Ice-Bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]The Anchor wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
I’m probably getting trolled here (but then again, I think that sadly, this is not a troll)

For those of you who are scientifically uneducated the term “global warming” is misleading. They were not on a “global warming” mission, they were on a CLIMATE CHANGE mission. Earth’s atmosphere is warming, and one of the results of this is WEATHER EXTREMES. This means droughts AND floods, and this means freezing cold temperatures and boiling hot temperatures.

Consider this: If “global warming” is not real, and we listen to the liberals, everyone would be conserving energy and driving a Prius, but if we listen to the conspiracy theorists who don’t bother to do some actual research from a valid source and “global warming” turns out to be an actual thing (hint hint: it already is), we’ll be destroying the planet.

Don’t talk about climate change until you know what it means. Before you reply, please do some research so you won’t sound ridiculous.

Stay mad.

[/quote]

I love the bravado that humans have, to think they can accurately predict the climate and weather with records spanning a few hundred years at best.

This whole notion is religious fanaticism. Weather is too hot, global warming. Weather is too cold, global warming.

The truth is, we do not fully understand all the concepts involved with how nature deals with the climate and it’s changes.

I call this comedic irony, when a vessel filled with scientists studying the effects of global warming gets stuck in more ice than they could have ever predicted. Sorry, but that is some truly funny shit. [/quote]

How do you suggest we go about trying to understand climate without actually gathering information and studying it? Just to keep the conspiracy theorists happy[/quote]
He obviously is not that bright since he confused global warming with climate change and, he doesn’t realize we have ways of knowing what the weather was like thousands of years ago. I mean, how do we know there was something called an Ice Age? [/quote]

The planet is Billions of years old, which makes even thousands of years of data a moot suggestion.

The term “Climate Change” came after “Global Warming” when the data did not support the original theory. Give the bullshit argument a new name, so long as it keeps funding coming.

You have no idea, nor does anyone else, about how or why the Earth’s environment changes. Is it due to human activity ? No one knows, but I’m sure plenty of people on the East Coast wouldn’t mind a little Global Warming right about now. [/quote]

Speak for yourself. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean everyone else is just as misinformed.[/quote]

No one understands it, that’s my point. You assume an idea to be true, but FACTS are not supporting your case.

22

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
For every green liberal hippy there is a conservativedog who draws a conclusion in the opposite direction based on one instance of information gathering such as this one, or if it snows in late march.[/quote]

ANd it is very unfortunate really.

Look at this thread, one poster has made multiple appeals to authority now, which are also thinly veiled ad homs, and has backed up a damn thing other than to say “you need to do your research”. (Which I find means “I saw a picture on facebook once” a lot fo the time when it comes to e-debate.)

23

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
I’m probably getting trolled here (but then again, I think that sadly, this is not a troll)

For those of you who are scientifically uneducated the term “global warming” is misleading. They were not on a “global warming” mission, they were on a CLIMATE CHANGE mission. Earth’s atmosphere is warming, and one of the results of this is WEATHER EXTREMES. This means droughts AND floods, and this means freezing cold temperatures and boiling hot temperatures.

Consider this: If “global warming” is not real, and we listen to the liberals, everyone would be conserving energy and driving a Prius, but if we listen to the conspiracy theorists who don’t bother to do some actual research from a valid source and “global warming” turns out to be an actual thing (hint hint: it already is), we’ll be destroying the planet.

Don’t talk about climate change until you know what it means. Before you reply, please do some research so you won’t sound ridiculous.

Stay mad.

[/quote]

The narrative was global warming until the data showed that was a bunch of B.S. The alarmist nutcases now say “climate change” because, well, the climate always has and always will change and it’s quite easy to say this change or that change is due to human behavior. Anyone with a lick of sense realizes it’s just another way to generate ill gotten wealth.

25

Please continue to disagree with 97% of the world’s scientists. You clearly know more than them on the subject.

27

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Please continue to disagree with 97% of the world’s scientists. You clearly know more than them on the subject.[/quote]

Could you please refer me to the link of the census that was taken of all the world’s scientists. Preferably one with the translations already done.

28

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Please continue to disagree with 97% of the world’s scientists. You clearly know more than them on the subject.[/quote]

Link to the 97% number?

29

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Please continue to disagree with 97% of the world’s scientists. You clearly know more than them on the subject.[/quote]

To what degree do 97% of the world’s scientists agree that global warming is happening? Do the 97% agree it is cataclysmic?

