[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Don't forget that the deniers are the ones that are spouting (or bleating) the party line.

Well that is true. This book came up a lot in my History and Science of Philosophy courses. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Wikipedia

Thomas Kuhn - Wikipedia

Kuhn would probably think that the Global Warming deniers are looking for a new paradigm except I think it is more FOX wanting their advertisers to reach more product buyers.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I doubt he would have changed from being 100% correct to totally wrong based on "further study". On the other hand, his survival instincts forced him, and most other scientists to spout out the party line of lies.

Could be the other way round once he had real science and got past the fantasy that everything's "just peachy".
And, survival instincts would more likely move one to repair what is damaged, rather than turn a blind eye and wait for total disaster.

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Don't forget that the deniers are the ones that are spouting (or bleating) the party line.

Maybe you could try disproving the science posted on the first page of this thread instead of simply labeling anyone who acknowledges it (such as my son-in law, the scientist), a "denier".

It's not our "party" who so readily reverts to arguing with nasty names instead of facts. And yet somehow, it's never your "party" whose opinions are labeled "misinformation" and banned from speaking, even though those opinions so often turn out to be facts in hindsight. Anybody remember when Al Gore said that Florida would be underwater by 2016 because the polar icecaps would have melted?

Since we're supposedly banned from discussing politics (or at least some of us are), why not, in the interest of fairness, allow your neighbors their own opinions when it comes to unproven scientific theories and try to refute those opinions, instead of simply calling them names? Its only fair, since, if we tried that trick, we'd be kicked off the site.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

Maybe you could try disproving the science posted on the first page of this thread instead of simply labeling anyone who acknowledges it (such as my son-in law, the scientist), a "denier".

It's not our "party" who so readily reverts to arguing with nasty names instead of facts. And yet somehow, it's never your "party" whose opinions are labeled "misinformation" and banned from speaking, even though those opinions so often turn out to be facts in hindsight. Anybody remember when Al Gore said that Florida would be underwater by 2016 because the polar icecaps would have melted?

Since we're supposedly banned from discussing politics (or at least some of us are), why not, in the interest of fairness, allow your neighbors their own opinions when it comes to unproven scientific theories and try to refute those opinions, instead of simply calling them names? Its only fair, since, if we tried that trick, we'd be kicked off the site.

The "science" put out by Sounding has been disproven time and again on Talk of the Villages. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1MZ8U8C9c8

"Neil deGrasse Tyson scolds cherry picking climate science".

A lot of Soundings graphs are well known among Climate Deniers and have a lot of evidence against them being leveled against them by people actually looking for the facts rather than skewing them.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

You missed my point. He had a decision to make. Stand up for his belief and find other work that he can feel good about, or worry about his precious job and tenure and sellout and live the life of a coward. He sold out. He kept his job, but still doesn't have his precious tenure and has probably missed a promotion or two.
Or ..... doing further study, he realized he had been wrong and with newer, more compete and more accurate information actually change his opinion.

Pretty rude to say about someone's son-in-law...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

More like facts as far as the current science on the subject can tell.

The global warming alarmists are poor scientists for the most part just pushing junk science based on poor supposition and conjectures.

Fixed it for you...

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

Maybe you could try disproving the science posted on the first page of this thread instead of simply labeling anyone who acknowledges it (such as my son-in law, the scientist), a "denier".

It's not our "party" who so readily reverts to arguing with nasty names instead of facts. And yet somehow, it's never your "party" whose opinions are labeled "misinformation" and banned from speaking, even though those opinions so often turn out to be facts in hindsight. Anybody remember when Al Gore said that Florida would be underwater by 2016 because the polar icecaps would have melted?

Since we're supposedly banned from discussing politics (or at least some of us are), why not, in the interest of fairness, allow your neighbors their own opinions when it comes to unproven scientific theories and try to refute those opinions, instead of simply calling them names? Its only fair, since, if we tried that trick, we'd be kicked off the site.

The science has been done and ( as science should do) is continuing to go on, by minds and experts greater than any on TOTV, I believe. The nation's of the world formally believe what has been demonstrated, and I believe it.
But, there are always those who challenge the mainstream. To challenge is good, if one uses proper methods. But, like flat earth, they start with a flawed hypothesis and create what ever they need to fit their crazy model. That isn't science, it is science fiction, and not even good science fiction.
In the end the truth, the whole truth, to this and many other questions will become clear. Humanity may wish their forefathers had been better stewards of lifeboat Earth.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

Maybe you could try disproving the science posted on the first page of this thread instead of simply labeling anyone who acknowledges it (such as my son-in law, the scientist), a "denier".

It's not our "party" who so readily reverts to arguing with nasty names instead of facts. And yet somehow, it's never your "party" whose opinions are labeled "misinformation" and banned from speaking, even though those opinions so often turn out to be facts in hindsight. Anybody remember when Al Gore said that Florida would be underwater by 2016 because the polar icecaps would have melted?

Since we're supposedly banned from discussing politics (or at least some of us are), why not, in the interest of fairness, allow your neighbors their own opinions when it comes to unproven scientific theories and try to refute those opinions, instead of simply calling them names? Its only fair, since, if we tried that trick, we'd be kicked off the site.

