[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

So be it. If it is a hoax, we have wasted a lot of time and money. If it's not we've saved the planet. Now let me think about this. I've decided given the choice I think I'd rather waste the money. It's not like we haven't burned money before like bridges to nowhere.

Or gone to places like the moon and possibly Mars. Amazing we did it in less than 10 years in the 60's and now they appear to be taking longer.

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by kkingston57

Not a good acronym. Just like everyone calls Orlando Airport OIA(Orlando International Airport) but it's call letters are MCO. I know why but it would seem to me that if OIA has not been used, Orlando should use it.

I don't know. Somebody'd soon be wanting to buy a consonant.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Thank you for your response. I am not questioning the data suggesting a period of global warming. I am still waiting for some/ANY proof that man has anything to do with cyclic Climate Change. Seems to me that if man is responsible for warm periods in our world history, then our world should have been in an ICE AGE 100% of the period before man existed. Yes, that's just me being facetious, but the reasoning on this subject seems to be that "man inhabits earth, the temperature is warmer, therefore man is responsible." I don't want an opinion, I want real, substantial physical evidence to justify spending trillions of bucks on the subject.

I appreciate what I feel is your genuine lack of understanding of the real and substantial physical evidence. No one can give you that which you, for whatever reason, cannot or will not accept. My first suggestion is to look at the fact that 97% of the world's (not just US) scientists believe in human caused global warming is real. That should be clue #1. Is it really possible that this is a world wide hoax by over 200 nations, many of whom don't get along or are at war with one another. Start looking critically at the evidence from both sides of the issue, see which is most convincing, the mountains of data showing it is real, or the smaller, mostly anecdotal or misstatements claims saying it's not real.
Occasionally, Chicken Little is used to discredit a so called alarmist. In a chicken world, who would listen to? The 97% of smartest looking up and warning of the roof caving in, or the 3% with their heads down trying to peck up the most grain saying it's all a lot of bs.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by mntlblok

I don't know. Somebody'd soon be wanting to buy a consonant.

I didn't know consonants were for sale.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by kkingston57

Or gone to places like the moon and possibly Mars. Amazing we did it in less than 10 years in the 60's and now they appear to be taking longer.

The more you know, the more you learn what can kill you. Then you look before you leap.

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

I didn't know consonants were for sale.

If you don't ask. . .

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by kkingston57

Or gone to places like the moon and possibly Mars. Amazing we did it in less than 10 years in the 60's and now they appear to be taking longer.

Amazing, indeed. "Only the United States, Russia, China and India have successfully landed spacecraft on the moon. Three privately-financed landing missions have been launched as commercial ventures, but all three failed." Japanese moon lander touches down, but crippled by mission-ending power glitch - CBS News

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

I appreciate what I feel is your genuine lack of understanding of the real and substantial physical evidence. No one can give you that which you, for whatever reason, cannot or will not accept. My first suggestion is to look at the fact that 97% of the world's (not just US) scientists believe in human caused global warming is real. That should be clue #1. Is it really possible that this is a world wide hoax by over 200 nations, many of whom don't get along or are at war with one another. Start looking critically at the evidence from both sides of the issue, see which is most convincing, the mountains of data showing it is real, or the smaller, mostly anecdotal or misstatements claims saying it's not real.
Occasionally, Chicken Little is used to discredit a so called alarmist. In a chicken world, who would listen to? The 97% of smartest looking up and warning of the roof caving in, or the 3% with their heads down trying to peck up the most grain saying it's all a lot of bs.

So, what you are saying is that you believe OPINION over facts. Since a large gathering of scientists (well paid, I'm sure) have a consensus that man is responsible for Global Warming, not with evidence but just their opinion, then they have you convinced. Sorry, but this jury is not going to accept OPINION. We need facts, and so far no one has shown any/ANY facts that man is responsible. Of course, there are a lot of folks that believe man is a god and that man has the ability to change history, therefore we must be able to change weather cycles, the rotation of Earth and the revolving of the planets around the Sun.
You have not answered my question with evidence, just a statement that you believe someone else's opinion without question. I am not a denier, just waiting to be convinced. I am open for evidence/proof that man has any effect on cyclic climate change. I believe that man is partially responsible for air pollution, but only PARTLY responsible. Sorry, but if I invest a lot of money over a period of decades, for research I expect facts NOT theory and/or opinion. Scientists know that they cannot get a medicine approved by the FDA until they show proof by trials that the medicine really does provide relief for ailments that they advertise. Just because someone spends my money, does not make me gullible enough to accept their assurance that they have an answer for my question. I expect factual evidence. Please don't insult me with your "flat earth" or "denier" accusations and I won't insult you by suggesting that anyone that takes someone's word without proof is gullible or a fool.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Byte1

