Industrial Deals Beauty MagazinestoInspire STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Amazon Echo now $99.99 Limited-time offer: All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $79.99 Kindle Paperwhite GNO Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 626-650 of 650 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 27, 2012, 1:37:57 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Aug 1, 2014, 8:26:42 AM PDT]

Posted on Aug 28, 2012, 9:16:56 AM PDT

"So what caused all those droughts that were even worse than today, back before industrialization?"

I agree with you 100% here. It really annoys me when EVERYTHING gets blamed on global warming. I think that's why they've switched in the media to 'climate change'. But even so, they keep throwing out stats like this ->
ignoring a graph I saw of all 5 that it was HOTTER another summer around 80 years ago.

Now, I agree that the climate is getting hotter, and that man is probably helping push it that way, but it seems like they want to keep hyping that everything is happening due to climate change.

I view climate like rolling dice, and we are slowly adding weight to one side. So there is lots of random stuff that happen (like six 5's in a row, then five 6's in a row), but slowly we are making it more probable that certain events take place.

What scares me is that this is the only climate we have, and we don't know if it has a 'tipping point' where suddenly the climate flips into a totally new mode that we can't easily reverse.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2012, 10:28:41 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Aug 1, 2014, 8:26:47 AM PDT]

Posted on Aug 28, 2012, 12:12:16 PM PDT

Yeah, I grew up in the 60s and also remember them telling us we were overdue for an ice age. Then again, they also promised me a 4-day workweek and flying cars :-(

The best realistic graph that I've seen shows more of a stair-step increase in temperature over the last 100 years, instead of the 'hockey stick', which explains why we had 11 years of basically no change recently.

Then again, I had a paperback years ago that showed that you could almost prove anything about temperature changes depending on when you STARTED your graph. Unfortunately, I gave it to a friend and never got it back, so I can't remember the name of it.

People forget things like the SUN is slowly getting hotter, and the continents are slowly shifting, and Earth's orbit changes over time. All of this complicates any calculation of mankind's effects on the Earth.

Flying over the USA recently, I can't help but notice how we've got all these farms and cities over our whole country, and there are 3x more people now worldwide than when I was a kid, so my purely off the top of my head guess is that we are probably more in the 5-10% range of the causes of global warming.

I'd like to see us work on more hi-tech things like carbon sequestering, ocean seeding, atmospheric aerosols, etc. just in case we need to do something. I don't think the climate changes will be disastrous unless the climate does have a tipping point ala "Snowball Earth". If it does flip, we may have a major problem on our hands, and this really is our only planet.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2012, 8:22:09 AM PDT
JNagarya says:
It's more at 90+ v. corporate-financed liars.

Remove a few hundred -- or even thousand -- from the number and it remains 90+ v. infinitesimal.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2012, 8:26:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 31, 2012, 9:00:15 AM PDT
JNagarya says:
If you'd read the actual science, instead of relying on the anti-gum'mint liars in the FOX sewer -- which is a corporate-funded corporation owned by a sleaze-peddling tabloid publisher, pushing pro-corporate propaganda -- to tell you what to think, your view would be at least a tad informed.

That which is 90+ certain is sufficient to be accurately termed "settled," regardless the field of PROFESSIONAL scholarly endeavor.

But tell us: how does it work that you, and the FOX talking heads on which you rely, having no education in science, know more about science than those who do have an education in science?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2012, 8:37:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 8, 2012, 4:38:51 PM PDT
JNagarya says:
"Whatever you want to believe, you are free to."

But the wise reject the "freedom" to believe the false as if it were instead true.

It is the stupid who refuse to limit themselves to fact and truth. Your "questions" have been answered; you simply reject the answers because you hate anything and anyone the FOX sewer tells you is "Liberal".

Here are some facts for you, dunce:

1. The Liberals in the Continental Congress, lead by Massachusetts-Bay Liberal John Adams, pushed the Continental Congress to declare independence from Britain.

