I think creationist have it partially correct.I think the "story"they tell is wrong is all...God created all this...dna,etc.etc. people just needed a way to come to grips with their existence.A reason.We are like a Real Time Strategy game....LOL
Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Climate change can happen fast ... very big changes have happened in an essentially "stepwise" fashion, going from one plateau to another in a very short time ... a few years at most.
If the climate turns on us, it might not be gradual but a "capsize"-type event. I hope to not experience such but fear I might. cn
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full
ASMALLVOICE
Well-Known Member
None of this is within my circle of influence, so I guess I will not worry about it.
Keep on Keepin' on
Peace
Asmallvoice
Keep on Keepin' on
Peace
Asmallvoice
Ndodson79605
Active Member
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
You mat want to keep it tabbed for thought if it is in your sphere of consequence. While you might not be able to change it, you might be able to get out of the way ... if, say, sea levels begin to rise for real. I wonder how many folks are buying currently-marginal real estate that'll be positioned for excellence should the sea rise five, ten, twenty feet. 'Course, if an ice sheet lets go, you'll want to be 200 feet up. cn
skunkd0c
Well-Known Member
well not being one to generalise lol, what i fear is that folk will blindly believe something just because a particular group of scientist publish findings about a particular subject they may have been paid to undertake by folk with a vested intrest in a paticular set of results
i do not believe that all science is for the benefit of humankind or to propagate truth
some people like to appear to be right about something so they will read up on subjects and then quote from them, something like a parrot repeating the words of its owner, it is remarkable how many budding scientists i encounter on my internet travels
i remember global warming , now its called climate change, maybe it will have a new name in another decade .. we will have to wait for the clever scientists to work it all out for us
if you blindly have trust in god or the government licensed scientist of the day, i see little difference in this mindset
understanding science ? this is a very general statement to make, do you mean that you personally understand every single scientific notion or conception ever discovered ?
i would never dispute the existence of god, i have never understood the position of the atheist
since god is irrelevant to me, i am not looking to follow or worship anyone, god or scientist
good luck on your quest for truth*
peace
echelon1k1
New Member
Tesla - what a great man! JP Morgan also had a large stake in the transmission lines, with wireless AC, Morgan's wallet would've been considerably lighter. As soon as Tesla died, the feds raided his home & offices siezing all designs, plans, inventions etc... Needless to say the siezed documents & equipment were classified and moved into R&D for weaponary, energy and propulsion systems for military applications.
Telsa made a descision to forego most of the royalties & payments owned by westinghouse, due in part to the fact if westinghouse was forced to pay out Tesla he would go bankrupt and lose his business, i think was a big factor in why he died penniless.
Global warming is another ponzi scheme, an excuse to implement a global tax on carbon, in other words a tax on "life" as we are carbon based life forms. Follow the money and you'll see weather is traded as a derivative on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Geo-Engineering is the elephant in the room.
Telsa made a descision to forego most of the royalties & payments owned by westinghouse, due in part to the fact if westinghouse was forced to pay out Tesla he would go bankrupt and lose his business, i think was a big factor in why he died penniless.
Global warming is another ponzi scheme, an excuse to implement a global tax on carbon, in other words a tax on "life" as we are carbon based life forms. Follow the money and you'll see weather is traded as a derivative on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Geo-Engineering is the elephant in the room.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
all of you sciencephobes should go write some peer-reviewed research papers disproving global warming and collect your millions of dollars from the koch brothers.
oh, wait. almost forgot that you're all just postulating absurd conspiracy theories on a pot website and lack any knowledge on the issue whatsoever.
oh, wait. almost forgot that you're all just postulating absurd conspiracy theories on a pot website and lack any knowledge on the issue whatsoever.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you just described what the koch brothers and others like exxon are trying to do, and even they can't keep their paid "scientists" in line.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
let's see, the koch brothers, exxon, and others paying "scientists" millions to dispute anthropogenic climate change, versus thousands upon thousands of climatologists in dozens of countries receiving measly stipends for actual scientific research that is not aimed at a particular conclusion from the start.
i hope you realize that your dumb ass is arguing against your own silly conclusion that thousands of scientists are working in lockstep to orchestrate an enormous, decades in the making hoax only to be found out by the dumbest among us.
that, and the hottest decade on record and the hottest year on record (despite the lull in solar activity) are all just imaginary.
you are a joke.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you are aware this piece of shit was debunked a long time ago, right? that the list of "scientists" include engineers and dead people who have never opined on the issue or are not nearly qualified to opine, right?
do you also go to a dead mechanic when you have a broken leg?
that is the level of stupid on display from anyone who touts this stupid bullshit.