Do the 97% agree that IPCC did not doctor any data?

Do the 97% agree that IPCC acted with scientific integrity in the verification and processing of its data?

Or, do the 97% agree that man has an impact on the climate (thereby covered under “agree with global warming” blanket statement) but not that it is a cataclysmic impact from mankind’s activities (thereby disagreeing in some substantial way)?

Or, do 97% of scientists agree with “global warming” because the earth goes in natural cycles of warming and cooling (which is well documented in the fossil record) but disagree that man will at his present rate of production cause enough damage to break the cyclic pattern into a exponential curve?

Or, do 97% agree that “climate change” is happening but not agree on what or why or how much we affect it?

Or, do 97% simply agree that something is happening and they will call this thing “climate change”?

97% is a large number of scientists.

30

Earth’s temperature remains FLAT for the last 15 years…scientist’s disagree as to why?

That 97% must be really pissed at the 3% for stealing all derrr thunderz.

31

Don’t get so easily offended guys. Let’s have a gentlemanly debate.

Maybe you all can collectively display your argument so I can pick apart/debunk each of your points one by one.

32

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Please continue to disagree with 97% of the world’s scientists. You clearly know more than them on the subject.[/quote]

Def one of those suckers. You don’t even know what those so called 97% really think. You just read an article somewhere, sometime.

PT Barnum was thinking of you by the way.[/quote]
What’s funny is that this guy (push) likes to throw out insults and jabs but when someone reciprocates he cries worse than the liberals he claims to despise. I knew he was a stupid oaf and I now know he’s a crybaby as well.

33

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Don’t get so easily offended guys. Let’s have a gentlemanly debate.

Maybe you all can collectively display your argument so I can pick apart/debunk each of your points one by one.[/quote]

I’m not offended in the least. Nor am I upset. I’m at work currently. I am also simply pointing out that your blanket statement provided on the last page is quite the statement to make, and that it does not have to mean exactly what you seem to believe it means. In other words, there are ways to say “97% of scientists believe in GW/GCC” but not mean “97% of scientists believe humans are causing catastrophic and apocalyptic damage to the climate/causing global warming catastrophe”.

What about the original study?

34

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Don’t get so easily offended guys. Let’s have a gentlemanly debate.

Maybe you all can collectively display your argument so I can pick apart/debunk each of your points one by one.[/quote]

I’m not offended in the least. Nor am I upset. I’m at work currently. I am also simply pointing out that your blanket statement provided on the last page is quite the statement to make, and that it does not have to mean exactly what you seem to believe it means. In other words, there are ways to say “97% of scientists believe in GW/GCC” but not mean “97% of scientists believe humans are causing catastrophic and apocalyptic damage to the climate/causing global warming catastrophe”.

What about the original study?[/quote]

Whoops. That was supposed to say 97% of climate scientists believe that humans are causing global warming.

35

806×806 125 KB

Is this the 97% figure you were looking for?? If so it doesn’t really say what you seemed to insinuate that it did. It merely says that 97% of the papers written on whether or not humans cause global warming agreed that we do. Which seems kind of like a “duh” statement. Or that only 3% were willing to admit that they did all this studying and received all this funding and came up with nothing to show for it.

36

“Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master?s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn’t publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures”

So those with no real dog in the race don’t seem as sure as those that stand to gain from the idea. Also expertise in this questionnaire was defined by the sheer number of material published by an individual on climate change. It is proof by assertion in the purest form.

37

Actually, it’s an utter waste of my time to argue with those who deny science, or don’t understand it in the first place. If you really want to take it up, PM me.

38

[quote]The Anchor wrote:
Actually, it’s an utter waste of my time to argue with those who deny science, [/quote]

Lemee guess, you are an Atheist as well?

I can feel how you just want to…HATE…anybody who disagrees with you.

39

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master?s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn’t publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures[/quote]

I’m not sure that’s the paper he’s citing actually.

Also, if you look at that paper the survey asks an opinion, UNquantified. So if you hold the opinion that say 5% of global climate change is manmade, you agree. If you hold that 60%+ is manmade, you also agree. And you don’t even have to quantify the amount you believe humans cause.

This is an inherent weakness in survey studies, and journalists who don’t understand science are easily susceptible to jumping on this sort of thing.

40