How can people believe in global warming?

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Atmanix"]

Oh good, it's been a while since we had a global warming thread. Where is Bumfluff?

grape_of_wrath

Yes, his rants were always interesting. I'd say even better than Geezer except Geezer rants about everything whereas Bumfluff was limited to this or evolution it seemed.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Tip: Sticking your head out and realizing it's cold is as great an evidence against global warming as me stickign my head out when it's 110 degrees and saying that is evidence for global warming.

wstfld

I meant enlighten me as to what is happening! Explain to me why the things are happening the way they are!

I don't believe in Global warming anymore than I do evolution and gravity. The science is sound and there is a unanimous finding, that humans contribute to global warming. You can sit there and keep your head in the sand all you want.

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

So you blindly trust them when they prevent evidence that you may or may not understand? OK.

Espada12

Them is just scientists, I think you were looking too much into my use of that pronoun.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] "Them"? Who is "them"? The vast science conspiracy with their diabolical goal of.... uh... something?xaos

Them is just scientists, I think you were looking too much into my use of that pronoun.

As I said on the last page, its a trap!
They just want to distract us so that they can steal our bacon! :evil:

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] "Them"? Who is "them"? The vast science conspiracy with their diabolical goal of.... uh... something?xaos

Them is just scientists, I think you were looking too much into my use of that pronoun.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="xaos"] "Them"? Who is "them"? The vast science conspiracy with their diabolical goal of.... uh... something?xaos

Them is just scientists, I think you were looking too much into my use of that pronoun.

Why do you keep mentioning evil scientists? Anyway, it could be some just want fame and are willing to skew evidence to get it.

[QUOTE="spazzx625"]99%?...Ok... So it's the scientists fault for presenting data that you don't understand and because you don't understand it...Means it must be skewed data. I think I got it now...Espada12

I said that, I merely stated most of us don't know what they are saying is true, we believe them because they bring evidence, but do we truly understand said evidence? That's my point.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Them is just scientists, I think you were looking too much into my use of that pronoun.

Espada12

Why do you keep mentioning evil scientists? Anyway, it could be some just want fame and are willing to skew evidence to get it.

"Them"? Who is "them"? The vast science conspiracy with their diabolical goal of.... uh... something?xaos

Them is just scientists, I think you were looking too much into my use of that pronoun.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Them is just scientists, I think you were looking too much into my use of that pronoun.

Espada12

Why do you keep mentioning evil scientists? Anyway, it could be some just want fame and are willing to skew evidence to get it.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Them is just scientists, I think you were looking too much into my use of that pronoun.

Espada12

Why do you keep mentioning evil scientists? Anyway, it could be some just want fame and are willing to skew evidence to get it.

This is coming from a persont hat doesn't even understand how climate change could result in a brutal winter.. Furthermore its a community, of tens of thousands across the world.. They cross examine this stuff and do data gathering of their own..

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

I don't believe in Global warming anymore than I do evolution and gravity. The science is sound and there is a unanimous finding, that humans contribute to global warming. You can sit there and keep your head in the sand all you want.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

I don't believe in Global warming anymore than I do evolution and gravity. The science is sound and there is a unanimous finding, that humans contribute to global warming. You can sit there and keep your head in the sand all you want.

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="grape_of_wrath"][QUOTE="xaos"] Drowned under the rising sea levels :(Atmanix

Yes, his rants were always interesting. I'd say even better than Geezer except Geezer rants about everything whereas Bumfluff was limited to this or evolution it seemed.

The entire scientific community is apparently in on this getting fame thing too. Cause I mean papers that haven't been peer reviewed tend to get alot of faith placed in them right? No? Oh...Ace6301

Weren't newtons laws of motion accepted science until einstein proved they weren't 100% correct?

Why do you keep mentioning evil scientists? Anyway, it could be some just want fame and are willing to skew evidence to get it.

Espada12

Wouldn't the best way to gain fame at this point be to thoroughly disprove climate change?

