global warming
- Thread starter chilwil84
- Start date
pezenfuego
Active Member
coral keeper
Active Member
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego
http:///forum/post/3224221
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XTwWqzKeXc
LOL That was funny.
http:///forum/post/3224221
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XTwWqzKeXc
LOL That was funny.
gill again68
Active Member
*Amused*
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3224761
The way I see it if the science was settled the scientists wouldn't have to lie about their findings.
I'm not so sure it's necessarily lying, per se.
1st) Science is never settled.
2nd) Sometimes, the question asked is simply the wrong one. Reductionism doesn't always work because it tends to concentrate on one factor while ignoring the contribution of, perhaps minor, but also important other factors.
A critical additional factor in any "scientific" study is who the sponsor is, i.e. money can have an impact on results.
http:///forum/post/3224761
The way I see it if the science was settled the scientists wouldn't have to lie about their findings.
I'm not so sure it's necessarily lying, per se.
1st) Science is never settled.
2nd) Sometimes, the question asked is simply the wrong one. Reductionism doesn't always work because it tends to concentrate on one factor while ignoring the contribution of, perhaps minor, but also important other factors.
A critical additional factor in any "scientific" study is who the sponsor is, i.e. money can have an impact on results.
bang guy
Moderator
If temperatures are warming it would follow that there would be more evaporation. More evaporation would probably result in more precipitation. In the winter that might result in more snow since that's how precipitation expresses itself in the higher latitudes during February in the northern hemisphere.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3225333
I'm not so sure it's necessarily lying, per se.
1st) Science is never settled.
2nd) Sometimes, the question asked is simply the wrong one. Reductionism doesn't always work because it tends to concentrate on one factor while ignoring the contribution of, perhaps minor, but also important other factors.
A critical additional factor in any "scientific" study is who the sponsor is, i.e. money can have an impact on results.
Not lying per se? OK, if the science was settled why did they think it was necessary to hide, skew and destroy evidence that seems to contradict their preferred findings?
As far as following the money trail what do you suppose would happen to all their government grants if it was discovered CO2 wasn't the cause of the weather pattern?
http:///forum/post/3225333
I'm not so sure it's necessarily lying, per se.
1st) Science is never settled.
2nd) Sometimes, the question asked is simply the wrong one. Reductionism doesn't always work because it tends to concentrate on one factor while ignoring the contribution of, perhaps minor, but also important other factors.
A critical additional factor in any "scientific" study is who the sponsor is, i.e. money can have an impact on results.
Not lying per se? OK, if the science was settled why did they think it was necessary to hide, skew and destroy evidence that seems to contradict their preferred findings?
As far as following the money trail what do you suppose would happen to all their government grants if it was discovered CO2 wasn't the cause of the weather pattern?
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3225364
If temperatures are warming it would follow that there would be more evaporation. More evaporation would probably result in more precipitation. In the winter that might result in more snow since that's how precipitation expresses itself in the higher latitudes during February in the northern hemisphere.
More evaporation leads to more cloud cover which leads to less surface heating.
http:///forum/post/3225364
If temperatures are warming it would follow that there would be more evaporation. More evaporation would probably result in more precipitation. In the winter that might result in more snow since that's how precipitation expresses itself in the higher latitudes during February in the northern hemisphere.
More evaporation leads to more cloud cover which leads to less surface heating.
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3225366
More evaporation leads to more cloud cover which leads to less surface heating.
So you don't think it would result in more precipitation?
http:///forum/post/3225366
More evaporation leads to more cloud cover which leads to less surface heating.
So you don't think it would result in more precipitation?
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3225371
So you don't think it would result in more precipitation?
Sure. However if you accept the theory behind CO2 causing global warming it would stand to reason the increase in cloud cover would offset the heat trapped by the increase in CO2
http:///forum/post/3225371
So you don't think it would result in more precipitation?
Sure. However if you accept the theory behind CO2 causing global warming it would stand to reason the increase in cloud cover would offset the heat trapped by the increase in CO2
jaxfishgirl
Active Member
reefraff, I just LOVE your avatar. It cracks me up everytime I see it.
slf125
Member
not sure where i heard this but, "The only controversy surrounding global warming is amongest bloggers and talkshow host". Or something along those lines.
There are two things we can agree on:
1. Global warming is occuring in some form, the cause is the real thing up for debate.
2. Regardless, it's a bad poster child for changes that need to occur anyway.
There are two things we can agree on:
1. Global warming is occuring in some form, the cause is the real thing up for debate.
2. Regardless, it's a bad poster child for changes that need to occur anyway.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by SLF125
http:///forum/post/3225426
not sure where i heard this but, "The only controversy surrounding global warming is amongest bloggers and talkshow host". Or something along those lines.
There are two things we can agree on:
1. Global warming is occuring in some form, the cause is the real thing up for debate.
2. Regardless, it's a bad poster child for changes that need to occur anyway.
I agree warming has occurred. I just don't think CO2 is the root cause. Cutting back on CO2 output isn't a bad idea, I just don't think we need to crash our economy with this phony cap and trade crap to do it.
http:///forum/post/3225426
not sure where i heard this but, "The only controversy surrounding global warming is amongest bloggers and talkshow host". Or something along those lines.
There are two things we can agree on:
1. Global warming is occuring in some form, the cause is the real thing up for debate.
2. Regardless, it's a bad poster child for changes that need to occur anyway.
I agree warming has occurred. I just don't think CO2 is the root cause. Cutting back on CO2 output isn't a bad idea, I just don't think we need to crash our economy with this phony cap and trade crap to do it.
aquaknight
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3225436
I agree warming has occurred. I just don't think CO2 is the root cause. Cutting back on CO2 output isn't a bad idea, I just don't think we need to crash our economy with this phony cap and trade crap to do it.
Or be forced to drive Prius's that throttle's stick and brakes fail.... Zing!
http:///forum/post/3225436
I agree warming has occurred. I just don't think CO2 is the root cause. Cutting back on CO2 output isn't a bad idea, I just don't think we need to crash our economy with this phony cap and trade crap to do it.
Or be forced to drive Prius's that throttle's stick and brakes fail.... Zing!