Climate cooling strikes again

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
in my opinion we dont know for certain what really happened in the past. its all speculation. we just believe whatever "scientist" say because...well their scientist. in my opinion their guess is just as good as ours except we believe what they say cuz they're scientist and they know much more than we do. there will be corruptions to support a certain side of the agenda. by doing so they get pay for giving out false info. i dont have proof about it. but im sure there is. and sure when they get caught it ruined their rep. but a lot of the times when the big boys are covering this up. its rare that they get caught cuz they never show it on the media lol. and nowadays the typical americans dont believe anything unless its on fox or cnn. if its not on the media its not true lol. look at 9/11 if you do some research and use common sense you would know theres so many disinfo and flaws to the official story that the media feeds you.

but global warming is real. its not caused by human. but i believe we play a small role in it. but not enough to cause dramatic damage. what we can do it keep is fresh and clean. but with weather like this. there lil we can do. well maybe, as we are able to kinda of mess around with the weather and do experiments. perhaps experiments gone wrong and mother nature is backfiring. but all this of course is my crazy theory.
 
nikond70s;4860871; said:
in my opinion we dont know for certain what really happened in the past. its all speculation. we just believe whatever "scientist" say because...well their scientist. in my opinion their guess is just as good as ours except we believe what they say cuz they're scientist and they know much more than we do.

so education is pointless?
 
nikond70s;4860871; said:
in my opinion we dont know for certain what really happened in the past. its all speculation. we just believe whatever "scientist" say because...well their scientist. in my opinion their guess is just as good as ours except we believe what they say cuz they're scientist and they know much more than we do. there will be corruptions to support a certain side of the agenda. by doing so they get pay for giving out false info. i dont have proof about it. but im sure there is. and sure when they get caught it ruined their rep. but a lot of the times when the big boys are covering this up. its rare that they get caught cuz they never show it on the media lol. and nowadays the typical americans dont believe anything unless its on fox or cnn. if its not on the media its not true lol. look at 9/11 if you do some research and use common sense you would know theres so many disinfo and flaws to the official story that the media feeds you.

but global warming is real. its not caused by human. but i believe we play a small role in it. but not enough to cause dramatic damage. what we can do it keep is fresh and clean. but with weather like this. there lil we can do. well maybe, as we are able to kinda of mess around with the weather and do experiments. perhaps experiments gone wrong and mother nature is backfiring. but all this of course is my crazy theory.

We can't know exactly how things happened, but we can know pretty well. Frozen ice and rock strata hold so much information about the distant past, so it is definitely not speculation, and our guess is not as good as someone who actually researches in the field. They don't just guess and speculate, they gather evidence to piece information together, multiple sources of evidence to cross check information and see if it matches up.

I really don't see an agenda... other than preserving this planet for future generations. And if you're talking about money, then both sides benefit either way. Of course the oil companies DON'T want you to stop using oil, otherwise they'd go broke. At worst, both have an agenda, but one of them is more oriented towards the good of future generations.

Are you kidding me? Fox would LOVE info about scientists covering stuff up in regards to global warming. Lots of people who work at fox had a field day with "climategate," even after the emails were analyzed by a panel, they still wanted to make it seem as though some sinister conspiracy was behind everything.
 
2 years ago it was global warming.

They found a new prehistoric snake in columbia, I believe. Largest snake ever known. And in order for the monstrous size they believe that the rainforests of the age were almost 20 degrees warmer. Warmer climates allow a higher growth rate.

Climate changes.
 
fishhooked;4860914; said:
2 years ago it was global warming.

They found a new prehistoric snake in columbia, I believe. Largest snake ever known. And in order for the monstrous size they believe that the rainforests of the age were almost 20 degrees warmer. Warmer climates allow a higher growth rate.

Climate changes.

Of course climate changes. I don't see your point though.

It is honestly, forgive me, puerile to make an observation such as "well, the climate changes" in response to present changes. Of course. But should that be a satisfying answer? No. We want to know what causes the climate to change, both in the past and now that it is happening once more.
 
I don't think anyone with a brain blindly accepts the word of a scientist because they are a "scientist".

Scientists publish in peer reviewed journals in order to ensure that other scientists (or anyone for that matter) can critique their work - it's conclusions, methods, etc.

For example, the Wakefield study of the link between vaccines and autism was exposed as a fraud because the underlying data was falsified ("Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study.") This kind of exposure represents the process of scientific review working.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html

As the previous study I posted clearly stated, there is no such doubt among climate scientists regarding the reality of global warming or that man is involved.

Believe what you want...but don't expect others to believe you without supporting your beliefs with sound science.

Matt


nikond70s;4860871; said:
in my opinion we dont know for certain what really happened in the past. its all speculation. we just believe whatever "scientist" say because...well their scientist. in my opinion their guess is just as good as ours except we believe what they say cuz they're scientist and they know much more than we do. there will be corruptions to support a certain side of the agenda. by doing so they get pay for giving out false info. i dont have proof about it. but im sure there is. and sure when they get caught it ruined their rep. but a lot of the times when the big boys are covering this up. its rare that they get caught cuz they never show it on the media lol. and nowadays the typical americans dont believe anything unless its on fox or cnn. if its not on the media its not true lol. look at 9/11 if you do some research and use common sense you would know theres so many disinfo and flaws to the official story that the media feeds you.

but global warming is real. its not caused by human. but i believe we play a small role in it. but not enough to cause dramatic damage. what we can do it keep is fresh and clean. but with weather like this. there lil we can do. well maybe, as we are able to kinda of mess around with the weather and do experiments. perhaps experiments gone wrong and mother nature is backfiring. but all this of course is my crazy theory.
 
dogofwar;4860934; said:
I don't think anyone with a brain blindly accepts the word of a scientist because they are a "scientist".

Scientists publish in peer reviewed journals in order to ensure that other scientists (or anyone for that matter) can critique their work - it's conclusions, methods, etc.

For example, the Wakefield study of the link between vaccines and autism was exposed as a fraud because the underlying data was falsified ("Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study.") This kind of exposure represents the process of scientific review working.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html

As the previous study I posted clearly stated, there is no such doubt among climate scientists regarding the reality of global warming or that man is involved.

Believe what you want...but don't expect others to believe you without supporting your beliefs with sound science.

Matt

I remember reading about him. Not only did he falsify patient medical histories (some of his subjects had autism to begin with), he was payed to find the results he did (first rule of science: you can't know your outcome and then go and find evidence to support it), not to mention his practices were questionable at best and illegal at worst (he drew blood at a birthday party, etc). It was such a mess and now there are people who actually believe vaccines cause autism despite the multiple studies performed thereafter that show absolutely no correlation between vaccine use and autism incidence.
 
Maybe the dinosaurs back in the day breathed too much. I dont think there was alot of oil companys and coal burning back then. But I dont know.

What I was saying is Al Gore preached for years on global warming but when he was debunked and found out that their so called facts were being manufactured and the real science was being left out.

So then they switched to climate change. Which happens yearly.

It's all purely agenda. And used for political gain. And it's definately not for the right lol.

Look I'm all for cleaner and more efficient energy. But not because of this. I just want it becuase I don't like being dependent on other countires for our fuel. And Oil shouldnt be our only choice. And it wont last forever.
 
dogofwar;4860934; said:
Believe what you want...but don't expect others to believe you without supporting your beliefs with sound science.
Matt


Yep and because no one has sound sciene to prove there side of the arguement no one will win. This same thing will be argued about 100's of times after this and even then ever one will settle on the same answer.
 
"What I was saying is Al Gore preached for years on global warming but when he was debunked and found out that their so called facts were being manufactured and the real science was being left out."

Can you post something from a peer-reviewed, scientific journal demonstrating this?

Fox news, Drudge Report, political blogs, etc. aren't scientific...

Matt

fishhooked;4860965; said:
Maybe the dinosaurs back in the day breathed too much. I dont think there was alot of oil companys and coal burning back then. But I dont know.

What I was saying is Al Gore preached for years on global warming but when he was debunked and found out that their so called facts were being manufactured and the real science was being left out.

So then they switched to climate change. Which happens yearly.

It's all purely agenda. And used for political gain. And it's definately not for the right lol.

Look I'm all for cleaner and more efficient energy. But not because of this. I just want it becuase I don't like being dependent on other countires for our fuel. And Oil shouldnt be our only choice. And it wont last forever.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com