Climategate turned on its head this time

[Alan]

Why all the hate and hostility about me pointing out facts?

You do realize the the poles do indeed shift and that does in fact cause ice ages and global warmings? You can't refute that. I could care less what humans want to sling around for their own agenda. The bottom line is this is part of earth's cycle.

[Yoweigh]

Originally Posted by Alan

Why all the hate and hostility about me pointing out facts?

You do realize the the poles do indeed shift and that does in fact cause ice ages and global warmings? You can't refute that. I could care less what humans want to sling around for their own agenda. The bottom line is this is part of earth's cycle.

fact: the earth's magnetic poles switch on occasion.
speculation: this is the cause of climate change.

[Taurus]

Originally Posted by Yoweigh

fact: the earth's magnetic poles switch on occasion.
speculation: this is the cause of climate change.

Non-sequitur, you mean.

Ocean currents drive global climate. We don't see an ice age in location A and a hothouse in B because, McFly, we're talking about *global* climate. When it's cold in Canada and warm in Florida we call that *local* climate. Cause, like...it's local.

[V Chip]

..

[dtc]

Originally Posted by Taurus

The interesting part is that we're already effectively combatting global warming without even realizing it.
If you remember the sunny days of your youth being just a little brighter, it's because they were.

NOVA | Understanding Global Dimming

It's a "conservative" Republican's dream. I can hear Romney and Santorum blasting as loudly as they can scream:

"Pollution is good for the environment!"

[lapaz]

Originally Posted by Alan

Why all the hate and hostility about me pointing out facts?

You do realize the the poles do indeed shift and that does in fact cause ice ages and global warmings? You can't refute that. I could care less what humans want to sling around for their own agenda. The bottom line is this is part of earth's cycle.

I understand your skepticism, but your theory that pole shifting would have a comparable warming effect doesn't make sense. Sure it would change local climates, but the current issue at hand is not about local climates. The issue is about global climate change in the form of warming. You could shift the poles to the equator, and then the new equators would be at the poles, and the poles would be just as hot as today's equator. However, the average worldwide temperature would be the same. This is of course based on a gradual movement, not a change over just a few years, which would probably have crazy climactic effects, to include possible warming. But if it happens over millennia, then the global temps would not be affected.

I think this is why Taurus referred to throwing out BS quicker than it can be cleaned. For every counter argument, there have been good explanations, so the climatologists' consensus remains intact. Now this evidence of collusion among the anti climate group further weakens the already tenuous case, and yet people wonder why they're called anti-science. Skepticism is good, but obstinance is bad.

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by dtradin

Are you asserting that acid rain is a non-fact that fluoridation is bad for teeth or that silicone breast implants are bad?

Simple, Acid rain turned out to be a big uproar over nothing, just like global warming.

Fluoridation and Silicone proved to have no negative medical impact, although people looked for a reason for fight fluoridation and sued silicone implant manufacturers over bad science.

Not believing in junk/bad science is not anti-science.

[RebSaint]

Originally Posted by wcklink

Simple, Acid rain turned out to be a big uproar over nothing.

The whole attitude that science is "simple" is the problem.

You're just completely wrong here.

Clean Air Act Reduces Acid Rain In Eastern United States

The reason we don't hear about acid rain as much is that there were much-needed reforms to regulate the industrial pollutants which can be pumped into the air we breath.

It's not a problem anymore because industrial companies can't just put anything into the air. Again, it would be nice to look at a bit of American history--by the 1960s and 70s, the water and air in this country was absolutely filthy and filled with all kinds of nasty chemicals. There were rivers which people couldn't even swim. Thankfully, there were some much-needed steps to prevent companies from just dumping their crap everywhere and putting anything they wanted in the air.

It took 40 or so years, but American waterways and air overall is much cleaner.

From may vantage point, anti-science is just another version of warmed-over social darwinism which is completely ignorant of the positive reforms that environmental consciousness has brought to this country which has been both good for the environment and the economy.

But of course, the caricatured, silly, simplistic view is that it's all a bunch of Marxist nonsense.

[V Chip]

Originally Posted by wcklink

Simple, Acid rain turned out to be a big uproar over nothing, just like global warming.

If you're using this as an example of why climate change isn't real you're not making the case you think you are.

Acid rain was a problem. Regulations were put into place to correct it. The regulations worked. The Pacific Research Institute -- a conservative/libertarian think-tank -- found that the acid rain levels had decreased by 65% since 1976. The biggest component of it was a cap-and-trade system that was wildly successful.

[Yoweigh]

the ozone hole was fake too and the montreal protocol was a sham.
/sarcasm

[Sarcastic]

Originally Posted by wcklink

Simple, Acid rain turned out to be a big uproar over nothing, just like global warming.

Fluoridation and Silicone proved to have no negative medical impact, although people looked for a reason for fight fluoridation and sued silicone implant manufacturers over bad science.

Not believing in junk/bad science is not anti-science.

To be fair, this is true. There are many "movements" out there in the diet and homeopathic worlds that have gained traction in spite of diligent research that has proved them wrong. And of course there are many things that simply haven't been studied, and are therefore inconclusive.

But categorizing everything you don't like or don't want to believe as junk/bad science IS anti-science. Science isn't junk just because you want it to be.

[Sarcastic]

Originally Posted by Yoweigh

the ozone hole was fake too and the montreal protocol was a sham.
/sarcasm

Ah, yes. The old "I threw water on that fire so obviously the fire never existed" argument

Hopefully, someone will say the same about AGW one day

[lapaz]

By the way, most of the anti-climate change arguments are discussed and refuted in detail at the following website: Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

[dtc]

Originally Posted by wcklink

Simple, Acid rain turned out to be a big uproar over nothing, just like global warming.

Fluoridation and Silicone proved to have no negative medical impact, although people looked for a reason for fight fluoridation and sued silicone implant manufacturers over bad science.

Not believing in junk/bad science is not anti-science.

Acid rain was a direct result of pollution. EPA restrictions and regulation have quickly reduced it.

My wife had silicone implants put in to replace her boobs less than 6 monthos ago. Previous versions leaked.

I can't even understand what you said about fluoridation.

It's as if you think any exaggerated hysteria over an issue with a scientific component makes the facts questionable and that's stupid.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by RebSaint

The whole attitude that science is "simple" is the problem.

You're just completely wrong here.

Clean Air Act Reduces Acid Rain In Eastern United States

The reason we don't hear about acid rain as much is that there were much-needed reforms to regulate the industrial pollutants which can be pumped into the air we breath.

It's not a problem anymore because industrial companies can't just put anything into the air. Again, it would be nice to look at a bit of American history--by the 1960s and 70s, the water and air in this country was absolutely filthy and filled with all kinds of nasty chemicals. There were rivers which people couldn't even swim. Thankfully, there were some much-needed steps to prevent companies from just dumping their crap everywhere and putting anything they wanted in the air.

It took 40 or so years, but American waterways and air overall is much cleaner.

From may vantage point, anti-science is just another version of warmed-over social darwinism which is completely ignorant of the positive reforms that environmental consciousness has brought to this country which has been both good for the environment and the economy.

But of course, the caricatured, silly, simplistic view is that it's all a bunch of Marxist nonsense.

I always enjoy pointing out irony and there's a good one in this line of thought given that this is a NO Saints forum and the condition of Lake Pontchartrain now vs 40 years ago.