Spinning off climate change discussion

[DTGT]

And according to Al Gore, the polar ice caps should have melted by now.

Hello straw man!

I'll just leave the data on Arctic sea ice area and volume here. The long term trends are very clear.

And these don't look good:

The science is settled. The only uncertainty is around the amount of damage and how soon.

 

[Declinometer]

Hello straw man!

I'll just leave the data on Arctic sea ice area and volume here. The long term trends are very clear.

And these don't look good:

The science is settled. The only uncertainty is around the amount of damage and how soon.

Oh gawd we got ourselves a Loberal boys!

 

[worthco jacket]

Hello straw man!

I'll just leave the data on Arctic sea ice area and volume here. The long term trends are very clear.

The short term data is also very clear. This is a scam to cheat the American tax payers out of their money in the name of science and redistribution of wealth. Try peddling this stuff to the Chinese who are the absolute worst offenders when it comes to pollution.

And these don't look good:

The science is settled. The only uncertainty is around the amount of damage and how soon.

 

[DTGT]

Oh gawd we got ourselves a Loberal boys!

Reality, math, and science have a well known liberal bias...

The short term data is also very clear. This is a scam to cheat the American tax payers out of their money in the name of science and redistribution of wealth. Try peddling this stuff to the Chinese who are the absolute worst offenders when it comes to pollution.

You are mistaking the noise for the signal. I could cherry-pick short term data just like you that makes the loses look worse than they are, but I don't; doing so mistakes a short-term random variation for the powerful long-term trend behind the data.

Let me guess; both of your opinions on this start and end with people who are constantly stating that "I am not a scientist but..." Your argument is almost entirely based on the Appeal to Consequences logical fallacy.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Hello straw man!

I'll just leave the data on Arctic sea ice area and volume here. The long term trends are very clear.

And these don't look good:

The science is settled. The only uncertainty is around the amount of damage and how soon.

Thanks for answering so that the rest of us don't have to. I thought Tech was the last bastion of people who still trust science. Climate change deniers always make me think we have entered a new Dark Ages of silliness and superstition.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The conspiracy is even worse than you thought! They have already stolen your mind and seeded your intellect with time release capsules that will cause you to randomly lash out in anger at all the wrong people until you are left a quivering mass of inarticulate rage even as thieves steal all your trusted TV and radio shows. Run while you still can!

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Excuse me, this thread is titled "we have no business winning these next two games" not "we have no business surviving these next two ice ages."

Despite the evidence supporting climate change for the hotter, most climate scientists agree we are heading towards another ice age.

Oh, and at some point, plate techtonics is going to stop, but only after another supercontinent forms. Other than that, all is well.

 

[Declinometer]

The real question is how are humans affecting "climate change"? Answer, they aren't ! Carry on Libtards!

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The real question is how are humans affecting "climate change"? Answer, they aren't ! Carry on Libtards!

Ummm... you know how the green house effect works right?

For all the head-in-the-sanders, please go to this NASA website and read it before you form idiotic opinions and then spout them off in public.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

[cyptomcat]

@DTGT, how is the other polar cap doing?

What if we looked at both polar caps together?

 

[Wrecking Ball]

The earth is 6 billion years old and data ranging back to 1975 is "long term" data...

I think it's clear that climate is changing but not so clear that it'll be an apocalypse. This ol' ball o'dirt has been through a lot in 6 billion years. She ain't as good as she once was, but she's as good once as she ever was.

 

[TechnicalPossum]

The earth is 6 billion years old and data ranging back to 1975 is "long term" data...

I think it's clear that climate is changing but not so clear that it'll be an apocalypse. This ol' ball o'dirt has been through a lot in 6 billion years. She ain't as good as she once was, but she's as good once as she ever was.

My kingdom and a horse for this.

 

[B Lifsey]

Excuse me, this thread is titled "we have no business winning these next two games" not "we have no business surviving these next two ice ages."

Can we rename it and move it to another forum?

 

[AE 87]

Thanks for answering so that the rest of us don't have to. I thought Tech was the last bastion of people who still trust science. Climate change deniers always make me think we have entered a new Dark Ages of silliness and superstition.

Okay, people should probably take this conversation from the football forum to the lounge. However, you provoked me.

The contemporary representatives of the "Dark Ages of silliness and superstition" are those who can't tell the difference between trusting science and trusting scientists. Shake my head. We've raised a bunch of lemmings that blindly follow whatever dogma comes down from the science hierarchy. And like the true believers of the middle ages, they rapidly rush toward labeling dissenters as heretics more worthy of burning or stoning than rational conversation.

Data about decreasing Arctic sea ice and increasing Antarctic sea ice are just that data. Treating this data as evidence of a theory of climate change requires a scientific argument. At the beginning of the millennium, that scientific argument was put forward by the use of climate models that matched past data and predicted future data. However, much of the data collected since 2000 did not match the expectations of the models.

People who trust science and not scientists, would hesitate to affirm a theory of climate change which the data no longer supports. Religious fideists in the truth of scientists will continue to try and mock those who follow the data as witches and seek to burn them.

 

[TechnicalPossum]

Additionally, there is no such thing as "settled science". If the science is settled, there is no science involved just opinion. Also, if if none of the models to predict warming come to be fact, why to we continue to trust the model builders?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Okay, people should probably take this conversation from the football forum to the lounge. However, you provoked me.

The contemporary representatives of the "Dark Ages of silliness and superstition" are those who can't tell the difference between trusting science and trusting scientists. Shake my head. We've raised a bunch of lemmings that blindly follow whatever dogma comes down from the science hierarchy. And like the true believers of the middle ages, they rapidly rush toward labeling dissenters as heretics more worthy of burning or stoning than rational conversation.

Data about decreasing Arctic sea ice and increasing Antarctic sea ice are just that data. Treating this data as evidence of a theory of climate change requires a scientific argument. At the beginning of the millennium, that scientific argument was put forward by the use of climate models that matched past data and predicted future data. However, much of the data collected since 2000 did not match the expectations of the models.

People who trust science and not scientists, would hesitate to affirm a theory of climate change which the data no longer supports. Religious fideists in the truth of scientists will continue to try and mock those who follow the data as witches and seek to burn them.

Did you read the NASA article above? It's not too long, it took me 5 minutes.

 

[Wrecking Ball]

50 years of data out of a set that's 6 billion strong is a ridiculously small set to base a conclusion off of especially when we have good, credible reasons to believe that the earth had a mini ice age in the last 500 years that was preceded by a hotter period that allowed trees and agriculture in Greenland that's not possible today.

Climate does change but I'm not ready to declare next Thursday at lunch the end of the world.

 

[Matt E]

We have no business.......talking about climate change in a football forum

 

[TechnicalPossum]

Did you read the NASA article above? It's not too long, it took me 5 minutes.

Why is the opinion of one government agency better than any other especially considering NASA has been fighting for funding since the end of thh Cold
War?

 

[AE 87]

Did you read the NASA article above? It's not too long, it took me 5 minutes.

Did you read it? It makes my point. It literally begins, "Most climate scientists agree ..." and then summarizes the theory which the data no longer supports. However, if you put your faith in "most climate scientists," good for you. It is Sunday after all.