31,000 Scientist Say No To Global Warming

[AK-74me]

From now, going forward i think all "Global Warming" threads should go in the religion section of the board.

[otter (Premo)]

Originally Posted by AK-74me

From now, going forward i think all "Global Warming" threads should go in the religion section of the board.

I second the motion.

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by AK-74me

Fact is those claiming global warming take a pinch of evidence and claim it to be science and fact.
Temps have increased 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1950's a very normal variance in temperature change.
I have looked at alot of articles and "data" from both sides and I am not convinced........sorry.

I have to look at who is getting paid off and who is in it for the science. It seems pretty clear to me.
Temperatures have increased 0.74 degrees Celsius / 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit in 100 years and the overwhelming consensus among the smart MFs who study those things is that the rate is unprecedented in global history. The data is convincing enough to suggest a precautionary policy.
A) We conserve energy & seek alternatives without ending human life as we know it and without spinning the world into economic chaos, then we find out they were wrong. Result - we have longer to go before coming to a screeching halt with available fossil-fuel reserves.
B) We keep ignoring the data and then we find out that they were right but it's too late to do anything about it. Result - flooding, famine, primitive living conditions and global civil warfare where most people (even in the US) die horrible deaths and the rest live under martial law and barely maintain on strict rationing of the basic subsistence goods.

[AK-74me]

Originally Posted by wildsage

I have to look at who is getting paid off and who is in it for the science. It seems pretty clear to me.
Temperatures have increased 0.74 degrees Celsius / 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit in 100 years and the overwhelming consensus among the smart MFs who study those things is that the rate is unprecedented in global history. The data is convincing enough to suggest a precautionary policy.
A) We conserve energy & seek alternatives without ending human life as we know it and without spinning the world into economic chaos, then we find out they were wrong. Result - we have longer to go before coming to a screeching halt with available fossil-fuel reserves.
B) We keep ignoring the data and then we find out that they were right but it's too late to do anything about it. Result - flooding, famine, primitive living conditions and global civil warfare where most people (even in the US) die horrible deaths and the rest live under martial law and barely maintain on strict rationing of the basic subsistence goods.

So just because it is big oil with the money any scientist that dosen't get on board for global warming is paid off? You are telling me that no one else has an agenda? It is only the scientist that disagree, that have one?

I think it is great we should try to curb back energy compsumption, lets do it. Lets not create a freaking religion and go crazy about polar bears and carbon credits to get it done.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by AK-74me

So just because it is big oil with the money any scientist that dosen't get on board for global warming is paid off? You are telling me that no one else has an agenda? It is only the scientist that disagree, that have one?

I think it is great we should try to curb back energy compsumption, lets do it. Lets not create a freaking religion and go crazy about polar bears and carbon credits to get it done.

Seems there is just a cyclic temperature on the planet. Imagine that.

[AK-74me]

Originally Posted by This_person

Seems there is just a cyclic temperature on the planet. Imagine that.

Paid off data. I am sure.

[This_person]

Why, you'd think it'd been going on a long time.......

[This_person]

Originally Posted by AK-74me

Paid off data. I am sure.

[jazz lady (Premo)]

Originally Posted by AK-74me

Paid off data. I am sure.

By the oil companies, no less.

[wildsage]

Originally Posted by AK-74me

So just because it is big oil with the money any scientist that dosen't get on board for global warming is paid off? You are telling me that no one else has an agenda? It is only the scientist that disagree, that have one?

Not every one, just the ones who have been shown to be. That has been well established.
Other scientists dispute some of the details of the findings -- and I got no problem with honest peer-review -- but the number who vocally and categorically deny any credence (to either global warming or anthropogenic causes to it) is small and their backgrounds are easily checked.
You prompted my response with the "news" story about a list of 31,000 names of people (purported to be scientists) who dispute the findings of the IPCC. I pointed out the lies & flaws in that petition and offered the analogy that some 200 "scientists" believe that the planet is only 6,000 years old.
I'm glad that we can agree that "it is great we should try to curb back energy compsumption." That's more consensus than is usually seen in the Religion section of this forum.