact, to my way of thinking it very well may be just the opposite. The natural warming cycle of the earth has allowed humans to live, multiply, and prosper. If we still had the ice age conditions of 50,000 years ago we very well may have had only 1%, 2%, or 5% as much population today.

So, instead of man being the cause of global warming, maybe global warming is the cause behind population growth. And population growth is what has allowed industrial development to occur.

 

[ARtraveler]

Just a question to add a bit of levity to the difficult subject at hand.

Do my four hour per week accounting lectures add to the problem? :dontknow: :bowdown:

 

[xinu]

Climate change (used to be global warming) is now all about business and politics.

One super volcano's eruption would do more to change the earths climate than man made carbon emissions could ever achieve.
Scientists are not rallying to develop preventive measures because they naturally occur and can't be linked to humans therefore no money to be made.

 

[Dan_Ashley]

Do my four hour per week accounting lectures add to the problem? :dontknow: :bowdown:

Accounting just proves the debits to the assets of the Earth.....that didn't come out right. How's this: Accounting records the deficits we create in Mother Earth's P&L....hmmm...that wasn't so good earthier....this is better:
CPA=Can't Possibly Add.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

This graph for the past 70 years looks frightening! It's from here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_monthly_temperature_record.png

But, when you look at what has happened over the past 540 million years where are we really, in a typical cycle? From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
When you see how flat the graph is for the past 10 thousand years one could argue that we are due for a serious temp swing, human caused or not.

 

[brerrabbit]

I got an idea...

In the 70's we had global cooling, we are supposed to be in an ice age by now. BUT, we changed our hair spray propellant and air conditioner fluid and now 40 years later we are going the other way. Man did we screw it up but it's not too late to put some fluorides back in the can.

Now I'm going to go eat some eggs with salt on them. I forget. Where does beef stand this week? I may have wait on the steak with my eggs.

 

[dndfindley]

Here's my theory. The climate is changing. Man is a major factor in causing that change. In 50,000 years we will have damaged the earth to the point it won't support humankind any more and all humanity dies off. Everything lies quiescent for 1 billion years while Mother Nature restores earth to its once pristine condition. Then slowly, inexorably, humans begin to evolve again. And the cycle begins again. After about another 1 million years humanity will again die off due to its destruction of the earth. But has man really destroyed the earth? No, he has simply rearranged it to the point Mother once again gets PO'd, says enough is enough, and pushes the reset button. And the cycle repeats.

I don't know why we get so all fired uptight about the environment. After all we aren't getting out of here alive and in the end Mother Nature will win anyway. The best we can hope for is to delay the ultimate demise of humanity by what, 5000 years!

LET THE UPROAR BEGIN!!!!

How vain to think that man can change the climate.

 

[dndfindley]

Um. Dan.... We actually know about all the things you're mentioning...and the evidence is overwhelming that climate change is happening and man is responsible for much of it.
WasWinger... Do you have kids?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you worship mother earth?

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

In the 70's we had global cooling, we are supposed to be in an ice age by now. BUT, we changed our hair spray propellant and air conditioner fluid and now 40 years later we are going the other way. Man did we screw it up but it's not too late to put some fluorides back in the can.

Now I'm going to go eat some eggs with salt on them. I forget. Where does beef stand this week? I may have wait on the steak with my eggs.

:roflblack: :roflblack: :roflblack: :roflblack: :roflblack: :roflblack: :roflblack: :roflblack: :roflblack:

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Do you worship mother earth?

I don't, but I do make an effort to worship its Creator! ray: The earth is a marvelous wonder, as is the entire universe!

This subject is getting old. Let's start arguing about it all came about in the first place! Oh, on second thought we can't do that. There was no first place!