America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by Brewha. 900 replies replies.
Poll Question : Is Global Warming Real?
Choice Votes Statistics
No, it’s just made up by the left wing Liberals. 10 11 %
Maybe, it’s a natural cycle - not really man made. 46 54 %
Yes, it largely caused by industrial pollution. 29 34 %
Total 85 100%

18 Pages«<131415161718>
Is Global Warming Real?
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
MACS Offline
#801 Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2016, 8:45 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,878
Group 1 - UN IPCC United Nations International Panel on Climate Change
Group 2 - Skeptical Atmospheric Scientists (that's his group)
Group 3 - politicians, media, environmentalist (people who profit from the idea of climate change)

G1 - believes that CO2 emissions are the cause of the most recent climate change and may eventually dangerously heat the planet
G2 - Skeptics, note that there are many reasons the climate changes. No evidence that CO2 is the dominant factor

Both scientific groups agree: The climate always changes. CO2 is a necessary greenhouse gas. CO2 has been increasing since the last ice age. Last 200 years the temp has increased slightly and erratically about 1.8 degrees F, and they agree since the 1960's man's CO2 emissions have been enough to play a role. They also agree that no confident prediction about future global mean temp, or its impact, can be made. The IPCC admits [quote] "The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible".

The scenario that burning fossil fuels leads to catastrophe isn't what either scientific group asserts... Lindzen is saying that global warming alarmism provides group 3 with what they want: money, power for the politicians, funding for the environmentalists, and headlines for the media.

Scientists OUTSIDE this area of expertise have capitalized as well.

That's the synopsis. Maybe you should watch the video again. He wasn't discussing the science of it. He broke it down into the groups, where they stood, where they agreed and disagreed, and that the reason it's become a huge deal isn't the scientists who specialize in that field, but group 3 and the scientists (outside that realm) trying to profit from it.

I believe him.
victor809 Offline
#802 Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2016, 9:28 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
"Summarizes the science behind climate change "... the articles word not mine.

Sure. I don't disagree with him that the media is capitalizing off the disagreement between the two groups. But that can happen in a disagreement between people not liking child-rape and the Catholic Church.

Additionally he tries to imply that the science behind group 1 is artificially bolstered by the media disproportionately to the detriment of group 2. This would be fine if he provided any evidence that we should believe group 2. But the only evidence he provides for his claim is the global mean temperature, which I addressed earlier.

He'll, he's a scientist. If he wanted to show "group 3" impact on the support behind either group 1 or 2, he could data dive the papers submitted, amounts of data in each, reception of.each. etc..

But he doesn't. He provided anot opinion piece masked as a "summary of the science " and passed around by some organization that likes to pretend it is a university.
frankj1 Offline
#803 Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2016, 9:40 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,251
where is his money coming from?
victor809 Offline
#804 Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2016, 10:34 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I was thinking about that on my drive home.

Ultimately, MACS has a point. This guy's opinion carries more weight than mine on this topic. But in the end, that was nothing more than anot opinion piece.

It's no different than if Tony or brew had posted a video of a scientist from "group 1" "summarizing" how all the fossil fuel and manufacturing interests in group 3 were influencing scientists in group 2.

tonygraz Offline
#805 Posted: Wed, Apr 27 2016, 10:41 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,314
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYwSGiowEzs
MACS Offline
#806 Posted: Thu, Apr 28 2016, 7:53 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,878
But both groups of scientists agree it is nothing to get in a panic about, and that predicting the climate is damn near impossible.

I just saw the video. I did not see a written article in that link. I'll have to look again.
DrafterX Offline
#807 Posted: Thu, Apr 28 2016, 7:54 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,582
denying global warming is a mental disorder.... or so I heard.. Mellow
Speyside Offline
#808 Posted: Thu, Apr 28 2016, 8:04 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Or a meteorological disorder.
DrafterX Offline
#809 Posted: Thu, Apr 28 2016, 8:12 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,582
poor CROS.... Sad
Brewha Offline
#810 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 6:05 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
MACS wrote:
http://conservative50.com/climate-change-what-do-scientists-say-prageru/

I suppose it is critical to keep an open mind, listen to all sources and weigh them on their merit. So I watched your video - that you feel is correct.