Look at the average temperature and CO2 emissions counter.

*Hint: they're not going down. :|

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

The entire scientific community is apparently in on this getting fame thing too. Cause I mean papers that haven't been peer reviewed tend to get alot of faith placed in them right? No? Oh...Espada12

Weren't newtons laws of motion accepted science until einstein proved they weren't 100% correct?

I don't believe in Global warming anymore than I do evolution and gravity. The science is sound and there is a unanimous finding, that humans contribute to global warming. You can sit there and keep your head in the sand all you want.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

The entire scientific community is apparently in on this getting fame thing too. Cause I mean papers that haven't been peer reviewed tend to get alot of faith placed in them right? No? Oh...Espada12

Weren't newtons laws of motion accepted science until einstein proved they weren't 100% correct?

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Why do you keep mentioning evil scientists? Anyway, it could be some just want fame and are willing to skew evidence to get it.

PBSnipes

Wouldn't the best way to gain fame at this point be to thoroughly disprove climate change?

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

The entire scientific community is apparently in on this getting fame thing too. Cause I mean papers that haven't been peer reviewed tend to get alot of faith placed in them right? No? Oh...HoolaHoopMan

Weren't newtons laws of motion accepted science until einstein proved they weren't 100% correct?

Doesn't change the fact that not only were the universally accepted but they were not 100% correct. Yet somehow people feel as though that's not a possibility now even though it may be universally accepted.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

The entire scientific community is apparently in on this getting fame thing too. Cause I mean papers that haven't been peer reviewed tend to get alot of faith placed in them right? No? Oh...Espada12

Weren't newtons laws of motion accepted science until einstein proved they weren't 100% correct?

Have you taken a science course?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

The entire scientific community is apparently in on this getting fame thing too. Cause I mean papers that haven't been peer reviewed tend to get alot of faith placed in them right? No? Oh...Espada12

Weren't newtons laws of motion accepted science until einstein proved they weren't 100% correct?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Weren't newtons laws of motion accepted science until einstein proved they weren't 100% correct?

Espada12

Doesn't change the fact that not only were the universally accepted but they were not 100% correct. Yet somehow people feel as though that's not a possibility now even though it may be universally accepted.

Dear god.. This is what science is about.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Newtons laws are still used for many applications. Former_Slacker

Doesn't change the fact that not only were the universally accepted but they were not 100% correct. Yet somehow people feel as though that's not a possibility now even though it may be universally accepted.

Dear god.. This is what science is about.

I'm pretty sure you are missing my point but whatever!

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] Definition of UNANIMOUS 1: being of one mind : agreeing 2: formed with or indicating unanimity : having the agreement and consent of all you sir are wrong, if you were right there would be no debate.surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Newtons laws are still used for many applications. Former_Slacker

Doesn't change the fact that not only were the universally accepted but they were not 100% correct. Yet somehow people feel as though that's not a possibility now even though it may be universally accepted.

Dear god.. This is what science is about.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] There is no debate about global warming being man made in the scientific community. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="Former_Slacker"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Doesn't change the fact that not only were the universally accepted but they were not 100% correct. Yet somehow people feel as though that's not a possibility now even though it may be universally accepted.

Espada12

Dear god.. This is what science is about.

I'm pretty sure you are missing my point but whatever!

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

Weren't newtons laws of motion accepted science until einstein proved they weren't 100% correct?

