03-09-2014 04:01 PM
175 ... 23456 ...
tools
  1. GadgetGator's Avatar
    You know your really being silly. Where did I say my views are fact?
    Let's visit the not-so-way-back-machine shall we. Post number 7, and I quote....

    Humans are NOT effecting global climate change.
    You stated that as a fact, not an opinion. You even put "not" in all caps.

    I nor you will EVER be able to be proven right which make both of our views OPINION.
    Which is why I frame things differently. You will not here me make the reverse statement "Humans ARE effecting global climate change" the way you did with the not version. Because we just don't know. However to just discard the potential because you don't believe it is what is silly and stating it as if it were a fact is even worse.

    Don't be putting words in my mouth.
    Quoting you is not putting words in your mouth. If you mean something different, then state it differently to begin with.

    Half of the country is divided on this subject. Thats fact!
    Is half the country climate scientist? No? Then it's rather irrelevant what they think. At one point in mankind's history the majority would have thought the world to be flat as well. It didn't make them right.
    03-05-2014 08:49 PM
  2. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    This thread is now well and truly hijacked, and by the one who accused me and others of doing that very thing. Gotta love it.

    In no other country in the world would this be a controversial issue. NONE. This isn't a matter of whether global climate change is real or not; it is about the typical anti-science/anti-knowledge attitude of Americans. Bnjf, I'll bet -- and yes, this is off-topic -- you think Ed Snowden and Bradley Manning are traitors, too. You probably also believe America is the greatest nation on Earth and we don't need to answer to anyone else.
    03-05-2014 08:52 PM
  3. Almeuit's Avatar
    Apple talk to politics.. I am lost.

    Sent from my T-Mobile Note 3 using AC Forums.
    03-05-2014 09:20 PM
  4. anon(464338)'s Avatar
    This thread is now well and truly hijacked, and by the one who accused me and others of doing that very thing. Gotta love it.

    In no other country in the world would this be a controversial issue. NONE. This isn't a matter of whether global climate change is real or not; it is about the typical anti-science/anti-knowledge attitude of Americans. Bnjf, I'll bet -- and yes, this is off-topic -- you think Ed Snowden and Bradley Manning are traitors, too. You probably also believe America is the greatest nation on Earth and we don't need to answer to anyone else.
    No I think we are the world police, real war mongers who start wars and kill people for fun. We need to adopt other cultures. We are terrible and should not say the pledge of allegiance in school, or have Christmas trees anymore. We need to give drivers licenses to illegals and call everyone who doesn't agree with us a "racist" let's grow pot plants and lots of arugula.. Lol. No more man and woman families.. Let's all turn gay and adopt. Kill the babies we don't want and save all the trees. We should ask for forgiveness and apologize for all the bad we have done in the world. Most of all let's not forget that the Republican party is full of extremists religious fanatic rednecks who cling to guns and filthy bibles.. Icky wicky...

    Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
    03-05-2014 09:28 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    Last warning before things get turned up. I'm sorry, but I had two other people double check... my posts are visible. This will be the last request to behave in a civil manner. Thanks for your understanding.



    P.U.P.P.A.H
    (Be Polite, Understanding, Patient, Professional, Attentive and Helpful)


    • Be polite. We ask that you keep your language clean and polite.
    • Be understanding and patient. You may be a power user or developer, but the person you’re talking to on the other end may be a complete newbie. Be patient, and provide all details possible if you’re posting about a problem (descriptive thread title always helps).
    • Be a pro. Don’t get into arguments over dumb things. If someone responds in a poor or rude fashion, ignore it. If you notice a pattern of rude or poor behavior from a particular member, report them to our moderators. If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. In a nutshell, ‘think before you post’.
    • Be attentive and helpful. Answer questions in a timely manner when you can, and provide thoughts and suggestions that might lead to the solution of a members’ problem.





    The Politics forums can at times become a heated place where sensitive subjects are often discussed. While some moderation leniency is practiced in this forum, we ask that you pay special attention to the following, as set out in our community guidelines:



    Be polite. Keep your language clean and appropriate. Refrain from personal attacks or insults to other members. Constructive discussions, debates and free speech are encouraged in the forums. However, it is not constructive to criticize or insult another member because their opinion differs from yours. Discrimination or harassment is not tolerated. Be courteous to other forum members regardless of their race, age, nationality, country of residence, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, political views or religious beliefs.
    palandri and UJ95x like this.
    03-05-2014 09:50 PM
  6. pappy53's Avatar
    This thread is now well and truly hijacked, and by the one who accused me and others of doing that very thing. Gotta love it.

