jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (24 posts)

CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL---EVEN IF YOU ARE A SELF-DEFINED "CONSERVATIVE"

  1. profile image0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8331209_f520.jpg
    REAL CLEAR SCIENCE reports:

    "Not a single reputable scientific body rejects the idea that climate change is man-made. Drilling that fact home is a recent survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, of which over 97% endorsed the idea that climate change is caused by man. And just last week, a report leaked out from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's leading climate organization. It gives 95% odds that humans are driving global warming.

    Even before this new data was released, Americans were starting to rethink their positions on climate change. The latest Gallup poll from April shows that 57% of Americans now believe that global warming is man-made. Hopefully, when the general public reaches the same consensus as the scientific community, we can come together to discuss meaningful, workable solutions to address this critical issue."

    How, then, it is possible that there is any debate---particularly partisan political chatter, about whether or not climate change is a function of human activity?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe because there is world of difference between "man made" and "contributing factor".

      Maybe because of the egregious "cheating" of some of the major studies.

      Maybe because that little word "reputable" seems to mean different things to different people.

      Maybe because there seems to be great confusion between "weather" and "climate".

      Maybe because even today we certainly do not know all the factors that apply to climate change.  Or even weather, for that matter.

      1. profile image0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I suspect that human activity causing global climate change is what Al Gore said it was: "an inconvenient truth"; a truth whose outcomes can be changed only if we change how we live our lives.

        Did you know that most security professionals (in terms of national and international/global security) now rank global climate change among the major threats to security?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I will go camping this weekend, and will most likely light a campfire.  That campfire is a contributing cause to global warming, but will you declare I have caused the warming.  So many people can't seem to grasp the difference between the two.

          Your point in thinking that warming is a security threat?  Surely you aren't using it as a reason to think mankind is causing the warming?

          1. profile image0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Trivializing a very serious problem does not make that problem go away nor does it disprove science. My comments speak to climate change and science.

            And for the record: I am more than capable of discerning the difference between climate and weather AND global warming and the heating of an immediate environment.

          2. profile image0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            National and international security professionals (government and non-government professionals from many fields) recognize the consequences of unchecked global climate change and recognize how it will, however evetually, impact global security.

            1. innersmiff profile image78
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Some guys with crests on their shirts with eagles on them said so so it must be true"

              1. Zelkiiro profile image83
                Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                My doctor says that vaccines help to prevent illnesses and studies prove it. He's got a title and a fancy coat, so clearly he and those many scientists are lying to me.

                1. innersmiff profile image78
                  innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Logic and reasoning first, and then the authority.

                  1. profile image0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you assuming that those credentialed in the sciences and in global security----simply because of their credentialing, lack logic and reason? And perhaps even more importantly, lack legitimate authority?

              2. bBerean profile image60
                bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I must have seen them on their days off, as I distinctly remember little alligators.

  2. innersmiff profile image78
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    Ad-populum, ad-populum, ad-populum . . .

    Here is why some people might be skeptical of the catastrophic predications of the IPCC and the like:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/27/t … the-pause/

    Their models have been way off target.

    1. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This is a blog written by a self-defined skeptic, who clearly, cannot distinguish between weather and climate/

      1. innersmiff profile image78
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If you dispute the data, or the reading of the data, please enlighten us as to the truth of the matter.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Shhh!  It isn't reputable as it doesn't agree with the folks making money from global warming and should thus be ignored.

          1. innersmiff profile image78
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Shut your big-oil funded mouth before you kill any more baby seals.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              lol

            2. bBerean profile image60
              bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Is there any truth to the rumor that Jonathan Livingston Seagull met an untimely demise attempting to navigate a wind mill farm?  I am afraid the green agenda kills!

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No.  I'm afraid that innersmiff chased Mr. Seagull down, tied him up in the focus of a solar mirror array and left him there until thoroughly cooked.  Claimed he was more tasty that way.  I have it all on video, including the lip smacking during consumption, locked in the oil company vaults for safe keeping.

                It's how the green crowd works.

                1. bBerean profile image60
                  bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If he left the remains on a green site, they will levy a fine against him and tax the rest of us for bio hazardous abatement and remediation, while seeking volunteers to do the actual seagull cleanup.

        2. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is pointless as you have decided that 97% of scientists are either too stupid to properly interpret data collected and studied over years OR too corrupt to report accurately what the data is showing.

          That said, I strongly suggest you leave the ".com" world of bloggers for a time and read some of what is being published in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals.

          1. innersmiff profile image78
            innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Show us them then.

            1. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Go online to a local university and login to their electronic journals collection. Sort by scholarly or peer-reviewed journals and then by key words such "climate change".

              You can also review articles in popular, but fact-driven periodicals with articles written by scientists such as SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, SMITHSONIAN, DISCOVER, AMERICAN SCIENTIST, SCIENCE NEWS.

 
working