Espada12

Doesn't change the fact that not only were the universally accepted but they were not 100% correct. Yet somehow people feel as though that's not a possibility now even though it may be universally accepted.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Nah I'm sure there's some scientist who was kicked by a cow as a child who thinks that all of mankinds various emissions are less damaging than that of cows. Which exist in such large numbers because of us...surrealnumber5

What's your point? That maybe eventually someone may figure out that our current theory of climate change was slightly off and needed to be changed in extreme circumstances? You can still use newtons laws you know for every day stuff. The guy wasn't wrong, he just wasn't 100% correct. By your own argument climate change is only mostly correct and needs more study. Ace6301

My point is that, even universally accepted theories can be wrong. I just used that one as an example. Here I'll use another one. The classical elemental theory, 100% proven wrong.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

What's your point? That maybe eventually someone may figure out that our current theory of climate change was slightly off and needed to be changed in extreme circumstances? You can still use newtons laws you know for every day stuff. The guy wasn't wrong, he just wasn't 100% correct. By your own argument climate change is only mostly correct and needs more study. Espada12

My point is that, even universally accepted theories can be wrong. I just used that one as an example. Here I'll use another one. The classical elemental theory, 100% proven wrong.

What? No, Xaos explained it perfectly. Newtons laws are still used for many applications today, Einstein merely took it a few steps further. A simple entry level physics course would teach you this. HoolaHoopMan

They're actually used for just about everything that doesn't involve celestial bodies. It isn't usful to factor a force a weak as gravitation into equations involving small objects.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

What's your point? That maybe eventually someone may figure out that our current theory of climate change was slightly off and needed to be changed in extreme circumstances? You can still use newtons laws you know for every day stuff. The guy wasn't wrong, he just wasn't 100% correct. By your own argument climate change is only mostly correct and needs more study. Espada12

My point is that, even universally accepted theories can be wrong. I just used that one as an example. Here I'll use another one. The classical elemental theory, 100% proven wrong.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

What's your point? That maybe eventually someone may figure out that our current theory of climate change was slightly off and needed to be changed in extreme circumstances? You can still use newtons laws you know for every day stuff. The guy wasn't wrong, he just wasn't 100% correct. By your own argument climate change is only mostly correct and needs more study. Espada12

My point is that, even universally accepted theories can be wrong. I just used that one as an example. Here I'll use another one. The classical elemental theory, 100% proven wrong.

Dearest OT, Please stop feeding Espada12. regards, Sanity.T_P_O

Yeah once someone doesn't agree with the majority opinion they are clearly trolling amirite?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

What's your point? That maybe eventually someone may figure out that our current theory of climate change was slightly off and needed to be changed in extreme circumstances? You can still use newtons laws you know for every day stuff. The guy wasn't wrong, he just wasn't 100% correct. By your own argument climate change is only mostly correct and needs more study. Espada12

My point is that, even universally accepted theories can be wrong. I just used that one as an example. Here I'll use another one. The classical elemental theory, 100% proven wrong.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] I'm sure there are a few out there that don't, but that's like saying the Evolution isn't unanimous in the biological community when a few don't believe in it either. In the scientific community there really isn't a debate about whether not it's man made/influenced. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

What's your point? That maybe eventually someone may figure out that our current theory of climate change was slightly off and needed to be changed in extreme circumstances? You can still use newtons laws you know for every day stuff. The guy wasn't wrong, he just wasn't 100% correct. By your own argument climate change is only mostly correct and needs more study. Ace6301

My point is that, even universally accepted theories can be wrong. I just used that one as an example. Here I'll use another one. The classical elemental theory, 100% proven wrong.

Semantics much? The fact is, these were all once accepted science and in the end were found to not 100% correct or flat out wrong. How about that Phlogiston theory? Good enough example?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] you should not use words you dont know the proper use for. think of unanimous as a true false statement, it must be 100% true or else its falsesurrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

My point is that, even universally accepted theories can be wrong. I just used that one as an example. Here I'll use another one. The classical elemental theory, 100% proven wrong.

Espada12

Semantics much? The fact is, these were all once accepted science and in the end were found to not 100% correct or flat out wrong. How about that Phlogiston theory? Good enough example?

You think the science is wrong? You think that all the peer-reviewed literature is bogus? Prove it.

Why is it that it seems like the climate change deniers are the same people who don't want the kinds of regulations on businesses that'd be necessary to counter-act climate change?PannicAtack

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Great, keep knit picking while completely avoiding the topic and point at hand. HoolaHoopMan