Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist - Page 13 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Bagor · 10-30-2011, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

Umm this is not answering my 2 questions. I will ask them again since they have been forgotten....so quickly.

1. When did humans start driving the climate?
2. If so by how much or what is the climate suppose to be like?

Umm ... you seriously talking about questions not being answered?

Let's revisit climategate and your continual avoidance of my simple question for clarification on your motives for posting this beauty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past.

Remember, I asked this at least 5 times ..... with no response.

Quote:

Were you (a) blatantly posting stuff that you knew to be completely ridiculous and false or (b) are did you post it with honest intentions but were so gullible that you actually believed it was true and would hold strength as an argument?

Basically (a) dishonesty? or (b) gullibility?

Simple fact of the matter is HOZ, you can't be taken seriously in this debate due to YOUR inability to answer questions when challenged on your postings. Yet, you have the nerve to demand the same of others.

Carry on with your question avoidance and posting of random blogs, cartoons and articles that you have demonstrated that you have neither read or understand.

Point made ..... or you could finally answer my questions.

Bagor · 10-30-2011, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Even in the face of strong science, it should always be challenged.
There is no doubt that we don't have the total picture, but that really doesn't matter, the climate is changing. I would imagine continuing to challenge climate science should only serve to make it stronger.

Agreed.

That the climate is changing for whatever reason is (imo) undeniable and observable.

A suggested great read and something that's worth having if even to give the grand-kids a read in some 50 years time. Explores the challenges and opportunities. Free to order.

http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/assess/2007/index_e.php

Based on observed changes and best guess scenarios it's (imo) worth at present to apply the precautionary principle (which is written into the environmental act) for the future.

frinkprof · 10-30-2011, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

Umm are you talking about me? If you are when did I do this?

Oh, so you're not necessarily unwilling to apologize and recant for your false accusations, you're just oblivious?

Azure · 10-30-2011, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daradon

You fiddle while Rome burns.

If that is the best you can come up with then I rest my case.

Sent from my SGH-T959D using Tapatalk

troutman · 10-30-2011, 09:58 AM

sethmeyers21 Seth Meyers
I feel bad for anyone who's Halloween costume was Sexy Climate Change Denier.

photon · 10-30-2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

Umm are you talking about me? If you are when did I do this?

Oh I meant the other HOZ, sorry.

RTFT

Flash Walken · 10-30-2011, 11:06 AM

Why even bother with this goof?

He's a more obvious, less original White Doors, and you've all wasted your own time and utterly derailed this topic to scream into the wind at this bumbling idiot.

Please just ignore this guy in the same vein you ignore your racist old great uncle when he tries to tell you blacks can't swim or see at night.

kirant · 10-30-2011, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Please just ignore this guy in the same vein you ignore your racist old great uncle when he tries to tell you blacks can't swim or see at night.

You're telling me black people CAN swim?

Daradon · 10-30-2011, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

If that is the best you can come up with then I rest my case.

Sent from my SGH-T959D using Tapatalk

It sums up the point.

The only reason people debate the science is because they are afraid of the consequences. They are unhappy about what it means to their lifestyle or bottom line. Or supposed moral viewpoint.

The science is proven. It's fact. And the latest findings show this. Again.

You are part of the problem.

EDIT: Might as well argue the world is flat. Or that creation of the Earth started 6,000+ years ago (although a few on this board would). You would still be wrong.

Azure · 10-30-2011, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daradon

It sums up the point.

The only reason people debate the science is because they are afraid of the consequences. They are unhappy about what it means to their lifestyle or bottom line. Or supposed moral viewpoint.

The science is proven. It's fact. And the latest findings show this. Again.

You are part of the problem.

EDIT: Might as well argue the world is flat. Or that creation of the Earth started 6,000+ years ago (although a few on this board would). You would still be wrong.

There is no science out there that proves without a shadow of a doubt that humans are the SOLE reason behind global warming or climate change.

And there is NO science out there that proves that reversing what we're doing is going to STOP global warming and climate change.

So please don't say that the science is proven. We all know that the climate is changing. What we don't know is that if we suddenly reduce emissions by 99% next year that it will stop climate change.

frinkprof · 10-30-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

There is no science out there that proves without a shadow of a doubt that humans are the SOLE reason behind global warming or climate change.

And there is NO science out there that proves that reversing what we're doing is going to STOP global warming and climate change.

So please don't say that the science is proven. We all know that the climate is changing. What we don't know is that if we suddenly reduce emissions by 99% next year that it will stop climate change.

Might want to refer to photon's signature regarding "certainty," "beyond the shadow of a doubt," "proof" and other such language when it comes to science. Proof is the domain of mathematics, not science.

Daradon · 10-30-2011, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

There is no science out there that proves without a shadow of a doubt that humans are the SOLE reason behind global warming or climate change.

And there is NO science out there that proves that reversing what we're doing is going to STOP global warming and climate change.

So please don't say that the science is proven. We all know that the climate is changing. What we don't know is that if we suddenly reduce emissions by 99% next year that it will stop climate change.

Keep talking.

Galileo says... WHAT?!!!

HOZ · 10-30-2011, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

Oh I meant the other HOZ, sorry.

RTFT

Photon. When did I do this? Please show me my the post. If I was out of line I will apologize.

Azure · 10-30-2011, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Might want to refer to photon's signature regarding "certainty," "beyond the shadow of a doubt," "proof" and other such language when it comes to science. Proof is the domain of mathematics, not science.

Not sure how that takes away from what I'm trying to say.

I'm not going to deny that global warming is happening. Or that the climate is changing.

I'm just saying that while I agree with reducing emissions, becoming more efficient and not destroying our planet for the sake of advancing the human race, I do think we should be reasonable about it. Is the carbon tax reasonable? For what it is trying to accomplish, I don't think it is. I think it is nothing more than a money grab.

Should the government invest money in R&D of the technology that will help us become more 'green?' Certainly, but it also has to be reasonable. Should we shut down oil sand development? Absolutely not.

There has to be a reasonable approach taken in terms of reducing our footprint. And I think we are well on that way. It just takes time.

photon · 10-30-2011, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

Photon. When did I do this? Please show my the post. If I was out of line I will apologize.

It's in the thread where you posted the Richard Muller video, I'm not going to sift through the thread for you.

It's a little late for apologies.

kirant · 10-30-2011, 06:15 PM

Anyone able to give a quick rundown of what the heck is going on here between HOZ and photon?

Daradon · 10-30-2011, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirant

Anyone able to give a quick rundown of what the heck is going on here between HOZ and photon?

We keep him cause he's fun.

frinkprof · 10-30-2011, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Not sure how that takes away from what I'm trying to say.

I'd say it's because the way you are stating the standards that science must reach before influencing decisions shows a misunderstanding of what science is and does in the first place.

It seems that you're open to having science influence decision making, but setting standards that don't align with what science is and can attain can be problematic and ensure that it doesn't have an influence when it should.

HOZ · 10-30-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

It's in the thread where you posted the Richard Muller video, I'm not going to sift through the thread for you.

It's a little late for apologies.

Really photon? Do you remember the thread title? When I have time, I will go and find it but it will help if I knew the thread title.

Daradon · 10-30-2011, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

Really photon? Do you remember the thread title? When I have time, I will go and find it but it will help if I knew the thread title.

How nice of you. Please search when you have time.