Most notable up front is that Mr. Lindzen's criticisms appear to disagree with the published positions of NASA, the US Pentagon, and the scientific community at large. But he is a retired college professor - who has worked for the oil and gas companies......

Secondly I note, that beyond conjecture - skillfully presented I might add - He presented no real or compelling data. In fact his case seems to be based largely on his opinions of society, money and how significant the pollution he has always lived with really is. So my take away is; how bad can pollution really be, and we all know those environmentalists are crazy.

I have to ask who funded his video....Hmmm


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism


http://youtu.be/C4bDk-pPgbs


So above are some link you might find interesting.


And yes - I think his opinion is crap.
But at least it is paid for.....
Brewha Offline
#811 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 6:12 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
victor809 wrote:
I was thinking about that on my drive home.

Ultimately, MACS has a point. This guy's opinion carries more weight than mine on this topic. But in the end, that was nothing more than anot opinion piece.

It's no different than if Tony or brew had posted a video of a scientist from "group 1" "summarizing" how all the fossil fuel and manufacturing interests in group 3 were influencing scientists in group 2.


No - I think it would be different.


Because us liberals are Cbid's greatest asset!
Herfing
frankj1 Offline
#812 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 6:42 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,251
frankj1 wrote:
where is his money coming from?

asked, and answered.
Brewha Offline
#813 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 8:07 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Would the next contestant enter and sign in please......
frankj1 Offline
#814 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 8:51 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,251
What's My Line?
Brewha Offline
#815 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 8:58 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
"I think I'll pass to Arlene"
frankj1 Offline
#816 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:18 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,251
I had a thing for Betsy Palmer. Arlene was too, how you say...?
banderl Offline
#817 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:21 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Anal?
frankj1 Offline
#818 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:23 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,251
yeah, anal.
banderl Offline
#819 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:23 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
This is too good to leave on that other thread:
Brewha wrote:
So I was checking into my motel with the family, and before I paid I told the clerk that I needed to make sure that the porn channel is disabled.
He looks at me and says; "It's just regular porn, you sick fuc".
banderl Offline
#820 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:24 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
frankj1 wrote:
yeah, anal.



Wasn't Betsy a Miss America or something?
Brewha Offline
#821 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:26 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
I reckon "unapproachable" would be the term. Unless one would be more uncomplimentary.
But a smart girl none the less.
Brewha Offline
#822 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:28 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
banderl wrote:
This is too good to leave on that other thread:


And here I thought people were losing their sence of humor.

Thx Bro
DrafterX Offline
#823 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:39 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,582
I heard hyenas used to eat peoples... Mellow
banderl Offline
#824 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:43 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
DrafterX wrote:
I heard hyenas used to eat peoples... Mellow



No, that would be dingoes, and they eat babies.
DrafterX Offline
#825 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:46 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,582
Those bassards. .!! Mad
DrafterX Offline
#826 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:52 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,582
But back on topic. .. the global warming peoples aren't paid..?? Huh
frankj1 Offline
#827 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:54 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,251
banderl wrote:
Wasn't Betsy a Miss America or something?

Bess Myerson.
Betsy Palmer was in Oklahoma or some such musical.
frankj1 Offline
#828 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:57 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,251
DrafterX wrote:
But back on topic. .. the global warming peoples aren't paid..?? Huh

well yeah, that's been said a thousand times here.

I just never heard anyone who agrees with the deniers ask about their money trail so I thought I'd bring it up...in the interest of fair play
banderl Offline
#829 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 9:58 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Been cold here.
frankj1 Offline
#830 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 10:02 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,251
banderl wrote:
Been cold here.

science disproved.
banderl Offline
#831 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 10:03 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Ha!
banderl Offline
#832 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 10:07 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
frankj1 wrote:
Bess Myerson.
Betsy Palmer was in Oklahoma or some such musical.



Sorry, I was thinking about Vanessa Williams.
MACS Offline
#833 Posted: Fri, Apr 29 2016, 11:33 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,878
Interesting links, brewha. Both sides are paying their scientists, though... so that argument is moot.

I don't believe the 97% consensus, and I do believe that politicians, environmentalists and the media are capitalizing on something that, yes... is a problem, but not as big as they'd like you to believe it is.
victor809 Offline
#834 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 12:09 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Hang on. Why is the argument moot because both sides are profiting when brewha brings up a point... but when you post a video from Prager "university" saying one side is being influenced it's suddenly some sort of interesting insight?
Speyside Offline
#835 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 7:49 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I'm with you MACS, the concensus is 98.2%.
MACS Offline
#836 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 9:59 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,878
victor809 wrote:
Hang on. Why is the argument moot because both sides are profiting when brewha brings up a point... but when you post a video from Prager "university" saying one side is being influenced it's suddenly some sort of interesting insight?


My point isn't the 'profit'. Scientists are funded, as you know, which is how they pay for their work. One would like to think that scientists would be scientific and report results, not manipulate them. In the video, Lindzen is purporting that both sides of climate scientists agree on many points, and disagree on a few. It's the last group saying the sky is falling.

But in the end, I guess it comes down to who you choose to believe. You guys believe one side, I believe the other.
DrafterX Offline
#837 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 10:26 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,582
I think the real question here is 'Who's paying Brewha..??'... Think
banderl Offline
#838 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 11:12 AM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
victor809 wrote:
Hang on. Why is the argument moot because both sides are profiting when brewha brings up a point... but when you post a video from Prager "university" saying one side is being influenced it's suddenly some sort of interesting insight?



Prager University?
What's the outlook for their football team this year?
tonygraz Offline
#839 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 11:57 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,314
1.25 minute quarters ?
Brewha Offline
#840 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 12:10 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-denial-psychology_us_56438664e4b045bf3ded5ca5

Yet another opinion above....
Brewha Offline
#841 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 12:16 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
MACS wrote:
My point isn't the 'profit'. Scientists are funded, as you know, which is how they pay for their work. One would like to think that scientists would be scientific and report results, not manipulate them. In the video, Lindzen is purporting that both sides of climate scientists agree on many points, and disagree on a few. It's the last group saying the sky is falling.

But in the end, I guess it comes down to who you choose to believe. You guys believe one side, I believe the other.

And you have every right to believe anything you might like.

But I think you might consider the long list of people, organizations and governments that you disbelieve. I mean, you know the Pentagon has weighed in on this right?
DrafterX Offline
#842 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 12:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,582
Brewha..!! Laugh
Brewha Offline
#843 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 12:34 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
Drafter!!! Woot
Brewha Offline
#844 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 12:34 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
I think the real question here is 'Who's paying Brewha..??'... Think

Lord knows I should be getting paid for this......
Speyside Offline
#845 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 2:45 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Thought you do this for humanitarian reasons.
Covfireman Offline
#846 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 7:53 PM EST
Joined: 09-03-2015
Posts: 809
Brewha wrote:

But I think you might consider the long list of people, organizations and governments that you disbelieve. I mean, you know the Pentagon has weighed in on this right?



I saw it in the National Inquirer and Mad Magazine.
DrafterX Offline
#847 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 8:37 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,582
Ok, who has this so called global warming actually affected besides the terrorists. .?? Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#848 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 9:05 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,251
Cros?
Adroomi?
DrafterX Offline
#849 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 9:30 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,582
I was just remembering today about the big hole in the ozone layer... DuPont made billions off of that bogus crap... this is nothing more of the same.... Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#850 Posted: Sat, Apr 30 2016, 9:40 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,582
And now we have a new freon... guess what happens next. .. Mellow
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
18 Pages«<131415161718>
Back to Top