Part of what destroyed it for me was the claims that there wasn't any global warming. A while back they denied that the earth was getting warmer despite proof. They eventually had to abandon this stance and took the stance that ok it was warming but that humans had no effect or that greenhouse gases from humans was negligible. Some now say that humans have effect but we don't know how much. Now I would agree that how much humans are effecting it is debatable but the initial claim that it wasn't warming was just denying hard facts. As I pointed out earlier we have idiot congressmen who think snow proves it isn't warming.

As for children in school, we have to decide whether we are going to influence them or not. To me it makes sense that schools are teaching out children to be concerned about the environment. Do you object to civics class, the pledge of allegiance, any hint of right or wrong? See the slippery slope?

I don't think they are teaching false science, I think they are teaching based on what most of the science says. So lets say we take the most responsible skeptical position, that we don't know how much humans are influencing the climate. Doesn't it make sense to teach children about our influence on the climate whether it ends up being 5% or 50% of climate change? Maybe some things need to be tweaked, maybe some teachers make it into too much of a scare the children type lesson, but overall I think they are on the right track. Having said that I don't know what they currently teach. I will have to follow my child's curriculum better, but she is only 7 so might be a while before the reach that subject.

But let me throw out that NOAA data is now showing us in a cooling trend. Which from my understanding is the reason the LEFT changed their tune from Global Warming to Climate Change. I truly believe that mankind can affect the climate, but I contend that it is a such a small amount that, to me, it is not worth teaching this in the schools at this time. Why? Because no one can agree how much. Why? Because it takes several hundred years to conduct the proper scientific study. And we have only started studying climate in the proper scientific way in the last 50-60 years. No one in their right mind would put their reputation on the line and make a guess as to how much man effects the climate. This is why I contend that until we know more it is not worth teaching the children something that we do not know is the truth. To me it is false science. Even you admit no one really knows how much man effects the climate. Yet you feel it is proper to teach the children that we can make a huge difference by moving away from fossil fuels? Without knowing how much we actually have an effect on the climate? And you don't see anything wrong with that? Hysterical rhetoric is what I call it. But of course that is just my opinion.

So let's discuss an example of how much man actually affects the climate. Let us use your number of 50% that mankind can affect the climate. And I did my research to find that between the U.S. and China we produce about 50% combined of all the man made pollution in this world. So let's play with some numbers. If we split the responsibility between the U.S. and China and make them 50% each responsible for the 50% of man made climate change then we should be able to effect the climate considerably, right? China has been reluctant to sign on to the idea that it needs to clean up it's environment up until just quite recently. So let's just work with the U.S. for now. If the U.S. makes a commitment to reduce it's pollution by 1% a year for 10 years and produce 10% less pollution at the end of that 10 year period, do you think that is a reasonable number? I do because the U.S. said just that. Their actual number was 1.2% a year but I want to make the math easy for my feeble mind. It takes time to ween everyone off of coal and oil. So in 10 years we will produce 10% less pollution. That means we will reduce the total effect on man made pollution by a whole 2.5%. Now, since we only effect 50% of the total amount of pollution in this world that means we cut down on the total amount of worldwide pollution a whopping 1.25%. And if we can get China to do the same we will effect the world climate by a grand 2.5% in 10 years. Can you imagine how hard it is going to be to get every country in the world to cut back 1% a year? But let's say we are able to get every country to cooperate and in 10 years we all cut back 10% of our pollution. That means that that we will eliminate a whopping 5% of the world's pollution in 10 years. That is not very much. And let's face it, we cannot make any country reduce their pollution. We can only try and lead by example. Especially if the country (like China) would lose money by reducing their cash crop products in order to reduce pollution. But now let's talk big numbers. What if we could get every country to eliminate pollution by 5% a year and eliminate 50% of all man made pollution in 10 years. That means in 10 years we will have reduced the total pollution in the world by 25%. It is not gonna happen. But what if we could do this? It still means that there is 75% of the starting pollution in this world. We sure as hell are not going to stop whatever climate change is occurring with those wimpy numbers. The best we can do is slow it down. Which leads me back to the politicization of climate change and the hysteria it creates. "Let's save the world". "Save the planet for our children". It's all lies if all we can do is slow down the inevitable.

