Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[Mick]

Mick if I polled 100 pot smokers I'm sure 97 of them would have nothing but positive things to say about smoking it.I'm a denier,I deny that you read what Tim just said in his posts lol

Hey, if 97% of smokers said cannabis is a positive experience, then I'd say it would be safe to assume that they're right.

 

[Floridian]

An unarguable point if I may say so myself.

 

[DocTim420]

Ahhh...let's take this 97% logic to the absurd.

If I poll two thousand people and if 97% are in favor of something--then the rest of the world (about 7.5 billion people) must accept it as "settled science" and take the medicine. Right?

The primary 97% argument was determined from only 2,014 "climate scientists".

I bet if I poll 2,000 Catholics, 97% will say Jesus is the Son of God. If I poll 2,000 Muslims, 97% will say Allah is God. If I poll 2,000 Jews, 97% will say Jesus is NOT the messiah.

How about looking at the facts? Ooops, can't do that, NOAA is withholding them from the "public". I guess that information can only be seen by the "elitist class"--not us "common folks". LOL.

Just saying if the facts are on the side of "climate change"...then why shield them from the public? What are they hiding? And why?

Oh oh....I hear the "climate police" saying something: "Move along, move along please. Nothing here to see, move along."

 

[Mick]

Ahhh...let's take this 97% logic to the absurd.

If I poll two thousand people and if 97% are in favor of something--then the rest of the world (about 7.5 billion people) must accept it as "settled science" and take the medicine. Right?

The primary 97% argument was determined from only 2,014 "climate scientists".

I bet if I poll 2,000 Catholics, 97% will say Jesus is the Son of God. If I poll 2,000 Muslims, 97% will say Allah is God. If I poll 2,000 Jews, 97% will say Jesus is NOT the messiah.

How about looking at the facts? Ooops, can't do that, NOAA is withholding them from the "public". I guess that information can only be seen by the "elitist class"--not us "common folks". LOL.

Just saying if the facts are on the side of "climate change"...then why shield them from the public? What are they hiding? And why?

Oh oh....I hear the "climate police" saying something: "Move along, move along please. Nothing here to see, move along."

Interesting that you parody religion to make your point. The irony being that religion is at the root of your socially conditioned opinions on climate change. Makes no difference whether you're religious or not, western culture, and you as well, have been shaped and conditioned by Christianity. I remember growing up in an Australia when the attitude to nature was a hearty, “if it moves shoot it, if it doesn't then cut it down”, and imo, that can be traced directly back to the bible's attitude of dominance and exploitation of nature, and for some it hasn't changed. It's more than dominance though, it's almost like a fear and loathing of the natural world. On the other hand, indigenous peoples had a deep reverence and love for it. We took a wrong turn when we our culture divorced itself from Mother Earth.

 

[DocTim420]

It seems for many, "climate change" is a religion. It is a concept/belief based on "faith" that certain "secret methodology" and modified data are "more correct" than not.

It used to be at parties, people did not discuss politics and religion (kinda like the TOU on ICMag). I believe we can add "climate change" to the "forbidden topics".

 

[GMT]

I'm going to put Plato's argument forward here. OK, so he asks if its better to go to the market place and ask 100 people their opinions on why you feel unwell and what to do about it, or to consult a medical physician. Is numbers of the same opinion, or an educated opinion, what you should gamble your future health upon? Now he was making an argument for professional politicians rather than democracy, but it stands to this case too. The science, the scientists tell us, is there. Who will you believe, the ones making money out of continuing pollution, or those who will make money out of ending pollution; perhaps those who shout the loudest or will you listen to those who study the evidence and come to an informed, independent opinion?

 

[mushulatubbee]

So iceland owns greenland? Can you imagine the mineral deposits under that melting icepack? We will be growing in greenland soon yeah?

 

[Skip]

So iceland owns greenland? Can you imagine the mineral deposits under that melting icepack? We will be growing in greenland soon yeah?

Uh, last I checked, Greenland is a part of Denmark.

 

[DocTim420]

I'm going to put Plato's argument forward here. OK, so he asks if its better to go to the market place and ask 100 people their opinions on why you feel unwell and what to do about it, or to consult a medical physician. Is numbers of the same opinion, or an educated opinion, what you should gamble your future health upon? Now he was making an argument for professional politicians rather than democracy, but it stands to this case too. The science, the scientists tell us, is there. Who will you believe, the ones making money out of continuing pollution, or those who will make money out of ending pollution; perhaps those who shout the loudest or will you listen to those who study the evidence and come to an informed, independent opinion?

Of course your assumption is...weather is a subject that is too difficult/complex for laymen to understand, therefor the public should forfeit their opinion(s)--since they lack the intelligence.

I believe the opinion of climate experts is--around the mid 2030s Earth is supposed to enter a mini "ice age" (like the one that began in 1645)--but because of "global warming" it may not happen.

