Umm, Yeah, So, About That Man Made Climate Change

[Sinister04L]

I can't help but laugh, what does this even mean? If you perform fellatio on manmade climate change, or have its dick rammed down your throat as you put it, what is your position on climate change then?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

I can't help but laugh, that you didn't respond to the posts that refute what you said, but instead focused on this post as if the others didn't exist.

 

[blk02edge]

It means there are an exceptional number of people who have accepted the narrative, no questions asked, while there are holes upon holes and corruption in the "data" being exposed every minute. No one doubts there is climate change because that is the natural cycle of this planet that has been proven for billions of years. To deny climate change means you believe the climate has remained the same for 4.5 billion years. That is not the case. What I deny, or am skeptical of, is man's involvement in their narrative.

A shocking amount of people flat out deny climate change altogether lol. I've seen it on this site too. Both sides kind of jump to conclusions and refuse to read the strong points of the others. (Like typical politics).

My opinion on the matter is not for either side yet but there sure is a wealth of satellite imagery proving the rapid advancement of a non linear change that's available for all to see on NASA's website if you actually take the take to read through it.

 

[Michael DalSanto]

I can't help but laugh, that you didn't respond to the posts that refute what you said, but instead focused on this post as if the others didn't exist.

I'm not trying to dodge anything. It's a huge topic, what specifically would you like for me to address and I'll do my best to express how I see things.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[Sinister04L]

I'm not trying to dodge anything. It's a huge topic, what specifically would you like for me to address and I'll do my best to express how I see things.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

You can address or not address anything. I just found it amusing that you made a statement and afterward people posted things refuting that statement. Instead of reading and responding to those you chose a random post afterward. That's all. Carry on!

 

[svtfocus2cobra]

A shocking amount of people flat out deny climate change altogether lol. I've seen it on this site too. Both sides kind of jump to conclusions and refuse to read the strong points of the others. (Like typical politics).

My opinion on the matter is not for either side yet but there sure is a wealth of satellite imagery proving the rapid advancement of a non linear change that's available for all to see on NASA's website if you actually take the take to read through it.

The problem is that even the NASA data is in question now. From my understanding, in the article I posted earlier, they are relying on data compiled by two research facilities and one of which was found to be falsifying the info while keeping their information from being peer-reviewed by the other institution because the researchers there are known skeptics. I may not have that 100% explained perfectly but that is what is being brought into question.

Because of that, it makes reading the research futile as they have brought the science of the entire issue into question. Why bother studying bad science when you know the climate is just doing business as usual?

And I really don't think anyone is denying it entirely. I've seen what you are referring to and I think most people just find it a non-issue.

 

[Michael DalSanto]

You can address or not address anything. I just found it amusing that you made a statement and afterward people posted things refuting that statement. Instead of reading and responding to those you chose a random post afterward. That's all. Carry on!

I mean I read all those posts, a couple of them say that climate change is happening but there is a massive disagreement about the cause. While to a certain extent that is true, I don't think that's asking the right question. If we're having a debate about cancer and 50% of people say smoking doesn't cause cancer and 99% of cancer doctors say that smoking does cause cancer, you could say there is a genuine disagreement about that. But the disagreement isn't with the people that understand that topic. You could say the same thing about all sorts of topics. Here, there's disagreement, sure, but there is not significant disagreement amongst climate scientists on the issue.

The other posts were just link dumps and calling people sheeple.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[Coiled03]

I mean I read all those posts, a couple of them say that climate change is happening but there is a massive disagreement about the cause. While to a certain extent that is true, I don't think that's asking the right question. If we're having a debate about cancer and 50% of people say smoking doesn't cause cancer and 99% of cancer doctors say that smoking does cause cancer, you could say there is a genuine disagreement about that. But the disagreement isn't with the people that understand that topic. You could say the same thing about all sorts of topics. Here, there's disagreement, sure, but there is not significant disagreement amongst climate scientists on the issue.

The other posts were just link dumps and calling people sheeple.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

So, of the people who "know the topic", tell me how many of them have NOT been demolished as agenda-harboring losers?

The reason there's uncertainty about the cause is because every time the people who "know the topic" say they have definitive proof, it's soon after discovered that the science was flawed in some fashion.

 

[svtfocus2cobra]

I mean I read all those posts, a couple of them say that climate change is happening but there is a massive disagreement about the cause. While to a certain extent that is true, I don't think that's asking the right question. If we're having a debate about cancer and 50% of people say smoking doesn't cause cancer and 99% of cancer doctors say that smoking does cause cancer, you could say there is a genuine disagreement about that. But the disagreement isn't with the people that understand that topic. You could say the same thing about all sorts of topics. Here, there's disagreement, sure, but there is not significant disagreement amongst climate scientists on the issue.

