Page 18 of 31 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 617

Thread: Global Warming? I don't know what to believe.

  1. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombeech View Post
    If the climate is really in trouble, why aren't the believers prepping for it?

    No Climate Change Doomsday preppers.

    Strange.

    Exactly.

    If AOC really believed the Earth was going to end in 12 years because of Global Warming, then why isn't she looking at real estate in Greenland, or stockpiling food and supplies to power through the pandemic heat wave that is going to claim all life on the planet as we know it.

    Because it's bull$hit. That's why.
    Last edited by rockgremlin; 03-14-2019 at 02:32 PM.
    Do as you would be done by.

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #342
    Watch out Rock...somebody's gonna call you a DENIER because you're not in bed with all these brilliant scientists that have it all figured out.
    Hey, hey, hey, hey! It was the DNA
    Hey, hey, hey, hey...that made me this way.

  4. #343
    Quote Originally Posted by twotimer View Post
    Watch out Rock...somebody's gonna call you a DENIER because you're not in bed with all these brilliant scientists that have it all figured out.

    You know it's funny.....the very essence of science and critical thinking is to question everything.

    But if you question anthropogenic global warming you're blackballed and vilified.



    Now tell me --- is it really science, or has it now graduated into the realm of politics, where reality is defined by a committee and may be influenced by money and power? It really smells like the latter to me.
    Last edited by rockgremlin; 03-14-2019 at 03:48 PM.
    Do as you would be done by.

  5. Likes Sandstone Addiction liked this post
  6. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceaxe View Post
    Oh No... a "Bomb Cyclone"

    Notice how the church of climate change uses new scary terms for things that have always been happening in order to sell the agenda.
    except it’s not a new term ...

    but it is noticeable how you see a very specific “agenda” in the stuff you read.

    even carlin made fun of the weather jargon meteorologists use for decades

  7. #345

    Global Warming? I don't know what to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by twotimer View Post
    I've actually put this question to my "we're screwed" friends...I can't get a straight answer. They drive cars and trucks, have more kids, fly on jets, buy nice toys, throw more logs on the fire.

    My best assessment is it's truly like a religion...kinda like how many Christians are really ready for the Tribulation, yet they still fervently believe.

    Funny how they point fingers at people like you and me saying "denier", when it's occurred to me that it's actually THEM that are the deniers. Kinda like those that simply refuse to believe that Micheal Jackson was a pedophile. They've got "the truth" as they see it locked into their brains.

    I think these people, instead of having tunnel vision for charts and graphs, should travel around a bit more...y'know? Look out the friggin' window.
    Interesting perspective, there should be more for sure, but you are talking to one here, been prepping for a while now. Specifically prepping for mass crop failure, pandemic diseases, civil unrest and extreme weather/ wildfires.

    These are the things that we should be prepping for. As far as I can see most of these people that you are referring to already have a defeatist attitude, I hear it all the time “the why bother crowd” figures they’re toast anyways.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. Likes twotimer liked this post
  9. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by stefan View Post
    except it’s not a new term ...

    but it is noticeable how you see a very specific “agenda” in the stuff you read.

    even carlin made fun of the weather jargon meteorologists use for decades

    I get that it's nothing new... Except this weather pattern used to be referred to by it's correct scientific term "explosive cyclongenisis", but we all know that doesn't make for a really scary sound bite.

    An a little FYI... I'm not the one with an agenda, you have me confused with mainstream media. I just enjoy pointing out their attempt to sensationalize everything... see the difference?

  10. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by EricBTTA View Post
    been prepping for a while now. Specifically prepping for mass crop failure, pandemic diseases, civil unrest and extreme weather/ wildfires.

    These are the things that we should be prepping for.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Well now...looks like you're ready if the shit hits the fan, eh? I certainly don't blame you one bit. Widespread disease, unrest, food shortages, race riots? Personally, I think we'll probably have at least a little bit of lead up to it...so I'll stock up with fresh stuff. I'm keeping an eye on Europe, because I think if things start going south, it'll start there. I'm not worried about fire where I live.