But now let's use your other number of 5%. What if man only effects 5% of the world's climate. You can take all the numbers above and divide them by 10. Which means if we can get every country in the world to cut back 1% a year for 10 years we will have removed a whole one half of one percent  (0.5%) of the world's pollution. The numbers are not very staggering are they? Now let me ask you again, based on the fact that you admitted you do not know what percentage of the climate is effected by man, do you really want to teach your child that all of mankind can effect the climate significantly? It means we will all have to agree. And in International politics you know as well as I do it ain't never gonna happen. Again, just my humble opinion. 

Really?

You wrote:

Quote from: omnigun on February 01, 2017, 10:17:26 AM

    Thus in the end I will find out when I die what happens.

If you believe that upon termination of the biological functions of the ("your") body that some "I" is going to "find out" something, you've already adopted the belief in some kind of non-biologically-based form of consciousness (aka "religion"). Otherwise you would have to have written: I do not know. I'm "agnostic". If there is such a thing as "life after death" I, or some "soul" version of me, will become aware of that upon my death. If there isn't, I will never know that fact as an "agnostic" because there will be no "I" existent to perceive that it doesn't exist after death.

By the way, "atheist" doesn't mean: a person who believes they can prove the nonexistence of gods. That's absurd. No one can "prove" the nonexistence of anything. Just like you can't prove there isn't a three inch tall gorilla that appears freqeuntly two inches directly behind your head, but disappears when you  turn your head or get in front of any reflective surface. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. "A-theist" mean "without" gods, i.e. a person who lives without any belief in any gods, just like your claimed "A-gnostic" doesn't mean that you claim knowledge doesn't exist and you can prove it, it means you live "without knowledge" of certain claims.

I'll toss another one out while I'm here: Do you claim to be "agnostic" about all of the thousands of gods, or only certain particular ones?

No,  If I die and nothing happens then I have also found out what happens after death.  I don't have to consciously recognized what happens to "find out". 
Atheist ["a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."]. 
Agnostic ["a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."]. 
AKA atheist there is no god, agnostic who knows if there is a god cant prove or disprove.

I claim to be agnostic as I don't have the answers on god so I wont try to pretend I do.   

My Daughter is 42 years old.  I spent a lot of time and effort helping her to learn think critically.  It pretty much worked,
despite the best efforts of the school systems.  Keep an eye on all kids education.
As for teaching false science, no they do not do that, they teach politically correct science.  The biggest influence on earth's
environment is our star, the sun, and they don't have a clue what it is going to do day to day.
If you want to destroy your economy and give up your freedom to fix an insignificant problem then go ahead, but
don't take me and America's kids down with you. 
That star eight light minutes away from us, can wipe out most our modern electrical and electronic systems with
just one flare if it hits us directly,  It can happen, it is just a matter of when, not if. 
This Climate stuff is all about control and depriving you of liberty because Democrats know what is best for you.
After all you are so much safer having registered all your guns, that you had to get permission to buy.

What you are doing is ignoring one thing and blaming another.  This isn't science. 
AKA: Clearly you believe in self preservation and own guns.  But at anytime someone can snipe you during your day from 800 meters out.   You wouldn't stand a chance no mater what guns you own.  Why bother owning guns?  See the logic here?
Just cause some of us don't want to take the chance that we are harming the environment are using the facts that, while cant prove 100 percent without a doubt but largely favor the fact we are effecting the climate. We produce lots of green house gases.  We know what the gases do and we know we are making them. Isn't that enough to want to change?
If you study history we know that large quick changes in the environment just like what is happening now normally leads to mass extinction.  That's not good.  Just like in our house I'm sure you check your wiring and hazards that may cause damage to your house.  But yet at any time some dude can walk up with a lighter and burn your house down.  Its all about mitigation of risk. 

No,  If I die and nothing happens then I have also found out what happens after death. []  I don't have to consciously recognized what happens to "find out".  [ ]
Atheist ["a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."]. 
Agnostic ["a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."]. 
AKA atheist there is no god [ ], agnostic who knows if there is a god cant prove or disprove.

I claim to be agnostic as I don't have the answers on god so I wont try to pretend I do.

1. The thread devolved onto this topic as an analogy or example of the distinction between belief and knowledge as regards anthropogenic global warming.
2. I won't begin to outline the epistemological absurdity of the above comments, as I believe they are likely self-evident to all.

1. The thread devolved onto this topic as an analogy or example of the distinction between belief and knowledge as regards anthropogenic global warming.
2. I won't begin to outline the epistemological absurdity of the above comments, as I believe they are likely self-evident to all.

How can you argue against the literal definition of atheism?  Plz do tell how else I can possibly know what happens after death without dieing?

But let me throw out that NOAA data is now showing us in a cooling trend. Which from my understanding is the reason the LEFT changed their tune from Global Warming to Climate Change. I truly believe that mankind can affect the climate, but I contend that it is a such a small amount that, to me, it is not worth teaching this in the schools at this time. Why? Because no one can agree how much. Why? Because it takes several hundred years to conduct the proper scientific study. And we have only started studying climate in the proper scientific way in the last 50-60 years. No one in their right mind would put their reputation on the line and make a guess as to how much man effects the climate. This is why I contend that until we know more it is not worth teaching the children something that we do not know is the truth. To me it is false science. Even you admit no one really knows how much man effects the climate. Yet you feel it is proper to teach the children that we can make a huge difference by moving away from fossil fuels? Without knowing how much we actually have an effect on the climate? And you don't see anything wrong with that? Hysterical rhetoric is what I call it. But of course that is just my opinion.

So let's discuss an example of how much man actually affects the climate. Let us use your number of 50% that mankind can affect the climate. And I did my research to find that between the U.S. and China we produce about 50% combined of all the man made pollution in this world. So let's play with some numbers. If we split the responsibility between the U.S. and China and make them 50% each responsible for the 50% of man made climate change then we should be able to effect the climate considerably, right? China has been reluctant to sign on to the idea that it needs to clean up it's environment up until just quite recently. So let's just work with the U.S. for now. If the U.S. makes a commitment to reduce it's pollution by 1% a year for 10 years and produce 10% less pollution at the end of that 10 year period, do you think that is a reasonable number? I do because the U.S. said just that. Their actual number was 1.2% a year but I want to make the math easy for my feeble mind. It takes time to ween everyone off of coal and oil. So in 10 years we will produce 10% less pollution. That means we will reduce the total effect on man made pollution by a whole 2.5%. Now, since we only effect 50% of the total amount of pollution in this world that means we cut down on the total amount of worldwide pollution a whopping 1.25%. And if we can get China to do the same we will effect the world climate by a grand 2.5% in 10 years. Can you imagine how hard it is going to be to get every country in the world to cut back 1% a year? But let's say we are able to get every country to cooperate and in 10 years we all cut back 10% of our pollution. That means that that we will eliminate a whopping 5% of the world's pollution in 10 years. That is not very much. And let's face it, we cannot make any country reduce their pollution. We can only try and lead by example. Especially if the country (like China) would lose money by reducing their cash crop products in order to reduce pollution. But now let's talk big numbers. What if we could get every country to eliminate pollution by 5% a year and eliminate 50% of all man made pollution in 10 years. That means in 10 years we will have reduced the total pollution in the world by 25%. It is not gonna happen. But what if we could do this? It still means that there is 75% of the starting pollution in this world. We sure as hell are not going to stop whatever climate change is occurring with those wimpy numbers. The best we can do is slow it down. Which leads me back to the politicization of climate change and the hysteria it creates. "Let's save the world". "Save the planet for our children". It's all lies if all we can do is slow down the inevitable.

But now let's use your other number of 5%. What if man only effects 5% of the world's climate. You can take all the numbers above and divide them by 10. Which means if we can get every country in the world to cut back 1% a year for 10 years we will have removed a whole one half of one percent  (0.5%) of the world's pollution. The numbers are not very staggering are they? Now let me ask you again, based on the fact that you admitted you do not know what percentage of the climate is effected by man, do you really want to teach your child that all of mankind can effect the climate significantly? It means we will all have to agree. And in International politics you know as well as I do it ain't never gonna happen. Again, just my humble opinion. 

Wall of text! Just for further purposes, a few more paragraph breaks would make it easier to read.

I agree that addressing the pollution is very difficult. I like how Bjorn Lumborg puts it, he is a realist. I think that forced pollution reduction will never be as effective as if it becomes financially beneficial to companies.

What I don't want is for people to sit back and say that since the numbers aren't solid that we should just do nothing. I am not saying that is your position, but it seems to be that of many skeptics. Many don't seem interested in a solution, only combating any attempts at solutions. Whether we are affecting the climate at 5% or 50% we should should still consider solutions. I mean heck, even if the climate isn't going to warm, we are still polluting the heck out of it.

So, NOAA data is fake?

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/

Not fake but the data that is used for climate change study's is "Adjusted" Meaning if the data dident show what they thought it should they adjusted it untill it did and if they dident have any data at all they just made an educated guess to fit their pre-determined conclusion.

