Jump to content
toomuchbaloney toomuchbaloney (New Member) New Member

The Myth of Climate Change

Lounge   (14,969 Views 353 Comments)
2 Followers; 37,001 Visitors; 8,739 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 7 of The Myth of Climate Change. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Weather and climate are two different things. This is sort of along the lines of claiming climate change doesn't exist because it was colder today than yesterday.

I'm sure it was by accident, but Breitbart for some reason forgot to include the clarification the authors of the study were careful to point out;

[/size]

One of the reasons I have not participated in this thread since my initial comments is that I don't care to keep re-inventing the wheel. In my view, if you can't be bothered to understand the difference between weather and climate, then your opinion on the subject is pretty worthless.

As for Breitbart, well ... with that site's documented history of fabricating stories, this is about what one would expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weather and climate are two different things. This is sort of along the lines of claiming climate change doesn't exist because it was colder today than yesterday.

Out of curiosity, how long would it take for you to consider it a result of climate change, as opposed to being related to the weather?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering there were dire warnings of an impending ice age as recently as the 1970's (which we're still waiting on) and now just 40 years later, we haven't yet seen any real concrete evidence of the disasters of global warnings, but knowing that thousands of years ago there was an Ice age, I think the answer about low long must be thousands of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering there were dire warnings of an impending ice age as recently as the 1970's (which we're still waiting on) and now just 40 years later, we haven't yet seen any real concrete evidence of the disasters of global warnings, but knowing that thousands of years ago there was an Ice age, I think the answer about low long must be thousands of years.

This,too has been debunked more than once here on this site. The ice age prediction was always a minority - as in less than 10% of scientists working in the field.

As for seeing "concrete evidence" of disasters - if you're only paying attention to the know-nothings like Breitbart.com and petrochemical industry shills, then I'm not surprised. By definition, one cannot see with one's eyes closed.

I wish you a long life ... so you can explain yourself to your grandchildren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering there were dire warnings of an impending ice age as recently as the 1970's (which we're still waiting on) and now just 40 years later, we haven't yet seen any real concrete evidence of the disasters of global warnings, but knowing that thousands of years ago there was an Ice age, I think the answer about low long must be thousands of years.

This,too has been debunked more than once here on this site. The ice age prediction was always a minority - as in less than 10% of scientists working in the field.

As for seeing "concrete evidence" of disasters - if you're only paying attention to the know-nothings like Breitbart.com and petrochemical industry shills, then I'm not surprised. By definition, one cannot see with one's eyes closed.

I wish you a long life ... so you can explain yourself to your grandchildren.

Why the snark? FYI: many of us do not read only Breitbart. And also FYI, many of breitbart pieces have links to studies. If one chooses to not read the studies fine, but how is taking the word of Maddow, or Huffpo, or God help us Jon Stewart as truth unless you read and know all there is to know about their "sources."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what concrete evidence can you offer to say it's here and we're doomed and yada yada yada? No computer models allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement

And Al Gore: basically the entire climate warming, change or disruption is a Follow the Money deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Al Gore: basically the entire climate warming, change or disruption is a Follow the Money deal.

Given the obscene amount of money spent by the fossil fuel industry to keep some American citizens bamboozled on this topic it is really sort of amusing that the "follow the money" notion is suggested for considering bias within the climate change science crowd. Comparatively, where do you suppose there is more $$...in the climate sciences or in the fossil fuel industry which would prefer to continue business as usual?

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the obscene amount of money spent by the fossil fuel industry to keep some American citizens bamboozled on this topic it is really sort of amusing that the "follow the money" notion is suggested for considering bias within the climate change science crowd. Comparatively, where do you suppose there is more $$...in the climate sciences or in the fossil fuel industry which would prefer to continue business as usual?

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

Al Gore, Leonardo and others are not scientists....and I further regurgitate when people take what they spout for the truth. Once they actually start walking the walk, instead of having several HUGE homes and private jets (which I personally am not opposed to: If I had the money, I'd have one too.....I have the pilot already!) then their "message" might be more believable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al Gore, Leonardo and others are not scientists....and I further regurgitate when people take what they spout for the truth. Once they actually start walking the walk, instead of having several HUGE homes and private jets (which I personally am not opposed to: If I had the money, I'd have one too.....I have the pilot already!) then their "message" might be more believable.

The fact that one may not care for Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio has NOTHING to do with the science of climate change other than they are verbalizing it for the general population. It is an interesting distraction to focus upon their own carbon footprint (a notion that is laughed at by the anti-change advocates other than in criticism of others viewed as opponents) rather than upon the overall science.

What Will Ice-Free Arctic Summers Bring? - Scientific American

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×