mantisman51
Active Member
p.s. My house is being built of rammed earth and all solar. I am using as much recycled and reclaimed material as possible. I want us to be wise stewards of our earth. I am using grey water recycling and ultra low-flow toilets and passive solar for all my heat right now in the wobbly box I live in now. I recycle aluminum, paper and plastic though it's not required in my county. I am living green unlike Algore and most global warming scientists. So I am not against taking whatever steps we, as individuals, can do to make our existence on earth as unpolluting and green as possible. All I ask is to not be lied to and manipulated by pseudo-scientists pushing an agenda.
mantisman51
Active Member
I think the motives and data used by this "skeptic" is very pertinent to the conversation. You can't separate the two.
bang guy
Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3431895
All I ask is to not be lied to and manipulated by pseudo-scientists pushing an agenda.
That's what all of us should be asking for. Agreed.
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3431895
All I ask is to not be lied to and manipulated by pseudo-scientists pushing an agenda.
That's what all of us should be asking for. Agreed.
reefraff
Active Member
The people who need a crisis to continue receiving government funding for their projects, We'll call them the IPCC. lump anyone who doesn't believe the planet is warming in with us who only dispute the cause being CO2 and call us skeptics or deniers. You really can't separate the two
mantisman51
Active Member
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/31/climate-scientist-accused-by-colleague-for-hiding-truth/
As I said, the data and agenda of the "skeptic" must be examined. It is a fundamental question in how he became "enlightened" to the "fact" of global warming. Also, note that the person who is questioning his data and intent is a Phd in climate science, not a BA like Algore and half the so-called experts in the global warming cabal.
As I said, the data and agenda of the "skeptic" must be examined. It is a fundamental question in how he became "enlightened" to the "fact" of global warming. Also, note that the person who is questioning his data and intent is a Phd in climate science, not a BA like Algore and half the so-called experts in the global warming cabal.
bang guy
Moderator
You have surprised me again. You said "Al Gore" and "Expert" in the same sentence.
If Global Warming turns out, in fact, to be man made then Al Gore has done more damage to the human race than anyone else in history. And, he got an award for it.
* The are the opinions of Bang Guy and do not represent the opinions of the board or its management *
If Global Warming turns out, in fact, to be man made then Al Gore has done more damage to the human race than anyone else in history. And, he got an award for it.
* The are the opinions of Bang Guy and do not represent the opinions of the board or its management *
N
nihoa
Guest
bs. if it wasnt a 'crisis' why would they be studying it??? there is plenty of science funded without any immediate application to any problem. the hadron collider built in europe was built for $11 billion to further understand the composition of the tiniest particles. the results someday might help with some new technology but for now the point of the experiments are for the sake of the knowledge itself. and that was funded just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3431913
The people who need a crisis to continue receiving government funding for their projects, We'll call them the IPCC. lump anyone who doesn't believe the planet is warming in with us who only dispute the cause being CO2 and call us skeptics or deniers. You really can't separate the two
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3431913
The people who need a crisis to continue receiving government funding for their projects, We'll call them the IPCC. lump anyone who doesn't believe the planet is warming in with us who only dispute the cause being CO2 and call us skeptics or deniers. You really can't separate the two
N
nihoa
Guest
so the old guard have started to throw the same skeptic rabble at this guy that he slung before taking it upon himself to investigate the issue for a couple years? there is surprise in that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432069
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/31/climate-scientist-accused-by-colleague-for-hiding-truth/
As I said, the data and agenda of the "skeptic" must be examined. It is a fundamental question in how he became "enlightened" to the "fact" of global warming. Also, note that the person who is questioning his data and intent is a Phd in climate science, not a BA like Algore and half the so-called experts in the global warming cabal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432069
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/31/climate-scientist-accused-by-colleague-for-hiding-truth/
As I said, the data and agenda of the "skeptic" must be examined. It is a fundamental question in how he became "enlightened" to the "fact" of global warming. Also, note that the person who is questioning his data and intent is a Phd in climate science, not a BA like Algore and half the so-called experts in the global warming cabal.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432097
bs. if it wasnt a 'crisis' why would they be studying it??? there is plenty of science funded without any immediate application to any problem. the hadron collider built in europe was built for $11 billion to further understand the composition of the tiniest particles. the results someday might help with some new technology but for now the point of the experiments are for the sake of the knowledge itself. and that was funded just fine.
There is always money for studies but creating a crisis will bring in the big bucks.
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432097
bs. if it wasnt a 'crisis' why would they be studying it??? there is plenty of science funded without any immediate application to any problem. the hadron collider built in europe was built for $11 billion to further understand the composition of the tiniest particles. the results someday might help with some new technology but for now the point of the experiments are for the sake of the knowledge itself. and that was funded just fine.
There is always money for studies but creating a crisis will bring in the big bucks.
mantisman51
Active Member
Being a skeptic in academia comes with $0 in research. Being on board the global warming gravy train brings in potentially millions. The Phd who is questioning him is questioning why he chose to use the data(that I have posted from NASA) that is questionable at best and more likely flawed. She has not said he was lying, rather she asked why he chose to ignore conflicting data to come to a conclusion it is a fact. If he said that he looked at the data and was convinced, despite the flaws, that would be expected. But he said it was undeniable, which any scientist could not come to with the data presented. Think about the NASA figures; one year the results of historical data has changed by 48% since 1987, with the average being 18% of data changing and every new study changing what is supposed to be historical fact. Who in the scientific world could possibly have any credibility basing a decision on data that is so flawed?
N
nihoa
Guest
you guys are making an opinion from a very uninformed position. i just gave you an example of a research group with an $11 billion dollar budget for a project with no foreseeable benefit. show me a climatologist or climate change research group bringing in a tiny fraction of that sort of money! there is a climate change lab at my uni and their budget is dwarfed by the algal lab. yup, the group researching taxonomy of algae is by far the biggest lab in the faculty and brought in a $7 million grant to work on seaweed with no commercial value. you dont need to create a crisis to bring in grant $.
N
nihoa
Guest
apparently not. this skeptic in the article set out with the intent to show the mainstream had it wrong but his research was funded just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432108
Being a skeptic in academia comes with $0 in research. Being on board the global warming gravy train brings in potentially millions. The Phd who is questioning him is questioning why he chose to use the data(that I have posted from NASA) that is questionable at best and more likely flawed. She has not said he was lying, rather she asked why he chose to ignore conflicting data to come to a conclusion it is a fact. If he said that he looked at the data and was convinced, despite the flaws, that would be expected. But he said it was undeniable, which any scientist could not come to with the data presented. Think about the NASA figures; one year the results of historical data has changed by 48% since 1987, with the average being 18% of data changing and every new study changing what is supposed to be historical fact. Who in the scientific world could possibly have any credibility basing a decision on data that is so flawed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432108
Being a skeptic in academia comes with $0 in research. Being on board the global warming gravy train brings in potentially millions. The Phd who is questioning him is questioning why he chose to use the data(that I have posted from NASA) that is questionable at best and more likely flawed. She has not said he was lying, rather she asked why he chose to ignore conflicting data to come to a conclusion it is a fact. If he said that he looked at the data and was convinced, despite the flaws, that would be expected. But he said it was undeniable, which any scientist could not come to with the data presented. Think about the NASA figures; one year the results of historical data has changed by 48% since 1987, with the average being 18% of data changing and every new study changing what is supposed to be historical fact. Who in the scientific world could possibly have any credibility basing a decision on data that is so flawed?
stdreb27
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432097
bs. if it wasnt a 'crisis' why would they be studying it??? there is plenty of science funded without any immediate application to any problem. the hadron collider built in europe was built for $11 billion to further understand the composition of the tiniest particles. the results someday might help with some new technology but for now the point of the experiments are for the sake of the knowledge itself. and that was funded just fine.
You know what else is a crisis, Stripper's tips when ovulating...
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432097
bs. if it wasnt a 'crisis' why would they be studying it??? there is plenty of science funded without any immediate application to any problem. the hadron collider built in europe was built for $11 billion to further understand the composition of the tiniest particles. the results someday might help with some new technology but for now the point of the experiments are for the sake of the knowledge itself. and that was funded just fine.
You know what else is a crisis, Stripper's tips when ovulating...
N
nihoa
Guest
i would have seriously invested myself in that fieldwork.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432150
You know what else is a crisis, Stripper's tips when ovulating...
Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432150
You know what else is a crisis, Stripper's tips when ovulating...
mantisman51
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432123
apparently not. this skeptic in the article set out with the intent to show the mainstream had it wrong but his research was funded just fine.
I believe you are referring to the Koch brothers funding the research. It wasn't $11 billion. However, they specifically wanted all points of view involved in the research and one of the two leaders of that research has called the findings flawed. That isn't conclusive. I can't help thinking, even after you know-from NASA's own research-that the basis for the idea that the earth getting warmer has been changed dozens, if not hundreds, of times, you ignore that. The fact that there is no way to get reliable scientific facts from what is, by their own admission and changing temperatures, flawed data and best guesses that cannot be reproduced, you choose to believe. Not even a blink of acknowledgement that there may be a problem with their findings. That, Ma'am, is religious faith. You choose to believe-there is definitely not enough scientific data to prove it.
