Thread: Climate change maybe?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Like i said. I didn't make anything up. I'm simply saying that if anyone says anything to the negative of the topic you go on the offesive like your trying to convince everyone that they are wrong when all they did was say may, maybe, if, and so on.
I did however mix up a couple posts that i thought you said and it wasn't. You did say that it could have mistakes (well something to that effect) which is all i've been saying to begin with.

But at the beginning of this thread you were using the emails as an attempt to undermine the validity of AGW. My problem is not with people that have some problems with some science behind AGW. If you think there are problems with some of the science, bring that up. My problem is when people rely on opinion articles written by non-scientists or lean on informal correspondence as evidence of anything, especially when it says nothing to the effect some people (not necessarily you) are trying to make it say.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Like i said. I didn't make anything up. I'm simply saying that if anyone says anything to the negative of the topic you go on the offesive like your trying to convince everyone that they are wrong when all they did was say may, maybe, if, and so on.
I did however mix up a couple posts that i thought you said and it wasn't. You did say that it could have mistakes (well something to that effect) which is all i've been saying to begin with.

But at the beginning of this thread you were using the emails as an attempt to undermine the validity of AGW. My problem is not with people that have some problems with some science behind AGW. If you think there are problems with some of the science, bring that up. My problem is when people rely on opinion articles written by non-scientists or lean on informal correspondence as evidence of anything, especially when it says nothing to the effect some people (not necessarily you) are trying to make it say.

This is my opinion on whats going on.

You see it as nothing is information on a topic unless it's in a report. I see it as anything that relates to the topic as potentail information to the topic. So to me the emails can contain information as to what is done to make the reports. By themselves they are useless but when added to the reports it comes off as shady.

Do i think they are trying to get rich fooling the world? No i don't but i do think they are leaving some information out purposely because it does not go with their what they want. Which would give the other side of the table a leg to stand on.

I'll even give that changing our ways isn't a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Toad

Deathgodusmc, you asked about how the scientific community has done its due diligence to make sure that their conclusions about global warming are accurate (i.e. not "it's happening exactly this fast and will have exactly this effect" but "we have very good reasons with scientific backup to believe that it's happening and that it will be bad and something that it's worth us working together and spending money to fix"). I and a number of others before me answered you. What is your problem with our answer? Do you not trust the process through which scientists write up results of their research and then have it peer reviewed by other scientists and then published, where other scientists can disprove it if they can? That's how science is done. This is not just a single set of data, researcher, and peer review but THOUSANDS of of different sets of data, researchers, and peer reviews. Do you think that the scientific method is inherently flawed? Is there any possible way to convince you that AGW exists, short of taking you 100 years into the future and showing you what happened?

I'm not really getting what your looking for here. I said numerous times that the climate does change (always will) and that man is probablely effecting it but not as drastic as we are being led to believe in my opinion. I have no issue with scientific method and no issue with the scientists involved with this topic.

That does not mean i have to be doubt free about it. There is no way to know what the climate is going to be like 100 years from now. Data can not broad cast the future like that in more than a 50% chance. We can make the best educated guess we can but that is not ever going to be fact. Far to many variables to even try it and be taken seriously.

I'm not asking for anyone to convince me. I started this thread because it seemed like many are on the fence about the topic and i wanted people to discuss it and see where everyone was at. Instead it turned into a thread about how if you don't believe in AGW 100% then you just don't understand the topic.

Graphs, charts, and reports do not make a topic like this 100% proven. Still just the best guess we can make. Funny i always thought that was important if you did not know you strive to find out to the best of your ability but instead it's more like here is our information if you don't believe it 100% your an creationists or conspiracy theorist. So much for critical thinking in the future for this country. Appearntly it only applies if you agree.

Originally Posted by deputyfestus

I'm still waiting for any of the numerous scientist writing in this forum to tell me how long ( months,years, decades,century) will it take to reach an optimal climate if every recommendation is implemented. :3

I guess that depends on where you live. Siberia would do alot better with some heat but florida doesn't have any mountains to ski on.