    I put the odds of the Apocalypse, one way or another, quite low. I'm 56 and have been listening to "the end is right around the corner" one way or another since I was a teenager. We used to smoke joints and talk about where to "bug out" back in the late 70s.

    40 more years, that's all I ask. I'm optimistic. After that? Who knows...
    Hey, hey, hey, hey! It was the DNA
    Hey, hey, hey, hey...that made me this way.

  11. Likes EricBTTA liked this post
  12. #348
    Wouldn’t say I’m ready, I don’t think anyone can be truly prepared for anything of that nature in the end. The ultimate goal in my mind is to be as ready as you possibly can be, while still enjoying your time on this rock.

    Hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

    -Cheers


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by EricBTTA View Post
    Hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.


    ^^^THIS^^^

  14. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombeech View Post
    This statistic has been proven to be wildly misleading, unfortunately.
    No, actually, it hasn't. NASA has a site discussing this very thing. The guy who came up with that claim used some dodgy analysis methods, as pointed out in the paper referenced below (the reference is from the NASA website). The paper does a nice summary on many (if not most) of the studies that look at consensus.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

    Reference 1: J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

    It took me 5 minutes to find this. The NASA site includes statements from leading scientific organizations from around the world. You can also click on the reference and go read the paper yourself. It's worth a read, and not too difficult. The abstract and conclusion sections are pretty interesting all by themselves.
    Deb

  15. #351




    An image from the wonderful NASA website mentioned above...
    Hey, hey, hey, hey! It was the DNA
    Hey, hey, hey, hey...that made me this way.

  16. #352
    Quote Originally Posted by ddavis View Post
    No, actually, it hasn't.
    Yeah, sorry. It has.

  17. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombeech View Post
    Yeah, sorry. It has.
    No it hasn't. The claim that it has was refuted. Thoroughly. Where are you getting your information?
    Last edited by ddavis; 03-15-2019 at 02:28 PM. Reason: typo
    Deb

  18. #354
    Quote Originally Posted by ddavis View Post
    Where are you getting your information?
    Yeah beech... you can't just say it's wrong without backing it up.....

  19. #355
    Bogley BigShot oldno7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    We're all here, because we ain't all there.
    Posts
    12,317
    I choose to believe this "scientist" formerly from NASA

    the chicken littles, choose other "scientist"

    But either way, the "science or genuine lack thereof, is far from settled.

    Their "science" is faith based and certainly lacks consensus to be settled!




    “Until climate science is funded independent of desired energy policy outcomes, we can continue to expect climate research results to be heavily biased in the direction of catastrophic outcomes,” Spencer wrote.

    U.S. government funds virtually no research into natural causes of climate change, now that human-caused global warming has become so fashionable.

    Then, when global average temperatures essentially stopped rising after about 1997 (the so-called pause or hiatus), those same researchers had to look to Mother Nature to find some sort of natural cooling mechanism that they believed was canceling out the human-caused warming. This has at least had the benefit of bringing the potential role of natural climate change back into the debate.

    The models are only as good as their weakest link. And the old adage about computers—“garbage in, garbage out”—remains true today.

    The claim that 97 percent of climate experts agree on global warming and climate change is not true, and was based upon a study with flawed methodology. Nevertheless, I’m quite sure a fairly large majority of climate experts believe that recent warming is mostly man-made, and could be a potentially serious problem in the distant future. A recent survey of members of the American Meteorological Society found that 67 percent believe that recent warming is mostly (or completely) human-caused. That leaves 33 percent who believe that less than half of climate change is the fault of humans, which is a big difference from the 97 percent survey which would suggest only a 3 percent minority opinion.

    Besides, if global warming is settled science, like gravity or the Earth not being flat, why isn’t the agreement 100 percent? And since when is science settled by a survey or a poll?

    Remember, virtually 100 percent of climate research is ultimately managed by either politicians in Congress who appropriate the research funds, or political appointees heading up the funding agencies who decide in more detail what kinds of research will be supported. Congress does not provide research funds for non-problems…if the global warming threat were to cease to exist, the funding would disappear. This means the scientists also have a vested interest in keeping the global warming issue alive.

