Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

AUDub

Hall of Fame
What's silly is when guys like you and Bamaro start spouting off facts like you actually studied climatology. What makes you qualified to talk about this? Would you tell a heart surgeon how to replace a heart?
I've made no claim of expertise on the matter, though I'm glad you acknowledge what Bamaro and I say as fact. Thanks for that. Made my day. :biggrin2:
 

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
21,764
2,006
273
50
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
Similarly, I could not tell you what Alabama's first play from scrimmage will be when we play Middle Tennessee, but I bet we win the game.
The flaw here is that it is BY NO MEANS even close to a guarantee that we win the game.

Which makes the prediction nothing more than a prediction. And if you're wrong, well, you made billions in the process.

Did ANYBODY think App State was going to beat Michigan?

ALL of the "climate predictors" would have suggested Michigan would win even if only by one point. ALL of them would have been wrong. And let's assume the later rumor of "our whole team got high" was true. Well, that's an unaccounted for variable now, isn't it?

What irks me (as always) about the whole thing is the assumption in most of the arguments that there are only TWO positions - that one is either an advocate of saving the planet or a "climate denier." As I've long said, the SCIENCE (on paper) proved that AIDS was going to wipe out huge chunks of the US population. Those of us IN THE LAB (who, you know, actually knew a little something about epidemiology of disease) who pointed out WHY this would NEVER happen (namely, an epidemic mandates a duplication, a 1:1 transfer or it will obviously die out when the hosts die) were all called "science deniers," and the only thing we were denying was the POLITICS of the whole thing - because the politics was based on a predictive farce on paper.

And I'll be blunt - if you're going to demand billions of dollars to buy what you're selling, you ought to actually KNOW what you're selling. To ask us to fork over big money to "solve" a problem that you're not even sure: a) you know what is "really" caused by and b) you have no earthly (pardon the pun) idea that CAN be fixed - I'm sorry, but that's as stupid as declaring war on Iraq (which I opposed, too).

Keep in mind at NO POINT have I "denied" that the planet "has shown warming" over "the past century." Of course, I also read between the lines and when you tell me that "current trends" show a 1.2 degree increase over a decade and it "only" increased half of that.......well, that tells me your predictor is maybe half accurate.
 

crimson fan man

All-American
Aug 12, 2002
4,863
70
58
Athens Al
I miss the winters thru 2000 to 2010. They were mild winters but the last four have been getting colder every year. I hope that trend stops because I hate cold weather. Back to topic I will agree with others on this board that believes its the government just trying to get more power and taxing us to the poor house.
 

Al A Bama

Hall of Fame
Jun 24, 2011
5,852
132
73
I miss the winters thru 2000 to 2010. They were mild winters but the last four have been getting colder every year. I hope that trend stops because I hate cold weather. Back to topic I will agree with others on this board that believes its the government just trying to get more power and taxing us to the poor house.
If they'd just eliminate the Bureaucracy and lying Politicians in Washington, D. C., the global warming or whatever would end. The hot air coming from Politicians (head end and tail end) and the Bureaucracy just can't continue if we plan to survive.
 

CajunCrimson

Hall of Fame
Mar 13, 2001
19,401
1,543
173
Breaux Bridge, La
I miss the winters thru 2000 to 2010. They were mild winters but the last four have been getting colder every year. I hope that trend stops because I hate cold weather. Back to topic I will agree with others on this board that believes its the government just trying to get more power and taxing us to the poor house.
Ya know? if we really have the ability to alter the temps -- if you are cold -- just have you and 1000 of your closest friends go outside and empty a few dozen cans each of Air Freshener......and VO5......that should raise the temperature at least .00001 degrees......nice and toasty.
 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
9,488
0
0
Relying on factcheck.org is like complaining of police brutality to the cop that just beat the crap out of you.
Then do your homework; dispute their "facts". I get this garbage from folks about Snopes and factcheck.org all the time (and yes, I actually know a few hard core conservatives who swear by factcheck.org).
I would trust them much more than an engineer who, after being given millions by big oil, says climate change is a hoax. Believe what you want.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Then do your homework; dispute their "facts". I get this garbage from folks about Snopes and factcheck.org all the time (and yes, I actually know a few hard core conservatives who swear by factcheck.org).
I would trust them much more than an engineer who, after being given millions by big oil, says climate change is a hoax. Believe what you want.
So you trust scientist who have been given millions by government to study climate change more than scientist being given millions by oil companies to disprove it?

This is the problem. When those doing the studies have a vested interest in the outcome you are going to have problems. You will at least have skeptics with a valid point. It is natural for people to believe those who have findings that negate reasons for further study verses those who find that they need millions more to continue study. Neither side of the skepticism line helps find the truth, but your cited reason for doubting the finding is the very reason there is doubt on the other end.

I believe the Annenberg Public Policy Center at Penn (those that run factcheck.org) has done some good work at times, and have sometimes reviewed what they say about a subject. That does not mean they are an omniscient completely unbiased arbitrar.

When millions turn into billions and trillions you get more serious skepticism.
 
Last edited:

Bama4Ever831

All-American
Sep 13, 2005
2,209
0
36
31
Tuscaloosa, AL
So you trust scientist who have been given millions by government to study climate change more than scientist being given millions by oil companies to disprove it?
You have a great point. However, your word choice is particularly telling. A government entity paying a scientist to "study" climate change would allow for a positive or negative response. The oil and gas companies pay for a particular answer. In your words: to "disprove" it. Even if your suggestion is true that many scientists would fabricate data in order to keep getting funded, would ALL? We are talking about 97+% generating the same result no matter if it is privately funded or government funded. The government doesn't just drop funding if they don't get the result they want. An oil and gas company can and does.

Also, journalists have an incentive to write articles that generate a lot of interest. Especially one that works for a tabloid like The Telegraph. Everyone has a bias.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
You have a great point. However, your word choice is particularly telling. A government entity paying a scientist to "study" climate change would allow for a positive or negative response. The oil and gas companies pay for a particular answer. In your words: to "disprove" it. Even if your suggestion is true that many scientists would fabricate data in order to keep getting funded, would ALL? We are talking about 97+% generating the same result no matter if it is privately funded or government funded. The government doesn't just drop funding if they don't get the result they want. An oil and gas company can and does.
Governments (especially ours) drop funding when they don't get the results they want all the time. Writing a grant to get/continue funding for almost anything has become very politicized.

Edit: The fact that there is so much agreement IMO does not always speak to the result. There is a great deal of history of science where everyone agrees with the wrong conclusions. That does not mean we shouldn't listen and take that as the consensus, but it also doesn't mean we should consider it the end of the question. IMO we still have such a limited data set that we have not way of drawing a conclusion.

Also, journalists have an incentive to write articles that generate a lot of interest. Especially one that works for a tabloid like The Telegraph. Everyone has a bias.
No argument there.
 
Last edited:

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
17,629
1,988
173
Hooterville, Vir.

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
0
0
Birmingham, AL
And then there's this:
Scientists predict significant drop in solar activity will cause a Little Ice Age in about 15 years.

Now, I remember from history class that the Little Ice Age generally was from 1350 to 1850. That is five centuries. This article talks about seven decades. Maybe the Little Ice Age was a collection of cooling events that got lumped together.
Interesting fact, the Norse quit Greenland some time after 1408. It just got too cold to grown their crops.
Sounds like we need a natural way to stay warm...maybe burn a few more fossil fuels in advance.
 

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Wear UA Masks!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.