Oh wait that means its fake.

ive been saying this for years. If you go to the NOAA website you can download the data they use to make these charts and when  you do you will notice there is HUGE (sometimes into decades) gaps. but when you look at the charts they have data, not just streight line points like you would usualy have if data was missing, But up and down treads that they add in based on what the think happened, not what actually happened.

Not fake but the data that is used for climate change study's is "Adjusted" Meaning if the data dident show what they thought it should they adjusted it untill it did and if they dident have any data at all they just made an educated guess to fit their pre-determined conclusion.

Oh wait that means its fake.

ive been saying this for years. If you go to the NOAA website you can download the data they use to make these charts and when  you do you will notice there is HUGE (sometimes into decades) gaps. but when you look at the charts they have data, not just streight line points like you would usualy have if data was missing, But up and down treads that they add in based on what the think happened, not what actually happened.

Having done work with NOAA. I wouldn't say that they post fake data. Maybe they do, but I have also noticed that "curve fitting" gymnastics trying to make sense of data that is probably random.

We analyze data for stuff like wind speeds and such for hurricane design and NOAA data is something we use. There are others as well. My organization used to have wind gauges, but when not maintained...  That was true raw data. 

Then you'll see national level papers post data, but even then, if one digs deeper, you can find stuff like reporting data that fits their conclusions while reporting others a anomalies. Or as mentioned above, trying to find a pattern in phenomenon that is random. Human nature is to try to find patterns to predict future. One of the best "inventions" for Roulette was the history board that give people the perception of being able to predict the future, when you really can't. Well, roulette isn't quite nature, but people try to to predict future natural phenomenon nonetheless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, NOAA data is fake?

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/

I agree that an initial look at the graphs appear to show a problem but in an effort to be objective I looked at it closer. The top image states that it gets its data from two different sources while the bottom image states it only got data from one source. This could explain why the bottom image states that there is no data for those regions. Because of this I wouldn't determine this to be definitive proof of anything.

LOL here you go.

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html

LOL here you go.

Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation, whistle blower charges
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html

"Disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind" is, as I recall, the "nothing to see here" hand-waving tactic until the 24 hour news cycle makes it disappear. You don't really think political appointees employees of the Obama administration would "massage numbers" in service of a political agenda do you? Wouldn't that be "unethical"? Or is it, "the end justifies the means"?

And you all thought (wished?) this thread was long dead... 

A new hypothesis claiming to possibly account for at least some of the global warming/cooling CO2 increases/decreases...

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/24/a-new-culprit-for-climate-change-is-found-but-its-not-of-this-earth/

A new culprit for climate change is found, but it’s not of this Earth



Excerpts:

The actual culprit for the repeated rise and fall of global temperatures might actually be Mars. That sort of thing is rather hard to square with our current debates but it all has to do with the “chaos” inherent in the orbits of the planets and how they interact with each other. The journal Nature broke the story this week and the details are contained in this release from the University of Wisconsin.

    Using evidence from alternating layers of limestone and shale laid down over millions of years in a shallow North American seaway at the time dinosaurs held sway on Earth, the team led by UW–Madison Professor of Geoscience Stephen Meyers and Northwestern University Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Brad Sageman discovered the 87 million-year-old signature of a “resonance transition” between Mars and Earth. A resonance transition is the consequence of the “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. It plays on the idea that small changes in the initial conditions of a nonlinear system can have large effects over time.

    In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.



[I still believe it's much more likely that the main driver is solar cycles.]

but according to omnigun, only recent events and theories matter

And you all thought (wished?) this thread was long dead... 

A new hypothesis claiming to possibly account for at least some of the global warming/cooling CO2 increases/decreases...

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/24/a-new-culprit-for-climate-change-is-found-but-its-not-of-this-earth/

A new culprit for climate change is found, but it’s not of this Earth



Excerpts:

The actual culprit for the repeated rise and fall of global temperatures might actually be Mars. That sort of thing is rather hard to square with our current debates but it all has to do with the “chaos” inherent in the orbits of the planets and how they interact with each other. The journal Nature broke the story this week and the details are contained in this release from the University of Wisconsin.

    Using evidence from alternating layers of limestone and shale laid down over millions of years in a shallow North American seaway at the time dinosaurs held sway on Earth, the team led by UW–Madison Professor of Geoscience Stephen Meyers and Northwestern University Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Brad Sageman discovered the 87 million-year-old signature of a “resonance transition” between Mars and Earth. A resonance transition is the consequence of the “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. It plays on the idea that small changes in the initial conditions of a nonlinear system can have large effects over time.

    In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.



