Hatch charts and climate change

[Trout Nazi]

Our tax dollars most certainly fund oil exploration...
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fac...societal-costs
https://www.fuelfreedom.org/oil-company-subsidies/

They’re casting a pretty broad net here with the definition of a subsidy, but name me one domestic industry that doesn’t get get these. Shit, how many breaks does Jersey alone give to keep industry here (including my industry)?

[mudbug201]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[Trout Nazi]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Aaaaaand, another clown gets into the clown car.

[lightenup]

Aaaaaand, another clown gets into the clown car.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

It's seems as if 97% of the people who really study this stuff are "clowns"...last word from me, my point is made with backing evidence, no more be said. Have fun mudbug!!

[Trout Nazi]

Trying to explain science to a bunch of guys that site NOAA, NASA, and EPA all day long is a lost cause, you can have your last word. You guys are EXACTLY the same as the house wives in my town when I try to explain why not vaccinating your kids is bad. You ask them to use their brains, they use the the internet instead. You just use different bullshit arguments written by different “scientists” than they do. Even when you show them overwhelming evidence to the contrary, still nothing. You know, a bunch of people believe it, it’s on the internet, so it must be true. And in your case, you don’t trust the government, but you believe this crap.

[tompg]

so the scientist that says vaccines are good is ok but the science behind global warming is bad? The CDC, WHO, are good gov scientist but NASA, EPA and NOAA, are bad? who sounds like the housewives?

[Trout Nazi]

so the scientist that says vaccines are good is ok but the science behind global warming is bad? The CDC, WHO, are good gov scientist but NASA, EPA and NOAA, are bad? who sounds like the housewives?

Vaccination has nothing to do with the CDC, WHO, etc. and everything to do with immunology, biochemistry, and epidemiology. Vaccination is a by product of understanding exactly how our adaptive immune system works. And all vaccines have had to undergo clinical trials to reach a rigorous statistically significant end point. There is actually hard data that PROVES that vaccination works. When was the last time someone you know here died of Polio or small pox? Where is the rigor in climate science?

[tompg]

"Where is the rigor in climate science?" maybe a bit of it in the 97% of climate scientist agreeing? or in observation of our surroundings? All these scientists that you agree with and don't agree with use the same method we all learned in high school

[Trout Nazi]

"Where is the rigor in climate science?" maybe a bit of it in the 97% of climate scientist agreeing? or in observation of our surroundings? All these scientists that you agree with and don't agree with use the same method we all learned in high school

Climate science, that thing that actually became a “science” in the last 10-15yrs, that you can get your degree in on-line? That notwithstanding, a bunch of people agreeing (on a flawed premise) on something does not constitute rigor. I think you need to go back to HS and brush up on the scientific method, or look it up online since that constitutes education these days.

And My position isn’t based on just a bunch reports or other scientist’s observations, but I’ve looked at the raw data and statistics upon which these conclusions are based and drawn my own. But I know, it’s much easier to follow the herd and let others do the critical thinking for you.

Observation (bringing it back around) and not listening to the bullshit online reports, one of the reasons I hardly ever get skunked when I fish.

[FIN-ITE 34]

A couple of questions for the smarter than me crowd.
1. Regardless of the reason, is the global temperature rising at the present time?
2. If so, any ideas as to how much, how fast and how long the rise is occurring?
3. If so, what impacts will the rising temperature have on living things on the planet?
4. If so, what if anything should the people of planet earth do to mitigate any negative impacts caused by said warming?

Just asking, not that I will be around to have to worry about any of this.

[Trout Nazi]

1. Could be going up, if you look at the natural cycles since the last ice age, that’s what should be happening. Nothing ever stays static in nature.
2. How long, won’t know till long after we’re gone. Geologic time scale is in thousands of years.
3. Impacts to living things close to nil, since we’re talking a few degrees. Life on this planet has evolved to endure this, or there would be no life. Life also changes, all species evolve, some disappear, new ones emerge. Evolution didn’t just stop because a bunch of shaved apes like us learned to talk.
4. Can’t do anything to mitigate, adapt or die. We can stop polluting though. We have displaced species, changed habitats, destroyed habitats, created new ones, dirtied them all. Despite this, we don’t have the power to alter planetary cycles, that belief is just human hubris.

[njcaddis]

Holy crap! This reads like the Impeachment hearings. On one side they are saying he is guilty, then the other side says, he didn’t do any of that, but if he did, it’s not illegal anyway. There is a third side too, that says I don’t care because it won’t affect me, me, me.