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
Why rational folks engage in debate with AGW deniers, creationists, truthers, birthers, etc. is beyond me. Retards are gonna retard; it's what they do.
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
I feel ya. It's hard to see idiocy stand unopposed too.
echelon1k1
New Member
Concensus isn't science & people aint been on this planet long enough to confirm that changes in climate are caused by man. The koch brothers are scum but you'd be singing their praises if they endorsed your candidate in the oval office. With all the campaigning you do for him on a "Pot Website" surely you've let him push your shit in by now.
sonar
Well-Known Member
I don't consider myself a lay person. No, I don't have a ph d or am doing research at a major institution, nor am I an expert on meteorology or climatology. I did go to college and graduated with a science major, so I at least "get it." I can pick up a medical journal or a geology journal or any type of scientific research paper for that matter and make my way through it. I've read many and wrote a few myself. Their are peer reviewed papers that say out of all the carbon output in a year, only 3% is caused by human activity. The rest is decaying plants, volcanism, forest fires, etc.well not being one to generalise lol, what i fear is that folk will blindly believe something just because a particular group of scientist publish findings about a particular subject they may have been paid to undertake by folk with a vested intrest in a paticular set of results
i do not believe that all science is for the benefit of humankind or to propagate truth
some people like to appear to be right about something so they will read up on subjects and then quote from them, something like a parrot repeating the words of its owner, it is remarkable how many budding scientists i encounter on my internet travels
i remember global warming , now its called climate change, maybe it will have a new name in another decade .. we will have to wait for the clever scientists to work it all out for us
if you blindly have trust in god or the government licensed scientist of the day, i see little difference in this mindset
understanding science ? this is a very general statement to make, do you mean that you personally understand every single scientific notion or conception ever discovered ?
i would never dispute the existence of god, i have never understood the position of the atheist
since god is irrelevant to me, i am not looking to follow or worship anyone, god or scientist
good luck on your quest for truth*
peace
Bottom line, the scientific method is one of the most important developments in human history. In order, they are:
1) harnessing fire
2) agriculture
3) the written word
4) the development of the scientific method
Everything we know is a function of one or more of those four.
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
Reeks of hubris here. So, if I link you to any JSTOR physics article of my choice, you're confident you can accurately 'make your way through it' because you hold a baccalaureate in some unspecified field of science, huh?
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
Fascinating. How long would be sufficient for you? 500,000 years? 1.75 million years? 1 billion years? What's the magic number for you? How old do you believe the earth to be? And the universe? Finally, how did you arrive at those conclusions?
Doer
Well-Known Member
It is pretty simple really, despite your far fetched hyperbole. Satellite data began 30 years ago. Royal Navy data goes back 300 years. That is it. There is no more actual weather data, than that.
Now, however, there is Agenda based data, starting with CFC, then swoop to Methane, then settle on Carbon. This stuff, if you read it closely, is pure conjecture about a cause and effect, even in the ice core data, for example. But, the press is so spun up on the agenda, they will pass the most specious stuff as Evidence of Warming. Why do you think they changed it to Climate Change? To cover both bases in a Political sense, obviously.
So, here is the kicker. The Sat data does not support the Agenda conjectures. No model as yet, can be shown to produce a runaway greenhouse effect, that can run the real Sat data.
Run the real Sat data, in any current Cloud Effect model, you get closed loop, not open loop, no Greenhouse effect.
In other words, the clouds mitigate the atmospheric temp. long term. We swing back and forth between Ice Ages. I, for one, think the Urban Heat bubbles may be the only thing to save Mankind, long term.
That is if they are not destroyed by short sighted do-gooders, just because we happen to be at the height of the inter-Ice-Age period. It would not be prudent.
Now, however, there is Agenda based data, starting with CFC, then swoop to Methane, then settle on Carbon. This stuff, if you read it closely, is pure conjecture about a cause and effect, even in the ice core data, for example. But, the press is so spun up on the agenda, they will pass the most specious stuff as Evidence of Warming. Why do you think they changed it to Climate Change? To cover both bases in a Political sense, obviously.
So, here is the kicker. The Sat data does not support the Agenda conjectures. No model as yet, can be shown to produce a runaway greenhouse effect, that can run the real Sat data.
Run the real Sat data, in any current Cloud Effect model, you get closed loop, not open loop, no Greenhouse effect.
In other words, the clouds mitigate the atmospheric temp. long term. We swing back and forth between Ice Ages. I, for one, think the Urban Heat bubbles may be the only thing to save Mankind, long term.
That is if they are not destroyed by short sighted do-gooders, just because we happen to be at the height of the inter-Ice-Age period. It would not be prudent.