really thought more would show up

[begreen]

It's easy for us to be arm chair skeptics. We have only partial data on these complex systems. And little in depth understanding of the models. The theory is not changing when the weather changes. That is not climate based. Dramatic swings in local weather were predicted to happen years back. We are now starting to live through this weather play.

 

[Frozen Canuck]

after several years of hearing from the same 97% of scientists that the mild winters and such were

I seriously doubt that climate scientists were making local or regional weather forecasts. Well….maybe that 3% were.

the problem with this "Science" is that when the weather changes , the theory is just changed to match it.

Climate scientists don't predict day to day, month to month (weather). They do look at trends, historical data, our position relative to the sun, our tilt relative to the sun, volumes of emissions & their source, & thousands of other factors, ice cores, ocean sediment cores, salinity & acidification levels in the oceans
& on & on. They apply the data to the models & make predictions for the future, not next day, week, month or year. They really are trying to predict long term trends (climate). Again possible exceptions for the 3%.

I doubt seriously that 97% of scientists predicted this at all.

Once again climate scientists don't predict your local weather or regional weather next day, week, month or year. Sorry to say that they could quite likely care less about any local, regional (weather) event. It simply is not on the time scale that they are looking at. Now start talking decades & yes they are interested in the overall trends & all the possible sources of influence on those trends/changes to the trend. Again exceptions for the 3% may need to be made.

 

[Frozen Canuck]

Dramatic swings in local weather were predicted to happen years back.

Yep at least 30 years ago by this old carpenters memory.

I poo poo ed them all back then, now when I fly north & see buildings I have built sinking into the what was then permafrost, I feel the need to wipe that poo off. Did me or anyone else no good whatsoever. I just confused the discussion with noise.

 

[Ehouse]

Ahh, politics 101

Create a fake crisis. Check
Convince people it's going to change our lives. Check
Convince people to donate money for "the cause" thus ensuring reelection. Check

Now I'm not denying that climate change exists. History can pretty much prove that it's a fact. But it's still very much a theory as to if humans impact climate change much, if at all, and a theory that even scientists can't agree on.

Given the measurable impact of human activity in our short history, especially in the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, It would be surprising if we have had no effect at all. It's now only a question of degree and effect. The burden of proof lies with the naysayers.

 

[Mrs. Krabappel]

Yep, about 97% of those scientists agree that it's us.

Not across the history of the planet. We are a very recent species.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

some interest stats on one product. I thought this was pretty green?http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/marijuana-pot-weed-statistics-climate-change

 

[Adios Pantalones]

some interest stats on one product. I thought this was pretty green?http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/marijuana-pot-weed-statistics-climate-change

The clandestine nature of these trespass growers drives a lot of this. I think the idea is that legal growing of HEMP would be a greening up in comparison to other fiber production methods, but that would be a biologically inactive first cousin of pot

 

[razerface]

The burden of proof lies with the naysayers.

thats right,,because the so called "climate change people" have no proof on their side,,,so they transfer it to everyone else, saying "prove I am wrong" when they have never proved they are right......

 

[BrotherBart]

Buncha people that can't even agree on how dry firewood should be are who I look to for facts on the cause of major impacts on the planet.

 

[fossil]

And nary a scientist among them.

 

[Frozen Canuck]

Not across the history of the planet. We are a very recent species.

You are right teach. I should have said "agree that it's us this time around"

 

[Doug MacIVER]

this an old thread I brought up in the can, but related to this. they, the believers, are tying everything to climate change. even when congress sees bad economic policy. it's all about climate change? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/congress-flood-insurance_n_4981226.html if you don't read it, house voted 306-91, senate 72-22. pretty clear they thought it was a mistake. when was common sense their strong (suet)

 

[splitoak]

Its because they get grant money from the feds....dont bite the hand...we have been burning fossil fuels for about 100 years or so...that is not even a blip in the earths history...to think man can stop the rise of the oceans..or stop the climate from changing by taking my money or shutting down fossil fuel production is laughable at best..C02 a pollutant..really?..trees need it for photosynthesis....its all b.s...another scheme ment ro make people rich off other peoples money........sorry for rant

 

[Frozen Canuck]

Its because they get grant money from the feds....dont bite the hand

Plenty more money available if the scientist's simply said we don't know what is happening & we need more money to study this. Following the logic above, why would science choose the path that gives them less money? If it's all about money that is.