So, what you are saying is that you believe OPINION over facts. Since a large gathering of scientists (well paid, I'm sure) have a consensus that man is responsible for Global Warming, not with evidence but just their opinion, then they have you convinced. Sorry, but this jury is not going to accept OPINION. We need facts, and so far no one has shown any/ANY facts that man is responsible. Of course, there are a lot of folks that believe man is a god and that man has the ability to change history, therefore we must be able to change weather cycles, the rotation of Earth and the revolving of the planets around the Sun.
You have not answered my question with evidence, just a statement that you believe someone else's opinion without question. I am not a denier, just waiting to be convinced. I am open for evidence/proof that man has any effect on cyclic climate change. I believe that man is partially responsible for air pollution, but only PARTLY responsible. Sorry, but if I invest a lot of money over a period of decades, for research I expect facts NOT theory and/or opinion. Scientists know that they cannot get a medicine approved by the FDA until they show proof by trials that the medicine really does provide relief for ailments that they advertise. Just because someone spends my money, does not make me gullible enough to accept their assurance that they have an answer for my question. I expect factual evidence. Please don't insult me with your "flat earth" or "denier" accusations and I won't insult you by suggesting that anyone that takes someone's word without proof is gullible or a fool.

There you go again with "so what you are saying is" , which is your way of saying, "I am about to twist your words and, change your message." which is cheap and dishonest. You better re-read my statement. You completely, and I think intentionally, misunderstood and mis-stated my position.
In a nut shell, you do not have all the facts, or knowledge. You are going to have to believe one side or the other. Choose your information source(s) carefully if you really want truth. If someone shoots you in the butt, are you going to believe the 97% of witnesses with security photos and data, or the 3 guys saying "it wasn't me. Its a conspiracy" , while they try to hide the gun.
The facts and information is available if you take the time to investigate. Your choice. And, by the way, of course the scientists get paid for the important work they do. But so do the industrialists and big oil who are funding the other side's misinformation. It's going to cost us all either way. But one path is gonna make the planet better, the other path is more of a dead-end.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

There you go again with "so what you are saying is" , which is your way of saying, "I am about to twist your words and, change your message." which is cheap and dishonest. You better re-read my statement. You completely, and I think intentionally, misunderstood and mis-stated my position.
In a nut shell, you do not have all the facts, or knowledge. You are going to have to believe one side or the other. Choose your information source(s) carefully if you really want truth. If someone shoots you in the butt, are you going to believe the 97% of witnesses with security photos and data, or the 3 guys saying "it wasn't me. Its a conspiracy" , while they try to hide the gun.
The facts and information is available if you take the time to investigate. Your choice. And, by the way, of course the scientists get paid for the important work they do. But so do the industrialists and big oil who are funding the other side's misinformation. It's going to cost us all either way. But one path is gonna make the planet better, the other path is more of a dead-end.

Hah! Now you are upset with how I turned your same method back on you.
Like I said before, give me facts, not opinions. If someone shot me, there would be facts and evidence. Sorry, but your scenario is totally wrong, other than proving my point.
Only fools would think that spending a trillion bucks to prove air pollution when everyone already concedes that fact, is really frivolous spending. Climate Change is already and always has been happening throughout history of the world. With and without mankind inhabiting the world. Scientists couldn't prove that man caused global warming, so they changed the words and submitted their requests for more funding to "research" the possibility of man caused climate change. Kind of easy to prove Climate Change, but impossible to prove that man caused something that has been going on for thousands of years.
But, you go ahead and believe what someone tells you. By the way, I have some lotion made from BS that will cure everything from hiccups to cancer that a TV scientist swears is the real thing. It's called Dr.Smith's sure cure and it's only $300 a bottle. I'm looking to sell some franchises here in the Villages. Get in on the bottom floor, while you can.

[Dusty_Star]

Originally Posted by sounding

Zeke likes to make up scary stuff. I prefer actual data. Seeing is believing ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ8Ws8ZrleE

Good video

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Hah! Now you are upset with how I turned your same method back on you.
Like I said before, give me facts, not opinions. If someone shot me, there would be facts and evidence. Sorry, but your scenario is totally wrong, other than proving my point.
Only fools would think that spending a trillion bucks to prove air pollution when everyone already concedes that fact, is really frivolous spending. Climate Change is already and always has been happening throughout history of the world. With and without mankind inhabiting the world. Scientists couldn't prove that man caused global warming, so they changed the words and submitted their requests for more funding to "research" the possibility of man caused climate change. Kind of easy to prove Climate Change, but impossible to prove that man caused something that has been going on for thousands of years.
But, you go ahead and believe what someone tells you. By the way, I have some lotion made from BS that will cure everything from hiccups to cancer that a TV scientist swears is the real thing. It's called Dr.Smith's sure cure and it's only $300 a bottle. I'm looking to sell some franchises here in the Villages. Get in on the bottom floor, while you can.

Nah! I'm not upset, but I am entertained.
As I learned long ago, people generally don't appreciate things that are given to them as much as what they have to work for. Therefore, even though you want to be given facts, my suggestion is that, if you really want them, do what the rest of us have done. Do a little research of your own. Work for it. Check science journals, textbook, magazines, science info and video, news reports. The facts are there. All you have to do is look.
Good hunting!