The other posts were just link dumps and calling people sheeple.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

But there is a clear agenda and money trail leading to the research. Research that has silenced and brutally denounce any opposition. People have made billions of dollars off of this research, billions that included tax payer funds that were often squandered by investing in junk alternative energy companies.

All I would really like to see is a much more balanced form of research which I hear is being formed as we speak.

 

[Sinister04L]

I mean I read all those posts, a couple of them say that climate change is happening but there is a massive disagreement about the cause. While to a certain extent that is true, I don't think that's asking the right question. If we're having a debate about cancer and 50% of people say smoking doesn't cause cancer and 99% of cancer doctors say that smoking does cause cancer, you could say there is a genuine disagreement about that. But the disagreement isn't with the people that understand that topic. You could say the same thing about all sorts of topics. Here, there's disagreement, sure, but there is not significant disagreement amongst climate scientists on the issue.

The other posts were just link dumps and calling people sheeple.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

Maybe take a look at what's in those links, and yes, there is disagreement among scientists. If you want to believe that "97% of scientists agree" bullshit, well that's just sad.

 

[Michael DalSanto]

But there is a clear agenda and money trail leading to the research. Research that has silenced and brutally denounce any opposition. People have made billions of dollars off of this research, billions that included tax payer funds that were often squandered by investing in junk alternative energy companies.

All I would really like to see is a much more balanced form of research which I hear is being formed as we speak.

If you are going to reject all peer reviewed research as biased and hopelessly flawed, I don't know what I can tell you. You think it's false that each of the past years has been the earnest on record? The sea ice levels and co2 in the ocean are fabricated? These are dramatic changes over the past twenty years that are objective and easy to measure. What is your alternative hypothesis?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[Michael DalSanto]

Maybe take a look at what's in those links, and yes, there is disagreement among scientists. If you want to believe that "97% of scientists agree" bullshit, well that's just sad.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Nasa is in on it?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[HISSMAN]

I don't doubt that the climate is warming. I just don't buy that it is caused by man. A volcano eruption will put more CO2 in the air at one time than humans have in the last 200 years.

 

[Coiled03]

If you are going to reject all peer reviewed research as biased and hopelessly flawed, I don't know what I can tell you.

Well, it is when it's reviewed by a bunch of people with the same agenda. How do you not see this? It's like a NCAA school investigating itself, and finding no wrongdoing. Well duh shit! Of course they didn't find anything.

 

[HISSMAN]

NASA is ran by politicians. They just don't hold office. They say what they need to in order to get funding from those that fund.

 

[Michael DalSanto]

It's pretty easy to just say across the board everyone is biased and blow off all of the evidence. Even if what you're saying is right, the objective facts can be easily checked by skeptics such as yourself. Why is the earth the hottest it has ever been?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[svtfocus2cobra]

It's pretty easy to just say across the board everyone is biased and blow off all of the evidence. Even if what you're saying is right, the objective facts can be easily checked by skeptics such as yourself. Why is the earth the hottest it has ever been?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

Really? Hottest it has ever been? That's a bold statement. Pretty sure it has been much much hotter.

 

[Coiled03]

It's pretty easy to just say across the board everyone is biased and blow off all of the evidence. Even if what you're saying is right, the objective facts can be easily checked by skeptics such as yourself. Why is the earth the hottest it has ever been?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

Maybe the fact that we're still coming out of the last ice age 10K years ago has something to do with it? We don't know where it will peak.

The objective facts can easily be contradicted by other objective facts. For instance, one of the favorite data points reported in ocean temperature. Last time I heard the ocean temperature was warming, it was discovered the data was inaccurate, because they didn't report the data from the beacons that showed the exact opposite. That takes no more than a few minutes on Google to find, and you expect me to just take it as settled science?

I'm an engineer, so I believe in science. But I'll be damned if I'm going to believe garbage data is settled science.

 

[Michael DalSanto]

Really? Hottest it has ever been? That's a bold statement. Pretty sure it has been much much hotter.

Hottest year on record is what I thought I said.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using the svtperformance.com mobile app

 

[HISSMAN]

Waits patiently for global cooling to be a thing again...

 

[DHG1078]

The objective facts can easily be contradicted by other objective facts. For instance, one of the favorite data points reported in ocean temperature. Last time I heard the ocean temperature was warming, it was discovered the data was inaccurate, because they didn't report the data from the beacons that showed the exact opposite. That takes no more than a few minutes on Google to find, and you expect me to just take it as settled science?

I have heard of them choosing to use "sub par" data about ocean temps from ships (which needs corrections for each individual ship) instead of buoys which are more standard and need less corrections.