 

[razerface]

Plenty more money available if the scientist's simply said we don't know what is happening & we need more money to study this. Following the logic above, why would science choose the path that gives them less money? If it's all about money that is.

because they choose not to bite the left hand,,,,"the hand" being the part of gov't promoting climate change. If they say they don't know what is happening,,or disagree,,,they would get replaced. It is always all about the money,,,did you think they do not getting any more money? You think they are done?

 

[Doug MacIVER]

Plenty more money available if the scientist's simply said we don't know what is happening & we need more money to study this. Following the logic above, why would science choose the path that gives them less money? If it's all about money that is.

the guy who asks for$ to scrub coal , get back in line. the guy who boils h2o with the sun , sure come on in. re-read Eisenhower farewell on tech.

 

[Frozen Canuck]

Holy flying conspiracy theory(ies) Batman(s). The little blue marble is a scary place indeed with all "them" science types out to get you, steal all "your" money, educate all "your" children.

Nasty evil folks indeed, we should really form a movement, lets call it the folks who just barely managed to complete grade school, who are gonna teach all them science types the right way to do science movement! Ya know, show em how the good ole boys get er done! Show em good. Yep that's a nice short title that we can remember. Nice acronym too.

It's ok we don't need to know any science or have even the slightest inkling to learn anything at all, we will just make up the rules of science as we stumble (move in the only correct direction) along & always keep our ace in the hole, DENIAL. As long as we have that, we can (in our minds) disprove anything science says.

Me, I want to take on that fake science about gravity first. I know better. I think it is floatation not gravitation. They can't prove me wrong!

Then move onto the ridiculous notion that the sun does not revolve around the earth that those dirty rotten nasty science types say is a fact, I know better. The earth is the centre of everything, always has been always will be. They can't prove me wrong!

After that I want to tell those darn science types that indeed the earth is flat as opposed to their ridiculous notion that it has a roundish shape. I know better. After all ships still disappear at sea, they must be sailing off the edge, never to be seen again, right? They can't prove me wrong!

What say the rest of you in the movement?, what evil science would you like to take on & deny first? Gotta be at least a billion of them!, right?

BTW a major part of being a scientist is proving the other scientist wrong. Proof of hypothesis, proof of theory, adherence to the scientific method & on & on. If it wasn't against the membership rules of the movement I might even allow myself to think that one scientist enjoys proving the other wrong, but it is against the rules so I will deny that. Bring on the conspiracy theory.

Seriously (for a moment before I rejoin the movement) if this old carpenter with a minimum of education, can after a great deal of study (for me), figure out that the vast majority of agreed upon information (data) supports the hypotheses & theories of one side….I really expect the majority to get there as well. After all with my minimal education you really shouldn't be expecting me to haul all the freight in a science discussion. Kinda like shoving the cart out in front of the horse & being upset with the horse for the results.

Ok back to the deniers camp I go, it's more fun there. So much less thinking for my old brain to do. I can see why so many like & defend it.

 

[razerface]

Holy flying conspiracy theory(ies) Batman(s). The little blue marble is a scary place indeed with all "them" science types out to get you, steal all "your" money, educate all "your" children.

Nasty evil folks indeed, we should really form a movement, lets call it the folks who just barely managed to complete grade school, who are gonna teach all them science types the right way to do science movement! Ya know, show em how the good ole boys get er done! Show em good. Yep that's a nice short title that we can remember. Nice acronym too.

i get very tired of you talking ,talking,talking,,,but you never say anything.

Now you are calling everyone who does not agree with you stupid and uneducated. I won't even bother to read the rest of your answer since I am sure my uneducated dumbass can't understand it.

 

[fossil]

And that'll about do it, folks.