Facility Spring Cleaning Spring Reading 2016 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_cbcc_7_fly_beacon $5 Albums Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Gifts for Mom to look and feel great Made in Italy Shop now Amazon Gift Card Offer out2 out2 out2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Spring Arrivals in Outdoor Clothing SnS
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 1:53:44 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 2:01:00 PM PST
DJ: http://www.loop21.com/life/crazy-unemployed-are-filing-disability-when-benefits-run-out

TS: This trash belongs on the political forum, please. why it's trash?

It'd be comparable to insisting if a small % of wealthy person cheats on their taxes proves THEN this must mean every wealthy person cheats on his/her taxes.

Posted on Feb 20, 2012 1:59:12 PM PST
DonJuan says:
Now that's what I'd call an inconvenient truth.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 2:01:31 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 2:45:05 PM PST
DJ: Now that's what I'd call an inconvenient truth.

TS: a logical fallacy is how I viewed it.

Which one? you could justifiably ask...

This one works:

"Red herring - a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to."

Posted on Feb 20, 2012 3:01:06 PM PST
Smallcat says:
Global warming is a genuine theory, but lacks physical evidence in the field due to lack of interest and funds.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 3:14:49 PM PST
Truthseeker says:
I see that Truthseeker ( **Not** TeaPartyWoman) is now attacking other posters, now that I am no longer posting in the science forum.

In addition to the complaint I have lodged against him, I will also report abuse on his attacks on other posters calling thier posts trash, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 3:46:12 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 4:05:16 PM PST
TeaPartywoman: now that I am no longer posting in the science forum.

TS: Wow they ALREADY threw you out that FAST??? You lasted one whole day??

A new record. I didn't know they were so smart over there. LOL

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 3:49:00 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 3:49:22 PM PST
Teapartywoman: I see that Truthseeker ( **Not** TeaPartyWoman) is now attacking other posters, now that I am no longer posting in the science forum.

TS: To the TeaPartywoman of course this is not an attach:
<<Liberalism is becoming a mental disorder! >>

Saying someone is posting tash and showing why -- why that's a SIN.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TeaPartywoman recgonizes this is a holiday and is still putting out smoke to pretend she isn't the WORST culprit on abuse of Amazon's standards...

Not that she should worry. Her record of major abuse has shown for some time Amazon does not police their own standards.

But she is still paranoid. HA HA.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 3:55:04 PM PST
Mark Leberer says:
TS: citation for NG estimates?

ML: Based on projections and estimates from Steve ferris. Steve Farris is the CEO of oil and gas producing giant Apache. He has over 40 years of experience in the energy industry. He spoke recently at the first-ever "natural gas vehicle infrastructure" conference in Houston, Texas. Bottom line is once the NG vehicle refueling infrastructure begins to be put in place, auto manufacturers will very quickly adapt their cars over to NG... Considering how clean NG burns, may I assume you would support this change?

Or does it upset you that this might happen without the intrusive influence of a market-wrecking command-and-control liberal government policy mandate?

see here for how this might even be an investment opportunity for the forward thinking individual http://www.topstockanalysts.com/index.php/2012/01/27/a-new-economic-reality-has-already-brought-151-gains-to-this-energy-stock/

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 4:00:34 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 4:04:35 PM PST
Smallcat: Global warming is a genuine theory, but lacks physical evidence in the field due to lack of interest and funds.

TS: Er, it is YOUR post that lacks any evidence. Ever considered a science source???

#1 Virtually ALL the world renown science organizations have put out statements stating we have a variety of evidence that points to the dangers of global warming [only petroleum organizations have a neutral statement;

The National Academy of Sciences is an example:

In 1975 the US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report concluded they could not make a decision on global warming or not:

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..."

Contrast this with their: "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring... It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

You can see many more examples here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

#2 100% of the mainstream science media says their is evidence of global warming. Examples: Scientific American, Science, NewScientist, Discover...

