Wyoming is 1st state to reject science standards (no global warming hoax)

[PaulConventionWV]

No.

Again, do I need to fear something will kill me to try to prepare or avoid something?

What are you actually doing about it?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I know enough about science and the scientific method that I don't outright dismiss something just because I think somebody has an agenda, nor do I accuse scientists of having an agenda unless I have reason to believe they do. I am not a scientist for a living, if that's what you're asking.

With government funding involved, you have a pretty good reason to believe they do. Maybe you should find out instead of assuming they don't. I know science, too. Does your knowledge invalidate my knowledge?

 

[Ignostic?]

therefore you expect future temperature to be higher or lower than scientists are predicting? or is it completely coin toss for you and you're prepared for all cases?

Yeah, what I said implies that nobody can currently know what direction the climate is going. I don't know what you mean by prepared for all cases, though. I'm prepared for the climate to do what it's been doing for a long time since there is no reason to believe that the climate is going to go through any major changes. The safest bet is that the next hundred years will mostly resemble the last hundred years with minor differences.

People should be prepared anyway. The east coast should absolutely expect a major hurricane at some point just because there is a history of hurricanes hitting up the east coast every few decades. People like to point to "Super Storm" Sandy as some sort of proof of climate change when the reality is that the east coast is past due on getting hit with a hurricane and Sandy didn't even make landfall as a hurricane. The 1938 New England hurricane made landfall as a category 3 and hit even farther north than Sandy. And the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 might have been even worse. So, yeah, you should be prepared for disasters, but not because the climate change people say so. Historical record is plenty good enough reason to prepare.

 

[Antischism]

Also: 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

Wrong.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm

 

[PRB]

The issue is not simply global warming, but anthropogenic global warming, or mankind-induced climate change. Which even if that be true, does it really have any long-lasting or detrimental environmental effects, or are its effects ultimately environmentally positive?

You can't ask that question if you're in denial that it's happening. This is where people start switching their arguments, from "it's not happening" to "it's not us" to "what if it's not a bad thing?"

It can't be both a hoax and a good thing, decide which one you want.

 

[TonySutton]

Global warming is a hoax!

Climate Change is what you should be concerned with....

geez didn't anyone get the memo?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You can't ask that question if you're in denial that it's happening. This is where people start switching their arguments, from "it's not happening" to "it's not us" to "what if it's not a bad thing?"

It can't be both a hoax and a good thing, decide which one you want.

False. You can switch arguments without implying that you've given up on the original. They're both valid questions that you have to answer because there's really no indication that it's a disaster, whether it's happening or not. It's possible to raise both questions simultaneously.

 

[PRB]

Global warming is a hoax!

Climate Change is what you should be concerned with....

geez didn't anyone get the memo?

When did you get the memo?

The phrase has been used as early as 1956, but if nothing else, at late as 1988 when the IPCC, so what does CC stand for?

The idea that "first it was global warming, then they called it climate change because they realized it wasn't always warming" is simply not true.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
You are entitled to your opinion, not your own facts.

 

[PRB]

False. You can switch arguments without implying that you've given up on the original.

Except you must when they're contradictory!

They're both valid questions that you have to answer because there's really no indication that it's a disaster, whether it's happening or not. It's possible to raise both questions simultaneously.

By which you've admitted that your concern isn't either question, just avoiding carbon taxes and emissions regulations.

 

[Danke]

 

[TonySutton]

When did you get the memo?

The phrase has been used as early as 1956, but if nothing else, at late as 1988 when the IPCC, so what does CC stand for?

The idea that "first it was global warming, then they called it climate change because they realized it wasn't always warming" is simply not true.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
You are entitled to your opinion, not your own facts.

hahaha I was being sarcastic. I thought it was pretty obvious otherwise I would have added /s

 

[PRB]

hahaha I was being sarcastic. I thought it was pretty obvious otherwise I would have added /s

Poe's law. I've heard that line in this forum so many times I can't tell anymore.

 

[Dr.3D]

so what does CC stand for?

Ummmm....... Community College?

 

[PRB]

Ummmm....... Community College?

funny, but it sure doesn't stand for global warming.

 

[Danke]

Ummmm....... Community College?

Corrupt Communists.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Except you must when they're contradictory!

They're not. That's my point. Weston White was assuming your view and questioning the foundation of your concern from that basis. It's a very basic debate strategy, and there's nothing contradictory about it.

By which you've admitted that your concern isn't either question, just avoiding carbon taxes and emissions regulations.

I don't know where you're getting that. I've said nothing about carbon taxes or regulations. What are you talking about?

 

[PRB]

They're not. That's my point.

Saying something is a hoax to justify taxation IS contradictory to saying it's a good thing.

As is saying it's not happening, and then saying it's a natural phenomena.

I don't know where you're getting that. I've said nothing about carbon taxes or regulations. What are you talking about?

Oh, so what then, is this "agenda" you are talking about?

 

[PRB]

False. You can switch arguments without implying that you've given up on the original. They're both valid questions that you have to answer because there's really no indication that it's a disaster, whether it's happening or not. It's possible to raise both questions simultaneously.

if you don't believe it's a disaster, you can't say it's a hoax. what's the hoax if it's not at the very least, something worth avoiding and a bad thing?

 

[Occam's Banana]

And they all lived happily ever after... oh, wait. Except for everybody who's not Al Gore.

Not even Al Gore.

ManBearPig is still out there somewhere ...

 

[Origanalist]