Yes... but they are merely suggestions.Originally Posted by rabiddawg
|
|
|
|
|
Yes... but they are merely suggestions.
Good old Memorial Gym
your mom.
You keep saying global warming, but you liberals had to change that to climate change because global warming was a hoax.
Here are the record high temps for every state in the US. Notice anything?
https://www.infoplease.com/science-h...eratures-state
Here is a little more data for you.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicato...al-temperature
Since the late 70's the average temp in the US has risen an average of less than 0.50 degrees F per decade, so that's less than 5 degrees in a hundred years. And I have yet to see any legitimate proof of what has actually caused that increase. It could be part of a natural cycle.
As my new Ole Piss son-in-law says, "At least we still have The Grove."
Louisiana Tech University
Flagship of the University of Louisiana System
The cost per KW hour to produce wind/solar power is greater than conventional forms of power, so electricity rates go up. But only productive, working people will pay for the increase. All others are/or will be subsidized.
The gov't has continued to over-regulate conventional power sources, charging absurd fines and penalties in order to steal that money and give it to wind/solar. Remember Solyndra? That is re-distribution.
Hell, even ethanol. Producing it creates more CO2 than using it eliminates.
The scams are too numerous to list here.
I want fusion reactors!
Your link doesn't support your argument as well as you think it does. Everyone one of those readings has occurred AFTER the industrial revolution began.
5 Degrees! in less 100 hundred years! How do you not see the significance of that? That is unprecedented. And all measurements show it is only accelerating. The next five degrees will be over only 20 years. Here is a more informative graphic than your link (shows the trend from year to year and goes back over a 1000 years). Climate scientist call it the "hockey stick graph". Check it out.
I would wager because you haven't even looked. Really ask yourself that. Take a moment for self-reflection. Have you really expended the engergy to read and understand the very science you claim is wrong? There are over 13,000 scientific publication in peer-reviewed journals, and with the power of google you would be able to find it as easily as my 12-year-old nephew. You graduated from our fine school - can I ask what your major was? how about your current occupation? Is either closely related to climate science? Again, I would wager a 'No'. Like I mentioned to you before, Over 97% of climate scientists, whose job it is to study this very area, many are much smarter than me and you, and yet they have come to the conclusion. It is real. It is man-made.
You are mentioning the scams of subsidization of the industries. That comes with the government handing money to any industry - Which is why I actually agree with you on that. But, it doesn't show how Climate Science is a scam. Which is more believable - that thousands upon thousands of scientist are in cahoots to orchestrate major legislative changes with very little personal gain for themselves, or ingrained rich oil monopolies and billionaires trying to maintain their own profit margins? I would follow the money and find who has much more to lose. Big oil.
I can find as much science to support my position as you can yours. One example is attached.Your link doesn't support your argument as well as you think it does. Everyone one of those readings has occurred AFTER the industrial revolution began.
5 Degrees! in less 100 hundred years! How do you not see the significance of that? That is unprecedented. And all measurements show it is only accelerating. The next five degrees will be over only 20 years. Here is a more informative graphic than your link (shows the trend from year to year and goes back over a 1000 years). Climate scientist call it the "hockey stick graph". Check it out.
I would wager because you haven't even looked. Really ask yourself that. Take a moment for self-reflection. Have you really expended the engergy to read and understand the very science you claim is wrong? There are over 13,000 scientific publication in peer-reviewed journals, and with the power of google you would be able to find it as easily as my 12-year-old nephew. You graduated from our fine school - can I ask what your major was? how about your current occupation? Is either closely related to climate science? Again, I would wager a 'No'. Like I mentioned to you before, Over 97% of climate scientists, whose job it is to study this very area, many are much smarter than me and you, and yet they have come to the conclusion. It is real. It is man-made.
http://objectivescience.net/truth-climate-change/
Surely you know that the "hockey stick" graph methodology was found to be seriously flawed and exposed as a fraud to such an extent that the IPCC dropped it from it's 2001 report.
I am semi-retired and probably read a lot more than you do. But I don't have to waste my time reading to know a fraud when I see it. That comes with experience.
Remember what I said, I acknowledge climate change, but not that human activity plays a major role.
Run along and play now you condescending prick.
The NCAA can not nor will not (even try to) give the death penalty to a A5 school. It still benefits the big schools to have the NCAA, right now, but don't think they aren't maneuvering in shadows to replace the NCAA one day. Much like how Supreme Chancellor Valorum was stunned and removed from office by Senator Palpatine.
I know there are a lot of sec homers on here but I personally enjoy watching them get black eyes. Not a fan of the sec and that means the instate school too.
Last edited by Wade_Antley; 07-26-2017 at 10:06 PM.
My lord... is that... legal?
He made it legal.
No, you can't. There simply is not enough peer-reviewed articles that support your position. And, the link you posted isn't a from a study, publication or scientific journal. It's a blog post. Not even close to being the same.
The original yes. The revised, which has been confirmed by many subsequent studies and presented here (note the year on the graph, it's after 2001) It also uses a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores as their basis for measurements (where the original study only used one). All reach the same conclusion.
That's great. I hope you get to go fishing more than I do. I assume, since you didn't answer the question, that you don't have a degree in climate science or anything close to it. Nor do you work in the field of climate science. So, suffice to say you do not have the expertise nor the experience to dispute the consensus from the scientific community that climate change is man made. But hey, you're well read by your own admission and know a fraud when you see one - that has to count for something. Maybe that's what 97% of climate scientists are missing... Your gut feeling.
OK, pleasure talking to you.
Must be the offseason! Pawlitics leaking into the football board. :P
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
