Jump to content

Auburndale Ray

Global Warming-Revisited...Ad Nauseam!

IS GLOBAL WARMING "SETTLED SCIENCE"???  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. IS GLOBAL WARMING "SETTLED SCIENCE"???

    • Yes, Global Warming is proven and is "Settled Science".
      8
    • No, Global Warming is a LIE.
      2
    • Who Knows, and who cares. I am sick of hearing about it.
      5


Recommended Posts

Is Global Warming "Settled Science"...

Or is it a total farce, perpetrated by politicians and pseudo-scientists, looking for funding...

Al Gore and his political/scientist crusaders appear to want to bully you into believing...

If you do not buy in to the concept, you are not only ignorant, but evil, propelling us to world destruction...

On the other side, are the staunch defenders of the view that Global Warming is just NOT factual and cannot be proven by current research...

So...To bring this topic to a Current Discussion...Go For It...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Global Warming "Settled Science"...

Or is it a total farce, perpetrated by politicians and pseudo-scientists, looking for funding...

Al Gore and his political/scientist crusaders appear to want to bully you into believing...

If you do not buy in to the concept, you are not only ignorant, but evil, propelling us to world destruction...

On the other side, are the staunch defenders of the view that Global Warming is just NOT factual and cannot be proven by current research...

So...To bring this topic to a Current Discussion...Go For It...

We have already done this, so other than rehash that, I will post a pic that I saw on facebook that expresses how I feel about it. It is addressing a different subject, but you get the point.

943256_590596214294727_1384987374_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have already done this, so other than rehash that, I will post a pic that I saw on facebook that expresses how I feel about it. It is addressing a different subject, but you get the point.

943256_590596214294727_1384987374_n.jpg

Believing man made global warming isn't caused by man is loads different than believing in creationism.

There's many scientists and research professors at top universities (Harvard, Duke, MIT, UVA, Princeton, etc) that challenge the theory on scientific grounds. And isn't that what science is? Good scientists attempt to disprove hypotheses and theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Believing man made global warming isn't caused by man is loads different than believing in creationism.

There's many scientists and research professors at top universities (Harvard, Duke, MIT, UVA, Princeton, etc) that challenge the theory on scientific grounds. And isn't that what science is? Good scientists attempt to disprove hypotheses and theories.

Yes.

When you say "challenge the theory", though, it's not really as simple as that is it? Which is also sort of what science is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Believing man made global warming isn't caused by man is loads different than believing in creationism.

There's many scientists and research professors at top universities (Harvard, Duke, MIT, UVA, Princeton, etc) that challenge the theory on scientific grounds. And isn't that what science is? Good scientists attempt to disprove hypotheses and theories.

Lol, I said that how I felt about is the about the same, even though it is a different subject. Are you telling me that because the subjects are so different, that I am not allowed to feel the same?

As far as the rest of this bit, there are many more scientists that support global warming being a result of man's activities. I would assume that if the question were phrased as you have stated it, all of them would agree that "man made global warming" is caused by man.:wink:

As far as what science is, I apologize if this sounds arrogant, but I do not need your help with a definition.

The point of my post was to give the opinion that I do not care what individuals here believe, and that I will not likely be participating in what is sure to be thrilling debate on the subject, again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of a poll fail by the way. It really needs:

a) a comedy option;

b) an option which suggests that the science is sound but that acknowledges that the idea of proven science is tricky

So, yeah. Nice day here today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bit of a poll fail by the way. It really needs:

a) a comedy option;

b) an option which suggests that the science is sound but that acknowledges that the idea of proven science is tricky

So, yeah. Nice day here today.

Yes sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's many scientists and research professors at top universities (Harvard, Duke, MIT, UVA, Princeton, etc) that challenge the theory on scientific grounds. And isn't that what science is? Good scientists attempt to disprove hypotheses and theories.

Two points... one, your definition of science doesn't quite hit the mark. Second of all, why do you assume that scientists that have determined that climate change is real haven't tried in the past to disprove its existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Escalator_2012_500.gif

A whole 42 years of data on a planet that is over 4 billion years old....seems legit.

Predict the future results of a hitter after one strike...not strike out....strike...get it right and then try to do that for every player in the MLB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A whole 42 years of data on a planet that is over 4 billion years old....seems legit.

We've covered this ground before of course, but, as an aside, 30 years is the standard sort of length of time you want to be dealing with in order to come up with a decent set of figures for a location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We've covered this ground before of course, but, as an aside, 30 years is the standard sort of length of time you want to be dealing with in order to come up with a decent set of figures for a location.

Of course....over a 30 year period. For something 120 years old that would give a good pattern to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course....over a 30 year period. For something 120 years old that would give a good pattern to follow.

Sorry, for a location's climate. Must have hit return rather than the apostrophe.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,672
    • Total Posts
      2,977,293
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...