Climate change legit after all! Who woulda thunk it?

[actaeon277]

oops wrong thread

 

[rhino]

I don't care what ANYONE SAYS concerning climate change as long as those forcing it upon us stand to make BILLIONS of dollars if they're legislation becomes law, I can not and will not accept any of it as truth and neither should any other thinking person.

Can anyone else name any other case when a scientific hypothesis became accepted fact virtually over night? If I am to understand the process properly it usually takes years for a hypothesis to become accepted fact to the entire world wide scientific community. By comparison Global worming became world wide accepted scientific fact virtually over night and it is also undeniable it's acceptance has been driven to great extent by a profiteering political agenda.

Maybe not years, but you have the right idea. It typically requires being able to reproduce the result independently by others to elevate a hypothesis to a theory. That usually takes time.

In this case, the conclusion was predetermined and since then the people involved have been doing everything they can to get people to believe that they have legitimate evidence supporting their conclusion. This has taken the form of endless repetition of unsubstantiated claims with almost universal collusion by the popular media. Those of us who like evidence are still waiting to see some that actually shows that human activity is having a significant effect on climate.

 

[ATM]

I don't care what ANYONE SAYS concerning climate change as long as those forcing it upon us stand to make BILLIONS of dollars if they're legislation becomes law, I can not and will not accept any of it as truth and neither should any other thinking person.

Can anyone else name any other case when a scientific hypothesis became accepted fact virtually over night? If I am to understand the process properly it usually takes years for a hypothesis to become accepted fact to the entire world wide scientific community. By comparison Global worming became world wide accepted scientific fact virtually over night and it is also undeniable it's acceptance has been driven to great extent by a profiteering political agenda.

Yes, I can.

 

[Spear Dane]

Given that we have absolutely nowhere else to go, should we not err on the side of prudence and take the best care of OUR ONLY HOME that we can?

 

[actaeon277]

Given that we have absolutely nowhere else to go, should we not err on the side of prudence and take the best care of OUR ONLY HOME that we can?

What if throwing all our money down a rat hole is NOT erring on the side of prudence.

 

[BugI02]

Not if it strengthens our enemies at the expense of the US. No use worrying about sea levels in 2100 if we crash and burn in 2028

 

[rhino]

Given that we have absolutely nowhere else to go, should we not err on the side of prudence and take the best care of OUR ONLY HOME that we can?

How do you determine what "err on the side of prudence" really is? The proposed measures to address alleged man-made climate change will do nothing, which is acknowledged by quite a large percentage of the people pushing the agenda.

In terms of power generation, inhibiting the use of fossil fuels and natural gas to produce electrical power would cause more harm than good even if they CO2 they release were really the culprit. Electrical power is needed and it is needed now. It would be nice if we could depend on solar or wind turbines to reliably supply the needs, but they cannot at this time. Trying to switch to immature technologies based on unsubstantiated allegations from known, cost effective, efficient means of generating power is absurd. It's like banning a medication that effectively treats a disease because it just might had a side effect (even though there is no evidence that it does) and forcing the patients to new medications that do not treat their symptoms effectively.

When we have a reliable, effective, and cost-efficient alternative to coal, petrol, and natural gas, let's use it. Until then . . .

Oh, wait! We do have an alternative: nuclear. Let's switch to that (seriously) as quickly as costs will allow.

 

[hoosierdoc]

how long did it take to convince people the earth was round? And during that time, how much fraudulent data did they come up with help to bolster their claims?

 

[Fargo]

You are going to have to be specific which "they" you are referring to. The melon lovers or the fried egg advocates?

 

[Ericpwp]

Applicable
I like this guy. Language Warning
[video=youtube_share;ik-d4-qxVqs]http://youtu.be/ik-d4-qxVqs[/video]

 

[hoosierdoc]

You are going to have to be specific which "they" you are referring to. The melon lovers or the fried egg advocates?

melon lovers. Questioning how often we see the ones with the correct data faking it to make it look REALLY convincing, for their discoveries of incontrovertible conclusions.

Usually the frauds are the ones faking things

 

[jamil]

Just go ahead and say it ...he reminds you of me, doesn't he?

I went out to the garage to retrieve a 12-pack of Mtn Dew the other day, but my wife must have accidentally (or perhaps not accidentally) bought diet Mtn Dew. ew.

Do you know anyone who likes that or might want it before I just throw it away? Let me know.

Diet soda makes a great reactive and fun target. It spews well and doesn't have sugar to attract ants. Just a suggestion.

Given that we have absolutely nowhere else to go, should we not err on the side of prudence and take the best care of OUR ONLY HOME that we can?

Do you really want our "best"? So balls out, any cost, war on climate change? The point of the debate is, to what expense should we go to fight global warming? Rob the wealth of the people? Force poor people to freeze? Redistribute the wealth of the working class to rich people because they buy an electric exotic sports car instead of one with a gasoline internal combustion engine?

I'm all for respecting and caring for our environment. Don't **** in your Aquafina. Don't polute yours or others' habitat. Be responsible. That's quite different from the manufactured hysterical reaction current reporting and policy makers are making.

 

[ATM]

Diet soda makes a great reactive and fun target. It spews well and doesn't have sugar to attract ants. Just a suggestion...

I do appreciate that suggestion,

...but you're killin' me (and rhino) with the quoting!

As I doubt you're on his epic ignore list (though, I could be wrong on that assumption), he's now very likely to text me and want those icky diet sodas. Then, I won't be able to go 'splode them as would be more proper and fitting.

Just PM me next time.

 

[jamil]

Sorry dude. I don't honor ignore lists.

 

[ATM]

Sorry dude. I don't honor ignore lists.

Fair enough.

Also, climate change was an inside job.

 

[Salty]

Diet soda makes a great reactive and fun target. It spews well and doesn't have sugar to attract ants. Just a suggestion.

I know diet Coke spews well but are you sure diet Mt. Dew will? Try shaking up a regular Dew, tap it a couple times, then open it. Not much fiz there.

 

[jamil]

I know diet Coke spews well but are you sure diet Mt. Dew will? Try shaking up a regular Dew, tap it a couple times, then open it. Not much fiz there.

I don't have much experience with Dew. Diet colas do well. Diet orange soda is my fave. Spews well and easy to see.

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube;52zk3AOawxc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52zk3AOawxc[/video]



[video=youtube;jrmM-b58Vhs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrmM-b58Vhs[/video]

 

[actaeon277]

But then there's this one.

[video=youtube;zjeKVpZDmI8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjeKVpZDmI8[/video]

 

[rhino]

Diet soda makes a great reactive and fun target. It spews well and doesn't have sugar to attract ants. Just a suggestion.

Hah! My friend ATM threw some bait out there for me. He knows what to put on the rhino trap to get me curious enough to stick my horn closer . . . closer . . .

Looks like I need to text him.