    Scientists convince themselves that even if they are wrong about the science, getting humanity off of fossil fuels is the right thing to do anyway. (I’ve actually had mainstream climate scientists tell me this).
    I'm not Spartacus


    Boycotting imlay canyon gear because I value access

    Professional Mangler of Grammar

    Guns don't kill people--Static Ropes Do!!

    Who Is John Galt?

  20. Likes rockgremlin liked this post
  21. #356
    Bogley BigShot oldno7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    We're all here, because we ain't all there.
    Posts
    12,317
    NOAA’s updated data was also criticized by climate scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute. Scientists Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger argue the adjustments made by NOAA were “guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data.”

    “Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data,” wrote Michaels, Knappenberger and Lindzen, who is a top climatologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Scientists and climate experts skeptical of man-made global warming have become increasingly critical of temperature adjustments made by government climate agencies like NASA and NOAA. Skeptics charge that agencies like NOAA have been tampering with past temperatures to make the warming trend look much more severe than is shown in the raw data.

    Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry also chimed in, arguing that NOAA excluded extremely accurate sea buoy data in order to erase the hiatus in warming. Curry wrote that it “seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements — ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend.”

    “Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998,” she wrote. “This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.”

    I'm not Spartacus


    Boycotting imlay canyon gear because I value access

    Professional Mangler of Grammar

    Guns don't kill people--Static Ropes Do!!

    Who Is John Galt?

  22. Likes rockgremlin liked this post
  23. #357
    Bogley BigShot oldno7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    We're all here, because we ain't all there.
    Posts
    12,317
    ...,
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    I'm not Spartacus


    Boycotting imlay canyon gear because I value access

    Professional Mangler of Grammar

    Guns don't kill people--Static Ropes Do!!

    Who Is John Galt?

  24. Likes twotimer liked this post
  25. #358
    Bogley BigShot oldno7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    We're all here, because we ain't all there.
    Posts
    12,317
    ../,
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    I'm not Spartacus


    Boycotting imlay canyon gear because I value access

    Professional Mangler of Grammar

    Guns don't kill people--Static Ropes Do!!

    Who Is John Galt?

  26. Likes EricBTTA liked this post
  27. #359
    Bogley BigShot oldno7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    We're all here, because we ain't all there.
    Posts
    12,317
    ...,
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    I'm not Spartacus


    Boycotting imlay canyon gear because I value access

    Professional Mangler of Grammar

    Guns don't kill people--Static Ropes Do!!

    Who Is John Galt?

  28. #360
    Bogley BigShot oldno7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    We're all here, because we ain't all there.
    Posts
    12,317
    In 2008, Dr. Ivar Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Barack Obama for president, but seven years later the Nobel Prize winner now stands against the president on global warming.“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Giaever, who won the Nobel for physics in 1973, told an audience at the Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting earlier this month.Giaever ridiculed Obama for stating that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” The physicist called it a “ridiculous statement” and that Obama “gets bad advice” when it comes to global warming.“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said.

    Giaever argued that there’s been no global warming for the last 17 years or so (based on satellite records), weather hasn’t gotten more extreme and that global temperature has only slightly risen — and that’s based on data being “fiddled” with by scientists, he said.“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever said.
    I'm not Spartacus


    Boycotting imlay canyon gear because I value access

    Professional Mangler of Grammar

    Guns don't kill people--Static Ropes Do!!

    Who Is John Galt?

Similar Threads

  1. [News] Global Warming is now Against the Law
    By rockgremlin in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-05-2016, 05:44 AM
  2. The truth about global warming
    By chickenlicken in forum The Political Arena
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-08-2007, 08:25 AM
  3. With Regards to Global Warming
    By Iceaxe in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-22-2007, 07:46 AM
  4. Why don't you believe in Global Warming?
    By DiscGo in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 07:09 AM
  5. Global Warming
    By Sombeech in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 01-15-2007, 06:42 PM

Visitors found this page by searching for:

Outdoor Forum

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •