'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

bystander said:
I didn't want a second child. My ex badgered me about it for several years before I gave in. She was obsessed with not having an only child; I was obsessed with the fact that our marriage was failing. So she wore me down. We had a beautiful daughter and our marriage ended.

Very sad but my daughter is such a blessing.

I don't know how Gloria has the nerve to act like women have been forcefully raped by their husbands all these years. I guess that is her take on it. It's not mine at least not in my experience. It seems every woman I meet has to be freakin' handed a crown and a coach made from a pumpkin along with a copy of my financial statement and a pledge to honor their list of demands for a fulfilling life just to get them to go out on a date.
Click to expand...
Translation: First World Probs.

Most of the lives impacted by the lack of access to affordable birth control aren't in our circles.
 
bystander said:
It seems every woman I meet has to be freakin' handed a crown and a coach made from a pumpkin along with a copy of my financial statement and a pledge to honor their list of demands for a fulfilling life just to get them to go out on a date.
Click to expand...

Yep. Then they complain why they can't find Mr. Right.
 
DBKWstvUQAA2R4J.jpg
 
These people have no pressure on them to stop this end of the world stuff
They just get to freely make up new stuff as they go along
Zero accountability

The top one is from 2005
The second one from 2011
DBU0cLJU0AAaECD.jpg




DBU0eEvVwAUWzgp.jpg
 
A two degree change in temperatures over 150 years is not exactly unprecedented. People have this idea that the climate was stable before man came upon the scene. Climate has always been unstable and can change quite quickly.
 
More accurate satellite studies (back to 1979) show temp rise is 1 degree C per century.
Click to expand...

If the data only goes back to 1979, then they are using data modeling to figure out the per century number. So, using ~40 years of data to tell us what happened in the past 100, or 200, or 300 years - what could possibly go wrong?
 
Phil Elliott said:
If the data only goes back to 1979, then they are using data modeling to figure out the per century number. So, using ~40 years of data to tell us what happened in the past 100, or 200, or 300 years - what could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...
They are using land thermometers that are corrupted by land use changes (pristine land -> farm land -> surbubia -> city).
 
The name change from global warming to climate change says everything about the bogus underlying motivations based on cherry-picked formulas and data.

During the course of every year the climate changes continuously. With a description as broad as climate change, anything that occurs at an abnormal rate can then be attributed to man and fuel pleas to stop the impending doom.

However if still hanging hats on the more specific claim of global warming, the coldest month in decades wouldn't be so easy to explain to those freezing their f'n arses off.
 
Brad Austin said:
The name change from global warming to climate change says everything about the bogus underlying motivations based on cherry-picked formulas and data.
Click to expand...

It never changed. They mean different things. Climate change is the result of global warming.


However if still hanging hats on the more specific claim of global warming, the coldest month in decades wouldn't be so easy to explain to those freezing their f'n arses off.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the concepts of global warming and climate change. The earth heating up doesn't impact all geographies uniformly. Texas having a record cold spell doesn't mean the rest of the earth isn't heating up and could potentially be reinforcing the theory of climate change dependent on the reason for the cold spell. I'm not claiming to be an expert but that statement exhibits a fundamental misinterpretation of the term global warming.
 
Last I checked there is not one peer reviewed paper that claims higher CO2 concentrations increases drought, storms, etc. In fact, the IPCC report states that such claims are unfounded. Yet, the alarmists keep stating it. Sea level rise is the one true consequence of higher temperature, all else (more disease, more or less of this or that) is just speculation. Even sea level rise has not accelerated in the last 500 years. Future projections are all based on modeling and impossible to achieve temperature increases.
 
25 years ago, the same people were telling us that in 25 years (i.e., about now), our beaches would be gone

(click it once to enlarge)

DBb1V0EVwAEnBOm.jpg
 
Last edited:
Joe Fan said:
25 years ago, the same people were telling us that in 25 years (i.e., about now), our beaches would be gone

(click it once to enlarge)

DBb1V0EVwAEnBOm.jpg
Click to expand...
Joe, don't be a science denier. You know as well as I do that the beaches have 3 years left.
 
mchammer said:
Joe, don't be a science denier. You know as well as I do that the beaches have 3 years left.
Click to expand...


About 40 years ago, they told us our beaches would be covered in ice by now. They even gave us 51 things to do to prevent the coming Ice Age. I guess we did those things a little too well?

It's the same people. Now and then.

time_iceage1.jpg
 
In this case, more than 90% of the people that study this for a living seem to say it is happening.
Click to expand...

The couple of times I've looked deeper into that sort of claim, they've gotten that number through subtle manipulation. It's actually been "90-whatever % of those who took a firm stance" and not of the total.

In other words:
90 surveyed scientists said "There's definitely dangerous climate change being caused by humans."
10 surveyed scientists said "There's definitely not dangerous climate change being caused by humans."
X surveyed scientists said "I cannot definitively support either position with the current evidence."

How many was that X? 2 scientists? 10,000 scientists? Usually you have no idea. Often we don't even see the "of those who took a definitive position" part - it's buried subtly within the full report so that the journalists who write about will miss it, and thus we then read articles where it isn't included.

My stance is that the science may not be settled. But, to ignore the science and the potential for harm that we're causing is foolish. Seems like a fairly reasonable stance as compared to the poles split between Al Gore and Scott Pruitt.
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable to me. If the argument was more often "The potential to harm exists so let's take precautions." and less often "You clearly are anti-science and don't give a crap about the environment, you DENIER!"then it might get somewhere more effectively.

Honestly the debate over something so clearly uncertain and complex and difficult to prove always seemed weird. I think it has detracted from putting those energies towards fixing stuff we can all agree is bad and is undoubtedly happening: dirty air, dirty water, dumping toxins, littering, etc. But then again maybe that still gets nowhere because nobody can agree what the most effective ways are to combat those things - and then we get back into the common "I believe government should do X to stop it" "I think that actually wouldn't help" "I ignore what you said and just pretend you hate the environment." type of argument that infects pretty much every single issue.

If we really wanted to combat air pollution, we'd start replacing oil, gas, and coal plants with nuclear plants. And if you disagree with me on that, obviously it's because you don't like clear air and don't care about the lower-income children who are choking when they breathe. :D
 
Last edited:
Any so-called environmentalist who is complaining about CO2 emissions warming the planet and is NOT calling for nuclear plants to be built to help the situation is not serious about it.
 
A multi-year, multi-million dollar climate change study has been put on ice for a year -- because of -- “unprecedented” thick summer ice.

The scientists’ icebreaker which was supposed to take them up where they wanted to go -- was needed by the Canadian Coast Guard for a more urgent purpose – to rescue fishing boats and supply ships which were stuck in the “unprecedented ice conditions”

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/lo...ostponed-due-to-climate-change-428030543.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top