Page 16 of 17
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:06 pm
by henry quirk
Me: wouldn't give you a plug nickel for any of 'em (on the Left, Middle, or Right).
And: I know what your point is, Raw. Using the 'tell 'em what they wanna hear' politician as an evidence of anything, like the existence of life, means nuthin'.
Re: Climate Change
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:30 am
by raw_thought
No, what I am saying is that when even fanatical climate change deniers are converted to AGW believers, that implies that the evidence is overwhelming.
The evidence is so overwhelming that they must go against their own interests (money from the petro chemical industry) because they know that denying the obvious will make them look like morons and therefore unelectable.
Re: Climate Change
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:51 am
by thedoc
raw_thought wrote:No, what I am saying is that when even fanatical climate change deniers are converted to AGW believers, that implies that the evidence is overwhelming.
The evidence is so overwhelming that they must go against their own interests (money from the petro chemical industry) because they know that denying the obvious will make them look like morons and therefore unelectable.
We can only hope that this is the case.
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:49 pm
by henry quirk
"they must go against their own interests (money from the petro chemical industry)"
They give up, for the moment, oil money, in favor of the the larger, more substantial, benefits of being in office.
It's called 'strategy', not 'conversion'.
Re: Climate Change
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:12 pm
by raw_thought
So you agree that denying the obvious (AGW) is not in their best interest.
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:33 pm
by henry quirk
Sure, but not because human-driven climate change is right; only cuz politicians, in general, are liars who'll say just about anything to get and stay elected. If the culture trended toward, for example, believing Santa Claus is real, then political folks would be right there, on record, sayin' 'yes, Santa is real and is, in fact, a good friend of mine'.
Re: Climate Change
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:41 pm
by raw_thought
So even tho every scientific organization in the world and over 97% of climate scientists endorse AGW, you still claim that the entire world's scientific community is falsifing data. Where do you get your data that AGW is false,since all sources of data (according to you) are part of a conspiracy?
Extra Sensory Perception? Are you a prophet like bobevenson?
Re: Climate Change
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:02 pm
by henry quirk
"97% of climate scientists"
I asked for this before (mebbe in this thread): How many climate scientists are there in the world and how many endorse the idea of human-driven climate change?
Not interested in what (the leadership) of organizations say on the matter...am interested in the individual scientists. You've thrown out the sacred '97%', so names and individual positions, please.
#
"Where do you get your data that AGW is false(?)"
*ahem* I've said it several times: the climate, as a big dynamic system, changes. I simply ask 'is human industry currently the prime driver for that change?'. Not quite the same as claiming conspiracy.
Re: Climate Change
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:16 pm
by raw_thought
Please read my posts before commenting on them!!!! I gave numerous sources and links that prove that over 97% of climate scientists endorse AGW.
Re: Climate Change
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:18 pm
by raw_thought
AGW =Anthropogenic Global Warming. In other words we cause it.
In other words since you claim that all the sources of data are lying because they all show AGW, there must be a conspiracy. Or are all the scientists in the world stupid and you know more about science yhen them? Not likely!
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:27 pm
by henry quirk
"I gave numerous sources and links that prove that over 97% of climate scientists endorse AGW."
Nope. You foisted up the official stance of 'organizations'. In any of these organizations there may be a significant dissenting view, dissent effectively silenced by a majority that practically could be no more than 51 to 49.
I want to see the number of climate scientists, and I want their individual takes on the matter...absolutely not interested in what (a majority of) an organization has to say on the matter.
I'm thinkin' you aren't gonna honor my request.
*shrug*
Also...
I know what AGW is.
I call it 'human-driven climate change'.
You're certain of it; I'm not...surprise, surprise.
Done here too.
Re: Climate Change
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:35 pm
by raw_thought
Yes, I did prove that EVERY scientific organization endorses AGW. However, I also gave links about the over 97% of climats scientists endorsing AGW.
PLEASE, read posts before commenting on them!!!
Re: it bears repeating...
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:04 pm
by SpheresOfBalance
henry quirk wrote:The climate changes: it's a dynamic, on-going, system...it never was, and never will be, static.
The question is: how much is mankind driving or directing this change?
HQ, I don't know if the math has been done, but consider this:
Take all the naturally occurring CO2 contributers and place them on the left, then place all of mankind's unnatural contributions on the right, now see which way your scale tips, then slide your weights in the direction required to equal them out, and their's your percentage. Trust your mind not someone elses.
My mind knows that we contribute, to what extent matters not to me. All that does matter to me, is what we do to address the situation.
As I've said before, 'if you come upon your next door neighbors house that's on fire, potentially burning to the ground, possibly yours along with it, is your first question:
A) Who started the fire? (I.O.W., stand around talking about the fire, watching it burn, "hey where are the marshmallows?")
OR
B) Where's the gasoline, so I can feed the fire?
OR
C) Where's the water, so I can extinguish the fire?
To me the answer is a no brainer.
The problem is, all of the idiots, (the dissenters), are either sitting on their ass with a face full of marshmallows or holding a can of gasoline, as the flames suddenly seem larger, and somebody complains that due to the flash, their marshmallow was far too burnt, but that it's OK, they'll just grab another one, as those with the gasoline cans smile, all the way up until we're all engulfed in flames. 
Certainly, mankind has an effect but my bet is we aren't (currently) the prime driver of climate change (which has an inertia and pattern predating mankind).
At best: our industry speeds up (slightly) what happens naturally (or, slows down [slightly] what happens naturally).
I'm thinkin' the boat we're in (sinkin' or not) would 'be' the boat we're in no matter what mankind did (or does).
So: I don't deny what is obvious...I can't, however, pin the tail (the blame) on the donkey (mankind).
Simply: there is no blame to lay...nature is just an amoral bitch...she doesn't work for us.
Re: Climate Change
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:25 pm
by raw_thought
We would be getting cooler if there was no human influence. Instead we keep breaking heat records. ALL of science agrees on that.
Please do a little research before posting.
PS: I understand how you structured that post. But to some, it might look like I was responding to your post (Spheres). However, I was responding to the last sentence in that post (Henry's)
Re: Climate Change
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2015 6:35 pm
by SpheresOfBalance
raw_thought wrote:We would be getting cooler if there was no human influence. Instead we keep breaking heat records. ALL of science agrees on that.
Please do a little research before posting.
PS: I understand how you structured that post. But to some, it might look like I was responding to your post (Spheres). However, I was responding to the last sentence in that post (Henry's)
It's nice to see that we agree on something RW, i.e., GW. And yes communication breakdowns are indeed possible, I'm reminded of your and my earlier one on this very topic. So let us try our best to remain diligent in assuring we understand one another before we leap at one another's throats.