    In no other country in the world would this be a controversial issue. NONE. This isn't a matter of whether global climate change is real or not; it is about the typical anti-science/anti-knowledge attitude of Americans. Bnjf, I'll bet -- and yes, this is off-topic -- you think Ed Snowden and Bradley Manning are traitors, too. You probably also believe America is the greatest nation on Earth and we don't need to answer to anyone else.
    Snowden is a traitor.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    03-05-2014 10:46 PM
  7. oz123's Avatar
    That's actually a parsing of a leak of the report. Depending on what was decided to be the main focus, what was left out, what was chosen to be in the article, it could even misrepresent the report. I'm not saying that's the case, but it does need to be pointed out as a possibility. Good thing I didn't quote the IPCC at all here. At least not directly or that I'm aware of.
    Yeah your right Kevin, I did not word my post link correctly.
    Kevin OQuinn likes this.
    03-05-2014 10:54 PM
  8. Mooncatt's Avatar
    There's a thought for the conspiracy theorists. With climate change such big news and countries like the U.S. enacting such strict regulations on pollutants, it's feeding the drive of so many jobs into lesser developed cheap labor countries that also have little environmental regulation. Those places are probably exponentially more polluting than having those same jobs in the U.S. If climate change is such a big issue and since pollution spreads around the world regardless of source, don't you think our government world be doing more to draw those jobs back and creating less pollution in more advanced factories?
    Tall Mike 2145 and Scott7217 like this.
    03-06-2014 12:47 AM
  9. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Here's a thought for the conspiracy theorists. With climate change such big news and countries like the U.S. enacting such strict regulations on pollutants, it's feeding the drive of so many jobs into lesser developed cheap labor countries that also have little environmental regulation. Those places are probably exponentially more polluting than having those same jobs in the U.S. If climate change is such a big issue and since pollution spreads around the world regardless of source, don't you think our government world be doing more to draw those jobs back and creating less pollution in not advanced factories?
    If they would use that as the solution it would be great. I think environmental treaties would be the most likely solution though. We probably already have some of those in place, but I've never looked into it honestly.
    03-06-2014 03:05 AM
  10. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Here's a thought for the conspiracy theorists. With climate change such big news and countries like the U.S. enacting such strict regulations on pollutants, it's feeding the drive of so many jobs into lesser developed cheap labor countries that also have little environmental regulation. Those places are probably exponentially more polluting than having those same jobs in the U.S. If climate change is such a big issue and since pollution spreads around the world regardless of source, don't you think our government world be doing more to draw those jobs back and creating less pollution in not advanced factories?
    This is something I had not yet thought of.

    Regardless of what anyone believes, or what science says, or even what is absolutely factual, climate change is being used politically to accomplish the wealth redistribution agenda subliminally. It is a quite brilliant plan actually.


    On Tim Cook's comments:
    He should have been much more tactful in his words. He could have implied the same emphasis without quite frankly insulting share holders. He is more or less insulting his boss by say those things. Investing in a sustainable future for the company or ensuring a positive company image are both perfectly viable reasons for funding nonprofit able projects. "Saving the planet" or any other feel good hippy talk is not. Not when you are talking to investors. The feeling I get from the quotes is he leaned too heavily towards hippy talk.
    03-06-2014 09:19 AM
  11. palandri's Avatar
    ....Regardless of what anyone believes, or what science says, or even what is absolutely factual, climate change is being used politically to accomplish the wealth redistribution agenda subliminally. It is a quite brilliant plan actually.....
    You said that as a joke, correct?
    03-06-2014 09:45 AM
  12. JeffDenver's Avatar
    Yes, but have we had record hurricanes, record tornados, and record flooding all over the place in the same relatively short number of years on a global basis?
    Probably. We only have a few hundred years worth of records in North America. We know for sure we've had a severe freezing period, and that it was prior to the industrial revolution.

    Some people seem to want to ignore that any change has occurred at all.
    The Planet's weather has never been static. There is no "normal" temperature of the Earth...it has changed throughout it's history for a variety of reasons. Sunspots, Volcanos, whatever...it is naive to think that humans are the only possible variable.

