| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Koch Brothers pay to show global warming is real | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 31 2011, 08:01 PM (4,906 Views) | |
| Chris | Nov 1 2011, 01:09 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Texas Scorched by Worst Drought in 50 Years: "The state's worst drought made the record books for its longevity, spanning a seven-year period during the 1950s. This drought, state weather officials say, is more notable for its intensity." OK, but word around here is it will last only one or two more years. And then there's Drought History of Texas
Those are the facts, the data, and that's a logical conclusion. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 1 2011, 01:09 AM Post #22 |
|
Deleted User
|
I have to wonder just how many of these "100 year events' have to occur in a single year before these guys like Chris get the message through their thick heads that something very unusual is happening. I suppose they have to wading around waist deep in water like the folks in Thailand and several other places this year have been doing. Events that were once confined to a specific area due to an unusual climatic event are now occurring in many places simultaneously. And it is now happening year after year. Duh, obvious or what? |
|
|
| ngc1514 | Nov 1 2011, 01:15 AM Post #23 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The problem is that no one is sure what drives these cycles. Why, after millions of years, did the earth start a period of glaciation about 2 million years ago? Claiming today's warming is just one of those cycles is unsupportable by facts. Obviously, the jury is still out on what's driving the current warming trend, just as it is out on what has caused the previous cooling and warming cycles. There are lots of hypotheses, but no comprehensive theory of global climate. . |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 1 2011, 01:20 AM Post #24 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, the data, much as we have, support that. But if you want to argue it's unknown, in the longer run, because we don't have much data, fine, then, argumentum ad ignorantiam, claiming anything is unsupportable, whether today's warming is just part of cycles, or today's warming is uniquely breaking cycles. Uncertainty is certainly more scientific than certainty. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 1 2011, 01:21 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
More ad hom. |
![]() |
|
| Mike | Nov 1 2011, 01:36 AM Post #26 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think along with reviewing past history data, that the terms slight, moderate, and severe need revamping. A drought in Texas in say 1920 is a horse of a different color compared to a similar one in 2011. Texas now has nearly 30 million folks living there. The affect is more extreme in nature and the same can be said for everywhere on earth. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 1 2011, 02:21 AM Post #27 |
|
Deleted User
|
That appears to be your stock answer, Chris, when you have no valid argument back. It is hardly impressive. |
|
|
| Chris | Nov 1 2011, 02:26 AM Post #28 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When your stock post is ad hom my stock reply will be that it is ad hom. Try some facts and logic instead of Pure Emotionalism. Why should I defend or rebut your ad hom, it's made up. Note, I have responded in kind to NGC and Mike. They presented facts and logic, so did I. Edited by Chris, Nov 1 2011, 02:27 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Nov 1 2011, 03:52 AM Post #29 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What data supports what, Chris? That the climate changes? No one was arguing it hasn't changed. The difference is today we have the tools to attempt to understand what is driving the present change. What do you propose is doing so? "Uncertainty is certainly more scientific than certainty." By that, I take it you are uncertain whether the present climate change is man caused or not. Good man! |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 1 2011, 03:59 AM Post #30 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, I was responding to what you said about cycles, that the data doesn't support it, that its unknown. Kind of hard to argue anything from that. Man's a part of the environment and can't help but contribute to it. How much, we don't know. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





10:41 PM Jul 11
