Nobody is saying man has played absolutely zero role in climate change either. That is why his offer is so ridiculously stupid.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
Your analogy is makes no sense, but that is expected. We do have a good indication of what climate was like prior to 'recorded history' and the fearmongers making the spin/headlines purposely ignore it.
(HULK)
(Smash)
I don't know why I keep opening this thread.
From my perspective, the following is absolutely clear:
-We really don't know enough about the warming and cooling of the planet to make accurate predictions
-We really cannot properly gauge man's impact on warming
-We really do know that man does have some impact
-We really do not know if a warmer planet is a bad thing... it might be good
In summary:
-People denying man's impact on the environment are idiots
-People suggesting broad sweeping policies with a pro-environment agenda are idiots
-Pretty much everyone is an idiot
-We need further study, and that study needs to be in a vacuum, away from political fallout
From my perspective, the following is absolutely clear:
-We really don't know enough about the warming and cooling of the planet to make accurate predictions
-We really cannot properly gauge man's impact on warming
-We really do know that man does have some impact
-We really do not know if a warmer planet is a bad thing... it might be good
In summary:
-People denying man's impact on the environment are idiots
-People suggesting broad sweeping policies with a pro-environment agenda are idiots
-Pretty much everyone is an idiot
-We need further study, and that study needs to be in a vacuum, away from political fallout
joffer
Footballguy
There is nothing in your perspective that I disagree with, except I think there are some bad things we know will happen with a warmer planet but the horrors are exagerated. You are showing Tim-like ability to make broad sweeping statements about other's.
(HULK)
(Smash)
I'm sure coastal flooding would be a problem... maybe an increase in certain tropical disease, etc. But there could be more benefits that offset that. Things like increased crop yeilds may actually make some warming a net benefit. Bottom line is we're ignorant as to wether or not it would be overall better or worse than our current situation.
One thing I'm certain of, another ice age would be much worse for humanity than getting 5 degrees warmer would.
The_Man
Footballguy
Oh, hey, Bjorn Lomborg is being funded by the Koch Bros.
How I admire those plucky billionaires for standing up to the evil and all-powerful climate scientists.
I'm of the mindset that I'd rather have the planet a little warmer than colder, and from a historical perspective, the planet emerged from an ice age as recently as 10,000 years ago (I may have stated this earlier in the thread, but don't feel like looking), so it's not at all unusual that the planet would be warming up. I also read that the other planets in our solar system are warming up as well, and surely we cannot be responsible for that. Except maybe for Uranus.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
the day after tomorrowThis is pretty scary stuff. If this trend continues the entire earth will be covered in ice.....thanks a lot global warming!
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Pfft. You actually trust these scientists?
This is pretty scary stuff. If this trend continues the entire earth will be covered in ice.....thanks a lot global warming!
I trust science completely. What I don't trust are models which admittedly contains more assumptions than fact, are politically driven, and have been wrong 100 percent of the time. Real science would admit the models are crap in their present form and need lots of work instead of trying to drive social/economic policy based on such rubbish.Pfft. You actually trust these scientists?
This is pretty scary stuff. If this trend continues the entire earth will be covered in ice.....thanks a lot global warming!
Fennis
Footballguy
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htmI trust science completely. What I don't trust are models which admittedly contains more assumptions than fact, are politically driven, and have been wrong 100 percent of the time. Real science would admit the models are crap in their present form and need lots of work instead of trying to drive social/economic policy based on such rubbish.Pfft. You actually trust these scientists?This is pretty scary stuff. If this trend continues the entire earth will be covered in ice.....thanks a lot global warming!
timschochet
Footballguy
Very informative, thanks. Completely refutes the point Jon was trying to make. Thoughts, Jon?http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htmI trust science completely. What I don't trust are models which admittedly contains more assumptions than fact, are politically driven, and have been wrong 100 percent of the time. Real science would admit the models are crap in their present form and need lots of work instead of trying to drive social/economic policy based on such rubbish.Pfft. You actually trust these scientists?This is pretty scary stuff. If this trend continues the entire earth will be covered in ice.....thanks a lot global warming!
So they don't understand it, but the science is settled and only kooks would question our numerous inaccuracies. Let's tax Americans!http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htmI trust science completely. What I don't trust are models which admittedly contains more assumptions than fact, are politically driven, and have been wrong 100 percent of the time. Real science would admit the models are crap in their present form and need lots of work instead of trying to drive social/economic policy based on such rubbish.Pfft. You actually trust these scientists?This is pretty scary stuff. If this trend continues the entire earth will be covered in ice.....thanks a lot global warming!
Tim, explain what it refutes. The models do not show what is happening. My beef is with those who claim the models are gospel and use blantantly inaccurate models to try to force terrible political solutions down our throats. As usual, you pipe in without any understanding of the arguments or facts and act like everyone else is stupid. You are such an elitist pompous pig who wallows in ignorance.Very informative, thanks. Completely refutes the point Jon was trying to make. Thoughts, Jon?http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htmI trust science completely. What I don't trust are models which admittedly contains more assumptions than fact, are politically driven, and have been wrong 100 percent of the time. Real science would admit the models are crap in their present form and need lots of work instead of trying to drive social/economic policy based on such rubbish.Pfft. You actually trust these scientists?This is pretty scary stuff. If this trend continues the entire earth will be covered in ice.....thanks a lot global warming!
Last edited by a moderator:
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Tim, explain what it refutes. The models do not show what is happening. My beef is with those who claim the models are gospel and use blantantly inaccurate models to try to force terrible political solutions down our throats. As usual, you pipe in without any understanding of the arguments or facts and act like everyone else is stupid. You are such an elitist pompous pig who wallows in ignorance.Very informative, thanks. Completely refutes the point Jon was trying to make. Thoughts, Jon?http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htmI trust science completely. What I don't trust are models which admittedly contains more assumptions than fact, are politically driven, and have been wrong 100 percent of the time. Real science would admit the models are crap in their present form and need lots of work instead of trying to drive social/economic policy based on such rubbish.Pfft. You actually trust these scientists?This is pretty scary stuff. If this trend continues the entire earth will be covered in ice.....thanks a lot global warming!
What models are you talking about? And what people here are supposedly taking these models as "gospel truth"?
And FYI, that article completely destroys your "expanding sea ice" argument whether you choose to admit it or not.
Maelstrom
Footballguy
The funny thing about science is that, it will get it right. I trust the scientific method. I don't trust news articles or abstracts written about papers, heck I don't even always trust papers depending on where they were published and how reputable the sources are. But I trust that the scientific method, and the vast majority of scientists practicing it, and it says that both the earth is warming and that the cause is very likely man made. Not models. Not a single guy or gal here or there. The overwhelming majority. So you can pull out your scandal here or your unreputable source there, but in the end, science will get it right.
Now, that doesn't mean I approve of some wham-bam political "fix", the politicians rarely get the science part or the resolution correct. I think we need to do something, but it needs to be the right thing. So the deniers need to stop denying the science, and start helping to find the right solution that works both for the earth and for politics.
Now, that doesn't mean I approve of some wham-bam political "fix", the politicians rarely get the science part or the resolution correct. I think we need to do something, but it needs to be the right thing. So the deniers need to stop denying the science, and start helping to find the right solution that works both for the earth and for politics.
My 'argument' was a facetious statement. I was mocking the type of ridiculous extrapolations that are made by the fear-mongers. HTHTim, explain what it refutes. The models do not show what is happening. My beef is with those who claim the models are gospel and use blantantly inaccurate models to try to force terrible political solutions down our throats. As usual, you pipe in without any understanding of the arguments or facts and act like everyone else is stupid. You are such an elitist pompous pig who wallows in ignorance.Very informative, thanks. Completely refutes the point Jon was trying to make. Thoughts, Jon?http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htmI trust science completely. What I don't trust are models which admittedly contains more assumptions than fact, are politically driven, and have been wrong 100 percent of the time. Real science would admit the models are crap in their present form and need lots of work instead of trying to drive social/economic policy based on such rubbish.Pfft. You actually trust these scientists?This is pretty scary stuff. If this trend continues the entire earth will be covered in ice.....thanks a lot global warming!
And FYI, that article completely destroys your "expanding sea ice" argument whether you choose to admit it or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Wow, we're quite insulting today aren't we Jon?
If you read that article, they offer 3 different possibilities for the increase in land ice. What they don't consider is that it proves GW isn't happening. Why don't they consider that? Because there is so much evidence for GW that only a moron or someone who wished to be deceived would take this one question and attempt to use it to contradict everything else we know. Since I don't regard you as a moron, I can only assume you are one of those who want to be deceived.
