Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 08-15-2014, 11:06 AM  
Senior Member

Montreal
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 127 | Kudos: +14
Thats a great deflection Ed just pawn it all off as opinion. Then expect me to believe all your quoted/linked pieces.I'm open to being persuaded to your way of thinking but ya gotta give me something credible to trump the claims of the majority of the scientific community.At this point i'm believing what the majority of the scientific community is saying rather than what a couple of supposed scientists who express an opposing view of Global Warming have to say.

I'm certainly not going to debate the entire link sentence by sentence,http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghg...gases/co2.html
So if you want to believe this lesson on Co2 and its impact on the environment is all opinion then thats your option.
And thats the problem with this kind of discussion, we go round and round with me submitting viable links to the science of the matter from credible sources and you either dont read them or just pass it off as opinion. kind of a pointless debate in my opinion.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2014, 11:42 AM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
I don't pick and choose what to believe. My career was spent as an engineer and scientist and I happen to notice there is no debate on this issue and the scientific method is in much disregard. The public is expected to believe the consensus of a group of scientists and others opinions without true evidence or experimentation. In some cases CO2 rise lagged temperature rise but still no debate. Some claim global temperature is now in a cooling cycle and that the alarmists ignore global data in favor of select date, still no debate. Even if GW is real can AGW be proven? And if it could be proven can enough control be placed upon humanity to change anything other than making shysters like Al Gore rich? Would we even be happy in a world so regulated? And if real would not increased crop production be a blessing for mankind that outweighs the losses? Scientists of the day were just as alarmed over global cooling in the 70s, and they were wrong! Does CO2 raise the temperature or does the temperature raise and lower the CO2? There is something wrong when political correctness rules and rigorous debate is avoided. Have any of Al Gore's predictions come to pass? Al Gore thought 400 ppm to be disastorous yet ice ages have occurred with CO2 levels from 2000-8000 ppm. Most of those with a bully pulpit on the subject are not scientists, they just show melting ice in the arctic ignoring growing ice in the antarctic and continue to blame everything hot or cold, rain or drought on AGW. The consensus comes in when scientists that don't have a dog in the fight just offer their opinions when polled.
__________________

__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2014, 03:12 PM  
Senior Member

Montreal
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 127 | Kudos: +14
These arent just scientists that thought they would submit bogus information to achieve an end these are climatologists doing real studies and research for some major organizations such as NASA and NOAA and publishing their findings.,What one makes of what they are reporting is up to the individual ,in my case i'll take what they say at face value as i'm seeing stories on the order of 10 to 1 in favor of Global warming as happening.,
Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2014, 05:24 PM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
But some of the stuff they claim is just bogus. They claimed that the polar bear population was dying because of GB. But the animal group that counts them says that the population is growing faster than ever.
__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2014, 10:10 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
These arent just scientists that thought they would submit bogus information to achieve an end these are climatologists doing real studies and research for some major organizations such as NASA and NOAA and publishing their findings.,What one makes of what they are reporting is up to the individual ,in my case i'll take what they say at face value as i'm seeing stories on the order of 10 to 1 in favor of Global warming as happening.,
Some indeed submitted bogus information and got caught doing so, others merely found what they wanted to find or what they were paid to find (no blind studies possible here to protect us). I experienced it with well meaning NASA Principal Investigators that saw what they wanted to see. In the scientific world it is publish or perish and many publish too quickly. I was in the midst of both global cooling and the ozone hole scare. Another thing that took off with no basis in fact was nuclear winter.

Government intervention in our lives is a much greater threat than climate change as big brother can make our lives both miserable and expensive while having no real impact on the percieved crisis. If you like our health care exchanges you will love our carbon exchanges!
__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2014, 09:45 AM  
Senior Member

Montreal
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 127 | Kudos: +14
Quote:
Originally Posted by samfloor View Post
But some of the stuff they claim is just bogus. They claimed that the polar bear population was dying because of GB. But the animal group that counts them says that the population is growing faster than ever.
Sam its odd how you'll accept without question the scientific results of a polar bear count but you'll balk at accepting scientists findings on temperature counts.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.o...ations-booming
Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2014, 10:32 AM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
The polar bear population is increasing. he latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.
As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.