#3 polls of the top experts on climatology shows a strong consensus (97%) that the earth is warming and CO2 global warming is the culpret

on the basics:

#1 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

common global warming myths are debunked here:

#2 http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Regards, TS

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 4:04:06 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 4:05:54 PM PST
ML: see here for how this might even be an investment opportunity for the forward thinking individual http://www.topstockanalysts.com/index.php/2012/01/27/a-new-economic-reality-has-already-brought-151-gains-to-this-energy-stock/

TS: I opened your link. The proof was a a CEO type talking from his gut:

<< But during Farris' presentation, he said, "As far as I'm concerned, we have 300 years' worth of supply.">>

That was PURE speculation.

You can give me a petroleum scientist. But I do need a science link -- not someone speaking from his gut.

Can't tell the difference?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 4:18:13 PM PST
ML: I wonder if BPL thinks that the $2.6 bil is taxpayer money 'well spent'..

BPL: Sure. How did you arrive at that figure, BTW? Does that by any chance factor in the cost of launching satellites?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 4:19:21 PM PST
ML: It has been said however, that Liberal Scientists tend to be 'liberals first' and then scientists second, that they are true first to their ideology, and second to their science.

BPL: It has been said. But only by right-wing ideologues who can't seem to get it that there is no "liberal science" or "conservative science," only science.

ML: Let me ask for example, why is the AGW crowd so strongly against the US developing it's vast energy resources... we have enough oil and Natural gas to last us 300 years...plenty of time to develop alternative energy sources and technologies it would seem... while keeping energy prices low enough to foster human flourishing...

BPL: Global warming? Hello? What is the thread about?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 4:20:47 PM PST
Smallcat: Global warming is a genuine theory, but lacks physical evidence in the field due to lack of interest and funds.

BPL: Well, no. There is a wealth of evidence collected over the last two centuries.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 4:21:30 PM PST
ML: Based on projections and estimates from Steve ferris. Steve Farris is the CEO of oil and gas producing giant Apache.

BPL: Oh, now THERE'S an objective source.

Posted on Feb 20, 2012 4:43:25 PM PST
Treehugger© says:
Ya TPW was over in her scifi version as usual getting confused and not making much sense

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 5:34:41 PM PST
Mark Leberer says:
BPL: Oh, now THERE'S an objective source.

ML: Ok.. even if it is not 300, you might at least agree that the DOE says there should be 80 years given known reserves of Natural Gas, and you should admit the objective science that Natural Gas burns 'cleaner' than Gas and Oil and emits less CO2... as such you can choose to either fight it or embrace it...

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 8:08:54 PM PST
Smallcat says:
I did not say how much evidence. I don't have time to post things for people who obviously are adult enough to look up information on their own. Science should be enjoyed on one's own time. In truth, everyone has their own theory and statistics can be inaccurate and are updated and changed all the time. Science updates all the time. I don't know why people try to have conversations on a store forum.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 8:20:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 8:30:31 PM PST
Joe says:
2 centuries compared to 14.7 billion years? Can any of the climate scientists tell me what percentage 200 years is to 14.7 billion years. Can't wait for the sun to come out tomorrow and enjoy a little global warming.

Update: Okay, here is the percentage .0000013%
I guess that's why they're called climate clowns.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 8:35:29 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 8:53:49 PM PST
BPL: Oh, now THERE'S an objective source.

ML: Ok.. even if it is not 300, you might at least agree that the DOE says there should be 80 years given known reserves of Natural Gas, and you should admit the objective science that Natural Gas burns 'cleaner' than Gas and Oil and emits less CO2... as such you can choose to either fight it or embrace it...

TS: Tsk, Tsk. You conveniently leave out a citation so one can see how much is proven reserves, how much is US vs the world, and even of the proven what quality/grade it is and the cost to extract it.

Decades ago, when I took an economics class in college, I remember I had a sarcastic economics teacher who told us there was plenty of reserves of oil. Then he gave the economic lesson -- it is trapped in shale and it would cost more to extract than the market value was worth.