Opposed were the CONSERVATIVES -- until they got what they wanted in exchange for their support:

Preservation of slavery.

The "revolution" began in and was lead by Massachusetts -- which was mocked by the Conservatives.

2. The reactionaries, who today falsely call themselves "Conservatives," refuse to learn anything that isn't based solely and entirely upon "Conservative" ideology; thus they, who know zero actual history, and smear Massachusetts as being the "Democratic Republic of Massachusetts" because it CONTINUES to be Liberal, defend the enemies of the Founders themselves.

3. One is not "free to believe" that which is false, because that militates against the survival of democracy, which relies upon the ACCURATELY informed citizen.

If "the truth shall set you free," then it is IMPERATIVE to pursue the truth, in place of merely believing someone else's ideological claptrap simply because you are told to hate anything that conflicts with the claptrap, based solely upon being told that everything other than the claptrap is "Liberal".

It amazes that a minority of FOX-duped "anti-elitists" nonetheless pride themselves in being an ELITE of anti-elitists who, without having done a shred of the work necessary, nonetheless delude themselves that they know more than "elitists" who have actually done the work necessary to being educated as relevant.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2012, 8:40:06 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 8, 2012, 4:33:25 PM PDT
JNagarya says:
Military research is not limited to the possible. It is essential that it explore and research even that which will turn out to be a dead-end -- as it is essential to know -- not guess -- that it is a dead-end.

There is no "covert" anything going on; what is happening is scientific research on the possibilities raised by abstract questions.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2012, 8:46:45 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 8, 2012, 3:53:45 PM PDT
JNagarya says:
W K says:

I basically agree in principle with you, except that I think all the factors that make up the climate are about 95 to 99 percent entirely beyond humanity's ability to affect, and about 1-4 percent stuff that we can actual impact.

That isn't "think"ing; it is belief based upon and defined by your false assumption that not only do you know more about science than actual scientists, but so do the non-scientist talking heads in the FOX sewer.

It's easy to believe -- and lazy when that which is needed is actual thought.

In addition to which, you provide no substantiation whatsoever for your claims that is actual science. All you link to is illiterates' fringe anti-gum'mint paranoid conspirabunk which is only believable to other illiterates.

It is NOT "creative" to make up crap and call it "science," or to delude oneself that it is the equal of science.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2012, 8:53:59 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 8, 2012, 4:32:16 PM PDT
JNagarya says:
W K says:
. . . .

Really, the only thing I see significantly different today is a political movement that wants to use "climate change" as a pretext to disguise what they actually want: forwarding their agenda of strong-handed governmental regulation and control, with them as the decision-makers at the top telling others what to do and how to do it, a model that has historically been renounced in America when they've tried to be upfront about what they favor.

All of which is utter bunk, based upon --

1. Ignorance of actual "American" history.

2. Ignorance of law and gov't.

Knowing nothing of the actual history, and nothing of the actual views of the Founders, you'd be shocked to discover how much regulation they did of, as an example of the "inconsequential," fences.

Yes: Fences, including inspectors thereof, and penalties for breaching or destroying them.

Why? Defense of property rights was a big deal.

3. Substitutes for knowing what you're talking about got from corporate-agendaed propaganda fed you by the FOX sewer corporation.

Get it through your blinders, sucker: Rupert Murdoch is a sleazy tabloidist pushing his own mega-corporate interests as if legitimate discourse. "Opinion" and NEWS are no more the same thing than are "opinion" and fact.

What matters is truth, not your illiterate's paranoid anti-gum'mint hogwash.

Gov't is a system of laws. Law is regulation, and regulation is law. As for your rejection of "strong-handed" government, READ the Constitution, especially Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. --

"The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS."

That's the view of the FOUNDERS and FRAMERS. And that is the view you REJECT based upon those who, properly constrained by rule of law, feed you the hogwash that there's "too much" regulation. Criminals also insist there is "too much regulation" -- that there is RULE OF LAW.

Here's your source for "too much" regulation rants:

Rupert "I Illegally Hack the Private Voicemail of Murdered Children" Murdoch. He can only wish that hacking were legal, instead of prohibited by REGULATION. Why prohibited? Protection of the right of PRIVACY from violation by the NON-gov't sector.

Constantly we hear the assertion "too much regulation" -- but never any identification of even ONE example of "too much regulation".

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2012, 8:57:37 AM PDT
Hey jed...Why are the polar caps melting? warming perhaps?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2012, 8:59:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 8, 2012, 4:08:25 PM PDT
JNagarya says:
People forget things like the SUN is slowly getting hotter, and the continents are slowly shifting, and Earth's orbit changes over time. All of this complicates any calculation of mankind's effects on the Earth.

Not only do scientists NOT forget those facts (and others), they INCLUDE them in their analyses.

It's easy to read -- and believe -- junk science. But none of that is legitimate basis for claiming an education in science, or that you know better than actual scientists because fake "skeptics" who have a financial interest in lying to you help you delude yourself.

The FOX sewer is not a source of fact, let alone scientific fact. Neither is a Republican party that is funded by and invested in fossil fuels. The politics is from the FOX sewer, and those who make money from the status quo. The science is from the scientists, who are being smeared by those who reject science because it threatens their wallets, and because it isn't as easy for the stupid to understand as "religion" is easy to believe when falsely disguised as "thought".

_Believing_ is easy, and is the substance of intellectual laziness. THOUGHT takes effort, beginning with learning HOW to think _critically_ -- even of _one's own beliefs_.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 8, 2012, 5:13:33 PM PDT
JNagarya says:
W K says:
"Go ask any ten farmers if they feel Climate Change is a hoax."

So what caused all those droughts that were even worse than today, back before industrialization? What caused all the similar extreme weather throughout not only recorded history, but even earlier, when there were virtually no human-caused greenhouse gas emissions?

NONE of which is substantiated, and all of which avoids the issue, by avoiding the fact that we are industrial and post-industrial, and the present specifics.


What caused the MAN-MADE "Dust Bowl" of the 1930s?

Exhaustion of the soil by farmers. IT was science that determined the cause: exhaustion of the soil.

Doubtless there were morons then, too, who mocked reality -- being a loud-mouthed know-nothing know-it-all moron defending the status quo against "elitists" -- the competent -- takes no effort -- and bashed those who, having determined the cause, proposed the solution:

crop rotation.

And still we have with us morons who believe the most transparent of stupidities, simply because that is easier than learning to think, learning that truth matters, and thus learning to reject the obviously stupid belief that it is "fair and balanced" to treat a falsehood as every bit as valid as a truth.

Who believe one is "free to believe anything one wants," and that that obvious absurdity is sufficient "reasoned" defense of believing nonsense.

Who believe everything is reduceable to mere "opinion," and that every "opinion" -- the informed and the uninformed, the true and the false -- is the equal of and as valid as any other "opinion".

Clue: an "opinion" has a chance of being true. A falsehood, because false, has no chance of being true, therefore is not an "opinion".

Only the stupid would defend believing a falsehood as being a "right". That one is able to be stupid is not a _right_ to be stupid.

Posted on Sep 8, 2012, 6:40:07 PM PDT

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 11, 2012, 5:10:47 PM PDT
PapaSmurerf says:
JNagarya says: Your "questions" have been answered; you simply reject the answers because you hate anything and anyone the FOX sewer tells you is "Liberal".

What are my "questions" which you have assumed have been answered?

I don't watch and have never watched Faux News or any other MSM news source.

Today's use of "conservatives" or "liberals" have nothing in common with the terms as used over 200 years ago. Try again.

JNagarya says: Here are some facts for you, dunce:

And as you assume so much about me, you too, are free to believe whatever you want. If you really want someone to sincerely listen to you, wise-up and drop the name calling.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 11, 2012, 5:24:45 PM PDT
PapaSmurerf says:
Seems this and the remainder of your posts are either null or a rant against Fox news which you seem to know more about than me since I don't watch it or any other TV news. But in your clairvoyance you knew this already? Not! No, you're just bristling with assumptions about anyone with an alternate view from you.

