Weather Network ****s on Breitbart climate article

[LogGrad98]

lemme summarize this article for everyone, because all of us are smart enough not to subscribe to the WSJ:


area Intelligent-Design proponent & libertarian policy think tank CEO write an article trying to say there isn't a scientific consensus on the validity of man-created climate change (even though there is)

Please point to the peer reviewed survey of all several million scientists on the entire planet that proves the consensus.

 

[Stoked]

Watching Bean freak out over this is entertaining. I don't even want to really discuss it with him at this point, just poke him with a stick.

 

[LogGrad98]

LOL. What nonsense. I don't think you even know anything about the subject.

It's pretty obvious you don't.


See how easy that is to say? Makes you sound smart to point out others don't know anything when they don't agree with you.

 

[Siro]

I remember last time we got into this conversation. We were discussing the data and what it means, and Log chimes in with a link to a wordpress blog from some random dude. I'm guessing that was the first Google result?

At least babe puts some effort into his delusions. Like forcing us to watch a 3 hour conspiracy video on youtube.

 

[Siro]

Please point to the peer reviewed survey of all several million scientists on the entire planet that proves the consensus.

There is no relevance to "consensus", if such a thing is even possible. There are a few scientists out there who believe in alchemy. Scientists are just people.

What matters is the best explanation currently available when the data is viewed though a neutral lens. And that point to anthropogenic climate change.

Anyone can copy/paste random articles from Google, then stop responding to challenges. I've seen it done on this forum on practically every topic, from vaccinations to evolution to climate change. It's funny really.

 

[LogGrad98]

There is no relevance to "consensus", if such a thing is even possible. There are a few scientists out there who believe in alchemy. Scientists are just people.

What matters is the best explanation currently available when the data is viewed though a neutral lens. And that point to anthropogenic climate change.

Anyone can copy/paste random articles from Google, then stop responding to challenges. I've seen it done on this forum on practically every topic, from vaccinations to evolution to climate change. It's funny really.

Exactly. It's the "neutral lens" part most people struggle with, because frankly we are emotional beings and having a truly neutral lens is almost impossible. Everyone has a set of beliefs that taint the way they see these issues.

 

[Siro]

Exactly. It's the "neutral lens" part most people struggle with, because frankly we are emotional beings and having a truly neutral lens is almost impossible. Everyone has a set of beliefs that taint the way they see these issues.

When a neutral observer sees the astronomical amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere in the past 200 years, the first hypothesis will be "that should have an effect on global climate". You then look to see if that's the case, and what do you know, a mountain of evidence that shows an unmistakable trend of warming that coincides with the carbon dumping.

The side that believes green house gases are contributing to the green house effect is not the one being emotional. You are. I understand that people are worried about the effect of regulation on economics, and I sympathize with those who see alternate paths to deal with the issue. I have zero sympathy for the deniers who insist that the world fits their preferences.

I have no desire for climate change to be true. It's such a mess. I wish it weren't. But it is what it is. We can discuss what to do about it. However, the random linking is intellectually disingenuous and counter-productive.

 

[LogGrad98]

When a neutral observer sees the astronomical amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere in the past 200 years, the first hypothesis will be "that should have an effect on global climate". You then look to see if that's the case, and what do you know, a mountain of evidence that shows an unmistakable trend of warming that coincides with the carbon dumping.

The side that believes green house gases are contributing to the green house effect is not the one being emotional. You are. I understand that people are worried about the effect of regulation on economics, and I sympathize with those who see alternate paths to deal with the issue. I have zero sympathy for the deniers who insist that the world fits their preferences.

I have no desire for climate change to be true. It's such a mess. I wish it weren't. But it is what it is. We can discuss what to do about it. However, the random linking is intellectually disingenuous and counter-productive.

Actually I'm not being emotional at all. You and others have resorted to ad hominem attacks, not me. I simply posted something contradictory to your opinion with references that can be checked out, if you bothered to. It is immediately meet with derision and scorn.

 

[Siro]

Actually I'm not being emotional at all. You and others have resorted to ad hominem attacks, not me. I simply posted something contradictory to your opinion with references that can be checked out, if you bothered to. It is immediately meet with derision and scorn.

The articles you took 30 seconds to find on Google were trash. Additionally, you did not respond to Dalamon's rebuttal. But then again why would you (please refer to the 30 second Google search part).

One of them is a survey of engineers working in the oil and mining industries who say they don't buy anthropogenic climate change. kul. Can you please find me an article of what dental hygienists think? Thanks in advance.

The second is an op-ed that questions the 97% figure. Oookay. I guess that's something we can talk about if I wasn't sure you'd ignore any rebuttals.

Like I said. It is not my opinion. The vasy majority of people who study this subject seem to agree that climate change is happening, and that human activity has something to do with it. It's a hypothesis that makes sense. Why would humans transforming atmospheric make-up to that of the Triassic era not change the climate to the matching conditions? And looking at the actual data, it seems very reasonable to accept those conclusions, given what we know so far.

 

[Beantown]

You better hope that they're wrong cause we are going to blow the lid off every carbon limit that they try to set. You don't deny global warming but I'm certain that your CO2 footprint is way higher than what the climate scientists say it should be. If even the most supportive of climate science can't even bring themselves to take a cold shower there's no way that the average person is going to stand for it.

My carbon footprint is pretty low:

My house runs on 100% renewable energy

I compost/garden

Shop at farmers markets

I take an electric train into work

I don't eat red meat.

 

[Beantown]

For those bitching about climate change....why are you against improving air/water quality? Especially since the majority of you live in Utah.

Somebody please address that question.

 

[Miggs]

My stepsister has her doctorate in geology from the University of Tennessee. She lived in ****ing Antarctica for six months. Climate change is real she says. Quite obviously. I trust her and that and common sense are good enough for me.