    People are quick to defer to the scientific community without bothering to question their motives. It is entirely possible that it is man-made, but it is not as conclusive as people would like to believe IMO. Saying that ANY weather, hot or cold, is proof that it is real and manmade seems absurd to me. It makes it impossible to disprove the claim. And the whole point of scientific claims is that it is possible to disprove them. That's how you test them. Thats what makes them science and not religion.

    So what proof would be necessary to disprove man-made Global Warming? You tell me.
    03-06-2014 09:48 AM
  13. NoYankees44's Avatar
    You said that as a joke, correct?
    Look at the structure of global carbon taxes that the UN wants to(or has?) implement if you dont believe me. You may not find any issue with it, but at its core, the policy is a massive funnel used to transfer large quantities of wealth from "rich" countries to "poor" countries.
    03-06-2014 10:14 AM
  14. palandri's Avatar
    Look at the structure of global carbon taxes that the UN wants to(or has?) implement if you dont believe me. You may not find any issue with it, but at its core, the policy is a massive funnel used to transfer large quantities of wealth from "rich" countries to "poor" countries.
    I've been reading more about it. I think I understand where you're coming from now. I don't buy into it, but I think I understand what you're saying now.
    Carbon tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    03-06-2014 11:50 AM
  15. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Probably. We only have a few hundred years worth of records in North America. We know for sure we've had a severe freezing period, and that it was prior to the industrial revolution.
    Probably isn't good enough.

    The Planet's weather has never been static. There is no "normal" temperature of the Earth...it has changed throughout it's history for a variety of reasons. Sunspots, Volcanos, whatever...it is naive to think that humans are the only possible variable.
    It's equally naive to think that humans aren't a variable at all. Since no one bothered to answer my question, I'll ask it again. For the climate change deniers, do you think the planet can sustain an unlimited number of people and unlimited amount of pollution with no impact?

    People are quick to defer to the scientific community without bothering to question their motives. It is entirely possible that it is man-made, but it is not as conclusive as people would like to believe IMO. Saying that ANY weather, hot or cold, is proof that it is real and manmade seems absurd to me.
    I partially agree with that, but when we keep getting more and more powerful storms, I don't think the potential that mankind is involved should be discarded either.

    So what proof would be necessary to disprove man-made Global Warming? You tell me.
    We'd need more evidence that the record setting strength of the hurricanes and tornadoes we have seen have happened before I guess. But I don't think that's possible. So we just sit around waiting for.......what exactly? I look at it as taking common sense precautions. We may not be causing it, but why take the risk? So far, no one has given me a good answer as to why we should continue to dump pollution into the air unabated. Set aside climate change for a minute, that's not even a good idea from a health perspective.
    03-06-2014 02:01 PM
  16. Scott7217's Avatar
    With climate change such big news and countries like the U.S. enacting such strict regulations on pollutants, it's feeding the drive of so many jobs into lesser developed cheap labor countries that also have little environmental regulation.
    In some ways, you could think of that as a form of exploitation. For example, if a country decides to enact stricter environmental regulations that lead to increased production costs, companies may decide to move their facilities to a different country with weaker regulations. If a country takes steps to improve the environment, it risks destroying its own economy.

    This is why you see some faith-based organizations stepping up to protect the environment on behalf of others. For example, here is an excerpt from the American Baptist Resolution on Global Warming:

    "There is but one Creator. As travelers on this globe together, we are commonly dependent upon Earth for sustenance. We are interdependent with all creation. We must learn to understand what it means to respect all that God has created and to be our neighbor's keepers. We need to expand our hearing of Jesus' "new commandment" to "Love one another." We must see the whole creation as our neighbor. Certainly the implications of this command exceed one culture, race, ethnic group, or species just as it exceeds one denomination."

    Here is another excerpt:

    "Global warming affects hunger, access to clean water, environmental stewardship, health and peace. Addressing global warming will make it more possible for all to live the life of possibility that God intends."