We should be heading into another ice age right now," Sandstrom told Live Science. But two factors related to Earth's orbit that influence the formation of glacials and interglacials are off. "That, coupled with the fact that we pump so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere [means] we're probably not going to enter a glacial for at least 100,000 years," he said.

Source: http://www.livescience.com/58407-how-often-do-ice-ages-happen.html

Then of course we have another group of climate scientist that predict the "mini ice-age" will happen--based on a model that is 97% accurate (lol, there we go again with the 97%...lol).

A Mini Ice Age is upon us according to a Math professor’s Solar Cycle model that is up to 97% accurate.

A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645.

There are some things that mankind can do little about. It’s not climate change but our Sun’s activity which plays a crucial role in everything around us.

A mathematical model has shown that the sun could ‘calm down’ in the coming years creating major events on Earth.

It’s not a secret that life on Earth has been very dependent on how the Sun functions, which is why it is extremely important to study our star.

Professor Valentina Zharkova from the University of Northumbria claims that her findings come from a computer model of sunspots that has made “unprecedentedly accurate predictions.”

The model—which has proven to have a 97% accuracy when mapping the past movements of sunspots, using data of solar cycles from 1976 to 2008—has some alarming predictions for Earth’s future: A mini Ice Age that could strike our planet as soon as 2030.

In order to come to these conclusions, scientists mapped the movement of solar fluid in roughly 11-year cycles, which correspond to weather cycles on Earth.

Cycle 25—around the year 2022— a pair of waves will migrate from the Northern and Southern hemispheres of the sun, getting out of sync and reducing solar actively.

“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” said Zharkova.

The so-called Maunder minimum was a period that lasted from around 1645 to 1715, when to sun barely produced any sunspots resulting in a mini ice age on Earth. During that 70-year period, parts of Northern Europe and the United States were conquered by uncharacteristically cold winters.

Interestingly, the river Thames, flowing through London, froze for a seven-week period and was passable by foot.

Sources: http://www.ancient-code.com/according-to-a-math-professors-solar-cycle-model-an-ice-age-is-near/
https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/news-archive/259-news-2015/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo

IMO, when we are talking about the annual redistribution of billions of dollar$ of other people's money--we ought to get the damn thing right! In history, deploying a strategy based on "faith"--has seldom been successful (except on matters involving religion--which we all know is 100% faith based).

 

[GMT]

No, I'm saying that the public can only expect to be given the same weight to their opinions, that they give to the opposing views of others, who are equally educated/uneducated. I'm also saying that people should accept that the views of those who have spent decades studying something, and who get paid for their time, not their opinions, be given greater weight.
Now if you ask me if I have faith in public sector employees to co-ordinate the appropriate response, no of course I don't, but that doesn't mean the science is off.
No one argues that we aren't releasing more of the gasses labeled as "greenhouse" than ever has been before (at least in mankind's history). Or even the affect they have, only the extent of the effects.

 

[DocTim420]

... I'm also saying that people should accept that the views of those who have spent decades studying something, and who get paid for their time, not their opinions, be given greater weight.....

That is where we basically disagree. I was not raised to capitulate to "elites"--just because of the length of alphabet soup that is behind their name. Rather I was raised to be skeptical and if a person knows their stuff--they usually are proud of that fact and will bore you to tears with discussions--not stifle further debate.

When professionals don't have facts, they create models to fill in the blanks (aka opinions/qualified guesstimates). The ones with a greater success rate (ie 97%) are usually respected for their opinions (and paid more).

Facts are facts--and two people from different backgrounds should be able to universally agree on "facts". And there is the rub--opinions are assumed to be "facts" when it comes to GlobalCooling-GlobalWarming-ClimateChange, and the every decade or so--the story changes.

 

[GMT]

What would constitute evidence to you? And given the half life of the chemicals involved, what would you do to halt the process?

 

[Floridian]

An actual visable rise in our waters here on the gulf coat would make me a total believer,a believer in warming and rising coastal waters,not that man is responsible.Not a 6 inch rise since 1880 or the last propaganda I was exposed to,something that means something.And not "scientific predictions" like by 2030 or 2050 this or that,something concrete.Granted Algore is and never was a climate expert but he received his information from the "experts" in the field and they have been proven mistaken by father time.Now I'm positive someone will cut and paste some dire new information about Florida's situation and that's entertaining but anyone can find anything to fit their perspective,we all know that lol.I'm here and fish the bay frequently,at least I did until Nov 10 2016,a day that will live in infamy lol

 

[DocTim420]

What would constitute evidence to you? And given the half life of the chemicals involved, what would you do to halt the process?

What are we trying to prove?

That 97% of a group of people believe in their work (in other words, climate scientists believe in climate)?

That mankind is supposed to be entering a mini-ice age but not due to excess CO2 gases (produced solely by man--not animal flatulence)...the ice age will not occur?

That a fraction of a degree increase in the world's temperature is detrimental to Earth's existence?

