Shane Tuttle
Staff
OK, let's summarize because I'm tired of trying to explain myself do a defense attorney being on a witness stand my viewpoint of things. Translation: Cherry picking my statements and twisting them to a different meaning...correct me on YOUR stance only. No need to further trying to correct mine.
You think there's a vast majority of scientists that have empirical evidence of abrupt climate change causing GW
I think there are several scientists that debunk the theory of GW and whatever climate change there is, it's natural. Humans are only a very small part of the actual change.
You believe CO2 amounts and pollution supposedly rising in the atmosphere is one of many direct indicators of GW.
I don't.
It has nothing to do with scientific opinion. At that day and age, people weren't nearly as far along in the amount of intelligence in science. The best information they could go on was people sailed away and never came back, etc. in a sense. So, you have to place yourself in that frame of mind. They weren't investigating correctly to find the right answer.
Fast forward to 400 years from now. Those that are on this earth is going to be laughing at the so called "evidence" and scientific findings we generated. They will most likely see that some scientists had it all/mostly wrong due to some key factors that have been overlooked. So, you can say all you want that there's all this evidence pointing to GW and you believe the consensus. Just because there may be smoke doesn't mean there's fire.
Touche. I'm leaning towards the "drops" while your leaning towards the "ocean". Last time I checked, odds are just that...odds. You're relying on sheer number of scientists' similar opinions and you automatically scoff at others that don't just because it doesn't fit into the empirical evidence category. Not one item of stats that members brought up to you was credited for any valid points whatsoever. So, my thinking is that you automatically discredit any finding those scientists without reasonable thought. Doesn't agree with IPCC's report? Isn't any good...
Yep. Kinda figured it doesn't matter what you say, Ken. It's only anecdotal evidence anyway.
One another note, we in the midwest have had quite the long, cold snowy winter here. Even colder than Alaska (Anchorage, anyway). But, what am I to say. We haven't had record breaking cold nor hot days in some time in my own little world of the Quad Cities...
Back at Super Bowl 32, the Packers were HEAVY favorites. They had all the evidence together to support the theory of winning it all. Run stuffing defense. Pass defense. A cannon for a quarterback. Wide receivers. Coaches with play calling that kept the opposing defense on the field. All empirical evidence pointed to them winning by more than 14 points. A few people actually came up with evidence of their own even though it didn't agree with the vast majority. No need to tell you the outcome. No need to tell me that it doesn't parallel to science. I don't expect you to understand my analagies from my dumb little mind...
And neither does ocean salinity, sea level changes, etc. It all goes back to the point of no one knows what state the earth is supposed to be. People die. Species become extinct. How rapid or slow it happens isn't our say. That's the bottom line. Changing our pollution rate isn't going to do a dang thing. It would be just like the commercial where the dam inspector puts his chewing gum on the leaking crack.
Yes, Redworm, it is that simple. I've NEVER argued on how it works, only proving THAT IT'S THERE AND WILL BE THERE.
So, forensic science doesn't go hand in hand with scientific studies and methods...hmmm...and laws of motion and all that jazz isn't used for evidence either? Hmmmm....
Hey, all I'm pointing out is the obvious. And, how nice of you to all of a sudden able to post a subject matter pertaining to your Kimber. Last I checked, I also suggested posting in another forum. What you did was hijacking a thread. You know, for one to imply that I know so little on scientific methods one sure doesn't know about this board. Makes me really wonder why a board with forums dedicated to firearms so much has some that are only making themselves so available to GW?
Yes, strange quite...all of a sudden you have something to say about firearms. As one would say to me about studies that I've read..."anectodal evidence at best".
No, you don't. Helpful, sometimes. Needed? No.
I'm done here. Since there's nothing that I post is correct and not supported by the IPCC, my time should no longer be wasted here. I've put waaay too much time with no good results. Live and learn, I guess. Learned that I'm still an ignorant knuckle-dragging hillbilly that's too stupid to read on GW evidence and should eat...no, not eat....no, eat eggs. Now, where's my new issue of Time?