But at least you're staying close to topic...

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic the Science Fiction forum.

Posted on Sep 11, 2012, 5:38:10 PM PDT
J. Smith says:
For the record and not to insult anybody here, but don't we have more important things to worry about then arguing about who is right or wrong? Truth be told, does it really matter?? Climate change is evident throughout history and since prehistoric times and has NOTHING to do with global warming or the so called "greenhouse" effect. Whether it is or isn't happening is irrelevant. There is nothing we can do to change whatever it is that you want to label it as. "Going Green" is a bunch of hooplah and is only a money making racketeering act to control all of us. Where there is PROFIT to be made you can bet there will be new "scientific evidence" to back up the so called claim. Just my 2 cents worth.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 12, 2012, 8:08:53 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Aug 1, 2014, 8:27:04 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2012, 11:40:22 PM PDT
Rochrist says:
Would you please post your credentials for our review? Thank you.

Posted on Oct 15, 2012, 8:20:35 PM PDT
Gregory Lee says:
If global warming is harmful to us and if we can do something about it, it seems obvious that we should try to prevent that harm. I really don't understand why people get exercised over whether global warming is anthropogenic. Would it be less harmful if it was not our fault? If it's not actually due to fossil fuel burning, but will still kill us, should we accept our fate as heaven's judgement? There seems to be a moral component to these arguments that is irrelevant to any real concern.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 15, 2012, 8:41:03 PM PDT
Gregory, You should have stopped after your first phrase: "If global warming is harmful to us.."

We are talking about 0.7ºC warming over 150 years. And the latest data from HadCRUT4 shows no warming for 16 years.

Also more people are killed by extreme cold than extreme heat.

Perhaps you should start worrying about the next ice-age.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012, 3:35:11 PM PDT
Advertising Jim Inhofe's book isn't all that subtle Geoffrey.

Please pay attention.

Posted on Nov 12, 2012, 12:47:09 PM PST
R. E. Milton says:
Wow, 26 pages and this is still in the science fiction forum. This is not fiction folks. This belongs in the science forum and the religion forum. Science for the educated that believe in the scientific method. Religion for those that choose not to believe science.
The republicans chose not to believe the scientific polls that said Obama would win the battleground states. Carl Rove believed that Mitt Romney would win by a landslide. and we all know how that worked out.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 12, 2012, 1:34:26 PM PST
Sigmania says:
I published a book 7 months ago placing Obama in second term. The odds were in my favor. Book also explains what's up with the weather. The spiritually side to our existance. How long we got. But remember, its only a story.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012, 6:16:01 AM PST
Acts5v29 says:
Good afternoon Gregory,

I see your point on the moral perspective occluding the context. If you are interested, contact me via my profile and I can send you a clearer view.
‹ Previous 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Science Fiction forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Read fresh new science fiction stories - and help take them to the next level
13 May 9, 2016
Important announcement from Amazon
190 Jul 2, 2014
New Star Wars Release: The Jedi Path now available. Read the author's insider notes...
31 Sep 3, 2015
Trying to remember the name of author of a Sci Go novel from the late 90 3 9 hours ago
It's August 2017. What sci-fi books are you reading? 0 11 hours ago
How about LitRPG (MMO-based virtual reality books)? 205 11 hours ago
Noticed a price drop on these books... 135 10 days ago
60s alien invasion novel 0 12 days ago
It's June 2017. What sci-fi books are you reading? 13 21 days ago
Need help with a post apocalyptic style movie title 1 24 days ago
SF is mostly slug-it-out: just HIGH-TECH CAVEMAN 10 Jul 17, 2017
Need help--I'm getting old! 2 Jun 12, 2017

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  103
Total posts:  650
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 13 customers