That ocean temperature measurements from a hodgepodge of technology sourced from antiquated and modern equipment is more than 97% accurate?

That missing data (temperatures at locations where there are no measuring devices) was accurately compiled for the Paris Agreement (you know where signers agreed to spend billions to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celcius)?

That NOAA is proper in withholding data and keeping it's methodology secret--even though it was used to prepare documents for the Paris Agreement?

I don't know--pick your argument and produce some evidence (other than a survey that says 97% of climate scientist agree on something). That way we, a bunch of reasonable stoners, can have a "conversation" about what some refer to as "weather" or "four seasons"...and others refer to as "climate change".

 

[Mick]

It seems for many, "climate change" is a religion. It is a concept/belief based on "faith" that certain "secret methodology" and modified data are "more correct" than not.

It used to be at parties, people did not discuss politics and religion (kinda like the TOU on ICMag). I believe we can add "climate change" to the "forbidden topics".

Hey brother, I'm wasn't trying to be mean, but what fascinates me the most, is not so much what we say or do, but why we say or do it. Social or cultural conditioning if far from controversial, but imo, is just scratching the surface. I'm thinking that the opposing sides of the game, conservatives and progressives, are but expressions of opposing cosmic forces that help shape our world. Let's cut to the chase, you're essentially arguing for a dirty, polluted world and all that comes with that, and I'm for a clean, green and sustainable one, and the numbers of the population on both sides of this and most arguments are pretty much the same. Can't have one side without the other, the Unity of Opposites. So I'm suggesting that many of our views and opinions are pretty much predestined and shaped by universal forces and there's really nothing much we can do to change them. Seen in this light, one is not better than the other. So we're really not talking about climate change, but something much more vast and awesome.

 

[DocTim420]

Yep, I love dirty water and breathe air that I can not see through. That is what I want!

LOL...what a crock of shit.

If GlobalCooling-GlobalWarming-ClimateChange is about clean air or reducing "greenhouse gases"--then why do the elites of that industry refuse to practice what they preach? Why do they commute in private jets and live in jumbo houses that consume 10 times the energy--compared to what "us normal folks" use?

If the elites truly believe in "the cause", then why don't they "practice what they preach"? It sure looks and smells like a con game to separate people and their money...you know that silly thing called "carbon credits"--where "climate change elites" are able to pollute during the day, but feel good at night.

 

[Floridian]

Haha I thought I've read comical nonsense in this thread,but nothing beats "arguing for a dirty polluted world lol.While you argue for a utopia our children can be proud of.And one is not better than the other?Predestiny and universal forces?Cmon man set the bong down and slowly back away lol.

 

[Mick]

Yep, I love dirty water and breathe air that I can not see through. That is what I want!

LOL...what a crock of shit.

If GlobalCooling-GlobalWarming-ClimateChange is about clean air or reducing "greenhouse gases"--then why do the elites of that industry refuse to practice what they preach? Why do they commute in private jets and live in jumbo houses that consume 10 times the energy--compared to what "us normal folks" use?

If the elites truly believe in "the cause", then why don't they "practice what they preach"? It sure looks and smells like a con game to separate people and their money...you know that silly thing called "carbon credits"--where "climate change elites" are able to pollute during the day, but feel good at night.

Mate, you're obsessed with money and elites. Everyone I know supports climate change action and last time I looked, none had a private jet in their garage. The push is coming from normal everyday people who want a future for their kids. All you've got is smoke and mirrors.
If you support the status quo and that's what's poisoning and polluting the world, then you support that too, especially when there's an alternative. It ain't rocket science.
Sayonara.

 

[DocTim420]

Why do you try to make this a binary argument of "good" vs "evil"? If I don't agree with your logic, then...I am not an evil person--nor or you more "righteous".

Rather than attack me--why not answer the questions I posed earlier?

Why is NOAA withholding climate change data and methodology from Congress and FOIA requests from citizens?

When using a hodgepodge of technology to measure the ocean's temperature, why were antiquated devices preferred over modern technology on certain measurements, and on other measurements the modern technology devices were used (usually to show lower temps)? What is wrong with using the same technology when measuring temps? Or did antiquated devices record greater temps than modern devices...hmmm, why the lack of consistency?

I can disagree with your logic...and still desire a similar outcome (as in healthy Earth all--just not your kids); that does not make either one of "evil", just different.

BTW...the Elites do not do as you and I do, why is that? Is there a special exemption for them to consume fuel/energy in massive amounts?

 

[Genghis Kush]

Ahhh...let's take this 97% logic to the absurd.

If I poll two thousand people and if 97% are in favor of something--then the rest of the world (about 7.5 billion people) must accept it as "settled science" and take the medicine. Right?

."

you argued the exact opposite point in your transgender thread.


in that thread you claimed that 3% percent is insignificant and that the 3% must accept the 97%


which one is it?