What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[Ogg]

Having worked in this area of study for a while, A is trivially true. B is the problem child, and the problem is really with the quality of the "evidence" proffered to support the theory of human causation. The science simply lacks rigor, and for good reason. The actual simple truth is that Earth is a large and complex system and humans don't have a reliable system for measuring it. Typically, you'll see studies of the entire globe (yay satellites) and deductive reasoning to make claims about what's happening on the ground -OR- you'll see intensive study of a few pieces of ground and then inductive reasoning to make claims about the entire planet. Both methods have huge error factors. Google "missing carbon sink" for some entertainment.

So, to answer the question, what will make me believe is more rigorous science. My opinion is that human activity has affected the climate, but is nowhere near the primary input to the process.

 

[Dug]

When we all have to give up riding motorcycles and ride bikes instead.

 

[Yakoo752]

Google "missing carbon sink" for some entertainment.

 

[vio]

it's the next ice age I'm worried about

werd!! i think we're entering another ice age.

 

[wilit]

I more curious as to when "Global Warming" became "Climate Change."

 

[RRR70]

I more curious as to when "Global Warming" became "Climate Change."

When liberals figured out how full of shit they are

 

[Gabe]

You started the fucking thread dont be a pussy, what do you think?

But the thread isn't about that. It's about what would make you believe it. My theory is nothing short of Ronald Reagan emerging from his grave and telling you it's real and caused by humans.

When liberals figured out how full of shit they are

And that's what it's all about, isn't it? It's not about science or facts--it's about which political "team" we're on.

What's the prize for "winning" the argument?

 

[RRR70]

And that's what it's all about, isn't it? It's not about science or facts--it's about which political "team" we're on.

What's the prize for "winning" the argument?

Yes, for the proponents of "global warming" it is about politics, not facts.

 

[Climber]

Yes, for the opponents of "global warming" it is about politics, not facts.

And just as simply and at least as accurate.

 

[Hooli]

A Rapture.

 

[n10sive]

this is all I got...

[youtube]LLrTPrp-fW8[/youtube]

 

[kevin 714]

Yes, for the proponents of "global warming" it is about politics, not facts.

I more curious as to when "Global Warming" became "Climate Change."

lije any science, it evolves as more facts are gathered and theories revsed to reflect them. unlike religion, it can actually change and adapt. revision and refinement are hallmarks of science that religion, nor politics do very well

 

[Marlowe]

how come people always say there "too much money to be made" and all that stuff, and never argue the cpunter point that most of the CC deniers are fueld by industry that has a vested interest in the status quo, and too much money to be made to change

And on the other hand, you have Al Gore, who racks up gigantic electric bills at home, while pushing a carbon market...that he gets to skim off the top off. Along with some bankers.



They're all so trustworthy, Kevin...

 

[kevin 714]

And on the other hand, you have Al Gore, who racks up gigantic electric bills at home, while pushing a carbon market...that he gets to skim off the top off. Along with some bankers.



They're all so trustworthy, Kevin...

al gore is the worst thing to ever hapen to the science of climate change....he also isnt a scientist and isnt really taken seriously by many people aside from anti CC people, and the fucking nobel morons


and of course since the anti climate change backers are people who stand to lose the most $$ on a shift in mentality, they cant really be trusted either...the anti CC folks always seem to leave that part out,,,or dodge the question by bringing up al gore

 

[papa911]

lije any science, it evolves as more facts are gathered and theories revsed to reflect them. unlike religion, it can actually change and adapt. revision and refinement are hallmarks of science that religion, nor politics do very well

Religions get adapted and refined.

 

[kevin 714]

Religions get adapted and refined.

yes of course, but you know what I mean(I hope so)

 

[papa911]

yes of course, but you know what I mean(I hope so)

 

[Owensdad]

I more curious as to when "Global Warming" became "Climate Change."

The day after the data stopped supporting a long term rise in mean temperature.

 

[sliverstorm]

It wouldn't really be that hard to convince most of the holdouts.

Just have a guy in a robe with a long beard walk down a mountain with a piece of rock that says "Global Warming is real, you morons, now fix the goddamn Earth" and have him cure a few lepers or something, and you've got yourself a world convinced. All it takes

 

[Arminius]

I more curious as to when "Global Warming" became "Climate Change."

Easy! As soon as "their" empirical evidence started to collapse. Global warming <cough>, I mean "climate change" has become a misanthropic religion. Just like any other religion, the believers blindly believe the bits and pieces that fit their narrative while dismissing and ridiculing anyone that presents information that conflicts with their [climate change believers] beliefs. In the 1970s it was global cooling then in the 80s they started preaching about global warming and then in the last few years they started preaching climate change as a way of hedging their bets.