The most amazing part of all this is that those of us that understand the science, understand that we are currently in an ice age, by definition, that started 4 1/2 million years ago, understand that during this time there have been over a dozen cycles of glaciation and interglacial thaws that last 60-100,000 years, understand that CO2 is NOT the most important greenhouse gas, that water vapor is, understand that we are 10-12 degrees cooler than 65 million years ago because of the rise of the Himalayan and Rocky mountains which serve as a heat sink by removing water from the atmosphere and understand that all this was, is and will be driven by the power of the sun, Earth's orbital variations and variations in Earth's axis are the ones labelled "deniers". WHAT A JOKE!!! But I will give these climate change charlatans who have bamboozled a large percentage of the public with their dire warnings (like the ice caps will disappear by 2010 ) credit for 2 things:
First, taking the long range view to accumulated massive wealth and even more power by wasting $100 TRILLION to combat something that is way beyond our technology and,
Second, by changing the narrative by intimidating the true scientists like the above poster's son, denying grants, denying tenure and denying publication to those that only want to speak the truth by calling THEM "deniers". Just who are the true "deniers"? I can only assume they gleaned that strategy from the 10th edition of "The Newspeak Dictionary" published by the "Ministry of Truth", circa 1984.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

The most amazing part of all this is that those of us that understand the science, understand that we are currently in an ice age, by definition, that started 4 1/2 million years ago, understand that during this time there have been over a dozen cycles of glaciation and interglacial thaws that last 60-100,000 years, understand that CO2 is NOT the most important greenhouse gas, that water vapor is, understand that we are 10-12 degrees cooler than 65 million years ago because of the rise of the Himalayan and Rocky mountains which serve as a heat sink by removing water from the atmosphere and understand that all this was, is and will be driven by the power of the sun, Earth's orbital variations and variations in Earth's axis are the ones labelled "deniers". WHAT A JOKE!!! But I will give these climate change charlatans who have bamboozled a large percentage of the public with their dire warnings (like the ice caps will disappear by 2010 ) credit for 2 things:
First, taking the long range view to accumulated massive wealth and even more power by wasting $100 TRILLION to combat something that is way beyond our technology and,
Second, by changing the narrative by intimidating the true scientists like the above poster's son, denying grants, denying tenure and denying publication to those that only want to speak the truth by calling THEM "deniers". Just who are the true "deniers"? I can only assume they gleaned that strategy from the 10th edition of "The Newspeak Dictionary" published by the "Ministry of Truth", circa 1984.

60-100,000 years? We humans will probably be either dead or on another planet long before then from changes due to Global Warming. Our written history only goes back about 13,000 years , if that. There was a huge library that was destroyed in Alexandria. Julius Caesar's war contributed to part of it burning down.

[Normal]

If we ever did get as warm as the Cenozoic or Jurassic Periods, we may be in it for the long hall. Those periods lasted millions of years. The bright side, everywhere will be like Florida, and the Earth will be very green again.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

60-100,000 years? We humans will probably be either dead or on another planet long before then from changes due to Global Warming. Our written history only goes back about 13,000 years , if that. There was a huge library that was destroyed in Alexandria. Julius Caesar's war contributed to part of it burning down.

Our written history MAY go back that far, especially if we consider carvings at Gobekli Tepe "written". However, our geologic history goes back billions. But think of it this way: in about 25,000 years most of Florida will be underwater, but 30,000 years after that we won't need air conditioners here

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Normal

If we ever did get as warm as the Cenozoic or Jurassic Periods, we may be in it for the long hall. Those periods lasted millions of years. The bright side, everywhere will be like Florida, and the Earth will be very green again.

and there will be a lot more oceanfront property available in Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Our written history MAY go back that far, especially if we consider carvings at Gobekli Tepe "written". However, our geologic history goes back billions. But think of it this way: in about 25,000 years most of Florida will be underwater, but 30,000 years after that we won't need air conditioners here

Carvings could mean many different things.

Archaeologists Have Discovered One of the World’s Oldest Pieces of Narrative Art, and It’s Rather NSFW

Timeline of ancient history - Wikipedia

NSFW Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Where did the books from the Great Library of Alexandria come from?

[Normal]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Our written history MAY go back that far, especially if we consider carvings at Gobekli Tepe "written". However, our geologic history goes back billions. But think of it this way: in about 25,000 years most of Florida will be underwater, but 30,000 years after that we won't need air conditioners here

It isn’t a matter of if but when all the ice melts. This could happen in as little as 1000 years, or it may take more than 10,000 years for all the ice to melt. When all the ice melts, most of Florida would be water covered along with the Eastern seaboard including Boston, New York City and Washington DC. On the West Coast LA and SanFrancisco would be gone along with Seattle and Vancouver. It will signal the ending of the last ice age we were in. We may not get that ice back for another 60,000 years. People will need to move and adapt just as wildlife always has.


Maps of What the Earth Would Look Like If All Ice Melted

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Normal

It isn’t a matter of if but when all the ice melts. This could happen in as little as 1000 years, or it may take more than 10,000 years for all the ice to melt. When all the ice melts, most of Florida would be water covered along with the Eastern seaboard including Boston, New York City and Washington DC. On the West Coast LA and SanFrancisco would be gone along with Seattle and Vancouver. It will signal the ending of the last ice age we were in. We may not get that ice back for another 60,000 years. People will need to move and adapt just as wildlife always has.


Maps of What the Earth Would Look Like If All Ice Melted

I agree, all that is true and is very likely to happen, probably more like 20-25,000 years from now. And then we’ll cool again and in 55-70,000 years NYC will once again be under 2 miles of ice. But none of it has anything to do with human activity