The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters. As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears."

The comments that claim polar bears become 'trapped' on ice floes do not know much about polar bears. For this species has been tracked to swim over 100 miles and can swim dozens of kilometres just to find a decent seal dinner, a trip just a few hundred metres to shore is a leisurely doggie paddle to safety. So much for the optic of a doomed global warming victim on ice
__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2014, 12:56 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
I extracted this from an article on the Forbes website. I chose it because it sums up my experience with how the government works and arrives at conclusions in keeping with my observations over the years. Mr. John Q. Public just blindly pays for studies that are carefully chosen and funded to support whatever big brother happens to be pushing at the time. Google "how to catch wild pigs" to see where we are headed with all this, when our freedom is gone it will be too late to react.
Quote:
To suggest that climate science money trickles down from government would be a gross understatement. Actually, it cascades from mountains on high, presided over by agencies and their federal and state minions we generally assume to be knowledgeable and objective. But often we might be wrong. This occurs when a particularly orthodox or partisan view becomes inculcated into government leadership and surrogate organization power structures — yes, exactly like man-made global warming, for example. Then follow the rivers, streams and creeks as those influences spread.

Agencies get funding appropriations based upon how important they are, or more accurately, how important we are persuaded to think they are. In the case of climate and environmental issues, they appear to be a lot more important when represented to address (certainly not waste) a crisis. Climate change, a topic offering an opportunity to regulate something really dangerous, like natural air, is just too wonderful to pass up.

Who populates these agencies? People with orthodox credentials of course. It helps a lot if they have published books or articles that favor and advance those views, or at least associate with influential organizations that do. Let’s call that the “orthodox mainstream.” Then again, most of those books and articles wouldn’t have been published at all if the authors didn’t have good science credentials, right? They would need to have undertaken research that was published in respected journals.


Farther downriver, the universities that support learned research and hire scientists to conduct it depend upon federal and state agencies (again from us). To compete for that money they must address topics that are recognized by the orthodox mainstream as being very important. Only then can they hire and produce people who write successful proposals to support staff to do the research to prepare the papers that get published in the respected journals.

But what if those learned people’s papers can’t get published in the respected journals because they contradict views of influential orthodox mainstream gatekeepers who attack their merit — the exact circumstances exposed in the U.K. East Anglia University Climate Research Unit’s ClimateGate e-mails? In this case, those scientists wouldn’t win grants and contracts (from tax and tuition money we supply) to gain tenure and promotions at leading universities and research laboratories, or gain credentials needed to get hired by the agencies and surrogate organizations that distribute and administer the funding. Others who play the game by the rules of politics and ideology are likely to fare much better.
__________________
I remember when power tools and small appliances had flexible cords.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2014, 04:36 AM  
Senior Member

Montreal
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 127 | Kudos: +14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T View Post
I extracted this from an article on the Forbes website. I chose it because it sums up my experience with how the government works and arrives at conclusions in keeping with my observations over the years. Mr. John Q. Public just blindly pays for studies that are carefully chosen and funded to support whatever big brother happens to be pushing at the time. Google "how to catch wild pigs" to see where we are headed with all this, when our freedom is gone it will be too late to react.
Sounds like all opinion to me.
In fact with your line of logic ed it sounds like you'd be happy if the country would save itself a lot of money by just ridding itself of departments that many believe are solely into deception and greed, departments like NASA,NOAA,EPA etc.
If you arent going to believe their findings/research and recommendations they become a pointless entity.
As said before i'm not a scientist and can only go by what i read and see on the media and at this point a vast majority of the scientific community is saying mans use of fossil fuels is causing an abnormal spike in this Earths warming phase. I'm not seeing anything to make me believe otherwise.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2014, 12:15 PM  
Administrator
 
samfloor's Avatar

Missouri
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,845 | Kudos: +114
If you really believe anything our government says, I feel sorry for you.
__________________

__________________
AKA....Rusty, Floorist, etc.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.