Jump to content

Climate Change

baddog

By baddog
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, baddog said:

Englebert will love this....

This is the hidden content, please

SteveNash posted this on Monday:

Climate Change alarmists use pseudo science methodology based on altered data, then claim anyone that doesn't agree with them is a science denier. I think the first people who started using the word "putz" had these people in mind.

Ever since the Man-made Global Warming theory has emerged, study after study after study has blown holes in the whole premise, pointed out shockingly bad methodology, exposed altered/manipulated data, demonstrated results that cannot be replicated, and shown that every single prediction model has been wildly wrong. But somehow these papers get scrubbed or buried by the media. I've read more credible studies that refute Man-made Global Warming than support it. I have a feeling this one will soon disappear like its predecessors. Hopefully Trump will bring this theory to a head by forcing the "scientists" to actually debate in a fair and open forum.

Thanks baddog for bringing this topic back to the forum, so I can pose the same ol' question to anyone and everyone. (I almost posed this in SteveNash's post, but was too busy at the time) The theory of Man-made Global Warming is that the Earth is warming, this warming is caused by man, and that this warming is catastrophic to the ability of Earth to support life. Please, anyone, provide any shred of the foggiest amount of proof that man is the main culprit in temperature rise, and please attempt to show a sliver of evidence that this warming is even detrimental, much less catastrophic, to Earth's health. If 97% of the climatologists agree, along with all of the world leaders, proof should be a simple Bing (or Google) search away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reagan

Reagan

Posted
Posted

The mere fact that the names have been changing, you know it's a con game.  In the 70's, it was global cooling.  That commie scare/con didn't work.  Then they went to global warming.  That coomie scare/con didn't work.  Then --  they went to climate change.  That's not going to work either.  I wonder what will be the next scare/con name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted

Wow. This topic has been on here for a full day, but not one single Global Warming alarmist will submit a single shred of evidence supporting the theory. All of you out there that accept but run and hide from this issue should think long and hard about spouting the lies associated with this theory at your next social function. You have had every opportunity over the last year, and were even challenged directly by me to support your claims, but have failed miserably. How can a theory have 97% of agreement but yet no evidence can be provided. So the next time this topic arises in your personal lives, think long and hard why you accept the claims of something you can't or won't defend in this little forum. The continual promotion of this theory is downright shameful, and you are guilty.

Thanks baddog, SteveNash, Rebgp, and many of the others on here that dare question the pathetic attempt of wealth redistribution. And for those who still support the theory, you probably need to do a lot of soul searching concerning your leaders and their motives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
westend1

westend1

Posted
Posted

But yet, we look at satellite photos and know that glaciers are melting at a pretty good clip.    Not over 10's of thousands of years, but over a hundred years.   Anybody who can completely ignore that is ignorant.   I don't know how it will affect the world in the short term.  It might be a good thing to be able to grow corn in Alaska.   But to deny it, is just dumb.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted

Let me add this. I'm sure some, probably many, on here are wandering why this is such a touchy issue with me. I'll try to explain.

First, I'm more on the environmentalist side. I want clean lakes, rivers, bayous and all waterways. I live on the water and spend practically every weekend on various waterways throughout the southeastern U.S. (from San Antonio to Florida). I threatened to beat the a** of a fellow boater for sinking a beer can. (Luckily he just apologized and didn't take me up on my offer of physicality because I'm not sure if I could have whipped him.)  I take the issue of a clean environment seriously. Which brings me to the second point.

I have never been a fan of "the ends justify the means" mantra. I believe that if you tell the truth the "ends" will ultimately prevail. The whole Global Warming (and all of the predecessor theories) have had good intentions, which are for the human race to be cognizant and to be protective of man's footprint on our Earth. But the means by which the current leaders are implementing this goal are just downright disgraceful. Lie after lie after lie is issued to prey on the ignorance, naiveté, and laziness of the public to do their due diligence of minimal research on the topic. Which leads to the ultimate conclusion.

When the majority of the public realizes that they are being lied to and manipulated by our leaders, the ultimate result will be resentment and to rebel against any environmental topic. This could very easily lead to a disdain for anybody that promotes a clean environment...which leads to more pollution. The "ends justify the means" mantra can create the opposite effect of the intended effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, westend1 said:

But yet, we look at satellite photos and know that glaciers are melting at a pretty good clip.    Not over 10's of thousands of years, but over a hundred years.   Anybody who can completely ignore that is ignorant.   I don't know how it will affect the world in the short term.  It might be a good thing to be able to grow corn in Alaska.   But to deny it, is just dumb.

 

Again, for the 1000th time, who is ignoring anything? Who is denying anything? Who spouts about visual evidence of destruction then demands everyone believe that their causational views are correct and any dissenters are ignorant? I've stated clearly over and over, show me the evidence that man is the cause of this melting. Show me the evidence that this melting is detrimental to Earth's health. These satellite photos should have led to papers being published that show the effects of man on the environment. Please show these links. I bet you can't.

This is equivocal to finding a pile of deer bones in the woods, and just spouting "A deer hunter shot him" without looking at any evidence of cause of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    45,978
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...