You think there's a vast majority of scientists that have empirical evidence of abrupt climate change causing GW
I think there are several scientists that debunk the theory of GW and whatever climate change there is, it's natural. Humans are only a very small part of the actual change.
You believe CO2 amounts and pollution supposedly rising in the atmosphere is one of many direct indicators of GW.
I don't.
It has nothing to do with scientific opinion. At that day and age, people weren't nearly as far along in the amount of intelligence in science. The best information they could go on was people sailed away and never came back, etc. in a sense. So, you have to place yourself in that frame of mind. They weren't investigating correctly to find the right answer.
Fast forward to 400 years from now. Those that are on this earth is going to be laughing at the so called "evidence" and scientific findings we generated. They will most likely see that some scientists had it all/mostly wrong due to some key factors that have been overlooked. So, you can say all you want that there's all this evidence pointing to GW and you believe the consensus. Just because there may be smoke doesn't mean there's fire.
Touche. I'm leaning towards the "drops" while your leaning towards the "ocean". Last time I checked, odds are just that...odds. You're relying on sheer number of scientists' similar opinions and you automatically scoff at others that don't just because it doesn't fit into the empirical evidence category. Not one item of stats that members brought up to you was credited for any valid points whatsoever. So, my thinking is that you automatically discredit any finding those scientists without reasonable thought. Doesn't agree with IPCC's report? Isn't any good...
Yep. Kinda figured it doesn't matter what you say, Ken. It's only anecdotal evidence anyway.
One another note, we in the midwest have had quite the long, cold snowy winter here. Even colder than Alaska (Anchorage, anyway). But, what am I to say. We haven't had record breaking cold nor hot days in some time in my own little world of the Quad Cities...Back at Super Bowl 32, the Packers were HEAVY favorites. They had all the evidence together to support the theory of winning it all. Run stuffing defense. Pass defense. A cannon for a quarterback. Wide receivers. Coaches with play calling that kept the opposing defense on the field. All empirical evidence pointed to them winning by more than 14 points. A few people actually came up with evidence of their own even though it didn't agree with the vast majority. No need to tell you the outcome. No need to tell me that it doesn't parallel to science. I don't expect you to understand my analagies from my dumb little mind...
And neither does ocean salinity, sea level changes, etc. It all goes back to the point of no one knows what state the earth is supposed to be. People die. Species become extinct. How rapid or slow it happens isn't our say. That's the bottom line. Changing our pollution rate isn't going to do a dang thing. It would be just like the commercial where the dam inspector puts his chewing gum on the leaking crack.
Yes, Redworm, it is that simple. I've NEVER argued on how it works, only proving THAT IT'S THERE AND WILL BE THERE.
So, forensic science doesn't go hand in hand with scientific studies and methods...hmmm...and laws of motion and all that jazz isn't used for evidence either? Hmmmm....
Hey, all I'm pointing out is the obvious. And, how nice of you to all of a sudden able to post a subject matter pertaining to your Kimber. Last I checked, I also suggested posting in another forum. What you did was hijacking a thread. You know, for one to imply that I know so little on scientific methods one sure doesn't know about this board. Makes me really wonder why a board with forums dedicated to firearms so much has some that are only making themselves so available to GW?
Yes, strange quite...all of a sudden you have something to say about firearms. As one would say to me about studies that I've read..."anectodal evidence at best".
No, you don't. Helpful, sometimes. Needed? No.
I'm done here. Since there's nothing that I post is correct and not supported by the IPCC, my time should no longer be wasted here. I've put waaay too much time with no good results. Live and learn, I guess. Learned that I'm still an ignorant knuckle-dragging hillbilly that's too stupid to read on GW evidence and should eat...no, not eat....no, eat eggs. Now, where's my new issue of Time?