    Policy Statements and Resolutions: Global Warming (Revised 6/07) - American Baptist Churches USA (website)

    So, it appears that people can base their environmental policy on religious grounds, not just scientific or economic ones.
    03-06-2014 03:02 PM
  17. JeffDenver's Avatar
    It's equally naive to think that humans aren't a variable at all.
    Who has made that claim? The fact that humans have influenced the environment does not = statistically relevant. If I add a shot glass of water to my bathtub, I have affected the amount of water in the tub. But not to a relevant degree.

    No one is making the claim that human impact on the climate is absolutely zero.

    Since no one bothered to answer my question, I'll ask it again. For the climate change deniers, do you think the planet can sustain an unlimited number of people and unlimited amount of pollution with no impact?
    No one has answered it because it is not a serious question, because it is completely open ended. If there were 1 quadrillion people on the planet, yes, climate would be affected.

    I partially agree with that, but when we keep getting more and more powerful storms, I don't think the potential that mankind is involved should be discarded either.
    I am not opposed to further study. But the people promoting this idea have already drawn conclusions...they are no longer interested in any debate. They want us to take immediate actions right now.

    The problem with taking immediate action right now is that it has economic consequences. Not all of us are willing to endure these consequences for the sake of something that we are not convinced has been proven yet. And the change we enact might not be in our own best interest...what if Global warming actually counteracts global cooling? Is a mini ice age on the way? Scientists warn the Sun has 'gone to sleep' and say it could cause temperatures to plunge | Mail Online

    We'd need more evidence that the record setting strength of the hurricanes and tornadoes we have seen have happened before I guess.
    Correct. "Record breaking" does not necessarily mean it is unnatural, or that it has never happened before. It just means it has not happened since we have been keeping records. We have not been keeping records all that long.

    But I don't think that's possible. So we just sit around waiting for.......what exactly?
    More information. The fact that a raindrop hit you on the head is not evidence the sky is falling.

    I look at it as taking common sense precautions.
    The precautions are not free, and you are not the only one who will bear their cost.

    We may not be causing it, but why take the risk? So far, no one has given me a good answer as to why we should continue to dump pollution into the air unabated. Set aside climate change for a minute, that's not even a good idea from a health perspective.
    1) The changes you want will have economic consequences.

    2) The changes you want will be inconvenient.

    3) The changes you want may actually make the real problem worse if the real problem turns out not to be what you think it is.

    There are more variables involved than you may have considered.
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    03-06-2014 03:42 PM
  18. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Who has made that claim? The fact that humans have influenced the environment does not = statistically relevant. If I add a shot glass of water to my bathtub, I have affected the amount of water in the tub. But not to a relevant degree.

    No one is making the claim that human impact on the climate is absolutely zero.


    No one has answered it because it is not a serious question, because it is completely open ended. If there were 1 quadrillion people on the planet, yes, climate would be affected.


    I am not opposed to further study. But the people promoting this idea have already drawn conclusions...they are no longer interested in any debate. They want us to take immediate actions right now.

    The problem with taking immediate action right now is that it has economic consequences. Not all of us are willing to endure these consequences for the sake of something that we are not convinced has been proven yet. And the change we enact might not be in our own best interest...what if Global warming actually counteracts global cooling? Is a mini ice age on the way? Scientists warn the Sun has 'gone to sleep' and say it could cause temperatures to plunge | Mail Online


    Correct. "Record breaking" does not necessarily mean it is unnatural, or that it has never happened before. It just means it has not happened since we have been keeping records. We have not been keeping records all that long.


    More information. The fact that a raindrop hit you on the head is not evidence the sky is falling.


    The precautions are not free, and you are not the only one who will bear their cost.


    1) The changes you want will have economic consequences.

    2) The changes you want will be inconvenient.

    3) The changes you want may actually make the real problem worse if the real problem turns out not to be what you think it is.

    There are more variables involved than you may have considered.
    I just want to point out that your argument against climate change can easily be applied to the link you posted. I would be willing to bet that we have even less evidence about historical solar activity than we do about the climate on Earth over the past XXXX number of years.

    Just because something will have economic consequences doesn't automatically disqualify it as not worth doing. Or at least not having the discussion about doing something. If you're willing to accept that carbon emissions, for example, contribute negatively to the environment then why not do something about that? Because it might have economic consequences? I guess that makes the problem too hard to solve then, right?
    GadgetGator likes this.
    03-06-2014 03:49 PM
  19. JeffDenver's Avatar
    I just want to point out that your argument against climate change can easily be applied to the link you posted.
    Of course it could. That is why I am not demanding that you make behavioral changes or economic sacrifices based on it.

