Global Warming...The Scientific Debate?

[Englebert]

9 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Other than the researcher proposing to prove the impossible, I'm not really sure. 

I did read the article. You really need to watch the whole episode.  I think you would find it interesting.  The thing is, I truly believe one day soon everyone (well, almost everyone) will be forced to acknowledge global warming.  Most on the right have done so already.  (Even you will Englebert.). I suppose the man-made argument will still be up for debate.  I would consider it one of my great life's work if you were convinced ahead of the curve Eng.  But I know that's as unlikely as you convincing me of the opposite

I finally watched the video in it's entirety and I have to admit I was shocked. Shocked that HBO spent untold amounts of money on a film that had to use poor ol' crazy Uncle Joe Biden to try and prove a scientific point...a point that it didn't attempt to give a cause. I guess the film maker decided not to attempt specific predictions because every time the Man-Made Global Warmers do this they end up with egg on their face when every single one of their prediction models prove to be wildly inaccurate. HBO spent a lot of money in stating "the climate changes". Captain Obvious would be proud.

I'm also shocked that they chose to leave out the linkage of man to global warming, other than a few one-liners saying "man is the cause". I'm sure if Man-Made Global Warming theorists had any shred of empirical evidence of man's central role in earth's changing climate than those shining nuggets would have been included. Why would anyone leave out key information. If we ever go into another full scale war, the U.S. needs to hire some of these people for the Department of Propoganda Administration.

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

I finally watched the video in it's entirety and I have to admit I was shocked. Shocked that HBO spent untold amounts of money on a film that had to use poor ol' crazy Uncle Joe Biden to try and prove a scientific point...a point that it didn't attempt to give a cause. I guess the film maker decided not to attempt specific predictions because every time the Man-Made Global Warmers do this they end up with egg on their face when every single one of their prediction models prove to be wildly inaccurate. HBO spent a lot of money in stating "the climate changes". Captain Obvious would be proud.

I'm also shocked that they chose to leave out the linkage of man to global warming, other than a few one-liners saying "man is the cause". I'm sure if Man-Made Global Warming theorists had any shred of empirical evidence of man's central role in earth's changing climate than those shining nuggets would have been included. Why would anyone leave out key information. If we ever go into another full scale war, the U.S. needs to hire some of these people for the Department of Propoganda Administration.

You might be surprised the number of people who still aren't convinced it exists.  There are some on this board.  

Maybe the point of the video wasn't to argue if it was man made or not.  Maybe it was to show the effects of warming.  That's the part I found most interesting.  Particularly the portion on Antarctica.  Don't get to see footage like that every day. 

[nappyroots]

The southeast Texas refineries have a history of polluting the air, water, land and causing major health problems. They were forced to clean up a bit. And now they should be very happy because they can go the other way for 4yrs. The trickle down effect will help though. 

[Englebert]

55 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

You might be surprised the number of people who still aren't convinced it exists.  There are some on this board.  

Maybe the point of the video wasn't to argue if it was man made or not.  Maybe it was to show the effects of warming.  That's the part I found most interesting.  Particularly the portion on Antarctica.  Don't get to see footage like that every day. 

Yeah, you may be right about the point being to show the effects. I have seen many, many videos, pictures and illustrations showing similar things. I guess I'm just jaded because I constantly see stuff like this with the caption "Look what man is doing to our precious earth" and when asked to show where man is the cause the response is always "Well you are just a low-down denier".

I'm not sure what you mean about if "it" exists. If by "it" you mean global warming, many, many studies have shown no "significant" warming has occurred or is occurring. I don't know of anyone that doesn't believe the climate changes. My stance on warming is "I have no idea". I do know the raw data used has been altered, skewed and manipulated. I do know that we have very little reliable data from 50+ years ago and that many climatologists infer lots of data with highly sketchy reasons. I do know that every single model these experts have developed and use have been wildly inaccurate. (Not most...all)  I do know that many people claim the debate is over, which flies in the face and is completely contrary to scientific standards.

I'm all for the continued research, but I'm totally against changing our way of life and disrupting our economy (except for common sense pollution reduction) when cause cannot be established, therefore governmental proposed "solutions" cannot be determined in any stretch of the imagination to be beneficial or actually harmful.

[Englebert]

29 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

The southeast Texas refineries have a history of polluting the air, water, land and causing major health problems. They were forced to clean up a bit. And now they should be very happy because they can go the other way for 4yrs. The trickle down effect will help though. 

Has anyone denied that these measures were not beneficial? Has anyone, and I mean anyone (including this upcoming administration) proposed allowing refineries to resume emitting known poisonous and harmful pollutants? Please show proof of your contentions. I am willing to bet you have no proof and you are just employing your usual strategy of stereotyping. And if scientists declared that the carbon dioxide emitting from your mouth is harmful to the environment would you stop breathing?

[BS Wildcats]

6 hours ago, Englebert said:

Has anyone denied that these measures were not beneficial? Has anyone, and I mean anyone (including this upcoming administration) proposed allowing refineries to resume emitting known poisonous and harmful pollutants? Please show proof of your contentions. I am willing to bet you have no proof and you are just employing your usual strategy of stereotyping. And if scientists declared that the carbon dioxide emitting from your mouth is harmful to the environment would you stop breathi

[BS Wildcats]

6 hours ago, Englebert said:

Has anyone denied that these measures were not beneficial? Has anyone, and I mean anyone (including this upcoming administration) proposed allowing refineries to resume emitting known poisonous and harmful pollutants? Please show proof of your contentions. I am willing to bet you have no proof and you are just employing your usual strategy of stereotyping. And if scientists declared that the carbon dioxide emitting from your mouth is harmful to the environment would you stop breathing?

Just some more propaganda he heard somewhere else, so he spews it on here.

[Hagar]

Forgive me guys, but I found more info pertinent to this GW discussion.  How valid it is, I'll leave to each of you to decide.  Based on it, a number of scientist are bailing out.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Hagar]

Believer in Climate Change harassed because he questions absurd allegations and projections.  Evidently, if you don't buy into "the sky is falling" assertions, you're a heretic.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up