Westside Steve Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 This is not to start off in a climate debate just pointing out that the new guy in charge of the EPA is being quoted as saying that we're not exactly sure how much effect mankind has on the environment. Which we aren't. I think most of us believe that mankind has some effect okay? On MSNBC reporter described him as a climate change denier. There is a difference. But this is one big reason why nobody trusts the news. It's akin to describing a person who wants to eliminate affirmative action as someone who wants to bring back slavery. ( I'm just pointing this out for the b******* reporting angle not to start a war between Cal and Woody.) WSS WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Go check out the thread on the guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 "Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind, he wrote in National Review earlier this year. That debate should be encouraged in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime." WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 There's a big difference though. You could put a hundred football fans in a room, tell them to discuss who's better - Trent Richardson or Ezekiel Elliot - and if one is PoeticG, they'll 'continue to disagree'. Ask those same fans who's better out of Bell and Peterson, you'll 'continue to disagree'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 now that's a self-serving configuration of an analogy. I'm just tired of liberal parrots hopping around on pogo sticks, chanting "mmgw, stop the CO2 it's baking our planet" when science shows that CO2 is not the cause. It's chlorofluorocarbons and solar activity combined. http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=371 time to stop hopping, liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 First link doesn't work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 First link doesn't work add an L to html. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Sorry I understand that anything shy of we will all be dead next week is denial for some people. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 now that's a self-serving configuration of an analogy. I'm just tired of liberal parrots hopping around on pogo sticks, chanting "mmgw, stop the CO2 it's baking our planet" when science shows that CO2 is not the cause. It's chlorofluorocarbons and solar activity combined. http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.htm http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=371 time to stop hopping, liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 that phs org link is gone. Can't find it. damn obaMao. http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/04/non-existent-relationship-co2-temperature-correlation-only-15-of-last-165-years/#sthash.yinAdSMv.dpbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 that phs org link is gone. Can't find it. damn obaMao. http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/04/non-existent-relationship-co2-temperature-correlation-only-15-of-last-165-years/#sthash.yinAdSMv.dpbs Really? Because... add an L to html. ...and there you have it http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Though now I feel obliged to engage. The premise of the study is that CFCs are the main driver of climate change, which is just incorrect (see here). Put simply, he's only looking at global surface temperatures, which have remained quite stable - not quite flat but not accelerating - and finding a better correlation with CFCs than CO2. What he ignores is that added heat is only made up of about 2% surface temperature: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Cow farts are really the biggest problem when it comes to global warming. And 1 forest fire is probably 1000x worse than 900,000 diesel trucks - using statistics that I just made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 This is not to start off in a climate debate just pointing out that the new guy in charge of the EPA is being quoted as saying that we're not exactly sure how much effect mankind has on the environment. Which we aren't. I think most of us believe that mankind has some effect okay? On MSNBC reporter described him as a climate change denier. There is a difference. But this is one big reason why nobody trusts the news. It's akin to describing a person who wants to eliminate affirmative action as someone who wants to bring back slavery. ( I'm just pointing this out for the b******* reporting angle not to start a war between Cal and Woody.) WSS WSS So, assuming good intent, what would that look like? Is the target to get every single scientist in the world to agree on every detail? Or to get scientific consensus (defined as 95% agreement) on the biggest contributors, and, with economists, the most cost effective solutions? Or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 8, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 So, assuming good intent, what would that look like? Is the target to get every single scientist in the world to agree on every detail? Or to get scientific consensus (defined as 95% agreement) on the biggest contributors, and, with economists, the most cost effective solutions? Or something else? I started off by saying I have no intention of getting into some quibbling about whether or not warming, or climate change or whatever else it is, is happening. I'm just saying the extent the causes and the solutions are far from agreed upon. And just in case anyone is considering it please spare me the so your plan is just do nothing???" I might concede a small point if this guy had a list of posts like my friend Cal saying that there's no such thing. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 8, 2016 Report Share Posted December 8, 2016 Sorry, Chris - you engage wrongly. Though now I feel obliged to engage. The premise of the study is that CFCs are the main driver of climate change, which is just incorrect (see here). Put simply, he's only looking at global surface temperatures, which have remained quite stable - not quite flat but not accelerating - and finding a better correlation with CFCs than CO2. What he ignores is that added heat is only made up of about 2% surface temperature: ******************************************* NOPE.http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 "We're not sure how much humans affect clinate" is a thinly veiled coded msg to american companies to start dumping chemicals in the water again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 that's stupid, oh yeeh, you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 It's like saying "we're not sure for certain how many busted run plays were cam erving's fault, whether it's 50%, 75% or 95%, so until we're certain we're not going to get a new center" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 no, it isn''t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 no, it isn''t Its actually a pretty good analogy tbh. We do have like 1-2 cam deniers who refuse to look at tje evidence and acknowledge he's not good at his job. Just cant get through to them...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 It's like saying "we're not sure for certain how many busted run plays were cam erving's fault, whether it's 50%, 75% or 95%, so until we're certain we're not going to get a new center" It's more like we can't stop the run and we can't cover even the worst receivers in the league. We're going to trade all of our draft picks for a quarterback. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 See what you've started here, Steve? This is why we can't keep nice things on this board... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 For a sec i thought i was on the other board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 It's like saying "we're not sure for certain how many busted run plays were cam erving's fault, whether it's 50%, 75% or 95%, so until we're certain we're not going to get a new center" Chris ************************************************************ You can prove a play was run absolutely, you can't prove mmgw. All you have to do is review the film(s), and you know his lack of blocking, then proceed accordingly. You can't do that with mmgw. Assertaining facts of reality doesn't equate to theorizing an explanation for changing weather patterns. CO2 is the cause,CO2 is NOT the cause. The idea that we "have to DO SOMETHING" about something that hasn't been proven to be true, is a bunch of hooey. It's actually "we want a liberal leg up on control of funds and people's votes, so we want mmgw to be accepted regardless of facts to the contrary" and that is the "rest of the story" You don't tax farmers/everybody over cows farting because you are against pollution. Except for corrupt corp nutjobs, everybody is against pollution. But whining over the exhaust of cars and then whining "but don't you care about our groundwater?" has been so much nonsense, I imagine it undermines getting people on board to fight actual pollution of our rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, air and ground. Nothing but liberal crap, globalist crap, redistribution of wealth to the boo hoo poor countries, instead of cleaning our own environment and helping our own poor get a leg up to take care of themselves, and for ALL kids to have the op for a great education whilst they are in school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 See what you've started here, Steve? This is why we can't keep nice things on this board... I'm hip. The point wasn't global warming the point was tweaking a quote to make somebody sound worse than they are. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 Fuck the experts! It's gonna snow tonight! Those experts said we'd be under water by now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 Fuck the experts! It's gonna snow tonight! Those experts said we'd be under water by now!LOL Ironically that's what the alarmists on MSNBC said right after they blasted the EPA appointee. They went straight to a shocked face announcer chick saying that some month or other has been the warmest on record! WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted December 9, 2016 Report Share Posted December 9, 2016 more like "DON'T LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS WHO ARE SKEPTICAL !! NOOOOOOO" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 10, 2016 Report Share Posted December 10, 2016 "experts" Guy with no climatology experience being funded by an oil company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.