Global Warming Stop the Superstitious Nonsense

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
Science in general is just theories until a better understanding comes along with a better theory.

It's forever evolving and growing as we evolve and grow with it..

Science is not another make believe fairy tale like religion. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate bias and superstition.

It's doesn't matter. Just keep believing what makes you happy.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Who else is going to study the climate other than climate scientists? Or should politicians be the ones studying the climate?

a reply to: dfnj2015

What temperature should our planet be ?

One simple question, I'm looking for a simple answer even if it's a temperature range

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

Who else is going to study the climate other than climate scientists? Or should politicians be the ones studying the climate?

Are all climate scientists unbiased?

If not, then how many are biased?

How can a lay-person distinguish between a biased scientific journal and an unbiased scientific journal?

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: dfnj2015

How can the wealthy elite stop mother nature while they can't stop terrorists?

Put tons of money into research on technologies that will eliminate the use of fossil fuels. The Chinese are spending billions on LFTR reactors. The Germans are spending billions on their stellerator research.

Stop bombing the Arabs in the ME and terrorism will go away.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: dfnj2015

Want to address my point where I said animal agriculture does more to climate change than every other issue combined and why scientists aren't talking about it?

There is lots of science showing cow poop is a problem. Scientists do not define public policy needed to address the problem.

That's exactly my point. They know the real problem (if there is one), but choose to over sensationalize marginal and trivial issues.

Isn't that a red flag to you?

Doesn't that make you wonder what the real agenda is?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

Who else is going to study the climate other than climate scientists? Or should politicians be the ones studying the climate?

I think the real problem is that they DID get involved.

Steps were missed.
1. identify problem
2. educate public
3.collectively find solution if one is available
4. apply solution.

We went from 1 to 5, which is pervert the science and greedily grab all the money you can before anyone finds out.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The only fact we know is change is inevitable.

Just because I said science continues to evolve, it doesn't mean that it's a fairy tale.

Do you know how many "scientific facts" that have changed over the years just because our understanding of it grew?

a reply to: dfnj2015

How do you know all this research will lead to a solution?

Faith?

a reply to: Discotech

As compared to the previous years. Read the OP on what "on average" means.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: dfnj2015

How do you know all this research will lead to a solution?

Faith?

The solution is a public policy decisions. Scientists do not determine public policy. Your question is like division by zero.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I guess you're the one who decides that then? You seem to claim they're all lying so I guess we need to take your word as gospel?

Scientists are paid whether global warming is real or not, I don't see why they would have a need to lie on such a large and unanimous scale.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

Who else is going to study the climate other than climate scientists? Or should politicians be the ones studying the climate?

I think the real problem is that they DID get involved.

Steps were missed.
1. identify problem
2. educate public
3.collectively find solution if one is available
4. apply solution.

We went from 1 to 5, which is pervert the science and greedily grab all the money you can before anyone finds out.

There are several links here discussing the argument about money:

Global Warming Links, sorted by argument

It doesn't really matter because I know you guys who are superstitious based will always take your dogma over anything anyone else says. I get it. You think your opinion is fact. You think your opinion is God's given truth.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The world always needs smart people. And they pay really well for them no matter what they study.

a reply to: dfnj2015
You can stop being pretentious, I know what average means that wasn't the question, the question was what should the temperature for our planet be ?

Do you think we should have a static non fluctuating average temperature constantly that is the same as all the previous years ?

When has the temperature ever remained static averaged globally ?

Do you not see the flaws in what you're trying to say ?

The temperature has never ever been static averaged globally, I would be MORE worried if the average temperature didn't fluctuate because it's completely natural for temperature to change even when averaged

originally posted by: dfnj2015

Scientists do not determine public policy. Your question is like division by zero.

Not directly. But they'll legitimize any "science" that will secure them more funding from those who do determine policy.

And then they get together and club the public over the head all day long until they fall in line too. Jackboots of the mind.

Separation of science and state.

So we have Global warming created by humans.... why doesn't anybody mention our SUN!

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: manuelram16

Don't give them ideas if they could you can be damned sure they'd be meddling with the Sun probably breaking it in the process

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

Who else is going to study the climate other than climate scientists? Or should politicians be the ones studying the climate?

I think the real problem is that they DID get involved.

Steps were missed.
1. identify problem
2. educate public
3.collectively find solution if one is available
4. apply solution.

We went from 1 to 5, which is pervert the science and greedily grab all the money you can before anyone finds out.

There are several links here discussing the argument about money:

Global Warming Links, sorted by argument

It doesn't really matter because I know you guys who are superstitious based will always take your dogma over anything anyone else says. I get it. You think your opinion is fact. You think your opinion is God's given truth.

just so I get you right, you don't believe anyone is profiting from climate change? I think you need to look at my position closer before knee jerking.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: DBCowboy

I guess you're the one who decides that then? You seem to claim they're all lying so I guess we need to take your word as gospel?

Scientists are paid whether global warming is real or not, I don't see why they would have a need to lie on such a large and unanimous scale.

Are they all telling the truth?

Is all of their data unbiased?