Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 8521 - 8540 of total 28532 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 19, 2013 - 12:52pm PT
Why is it wrong to try to do something to preserve the planet for the next generationSSSS??


Because they are the out group. There is no moral obligation to those outside your tribe. Chuff, like all right wingers is strongly tribal. He can modify his rugged individual imperative on only two counts, and even then with no lack of internal conflict.

first, his obvious need of socialist/ communal benefits such as the volunteer fire department or pension benefits, just like the rest of us.


2nd, as a result of his anxiety related to the cognitive dissonance associated with the above noted dependance on others, he closely limits any degree of loyalty or obligation of good will only to those who he must immediately depend on, either for practical or ideological reasons.

We all do this of course because we are all tribal to a degree. The difference id that the right wingers world starkly chops off any obligation to others at the tribal boundary. You can see this demonstrated even amongst themselves, like the Shia killing the Sunni's, or the Evangelicals completely unable to vote for Romney.

Loyalty and obligation is ranked by right wingers the way they rank everything - hierarchy based on ideology. For instance if your kid turns out to be gay, well sorry kiddo but its time to move out. Future generations are not to be trusted, especially considering the trend to progressive sensibilities so...... fuk em.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jun 19, 2013 - 12:55pm PT
Here's some other goodies, The Chump!

Jammin' with my pops
Jammin' with my pops
Credit: Jebus H Bomz

Jeebz. The men want to be him and the women want to be with him.
Jeebz. The men want to be him and the women want to be with him.
Credit: Jebus H Bomz

Jebus is pretty and witty
Jebus is pretty and witty
Credit: Jebus H Bomz

Dafuq?
Dafuq?
Credit: Jebus H Bomz

Alien invasion?
Alien invasion?
Credit: Jebus H Bomz

Noobie Ferrata
Noobie Ferrata
Credit: Jebus H Bomz

Post-Dark Star
Post-Dark Star
Credit: Jebus H Bomz

A be-prana'd JEbus caught mid-yammer
A be-prana'd JEbus caught mid-yammer
Credit: Jebus H Bomz

Yeah!
Yeah!
Credit: Jebus H Bomz

Here's an irate scientist knocking sense into you:

Hobo with a Shotgun
Hobo with a Shotgun
Credit: Jebus H Bomz
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 19, 2013 - 12:57pm PT
Gee BRUCE, how many "Right Wingers" do you personally know that voted for Obama?






JEEXBRABOMZ,

Nice. Like I posted. It is obvious why this whole AGW scam is failing.

Keep up the outstanding work, clown,
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 19, 2013 - 12:57pm PT
As per you question i did answer it.



negative ron. Forget it.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jun 19, 2013 - 12:58pm PT
Ron, you continually confuse science with politics. Pull your head out of your ass and figure it out for fuk's sake. Science is thoroughly checked... it ain't science if it ain't reproducible... reproducibility is required SO IT CAN BE CHECKED.

But for us to allow a "sceince" to run unchecked into the broadest reaching and possibly most expensive results one will ever see shouldnt go un challenged.

You are talking about HOW WE AS A SOCIETY REACT TO THE SCIENCE. That is up for debate... nobody has suggested otherwise. But THAT AIN'T SCIENCE bub.

You seriously need to put some effort into understanding the difference.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 19, 2013 - 12:58pm PT
Bruce,,forget what? hehehehee...



edit: and wes, yes there IS a difference, HOWEVER, one begets the other.

POLITICS is the generator here, just like it was in regards to forestry practices.. Hell you see it right on this page with the "right winger" talk.

Im not a right or left winger. Ive been totally both. BUT to suggest politics has nothing t do with it is a little short sighted. That IS WHY it has come under such controversial scrutiny.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:03pm PT
Science is thoroughly checked

By whom? Science? Great.


Just like all them financial institutions that ripped off millions of the Amerikan home owners. Got it.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:04pm PT
JEEXBRA,

Nice. Like I posted. It is obvious why this whole AGW scam is failing.

Keep up the outstanding work, clown,


Fail! I don't pass myself off as some - GUFFAW! - climate expert. Keep on googling, Chief Running Joke, the array of glue sniffers and tinfoil hat "experts" backing you up is most impressive indeed. Guffaw!
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:08pm PT
JEEXBIMBO, the only thing you pass yourself off is snot running down ones leg. You will evaporate. Bye bye. Dripper.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:09pm PT
McHale you pick one sentence, near the last, that pays the required homage to CAGW and conclude it negates the rest of the long article. The New Republic article was quite clear; their are severe problems with all the CAGW climate models and many scientists previously in support are quietly saving face by bscking away from the fiasco.

Norton i'm back in Ak. and have brought the global cooling with me.Did you know that 19 out of the 20 official Alaska weather recording stations show a distinct cooling of 2.4 degrees on average over the last decade? One little heat wave will affect that not, since we just concluded the longest winter in Ak history. You guys should be looking at the severe start to winter the southern hemisphere is experiencing. Their seems to be an abundance of anomalies, primarily on the cooling side, this year in both hemispheres.

Yes Bruce, i stand behind my statement. Both The Chief and Ed have outstanding records of functioning at a high level in their respective fields. That is something Christ will never achieve if he wastes his time defending the indefensible on this forum.

Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:10pm PT
Pathetic little quips are all you have. Got it. Roger dodger, space ranger, over and out. Guffaw!

Excuse me, I will be off having fun while you fume ;).
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:11pm PT
Don't pull too hard BIMBOJEEZ. It will melt and fall off. Have fun, dripping.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:12pm PT
Ron if you are not a right winger then why are you positively dripping with right wing sensibilities?

You would have to be nuts not to vote right wing!


Anyway, about my question - Its cool that all of you right wingers actively avoid difficult questions. I just like to ask them every now and then so that you will predictably demonstrate it.


This answers the most important question


Wether or not you are a right winger
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:14pm PT
BRUCE:

Please cite a ref to justify your RT WING claim directed at me.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:15pm PT
ive answered you twice Bruce. If you didnt get the one you wanted, then be more specific. Meanwhile read this from Ricks link.


Some people are playing the hiatus as good news: “Apocalypse perhaps a little later,” the Economist put it. But in a political environment where vast swathes of the American right reject even the premise of global warming—and where prominent right-wing pols suggest it’s an enormous fraud—this inconvenient news could easily lead to still more acrimony over the subject. Especially since scientists themselves aren’t entirely sure what the evidence means. If scientific models can’t project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of the next 100?


It might seem like a decade-long warming plateau would cause a crisis for climate science. It hasn’t. Gerald Meehl, a Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has seen hiatus periods before. They “occur pretty commonly in the observed records,” and there are climate models showing “a hiatus as long as 15 years.” As a result, Isaac Held, a Senior Research Scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, says “no one has ever expected warming to be continuous, increasing like a straight line.” Those much-cited computer models are composed of numerous simulations that individually account for naturally occurring variability. But, Meehl says, “the averages cancel it out.”

The phenomena that most clearly causes the Earth’s temperature to rise and fall are El Nino and La Nina. During El Nino, heat is brought to the surface of the eastern Pacific, raising global air temperatures. The reverse happens during La Nina. Conveniently, the “hiatus” is said to begin in 1998, when a historic El Nino produced the warmest year of the twentieth century. That starting point amounts to cherry-picking: The 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, and the nine warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.


Skeptical Science
EL NIÑO/LA NIÑA GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURE INFLUENCE
But all this leaves a big question, one that scientists have been trying to answer: If the atmosphere is warming more slowly than projected, where did the heat go?

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:27pm PT
OK Ron, one more time, just for posterity:


By what criteria of judgement would you chose to distrust science as an institution?


Hint: perhaps because they are corrupt of perhaps they are all stoned on acid.


Another hint: You by your own admission are not capable of judging the technical quality of professionally produced science.



Understand now? I'm not asking for the opinion of the Economist on what happened in the past 15 years.


Look at the question

Think about it

answer it





Chuff - My mistake. I apologize. Clearly you are a progressive liberal. I'm not sure how I got my wires crossed there.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:41pm PT
Bruce, WHICH SCIENCE, the one that says the earth is warming? Or the one that says there has bee a flat line in it for 15 yrs? THAT IS MY point.

There are more than one science involved in this issue.

With as many un explained things of the past climates, all left to theory, and the unexplained flatlines of the here and now, and the conflicting reports of all of this make me skeptical. Im NOT going to re-post all the links graphs and other material i have posted.

But Even ED can not answer with a concise explanation. Nor can any side of the coin thus far. Infancy is where we are at when it comes to the globe. We dont even know what the heck is in our Oceans yet. New species being found now and then.. Depths and activities never recorded yet.

Yeah the Earth has warmed some in the past 100 yrs, and now seems flatlined for the last 15 which is common throughout the known history is it not? You tell me how they can accurately predict NATURAL activities that affect our atmosphere. Ed cant. Other scientists cant. Yet they can assume through their models that they CAN. They ASSUME the natural trends will follow suit. We don not know this nor do they. So,, ROUGh measurements of the amount of CO2 man now puts into the atmopshere can be recorded.. We know that during those times the earth warmed x amount. How much would it have warmed had we NOT been here? THAT is an unkown and a very important unknown.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:46pm PT
The science that shows the rates of warming have 'flatlined' several times in the last 40+ years, each 'flatline' higher then the next.

The same science that shows the oceans are continuing their warming.

Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:55pm PT
Science is thoroughly checked

By whom?

By anyone who isn't either a fuking moran or more concerned about clinging to their misinterpretation of reality. That is the way it has been since before Galileo.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 19, 2013 - 01:55pm PT
What that PROVES Mono, is that the earths atmosphere is changing, just like it always has. On that anyone will agree. Oklahoma has been a dust bowl and a high crop producer. Things change. But at what REAL affects? the worse case scenario of oceans rising for the next 80+ yrs is 17 to 22 inches IF they follow models that cant predict natural fluctuations.. And that is a BIG IF ! 17 to 22 inch sea level rise in a span of 80+ yrs is hardly devastating nor alarming. Thats comparable to a high tide surge in literal terms. But to read some articles,, mankind will sluff off into the deep briney if it continues lol! To those that do indeed sluff away, i cheer Darwinism..;-)


Geeez Mono, can you blow the page out anymore!??
Messages 8521 - 8540 of total 28532 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews