Not believing fraduently obtained data? No excuse needed for that.

You know the only difference between the Pentagon Papers and the emails was the ease of retrieving the data. There's even a website dedicated to fraudulently obtained data ... wikileaks.

 

There are significant differences. The people who hacked the compters are crooks. I don't believe what crooks have to say.

 

The before and after pictures of ice melting on the North and South Pole don't

mean any thing. Its not cold enough to keep the ice frozen , but...the big but

we did not have a pictorial record of a couple hundred years ago to compare.

You say the pictures don't meeting any things ,anyone the pictures don't count.

No one has talked about the pictorial record, when you dive you can only see

a few feet ,because of sewage out falls into the oceans every where. So the

beach in a vacation for in land people ,for a diving vacation you don't go to

the east or west coast. The good water is located on a few reefs that is far away.

Most in land water has no swimming signs ,so what makes you happy in your

spare time ,debating if thing are changing. Minute waste pieces of every day

life is making a difference on the earth.

 

I'm thinking it doesn't matter if you choose a faith in religion or science. The climates a changing, with or without us.

 

Yep, the climate has always been changing, and will always be changing.

It's very worrying, this intensity that people have, who choose to believe this is a recent man-made phenomenon and choose to believe it is rapidly escalating out of control.

 

Sewage going into the oceans has to be man made. Animal waste going in to

canals along with pesticides is out of control, but you need food.

 

Yep, the climate has always been changing, and will always be changing.

It's very worrying, this intensity that people have, who choose to believe this is a recent man-made phenomenon and choose to believe it is rapidly escalating out of control.

What's really worrying are the people who choose to ignore science.

"Hey, my untrained eye knows more than hundreds of scientists spending decades studying the subject. Wheeee!"

"Next up I will dispute all of modern medicine from the comfort of my armchair, with nothing more than a ham sandwich. Wheeee!"

 

What worries me are people who bow down before the god of science and fail to use their own common sense. Calling something "science" doesn't make it true.

And as far as medical advice, talk to the people who took tetracycline while they were developing their permanent teeth, or those who were given high doses of statin drugs and lost the feeling in their feet, or those whose mothers took thalidomide while they were pregnant, or those who go in the hospital for minor surgery and come out with a incurable infection, or the wrong part of their body amputated, or a surgical towel in their abdomen. I could go on and on.

Blindly believing anything and everything you are told strikes me as naïve, regardless of the titles or credentials of the source.

 

What's really worrying are the people who choose to ignore science.

"Hey, my untrained eye knows more than hundreds of scientists spending decades studying the subject. Wheeee!"

"Next up I will dispute all of modern medicine from the comfort of my armchair, with nothing more than a ham sandwich. Wheeee!"

'Science' has provided for man's journey to the present, with all it's implications. Are you one of those that fights science with science?

A person born in a third world country, has no education, dies in their youth, has the smallest footprint and no care about 'science'. A person born in North America buys a house and drives a car. They become wealthy converting resources into salable goods, polluting while putting principals of science to work. They have an unfathomably large footprint.

I think your barking up the wrong tree there.

 

'Science' has provided for man's journey to the present, with all it's implications. Are you one of those that fights science with science?

And science tells us that humans are causing global warming, well beyond any natural cycle. Are you one of those that ignores science because you don't like the conclusions?

 

And science tells us that humans are causing global warming, well beyond any natural cycle.

I suppose you have the data to conclusively demonstrates that cycle and the algorithm that correctly predicts the future cycles. Maybe if the dinosaurs were the dominant species, you would be much happier and there wouldn't be these problems. Strike that, we wouldn't be discussing this at all.

This topic is a religion to some ...

Would this even be a topic if there wasn't government funding for this research?

 

Personally I would like humans to stay the dominant species, and not go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

I'm glad the humans are and hope they remain the dominant species.

 

And science tells us that humans are causing global warming, well beyond any natural cycle. Are you one of those that ignores science because you don't like the conclusions?

Science paved the way for man to harness his environment. Are you saying that your science is good and all that other science that has provided mankind's lifestyles as bad?, or is the difference man himself who abuses the science? Either way, my decision to drive or walk to the store isn't based on science. Throwing science at me is irrelevant to those decisions, which impact my footprint.

How do you reconcile an economy based on commerce with science?

In the end, to effect change, you need to speak the language of your audience, and even here on a site that explores science, you should see that your message is offensive to many who are actually considerate to current affairs.

But, to be fair, how do you see mankind reacting to this new found information. Do we suppress developing nations, do we tax the populace into depression, do we suspend personal transportation,...

 

They say the earth has warmed since the 1800's.

Do Believe in the weather forecast.

 

I suppose you have the data to conclusively demonstrates that cycle and the algorithm that correctly predicts the future cycles.

I'm not a scientist. So I also don't have the data that proves which viruses and bacteria cause which diseases. Does that make modern medicine invalid because I don't personally have that information?

Would the world be flat if I personally never went up in an airplane and saw the Earth's curvature?

What I can say, however, is that the scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming. If you disagree then you obviously are a climate scientist with many years of data and analysis that refutes the scientific consensus. You are, right? Or are you reaching a conclusion first and then trying to use your limited understanding of the issue to justify it?

Would this even be a topic if there wasn't government funding for this research?

Ohhhh, now we get it. The big bad evil government tells the scientists what conclusions to reach. LOL

 

The assumption that climate change takes a long time is just that an assumption. They are finding frozen flowers at the base of a retreating glacier in the mountains of Peru. Flowers that are now extinct, that were frozen fast enough that they can tell what species they are and color.

 

Science paved the way for man to harness his environment. Are you saying that your science is good and all that other science that has provided mankind's lifestyles as bad?

Science is a PROCESS. It's how we figure things out, through experiment, observation, analysis, and reasoning. The conclusions of science are entirely separate.

In the end, to effect change, you need to speak the language of your audience, and even here on a site that explores science, you should see that your message is offensive to many who are actually considerate to current affairs.

I said that the scientific consensus on global warming is that humans have and are causing a considerable contribution to it. To be offended by facts is...weird.

 

What's really worrying are the people who choose to ignore science.
...

Like the pro-warming "scientists" who chose to exclude all data from their reports that did not back their pro-warming conclusion and got in a lot of trouble about doing that?

Like the pro-warming "scientists" who promoted the ludicrous hockey-stick global warming prediction charts, that backfired so bad when scrutinised by real climate scientists that the entire lobby had to subtly change direction from "global warming" to become "climate change";

"Did we say that the climate was getting warmer at a really high exponential rate? No no what we REALLY meant was that the climate is CHANGING. Like it might not be warming it might go up a bit, or it might go down a bit, but we're sure it is CHANGING." "Oh, and it's man's fault too".

It's not good for an argument that one side has to completely change all the rules (and even change the name of the argument) just to stay in the argument and still have some credibility.

...
I said that the scientific consensus on global warming is that humans have and are causing a considerable contribution to it.
...

I'm completely open to the idea that humans may be contributing in SOME percentage part toward a warming climate. Now if you can show me a scientist with a pie chart showing some reasonable breakdown of all the causes of warming, with humans as one small slice of that pie, then maybe we have someone with credibility.

But the "man-made global warming" crowd tend to be very heavily focussed on that one thing, to the point of fanatic behaviour or even a "faith" type belief....

 

Seems like a little levity is needed here.
I think I have found the solution to global warming...