    Just because something will have economic consequences doesn't automatically disqualify it as not worth doing.
    That depends on the magnitude of the consequences, and of the evidence demanding that they be made.

    Lots of people also think we are at great risk for an asteroid impact...should all nations be devoting their resources to protecting from that instead?

    If you're willing to accept that carbon emissions, for example, contribute negatively to the environment then why not do something about that? Because it might have economic consequences? I guess that makes the problem too hard to solve then, right?
    When did I say we should halt research on it?
    03-06-2014 04:01 PM
  20. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Just because something will have economic consequences doesn't automatically disqualify it as not worth doing. Or at least not having the discussion about doing something. If you're willing to accept that carbon emissions, for example, contribute negatively to the environment then why not do something about that? Because it might have economic consequences? I guess that makes the problem too hard to solve then, right?
    When those new emission requirements literally put small businesses out of business, then it's going to far.
    03-06-2014 04:06 PM
  21. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Of course it could. That is why I am not demanding that you make behavioral changes or economic sacrifices based on it.


    That depends on the magnitude of the consequences, and of the evidence demanding that they be made.

    Lots of people also think we are at great risk for an asteroid impact...should all nations be devoting their resources to protecting from that instead?


    When did I say we should halt research on it?
    An asteroid impact is not comparable to carbon emissions, which are having a negative impact right now. We don't need more research to know that. We already know that. The argument is what to do about it.

    People are acting (and you're kind of saying) that because the economical impact would be so huge that we shouldn't look for a solution. That's just false. I'm glad we didn't think the challenge of going to the moon was so huge that we didn't even try.
    03-06-2014 04:14 PM
  22. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    When those new emission requirements literally put small businesses out of business, then it's going to far.
    Then it's not the right solution.

    Apparently the concept of finding a solution to seemingly insurmountable problems is hard to understand. The problem is difficult, that just makes the solution more difficult to find. Not impossible. Geez.
    03-06-2014 04:23 PM
  23. JeffDenver's Avatar
    An asteroid impact is not comparable to carbon emissions
    ...in your opinion. Which is what it all comes down to. There is no objective measure of the risks. But people who are advocating these changes for the sake of climate change keep acting as if their opinions are objective fact. Like atomic masses or the speed of light...they are not. They are opinions.

    People are acting (and you're kind of saying) that because the economical impact would be so huge that we shouldn't look for a solution.
    The fact that YOU think a solution is urgently needed is not evidence that a solution is urgently needed.

    I, and other "climate deniers" (LOL) are not advocating that we ignore the issue. We are saying the evidence is not conclusive enough to convince us that such drastic measures are really necessary. We are advocating "wait and see".
    03-06-2014 06:05 PM
  24. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    ...in your opinion. Which is what it all comes down to. There is no objective measure of the risks. But people who are advocating these changes for the sake of climate change keep acting as if their opinions are objective fact. Like atomic masses or the speed of light...they are not. They are opinions.


    The fact that YOU think a solution is urgently needed is not evidence that a solution is urgently needed.

    I, and other "climate deniers" (LOL) are not advocating that we ignore the issue. We are saying the evidence is not conclusive enough to convince us that such drastic measures are really necessary. We are advocating "wait and see".
    You absolutely misread (or more accurately misinterpreted) what I said.

    There is evidence of the negative impact of carbon emissions on the environment. Whether or not those impacts are causing any sort of climate change is another issue. If they're not that doesn't mean carbon isn't a problem.

    How do we know whether measures are "drastic" or not? Maybe the solution is simple but something else is in the way. Idk, maybe politics?

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    03-06-2014 06:14 PM
  25. JeffDenver's Avatar
    How do we know whether measures are "drastic" or not? Maybe the solution is simple but something else is in the way. Idk, maybe politics?
    I think the people advocating these Climate Change practices are also politically motivated. I do not consider them unbiased.
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    03-06-2014 06:16 PM
175 ... 23456 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Hello All.
    By Charles Ray1 in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-19-2014, 10:09 AM
  2. my wallpaper was distorted ?
    By preppystud in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2013)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 07:01 PM
  3. [APP][Free] Fitness App customizable for dieting and workout
    By 4Fitting in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 09:15 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD