Global Warming---Oops!!

[Loudmouth]

This thread is about ]unexpected excessive ice, IN THE SUMMER

And what does this have to do with climate trends that span decades?

 

[1Sam15]

You dodged the question

I didn't dodge the question. I answered it in full. I even attempted to explain it to you.

If I came into class and talked about a topic that was germane to the class but it was clear I had no idea of a MUCH MORE FOUNDATIONAL ASPECT of that topic I'd look like a fool. My "opinion" on civics would be meaningless.

But since you are a simple man and need simple answers let's talk it through mixing SCIENCE and CIVICS.

Let's say I came into civics class and we were discussing industrial hygiene reforms in the early 20th century because of the radium dial painters dying horrible deaths. This turned into a political as well as scientific discussion.

Now what if I came into civics class and said "All a buncha hooey! Everyone knows the reason these women were sick was because they were inherently sickly people" (an actual excuse some of the radium companies tried using at the time apparently)

Well, of course I'd be WRONG. In fact the SCIENCE is what sealed the fate of the radium companies. It was the SCIENCE which showed massive deposition of radium in the bones of the dead women. At shocking levels.

And it altered an entire industry as well as lead the way toward workplace safety measures in general.

So UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE, KNOWLEDGE of the SCIENCE sits at the HEART of these discussions.

If I came into Civics class and started talking science it would depend on if the science related to the TOPIC.

Global Climate Change IS science, whether you like it or not. If you want to be making INFORMED POLICY on global climate change you MUST KNOW the science.

And note what you've been posting on here. "Heads I win, tails you lose!" As if that's a "political" stance. NO, you are CRITIQUING THE CONCEPT. Ergo you are critiquing the science.

But you don't bring any technical information into play. You DO repeatedly show your failure to grasp the depth of the science.

Which, again, makes your claims meaningless to the overall policy debate.

I might as well as my dog Aleister Growley what HE thinks about American Energy and Resource policy!

 

[bhsmte]

Breaking news!!!! Winter proves Global Warming wrong!!!

Are you guys serious with this stuff?

I guess we didn't get the memo, that the global warming folks said winters would be void of any cold spells and ice and snow, because of global warming.

 

[MachZer0]

I didn't dodge the question. I answered it in full. I even attempted to explain it to you.

If I came into class and talked about a topic that was germane to the class but it was clear I had no idea of a MUCH MORE FOUNDATIONAL ASPECT of that topic I'd look like a fool. My "opinion" on civics would be meaningless.

But since you are a simple man and need simple answers let's talk it through mixing SCIENCE and CIVICS.

Let's say I came into civics class and we were discussing industrial hygiene reforms in the early 20th century because of the radium dial painters dying horrible deaths. This turned into a political as well as scientific discussion.

Now what if I came into civics class and said "All a buncha hooey! Everyone knows the reason these women were sick was because they were inherently sickly people" (an actual excuse some of the radium companies tried using at the time apparently)

Well, of course I'd be WRONG. In fact the SCIENCE is what sealed the fate of the radium companies. It was the SCIENCE which showed massive deposition of radium in the bones of the dead women. At shocking levels.

And it altered an entire industry as well as lead the way toward workplace safety measures in general.

So UNDERSTANDING THE SCIENCE, KNOWLEDGE of the SCIENCE sits at the HEART of these discussions.

If I came into Civics class and started talking science it would depend on if the science related to the TOPIC.

Global Climate Change IS science, whether you like it or not. If you want to be making INFORMED POLICY on global climate change you MUST KNOW the science.

And note what you've been posting on here. "Heads I win, tails you lose!" As if that's a "political" stance. NO, you are CRITIQUING THE CONCEPT. Ergo you are critiquing the science.

But you don't bring any technical information into play. You DO repeatedly show your failure to grasp the depth of the science.

Which, again, makes your claims meaningless to the overall policy debate.

I might as well as my dog Aleister Growley what HE thinks about American Energy and Resource policy!

Whereas this is the politics forum

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess we didn't get the memo, that the global warming folks said winters would be void of any cold spells and ice and snow, because of global warming.

We also missed the memo that certain days would be colder than the year before. I guess I missed the scientific paper that said global climate can only be true if every single day is warmer than the same day the previous year for every single place on Earth.

 

[1Sam15]

Whereas this is the politics forum

Thanks for simply ignoring what I wrote.

(Were the words too big? Or were there simply too many of them? Should I rely on fun-fun pictures like you do?)

 

[1Sam15]

We also missed the memo that certain days would be colder than the year before. I guess I missed the scientific paper that said global climate can only be true if every single day is warmer than the same day the previous year for every single place on Earth.

Remember: in the "Politics Forum" you don't even have to know basic math let alone what a "global average" is.

And when you give up basic math and statistics then EVERYONE'S OPINION IS GREAT!

Today I think that Obama is evil because 1+1 shouldn't HAVE to equal 2.

IMPEACH OBAMA! 1+1 can equal what I want it to! ATTICA! ATTICA!

 

[NightHawkeye]

Thanks for simply ignoring what I wrote.

(Were the words too big? Or were there simply too many of them? Should I rely on fun-fun pictures like you do?)

Out of curiosity, when did you develop the expectation that Mach would offer more than short responses?

 

[super animator]

Out of curiosity, when did you develop the expectation that Mach would offer more than short responses?

If he can't do that, it speaks wonders about him. (Not a good kind of way.)

 

[1Sam15]

You know WHO ELSE thinks 1+1 =2?

Yeah! EBIL AL!

 

[NightHawkeye]

You know WHO ELSE thinks 1+1 =2?

Yeah! EBIL AL!

Exactly.

​

Don't forget, this thoroughly discredited individual came very close to winning the presidency.

 

[Vylo]

Remember, when you can't argue against AGW, just post al gore.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Remember, when you can't argue against AGW, just post al gore.

With credits to Dr. Roy Spencer.

 

[bhsmte]

Out of curiosity, when did you develop the expectation that Mach would offer more than short responses?

If one doesn't have anything to say of substance, I think the short responses are best.

 

[NightHawkeye]

If one doesn't have anything to say of substance, I think the short responses are best.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[bhsmte]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

I guess that depends on what is said, in that brevity.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I guess that depends on what is said, in that brevity.

Judging from the clear unequivocal responses Mach gets to his posts ... one might gather that Mach makes his points effectively.

 

[bhsmte]

Judging from the clear unequivocal responses Mach gets to his posts ... one might gather that Mach makes his points effectively.

I would judge effectiveness of making points in a different way, such as having support with logic, but thats just me.

 

[Vylo]

Brevity only has value if the content has substance and context.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I would judge effectiveness of making points in a different way, such as having support with logic, but thats just me.

Conservatives live in a more diverse world it seems.