This Is What Happens When You Elect Climate Change Deniers

originally posted by: Sremmos80

Guys, there is no money to be made by anyone to keep things the way they are, duh.

That is one of the main reasons why people want to deny this right?
Because the other side, climate change, just wants to make money off us all.

This attitude is dangerously close to "the ends justify the means" and "it's for your own good".

originally posted by: Nucleardoom
a reply to: ketsuko

The only place that was cold, was the east coast.

I'm sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. "Polar vortex" was a term I heard more than once last winter to describe the bone numbing cold we had at times in Wisconsin. It may have not been our coldest or snowiest winter by any means, but to say it wasn't cold here during the winter is just plain false.

Yeah. It was cold here in Korea. Not anywhere near as cold as I've seen it ... but we definitely had a winter.

Thing is, it went on forever. It's just now become pleasant enough for short sleeves.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate
I don't think you understand how science truly works.
Good scientists will rarely if ever claim to have proved anything. Those papers are just evidence that points to the apparent reality that man is indeed contributing to the changing climate and other environmental disasters.
What evidence that suggests we are NOT has the side who opposes the theory of human induced climate change?

The proof of science is in prediction and usage.

AGW has neither predicted or made anything useful.

AGW has no scientific certainty, only scientific possibility.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You do realize as a result of big oil's lobbying efforts, they effectively get billions in tax subsidies.

Smoke and mirrors, who are we to believe?

a reply to: Semicollegiate
What do you mean by AGW? That is one acronym I avoid because it can have a dual meaning.

Are you seriously going to ignore what the overwhelming majority of the scientists are telling us?

It is obvious you are not a scientist. Your responses consist of attempting to debunk the weaker arguments of climate change instead if bringing evidence to the discussion, or as some would say turn the discussion into a strawman circle jerk.

That is not exactly an honest way to approach a scientific discussion.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I don't care about al gore, he is not the end all say all figure in this matter.

Nope, he's just the guy who got the money rolling in.

Do you think maybe, just maybe, if they really cared about the planet they could do the research with less money? How about they get paid less and then see if they come up with the same results.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate
What do you mean by AGW? That is one acronym I avoid because it can have a dual meaning.

Are you seriously going to ignore what the overwhelming majority of the scientists are telling us?

It is obvious you are not a scientist. Your responses consist of attempting to debunk the weaker arguments of climate change instead if bringing evidence to the discussion, or as some would say turn the discussion into a strawman circle jerk.

That is not exactly an honest way to approach a scientific discussion.

AGW has no strong arguments, just association, allusion, belief and a little bit of theory.

If AGW was real, there would be 100% prediction of all weather. How else can a claim of detection from a deviation of the normal be possible?

So what is the normal climate future?

a reply to: WarminIndy
I remember we had talk of global warming in the late 80's, early 90's we had some talk about global warming. That was before most had heard of Al gore and well before his documentary.
Congratulations for using Al Gore as a strawman. He seems to be everyone's favorite straw man in these discussions.

a reply to: Semicollegiate
So you cannot even define the acronym AGW? Edit. Nice use of google.


It could mean anti global warming too. At least now we are clear on the definition.

I see you like to impossible questions..again another dishonest debate tactic.

a reply to: jrod

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the only one I have ever read or heard.

If there is another, it must be due to AGW obfuscation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just to give you a clue about why they aren't giving proper scientific data....

History of weather balloons. Since the early 1800s..that means 200 years ago

Surprisingly, with all of today's advanced technology, weather balloons are very similar to those that first lifted off the ground and they still gather the weather data we depend on daily

EVEN with today's expensive technology and money rolling in to research, weather balloons ARE STILL as effective. So what happened?

NOAA on weather balloons

The 1930's through the 1950's The inability of kite and aircraft meteorographs to achieve high altitudes, operate in all weather, and provide data in real-time helped foster the development for the radio transmission of upper-air data. In the late 1920's, scientists began suspending crude radio transmitters from free balloons and by the early 1930's the first radio-meteorographs or "radiosondes" were being flown into the stratosphere. In 1937 the Weather Bureau established a network of radiosonde stations that has continued to the present day. Click here to see maps of current radiosonde station locations in the United States.

Hold a second, the weather balloons are as effective as all the technology and yet they need more money for more research while they release weather balloons twice a day to gather THE SAME information?

But here is what it was like more than 30 years ago that I remember.

1974, super outbreak of tornadoes in Ohio and Alabama.

1975, winter with snow from October to March.

1976-1978- blizzards every year, culminating in 1978. Winter temps very cold.

1979-1980 - two winters in a row with windchill factors -70 f.

1981- warm winter almost 70 degrees at times.

1982-1985 typical winters.

1985-1987- winters of days very cold, nights moderately warmer with temps in 70s at times.

1994- harsh winter of -30 f. most days.

1998- 1999 - blizzard, ice, blizzard, ice. Both winters with much snow and cold.

2002 - North Carolina hit with ice storm that cripples the state.

In all of those years, in 1993 it snowed in May in Kentucky.

1978, spring temps were never above 50.

From 1968-1985, summers had constant rain, that either fell all day or all night. Heat lightning was very common in the summer.

But if you want to go back further, there were droughts, hurricanes and other weather patterns that came and went. We are just in a time now that was like the mid 1970s.

And my experience isn't even the worst, our parents had more snow than we did. They are quick to talk about it.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate
So you cannot even define the acronym AGW?

You are attacking a phrase that you do not even know the meaning of.

Ultimately, it is the nature of the proposed mitigation that lacks justification if we ignore the validity of the argument and accept it at face value, evidentiarily unchallenged.

An Economist's View of the Kyoto Climate Treaty

Pushing abatement too soon raises costs dramatically but increases the benefits only slightly. Environmental programs to protect the globe against climate change must be patient and spend resources where they will do the most good.

a reply to: greencmp
Way to miss quote me after my edit.

a reply to: greencmp
Way to mis quote me there.

So destroying the planet so we can continue to pump CO2 and other stuff in the atmosphere in the name of cheap energy is the best as approach?

We have alternative solutions today.

a reply to: jrod

Sorry, I hate that too. I spent a little too much time forming my post and didn't think to check.

I was under the impression that AGW does indeed mean anthropogenic global warming, in other words, human-caused.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: WarminIndy
I remember we had talk of global warming in the late 80's, early 90's we had some talk about global warming. That was before most had heard of Al gore and well before his documentary.
Congratulations for using Al Gore as a strawman. He seems to be everyone's favorite straw man in these discussions.

Did I even mention his documentary?

Nope, I said he was the guy who got the money rolling in. You strawmanned, because I said nothing about the documentary.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: greencmp
Way to mis quote me there.

So destroying the planet so we can continue to pump CO2 and other stuff in the atmosphere in the name of cheap energy is the best as approach?

We have alternative solutions today.

I am all for better solutions. Nuclear is at the top of the list.

Indeed, we could basically discard the list if we chose nuclear, it solves all of the problems associated with deriving energy from breaking chemical bonds.

a reply to: WarminIndy

If Gore really believed his own doom tard, he would not have bought a huge, gas guzzling 100 ft houseboat

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What's a " climate change denier"? I thought the data on that had been tampered with to falsely show a warming trend for the purpose of collecting trillions in carbon taxes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So how do we go about preventing the climate from changing? It's been doing that for millions of years ........ so we've been told. Were they wrong?