[I still believe it's much more likely that the main driver is solar cycles.]

And you all thought (wished?) this thread was long dead... 

A new hypothesis claiming to possibly account for at least some of the global warming/cooling CO2 increases/decreases...

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/24/a-new-culprit-for-climate-change-is-found-but-its-not-of-this-earth/

A new culprit for climate change is found, but it’s not of this Earth



Excerpts:

The actual culprit for the repeated rise and fall of global temperatures might actually be Mars. That sort of thing is rather hard to square with our current debates but it all has to do with the “chaos” inherent in the orbits of the planets and how they interact with each other. The journal Nature broke the story this week and the details are contained in this release from the University of Wisconsin.

    Using evidence from alternating layers of limestone and shale laid down over millions of years in a shallow North American seaway at the time dinosaurs held sway on Earth, the team led by UW–Madison Professor of Geoscience Stephen Meyers and Northwestern University Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Brad Sageman discovered the 87 million-year-old signature of a “resonance transition” between Mars and Earth. A resonance transition is the consequence of the “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. It plays on the idea that small changes in the initial conditions of a nonlinear system can have large effects over time.

    In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.



[I still believe it's much more likely that the main driver is solar cycles.]

LOL mars now, sure are trying to find anything other than humans at this point.  Let me guess martians are pumping co2 into earths atmosphere.  Look orbits and suns distance to earth and all that jazz do matter but just because of that you cant ignore what humans are doing.  We know for a fact humans are altering earths atmosphere and only humans.  The amount of sunlight we get might effect us but it doesn't discount what humans are doing.   "[I still believe it's much more likely that the main driver is solar cycles.]"  Thankfully so but you still argue humans are not responsible?

but according to omnigun, only recent events and theories matter

I prefer well researched and proven theories.  I mean sure anything is possible.  It might be dinosaurs revenge on us.  Unless of course you are one of those people who believe the devil made those.   

I prefer well researched and proven theories.  I mean sure anything is possible.  It might be dinosaurs revenge on us.  Unless of course you are one of those people who believe the devil made those.

that last article contains a graph of FOUR COMPLETE CYCLES of rise and fall of CO2 levels, which were not likely made by man
how can you say that the rise in temperature and CO2 levels currently are definitely man made?

that last article contains a graph of FOUR COMPLETE CYCLES of rise and fall of CO2 levels, which were not likely made by man
how can you say that the rise in temperature and CO2 levels currently are definitely man made?

Plz elaborate how the positioning of mars and the amount of sunlight changes the co2 levels in earth.  [In the past those levels rose and fell cause of volcanoes etc]  Just cause an article says something doesn't make it true!

I prefer well researched and proven theories.  I mean sure anything is possible.  It might be dinosaurs revenge on us.  Unless of course you are one of those people who believe the devil made those.

IF SOMETHING IS PROVEN THEN ITS NOT A THEORY.

Man mad climate change (previously known as global cooling, then know as global warming) is a theory because its not proven, Why is it not proven ? because there is no conclusive evidence.

And you all thought (wished?) this thread was long dead... 

A new hypothesis claiming to possibly account for at least some of the global warming/cooling CO2 increases/decreases...

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/24/a-new-culprit-for-climate-change-is-found-but-its-not-of-this-earth/

A new culprit for climate change is found, but it’s not of this Earth



Excerpts:

The actual culprit for the repeated rise and fall of global temperatures might actually be Mars. That sort of thing is rather hard to square with our current debates but it all has to do with the “chaos” inherent in the orbits of the planets and how they interact with each other. The journal Nature broke the story this week and the details are contained in this release from the University of Wisconsin.

    Using evidence from alternating layers of limestone and shale laid down over millions of years in a shallow North American seaway at the time dinosaurs held sway on Earth, the team led by UW–Madison Professor of Geoscience Stephen Meyers and Northwestern University Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Brad Sageman discovered the 87 million-year-old signature of a “resonance transition” between Mars and Earth. A resonance transition is the consequence of the “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. It plays on the idea that small changes in the initial conditions of a nonlinear system can have large effects over time.

    In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.



[I still believe it's much more likely that the main driver is solar cycles.]

I just debunked your whole story because of that picture they used. 

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast24may_1

Gotta love all this manmade climate change crap!!! 

 

Plz elaborate how the positioning of mars and the amount of sunlight changes the co2 levels in earth.  [In the past those levels rose and fell cause of volcanoes etc]  Just cause an article says something doesn't make it true!

i am not talking about mars, i am talking about the graph