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432123
apparently not. this skeptic in the article set out with the intent to show the mainstream had it wrong but his research was funded just fine.
I believe you are referring to the Koch brothers funding the research. It wasn't $11 billion. However, they specifically wanted all points of view involved in the research and one of the two leaders of that research has called the findings flawed. That isn't conclusive. I can't help thinking, even after you know-from NASA's own research-that the basis for the idea that the earth getting warmer has been changed dozens, if not hundreds, of times, you ignore that. The fact that there is no way to get reliable scientific facts from what is, by their own admission and changing temperatures, flawed data and best guesses that cannot be reproduced, you choose to believe. Not even a blink of acknowledgement that there may be a problem with their findings. That, Ma'am, is religious faith. You choose to believe-there is definitely not enough scientific data to prove it.
darthtang aw
Active Member
will ask again...the temp seemed relatively stable from 1940me to about 1980. is that what i am reading?
darth (cant get a simple answer) Tang
darth (cant get a simple answer) Tang
mantisman51
Active Member
Yes, that is what it shows. But the new "historical data" the hoaxsters use shows a 1.6°F increase. Kinda funny how the "actual temperatures" have gone up(down further historically) with each new version of them, huh? But the true believers don't care about facts. They believe and that's all that matters. The FACT that the hoaxsters have changed what was supposed to be historical fact doesn't even elicit 1 second of reflection or contemplation. I recognize that radical faith in global warming, it is the same faith I have when I read the Bible. There are things in there that make me think, "That's strange". but I will always still believe because I choose to believe. It is the same with those who choose to believe that humans are like a disease on the earth and that global warming is the result. The Bible puts it this way and it is applicable to global warming believers, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". There is no evidence of global warming, their own numbers prove it. But the belief is the evidence. At least I have the courage to admit that I am blinded to a certain extent by my faith-not keep pretending it's an indisputable fact.
darthtang aw
Active Member
hold the phone. global warming...global coolin...climate change......are all the same thing.is there climate change....yes. i believe so. and you should to as well. you speak of faith and the bible. you believe this. Yet you still ignore the evidence of climate change within the very book you profess to believe. the bible inadvertently confirms climate change on this planet in various chapters throughout.
the discussion is on if climate change is real.....and the evidence i see daily is that it is.
now, where this discussion has a disconnect are the majority of those that claim it is made up...you guys are mainly attacking it from a view point that man and our ways are the primary reason for this. you are against this view, as am I. we may account for 5%this of what is going on with the climates. the fairly stable climate from the 40s till the 80svery backs up my viewpoint. I am curious if anyone can see why I state before I am forced to explain.
the discussion is on if climate change is real.....and the evidence i see daily is that it is.
now, where this discussion has a disconnect are the majority of those that claim it is made up...you guys are mainly attacking it from a view point that man and our ways are the primary reason for this. you are against this view, as am I. we may account for 5%this of what is going on with the climates. the fairly stable climate from the 40s till the 80svery backs up my viewpoint. I am curious if anyone can see why I state before I am forced to explain.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432310
hold the phone. global warming...global coolin...climate change......are all the same thing.is there climate change....yes. i believe so. and you should to as well. you speak of faith and the bible. you believe this. Yet you still ignore the evidence of climate change within the very book you profess to believe. the bible inadvertently confirms climate change on this planet in various chapters throughout.
the discussion is on if climate change is real.....and the evidence i see daily is that it is.
now, where this discussion has a disconnect are the majority of those that claim it is made up...you guys are mainly attacking it from a view point that man and our ways are the primary reason for this. you are against this view, as am I. we may account for 5%this of what is going on with the climates. the fairly stable climate from the 40s till the 80svery backs up my viewpoint. I am curious if anyone can see why I state before I am forced to explain.
Because you're a pain in the a....
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432310
hold the phone. global warming...global coolin...climate change......are all the same thing.is there climate change....yes. i believe so. and you should to as well. you speak of faith and the bible. you believe this. Yet you still ignore the evidence of climate change within the very book you profess to believe. the bible inadvertently confirms climate change on this planet in various chapters throughout.
the discussion is on if climate change is real.....and the evidence i see daily is that it is.
now, where this discussion has a disconnect are the majority of those that claim it is made up...you guys are mainly attacking it from a view point that man and our ways are the primary reason for this. you are against this view, as am I. we may account for 5%this of what is going on with the climates. the fairly stable climate from the 40s till the 80svery backs up my viewpoint. I am curious if anyone can see why I state before I am forced to explain.
Because you're a pain in the a....