You don't like the implications of man made global warming. FWIW, I don't like them either- who does? But the difference between you and I is that because you dont want to accept anything that might justify more government intrusion upon industry, you actively look for flaws in the science, and jump in every time you think you find one. Whereas I look at all of these brilliant people who are much smarter than I will ever be, and I assume they are devoted to the truth because that's what science is all about. And I accept what they tell me, even though I don't like it.
If you read that article, they offer 3 different possibilities for the increase in land ice. What they don't consider is that it proves GW isn't happening. Why don't they consider that? Because there is so much evidence for GW that only a moron or someone who wished to be deceived would take this one question and attempt to use it to contradict everything else we know. Since I don't regard you as a moron, I can only assume you are one of those who want to be deceived.
You don't like the implications of man made global warming. FWIW, I don't like them either- who does? But the difference between you and I is that because you dont want to accept anything that might justify more government intrusion upon industry, you actively look for flaws in the science, and jump in every time you think you find one. Whereas I look at all of these brilliant people who are much smarter than I will ever be, and I assume they are devoted to the truth because that's what science is all about. And I accept what they tell me, even though I don't like it.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Tim - it's this type of blind obedience that causes the events in Snowpiercer.
If you don't want to end up in a bullet train (after most of humanity is killed off) that perpetually circles the earth you might want to start questioning some of the science.
####### scientists. Always thinking they got the answer.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I dunno Max. You guys who doubt man made climate change (mostly conservative) are like the guy who gets told by a doctor that he has cancer, so he goes to another doctor, and another, and another, until finally he finds somebody who tells him he doesn't have it.
Tim....you have a serious issue with lumping people in with the extremes and completely mischaracterizing the arguements to belittle others. It is very annoying.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't think I mischarcterized you at all. For instance, I didnt call you an elitist or a pig or anything.
Last edited by a moderator:
That would be all of the models. Everyone of them grossly overstate the warming we have observed.Tim, explain what it refutes. The models do not show what is happening. My beef is with those who claim the models are gospel and use blantantly inaccurate models to try to force terrible political solutions down our throats. As usual, you pipe in without any understanding of the arguments or facts and act like everyone else is stupid. You are such an elitist pompous pig who wallows in ignorance.Very informative, thanks. Completely refutes the point Jon was trying to make. Thoughts, Jon?http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htmI trust science completely. What I don't trust are models which admittedly contains more assumptions than fact, are politically driven, and have been wrong 100 percent of the time. Real science would admit the models are crap in their present form and need lots of work instead of trying to drive social/economic policy based on such rubbish.Pfft. You actually trust these scientists?This is pretty scary stuff. If this trend continues the entire earth will be covered in ice.....thanks a lot global warming!
And FYI, that article completely destroys your "expanding sea ice" argument whether you choose to admit it or not.
You absolutely mischaracterize arguements. Most people on this thread are not denying that the earth has been warming the last 150 years or that man has played some role. What we are critical of is asine statements such as the science is settled when there is by far more we don't know than do know.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
You've got my position all wrong. I doubt the extent of man-made climate change.
You guys who believe in man-made climate change are more than willing to hamstring America by taxing us all into oblivion. And at the same time turn your cheek to the rest of the world who's going to do business as usual. Did I sum up your position right? Or did I get it wrong like you got mine?
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
It's just a slippery way of saying the same thing. Oh yeah, man made global warming is happening, but I am skeptical of how much and how much man has to do with it yada yada.
Still seems correct to characterize you as a denier lIMO.
