Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Environment Environmental Politics Forum - Environmental issues, global warming, pollution, and proposals


Thanks Tree6Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 14th, 2017, 07:54 PM   #11
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Ray View Post
LOL

You are a true believer, your religion is MMGW.

The fake climatologist models have been totally disproven, and the Dilbert cartoon nails the liars. I note that the only comeback you had was personal attacks and insults, and smears, just as you smeared Assisstant AG Rosenstein on another issue.
Non of the models have been disproven at all. Your simplistic belief of that parroting of the party line just intensifies the obviousness of your ignorance of the subject.

There was nothing in either the cartoon or wattsup worthy of a serious response beyond publications of NASA and the IPCC.
RNG is offline  
Old May 14th, 2017, 08:18 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Ray View Post
Actually this cartoon makes fun of the climate change deniers.

The big reason behind the climate change deniers is that they are more afraid of the possible economic results of trying to slow down (or even reverse) climate change using things like a carbon tax or mandating more use of renewable energy sources.

So the guy with the beard is saying that we know that climate change is real by doing measurements and running the data through computer models and then we run those numbers through economic computer models.

Dilbert, an engineer, then asks, "What if I don't trust the economic models?"

He doesn't say that about the climate change models....which is a big claim of the climate deniers.

IOW, the climate deniers are ALWAYS questioning the results of computer climate models to say "you haven't proven climate change" but ALWAYS trust the computer models of the economic variety that predict disaster if we try to fix climate change.
Thanks from baloney_detector
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old May 14th, 2017, 08:21 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by justoneman View Post
Its meaningless bullshit. Start worrying about real problems.
Yeah, cause CO2 is just "fresh air"

You'd have a fine career as a stand up comedian if

1. You were trying to be funny but you're not

2. The stakes weren't so damn high
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old May 14th, 2017, 09:05 PM   #14
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: North
Posts: 236
Another one upset about record harvests.
Baby Ray is offline  
Old May 14th, 2017, 09:09 PM   #15
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: North
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
Non of the models have been disproven at all. Your simplistic belief of that parroting of the party line just intensifies the obviousness of your ignorance of the subject.

There was nothing in either the cartoon or wattsup worthy of a serious response beyond publications of NASA and the IPCC.

The models have failed, miserably.

You never read the article I linked to, that is quite clear. You clicked, saw WattsUp, and ran back with drivel, personal insults, and smears, which you are quite fond of doing.

The only "party line" is the religion of MMGW, of which you area a member.

Dilbert nailed the truth about the miserable failure of the liars and their models.

Last edited by Baby Ray; May 14th, 2017 at 09:13 PM.
Baby Ray is offline  
Old May 14th, 2017, 09:13 PM   #16
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: North
Posts: 236
BTW, these self-appointed, self-anointed,"climate scientists" are basically a bunch of mathematicians. Yeah, their models are a fail of monumental proportions.
Baby Ray is offline  
Old May 14th, 2017, 09:29 PM   #17
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Ray View Post
BTW, these self-appointed, self-anointed,"climate scientists" are basically a bunch of mathematicians. Yeah, their models are a fail of monumental proportions.
Can you use a search engine or even just find Wikipedia? Where do you get your load of total bullshit?
RNG is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 07:09 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 5,765
I'm not convinced of global warming, nor am I convinced about humans role in the process. HOWEVER 7 billion people, millions of factories, and a billion cars and trucks roaming the planet, farming on massive scales, HAVE to be having a negative effect on the planet.

I take a Pascal's wager approach to it. Let's not get carried away, but investing in renewable energy and reducing our foot prints on the planet certainly can't hurt. The worst we'll do is leave the planet a little cleaner for our descendants. Who knows we may even be able to undo some of the damage.
Thanks from Twisted Sister
BubbaJones is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 08:00 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 9,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
I'm not convinced of global warming, nor am I convinced about humans role in the process. HOWEVER 7 billion people, millions of factories, and a billion cars and trucks roaming the planet, farming on massive scales, HAVE to be having a negative effect on the planet.

I take a Pascal's wager approach to it. Let's not get carried away, but investing in renewable energy and reducing our foot prints on the planet certainly can't hurt. The worst we'll do is leave the planet a little cleaner for our descendants. Who knows we may even be able to undo some of the damage.
I take Occam's Razor approach to it.

edit: Now I am going to look up Pascal's Wager because I don't know what that means.

Last edited by Twisted Sister; May 15th, 2017 at 08:05 AM.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 08:31 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
I take Occam's Razor approach to it.

edit: Now I am going to look up Pascal's Wager because I don't know what that means.
Pascal's wager: An argument to believe in God. Basically it says you should believe in God because if God is real and you believe the reward is enormous (eternal life in paradise) while if you believe and God is not real the downside is negligible (you die and that's it)

It is a poor argument for belief in a god.

Applied to man made global warming I assume it goes something like, "You should believe in man made global warming. If it's true and enough people believe we have a chance to minimize or reduce the harmful effects. If it's true and we don't believe it could lead to environmental collapse and the end of civilization as we know it.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
410, breached, co2, ppm, threshold



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Holder vows to lower threshold for US civil rights charges RNG Civil Rights 7 February 27th, 2015 09:17 PM
Obama's cell phone records breached CNN Current Events 1 November 21st, 2008 07:33 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.