You leave all these little "details" out. ML. Prices are supposed to never increase as part of the fantasy of the future, did I get that right?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 8:42:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 8:43:30 PM PST
Smallcat then: Global warming is a genuine theory, but lacks physical evidence in the field due to lack of interest and funds.

Smallcat now: I did not say how much evidence.

TS: You definitely implied not even evidence. I showed you the EXPERT scientific opinion is that is incorrect. You appear to have some "other" source.

Smallcat: I don't have time to post things for people who obviously are adult enough to look up information on their own

TS: yeah, my problem is obviously "I'm too much of an adult."

Smallcat: In truth, everyone has their own theory and statistics can be inaccurate and are updated and changed all the time.

TS: Sure by NON-scientists. Like I provided evidence for, the expert SCIENTIFIC community on global warming has a 97% consensus the evidence is in.

Smallcat: Science updates all the time. I don't know why people try to have conversations on a store forum.

TS: No it doesn't. And you've have to go back to the early to mid 1900s when some of the areas of sciences were in their infancy to make that claim. Typically new findings to a well studied area-- are refinements.

Smallcat: I don't know why people try to have conversations on a store forum.

TS: Sure, if they really meant to talk to themselves with no feedback.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 8:49:48 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012 8:52:17 PM PST
Joe: 2 centuries compared to 14.7 billion years? Can any of the climate scientists tell me what percentage 200 years is to 14.7 billion years.

TS: LOL. You said the universe was trillions of years old, instead of billions (14.7 billion)
You would never admit you were wrong, and indeed tried to argue your way out of admitting it.

Now you seem confused the Earth is a lot younger than the universe.
AND, the sun is a lot younger than the universe too....
OOPS.

Joe: I guess that's why they're called climate clowns.

TS: Tsk Tsk, I don't think YOU rate even that on this post, LOL.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 9:23:31 PM PST
A customer says:
Truthseeker - "I just complain about the Right wing on the topic of global warming -- because it is they who are involved in a major misinformation campaign against the SCIENCE on global warming! "

Yes, but primarily in one country. Conservative parties elsewhere are not systematically anti-science.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 9:30:56 PM PST
A customer says:
Mark - "That may be true. It has been said however, that Liberal Scientists tend to be 'liberals first' and then scientists second, that they are true first to their ideology, and second to their science. I think the Climate-gate emails suggested this was indeed the case......"

It has been said. It has never been supported. Why would someone who falsely alleges a political motive out of a political motive of his own be any more reliable a witness when confabulating the PRIORITY of the political motive he just made up? The political bias is on the part of the science deniers, who believe that reality is a communist plot.

And no, nothing in the stolen mails even remotely hints at an identifiable political bias. You just pulled that out of the aether, so to speak.

"Let me ask for example, why is the AGW crowd so strongly against the US developing it's vast energy resources... "

Because their use will exacerbate AGW. Not that hard to understand, surely?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 9:33:05 PM PST
DonJuan says:
"It has been said. It has never been supported."

That's ironic.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012 10:32:14 PM PST
A customer says:
That's not support.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Atheists in denial of being less intelligent than analytical thinking theists 103 1 hour ago
Falsifiability Down Under 172 1 hour ago
What is the greatest thing in the universe? 67 2 hours ago
Disasters 20 2 hours ago
Most Mass Murderers are Lost Souls not At All Close To God. Or Communists in the 20th Century, the ATHEIST type...Mao...Stalin...Lenon... 4 2 hours ago
The Science Behind Fetal Pain-related Abortion Legislation 530 2 hours ago
Tesla deliveries, and lost money on every one! 139 3 hours ago
If you could download yourself into a server to live forever, would you do it? 5 3 hours ago
YOU have over a Trillion Ancestors in just Ten Centuries. 162 6 hours ago
Harvard tests show homosexuality is actually caused by parental neglect 186 9 hours ago
Origin of Life For Real 6552 10 hours ago
The End Times of Atheism 912 12 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  130
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 5, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions