Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate Change in the Coloradan Mind

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    -Harold Camping



    No. As I've explained before. It's science mixed with social and political advocacy that is utter crap. The fact that so many worship under the high priests of that very practice only underscores the unfortunate prevalence.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
      Lolz. Everyone not in Climate Club is a 'denier' or 'hit-man'
      Taylor is. That's his job. FUD.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
        It's science mixed with social and political advocacy that is utter crap.
        Scientists should strictly stick to science and STFU about everything else, especially political issues?

        Since when does being a scientist mean losing one's 1st Amendment rights?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
          So long as you define "long term" as "since the 1970s"
          Again, since you missed it the first time:

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by W*GS View Post
            Scientists should strictly stick to science and STFU about everything else, especially political issues?

            Since when does being a scientist mean losing one's 1st Amendment rights?
            It's impossible to deny that publicized advocacy and/or financial interest weigh heavily against any "scientist's" ability to remain objective.

            If you doubt that, just reference your second to last post. You're basically making that very same argument.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
              It's impossible to deny that publicized advocacy and/or financial interest weigh heavily against any "scientist's" ability to remain objective.
              What does "objective" mean, to you?

              Was it wrong for the M.D.'s who studied the effect of smoking on health to advocate for restrictions on cigarettes? Why?

              What "financial interest"? Do you really believe climate science is chock-full of corrupt scientists, getting rich while spreading lies for money? I know that's what Limbaugh and the other trogs tell you, but they're simply full of crap.

              If you doubt that, just reference your second to last post. You're basically making that very same argument.
              So, you support the idea that scientists should only talk about their science, and anything else they state is mere advocacy and suspect, so they should just STFU.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by W*GS View Post
                What does "objective" mean, to you?

                Was it wrong for the M.D.'s who studied the effect of smoking on health to advocate for restrictions on cigarettes? Why?

                What "financial interest"? Do you really believe climate science is chock-full of corrupt scientists, getting rich while spreading lies for money? I know that's what Limbaugh and the other trogs tell you, but they're simply full of crap.



                So, you support the idea that scientists should only talk about their science, and anything else they state is mere advocacy and suspect, so they should just STFU.
                By that logic, the medical examiner who testified for the defense in the Zimmerman trial was an activist.



                I love how Beavis continually gets in arguments with people who work in the field and thinks he has a leg to stand on. He's a jackass of all trades, but a master of none.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by W*GS View Post
                  What does "objective" mean, to you?

                  Was it wrong for the M.D.'s who studied the effect of smoking on health to advocate for restrictions on cigarettes? Why?

                  What "financial interest"? Do you really believe climate science is chock-full of corrupt scientists, getting rich while spreading lies for money? I know that's what Limbaugh and the other trogs tell you, but they're simply full of crap.
                  Would you consider it your position that the Government-funded anti-smoking lobby never engages in hype or exaggeration?

                  Similar to many public debates, you had the Tobacco lobby 'scientists' telling the public that 1 pack a day was A-OK. And you had the government-funded grievance machine telling the public that they had to ban smoking virtually everywhere, because if some hapless wanderer accidentally tripped through a puff of smoke, it would take years from his life.

                  In reality, right in line with common sense, the truth was (and is) somewhere in between.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                    Would you consider it your position that the Government-funded anti-smoking lobby never engages in hype or exaggeration?

                    Similar to many public debates, you had the Tobacco lobby 'scientists' telling the public that 1 pack a day was A-OK. And you had the government-funded grievance machine telling the public that they had to ban smoking virtually everywhere, because if some hapless wanderer accidentally tripped through a puff of smoke, it would take years from his life.

                    In reality, right in line with common sense, the truth was (and is) somewhere in between.
                    Have you seen this site from NASA?
                    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

                    It's all about scientific consensus. Check it out.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
                      Have you seen this site from NASA?
                      http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

                      It's all about scientific consensus. Check it out.
                      So is this.

                      http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/agreeing-to-agree

                      Check it out.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        7 inches of Global Warming this week with no end in sight (literally) today.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Yeah. Springtime in September. Sweet!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
                            7 inches of Global Warming this week with no end in sight (literally) today.
                            Yes, funny how many are linking the flooding in Boulder to global warming but when the Big Thompson Canyon flooded in 1976 and killed 140, it was just a freak act of nature that happens every 100 years or so.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Pony Boy View Post
                              Yes, funny how many are linking the flooding in Boulder to global warming but when the Big Thompson Canyon flooded in 1976 and killed 140, it was just a freak act of nature that happens every 100 years or so.
                              Who are these "many" making the link?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by W*GS View Post
                                Who are these "many" making the link?
                                http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fww...-climate-punch

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X