BF2S Forums Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It was a an afterthought before an out of work politician took his shot at hysteria. Of course the oil company has their scientist, just like the greenies have theirs. I am talking about the ones that have come out against it that weren't being funded by them. There are plenty, and as mentioned some of them were once on the other side of the debate.

If you look at the ratio of scientists supporting the predominant view over the opposing one, I think you'll find that most scientists are closer to Gore in viewpoint than they are to Exxon.

Some scientists also take a somewhat creationist view of things, but that doesn't mean they're right.

I like how you slipped the "EXXON" view point. Since I and millions of others who don't necesarily subscribe to the thought that the debate is over.. we must be on the EXXON payroll .

It was pretty evenhanded actually.  Would you like to think of yourself as being similar to Gore?  Didn't think so...

Kmarion wrote:

Hey, here's one for ya.. the majority of the world believes in a deity of some sort. Does that "ratio" completely flip your second creationist point or what..lmao

If the majority of the world was made up of highly educated scientists and they believed in a god, I probably would too.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I like how you slipped the "EXXON" view point. Since I and millions of others who don't necesarily subscribe to the thought that the debate is over.. we must be on the EXXON payroll .

It was pretty evenhanded actually.  Would you like to think of yourself as being similar to Gore?  Didn't think so...

I never said it in the light of you're either Gore or EXXON. I'm fully aware of the dissent amongst the eco nazis.

Then you know that the dissent is the extent of our influence, not whether or not we influence it at all.

Kmarion wrote:

turq wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Hey, here's one for ya.. the majority of the world believes in a deity of some sort. Does that "ratio" completely flip your second creationist point or what..lmao

If the majority of the world was made up of highly educated scientists and they believed in a god, I probably would too.

You've got an amazing superiority complex. Does it hurt carrying it around? Do you just think Scientist are infallible? Do you remember the Ice Age that never was?

If you're referring to Global Dimming, that was never debunked.  Basically, where they screwed up was not figuring in what would happen if emissions decreased due to regulation.  There was enough of a decrease in emissions in certain areas that the Global Dimming concept never came to fruition.  The fault was in the projection of the concept, not the concept itself.

Kmarion wrote:

Not that all this matters, I've demonstrated that both sides have a financial interest. This isn't to say that all of them do, and that goes for both sides.

True, and I'm not saying that every skeptic is bought by oil.  I'm just saying that a lot of them are.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I never said it in the light of you're either Gore or EXXON. I'm fully aware of the dissent amongst the eco nazis.

Then you know that the dissent is the extent of our influence, not whether or not we influence it at all.

I think you'll find the same on the other side. They know that climate change happens. Understanding and predicting it is what has people disagreeing.

That makes sense, and I can understand that.  I don't see anything wrong with being skeptical of projections, but I do see a problem with being willfully ignorant, which some "scientists" seem to promote.

Kmarion wrote:

In fact the theory that, according to you hasn't been disproved, also consist of "Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.". See page two

"Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary."

Talk about an ironic last name....  lol

I have nothing against theories of global cooling.  They are based on the same science as global warming (for the most part).  Global warming is somewhat of a misnomer because it ultimately results in more extreme weather -- both hot and cold.  The name derives mostly from the rise in the average annual temperature, but from our individual perspectives, it just seems like more storms and such.

Kmarion wrote:

turq wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Not that all this matters, I've demonstrated that both sides have a financial interest. This isn't to say that all of them do, and that goes for both sides.

True, and I'm not saying that every skeptic is bought by oil.  I'm just saying that a lot of them are.

I still maintain that some alarmist have a big financial interest staked in global warming. You've agreed with this to some degree also. .. which makes me wonder why you challenged my point of both sides having something to gain.

The challenge I present is that the oil side has more money to work with.  I see a lot more corruption coming from the energy sector than from environmentalists.  This is part of why I also side more with the environmentalist side.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Then you know that the dissent is the extent of our influence, not whether or not we influence it at all.

I think you'll find the same on the other side. They know that climate change happens. Understanding and predicting it is what has people disagreeing.

That makes sense, and I can understand that.  I don't see anything wrong with being skeptical of projections, but I do see a problem with being willfully ignorant, which some "scientists" seem to promote.

I've actually seen many debate request by the skeptics go unanswered. Christopher C. Horner the author of this book has had a request out there for some time but no one wants to debate home. They say "the debate is over". Now that sounds like a promotion of ignorance to me.

Kmarion wrote:

In fact the theory that, according to you hasn't been disproved, also consist of "Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.". See page two

"Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary."

Talk about an ironic last name....  lol

I have nothing against theories of global cooling.  They are based on the same science as global warming (for the most part).  Global warming is somewhat of a misnomer because it ultimately results in more extreme weather -- both hot and cold.  The name derives mostly from the rise in the average annual temperature, but from our individual perspectives, it just seems like more storms and such.

I haven't heard the current alarmist telling me that our fossil fuel burning might be helping to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight away. Nor have I heard them tell me that the dust we throw in the air is also cooling the planet. Not the same science to me.

Kmarion wrote:

turq wrote:

True, and I'm not saying that every skeptic is bought by oil.  I'm just saying that a lot of them are.

I still maintain that some alarmist have a big financial interest staked in global warming. You've agreed with this to some degree also. .. which makes me wonder why you challenged my point of both sides having something to gain.

The challenge I present is that the oil side has more money to work with.  I see a lot more corruption coming from the energy sector than from environmentalists.  This is part of why I also side more with the environmentalist side.

The alarmist with their cap and trade plans and their government lobbying also have billions to work with. But again, I'm not trying to compare. I just said their is money to be made on both sides.

PureFodder wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I haven't heard the current alarmist telling me that our fossil fuel burning might be helping to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight away. Nor have I heard them tell me that the dust we throw in the air is also cooling the planet. Not the same science to me.

It's aerosols in the atmosphere. It's been known about and talked about for decades, there's plenty of sites about it if you google 'aerosol' and 'atmosphere' especially relating to sulphates and the ozone layer. The difference between aerosols and CO2 is that aerosols typically only stay in the atmosphere for days then fall to the ground or degrade and are eliminated from the system. CO2 added to the atmosphere tends to get added to the carbon cycle and hence has a cumulative effect unlike the temporary effects of aerosols.

Not "the same science". I think you actually pointed the difference out..lol. Look at the context of the post.

All addressed in his book. Have a read.. of course he has been attacked. Funny how nobody will debate him though.

This all pointless. Your trying to compare apples to apples..

Let me remind you what I said. Both sides have a financial stake in this. Continue to bend and shape it how you will. Even though you've already acknowledged what I said.

edit: I actually found a debate.. kinda

Unofficial of course:


.. and if you read his book he is not saying that it's not happening or even man made. Rather just that the discussion is not over.

Spark wrote:

Didn't you say you were gonna send me a basic overview of the book so I could have a look-see-respond to it?

Yea but I stopped doing book reports like ten years ago..lol. I'll either get you a copy or post something soon. I didn't like it tbh. Mostly because I don't like an overt force fed read. It does not matter if I agree or not.