Still seems correct to characterize you as a denier lIMO.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Slippery slope? How am I using slippery slope?The old slippery slope argument to justify a wrong point.timschochet said:
. Oh you said slippery way. I am not sure how you can say that those who deny the earth is warming and any involvement from man is the exact same thing as those who say the earth has warmed and man bares some responsibility. There is nothing even remotely similar in those two statements.Slippery slope? How am I using slippery slope?The old slippery slope argument to justify a wrong point.timschochet said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Of course you are sure how I can say it. You're just pretending not to be. Just as you're pretending that somehow you're in the "middle" on this. I have not seen you once in this thread attack those who don't believe GW is happening. You save all of your criticism for the other side. It is pretty obvious which side you're on..Oh you said slippery way. I am not sure how you can say that those who deny the earth is warming and any involvement from man is the exact same thing as those who say the earth has warmed and man bares some responsibility. There is nothing even remotely similar in those two statements.Slippery slope? How am I using slippery slope?The old slippery slope argument to justify a wrong point.timschochet said:
By that logic, you are the biggest Obama supporter on this forum.Of course you are sure how I can say it. You're just pretending not to be. Just as you're pretending that somehow you're in the "middle" on this. I have not seen you once in this thread attack those who don't believe GW is happening. You save all of your criticism for the other side. It is pretty obvious which side you're on..Oh you said slippery way. I am not sure how you can say that those who deny the earth is warming and any involvement from man is the exact same thing as those who say the earth has warmed and man bares some responsibility. There is nothing even remotely similar in those two statements.Slippery slope? How am I using slippery slope?The old slippery slope argument to justify a wrong point.timschochet said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Only yesterday, I listed 12 things that I really disliked about Obama. Have you EVER criticized a GW denier? Never mind, I didn't think so.By that logic, you are the biggest Obama supporter on this forum.Of course you are sure how I can say it. You're just pretending not to be. Just as you're pretending that somehow you're in the "middle" on this. I have not seen you once in this thread attack those who don't believe GW is happening. You save all of your criticism for the other side. It is pretty obvious which side you're on..Oh you said slippery way. I am not sure how you can say that those who deny the earth is warming and any involvement from man is the exact same thing as those who say the earth has warmed and man bares some responsibility. There is nothing even remotely similar in those two statements.Slippery slope? How am I using slippery slope?The old slippery slope argument to justify a wrong point.timschochet said:
Your logic concerned who you criticize. You constantly criticize Obama's critics, but never his supporters. I could also list points I made against what anti-global warming extremists have said. I don't think there have been too many in here except MC milk money who would be a waste of breath.Only yesterday, I listed 12 things that I really disliked about Obama. Have you EVER criticized a GW denier? Never mind, I didn't think so.By that logic, you are the biggest Obama supporter on this forum.Of course you are sure how I can say it. You're just pretending not to be. Just as you're pretending that somehow you're in the "middle" on this. I have not seen you once in this thread attack those who don't believe GW is happening. You save all of your criticism for the other side. It is pretty obvious which side you're on..Oh you said slippery way. I am not sure how you can say that those who deny the earth is warming and any involvement from man is the exact same thing as those who say the earth has warmed and man bares some responsibility. There is nothing even remotely similar in those two statements.Slippery slope? How am I using slippery slope?The old slippery slope argument to justify a wrong point.timschochet said:
Rove!
Footballguy
good news on the El-Nino front
http://news.yahoo.com/peru-says-el-nino-threat-over-waters-cooling-232314417.html
http://news.yahoo.com/peru-says-el-nino-threat-over-waters-cooling-232314417.html
timschochet
Footballguy
It would be a reasoned argument if those of you who make it spent the same amount of time attacking GW deniers as you do attacking what you term to be alarmists. Then I'd truly believe you were actually carving a middle ground. But you don't. Every one of you who makes this argument spend all of your time attacking only those who are concerned about GW- because your goal is exactly the same as the rest of the deniers; to prevent any government attempt to deal with this issue.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
It's because we are wasting billions and billions of dollars fighting something we're not sure exists and creating solutions we're not sure will work. That's why we're attacking alarmists.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Josie Maran
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Iron Sheik adds another dimension to the discussion:
1. There are those who don't believe global warming exists.
2. There are those who don't believe man made global warming exists.
3. There are those who believe that man made global warming exists, but not enough to make a difference.
4. There are those who believe that man made global warming exists, but it's not a bad thing.
And so on. Is it wrong for me to group all of these together? They're all similar in that they (1) want no action taken (2) apparently believe that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are deliberately lying, just plain wrong, politically motivated, or all 3.
1. There are those who don't believe global warming exists.
2. There are those who don't believe man made global warming exists.
3. There are those who believe that man made global warming exists, but not enough to make a difference.
4. There are those who believe that man made global warming exists, but it's not a bad thing.
And so on. Is it wrong for me to group all of these together? They're all similar in that they (1) want no action taken (2) apparently believe that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are deliberately lying, just plain wrong, politically motivated, or all 3.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
Group us all together as what? If you want to put me in the category that MMGW hasn't been proved yet, that's fine with me.
I'm convinced that any scientist who states that he/she knows exactly what portion of global warming is caused by man is lying. Fair enough?
The vast majority of scientist do quality work and are very honest. Those in the IPCC are very much political animals. I am not sure why you insist on grouping everyone's views into nice little buckets. It appears you do so because you think you can do your little guilt by association and dismiss all facts which disagree with your world view.
Last edited by a moderator:
