The New Global Cooling Thread.

Because of
1. They went full retard,
2. They have a financially vested interest (as do many proponents who politicize ANYTHING, not just climate change) in receiving funding, which eventually gets embezzled into other projects. Sometimes the only way to receive funding for other, more beneficial research,
3. I wanted to type something witty and clever, about not wanting to listen to dissenting opinions, but usually, it's already because of going full retard.

If there is an honest and open debate, both sides can agree, that there is still wasteful spending on proving/disproving climate change, and the effects it has on the various global ecologies and micro-ecologies which sustains the functions of the planet, and the species living on it.

Both sides, admittedly can agree that finding financially sound ways to keep the air and water (and thus our food sources) cleaner and healthier, is a good thing.

However, the biggest argument seen about global warming, coming from the "skeptics", and I use that quoted term loosely because the applicable group of people I am referring to, aren't actually skeptics that question the science, scientific method, or the general consensus, have also gone full retard. I say this, simply because the general referral happens to be "liberal this", "liberal that", or "liberal agenda keeping us in check", when really, any argument that starts off as an anti-political party rant, that doesn't even look at the science from their side, or more accurately, refuses to compare the science from both sides due to political affiliation, it isn't skepticism - it's HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE, and doesn't deserve to be part of the debate. Again, this also applies to both sides of the climate change argument.

There have been liberally affiliated scientists that have refused to be a part of the debate, because they don't believe in the scientific models, not the method, to test the theories being touted, as an accurate portrayal of the events, or believe there is no accurate model able to be designed by our current way of looking at climate change.

The closest analogy I could possibly give to global climate change, is this:

Take your house for example (yes it's a bad example, but humor me) freshly built, sufficiently insulated so no heat escapes, none gets in. Your ventilation system makes it so that the air continues to be fresh and filtered for years to come, assuming there are no unnecessary particles clogging or accumulating in the filtration system. All particles absorb thermal energy, that would be naturally found in the environment of your home. Of course, they would also reflect miniscule rays of light, and emit some of that thermal energy. Of course, each increase in total surface area would increase the amount of thermal energy being emitted into the environment as well. So it's not necessarily about the particular gas itself, but the concentration of particles absorbing, and re-emitting that stored energy in a greater surface area. Some green house gases, or emissions, have a higher amount of particles found within them. As it builds up, and the filter clogs, your home begins to smell less... fresh. Contaminated even. Of course, in a home, it's much easier to clean, or change the filter, than say that of the Ozone layer of the planet, or the re-planting of trees being cut down annually for human progress.

Add in "industrial toxins", as it were, in this case, we'll scale it down to cigarette smoke as a comparison (you don't actually have to smoke to see where I'm going with this.) there are 108 different chemicals in cigarettes, that are designed pollutants to your lungs, so we'll use that to represent, say, 108 different chemical pollutants in the air. They get mixed together in the air, combining the particle surface that absorbs heat, as well as poisons the air, which poisons the natural filter (clogging it), and contaminates the local fauna and plant life, reducing their life expectancy, and their ability to provide sustenance and impeding their ability to filter the air. The increase in particles that absorb and/or emit heat, will change the climate - it with either become colder in one area, and warmer in another, colder over-all, or warmer over-all.

Now, puncture a hole, or wear and tear happens as the house gets older, and suffers from the long term abuse of collective pollutants in a single area, causing deterioration in the insulating membrane (this could be windows, insulation, crumbling foundation, etc.) and it opens things up to an incredible amount of other factors to consider, in how the climate changes, and affects those dwelling in the environment.

Because of
1. They went full retard,
2. They have a financially vested interest (as do many proponents who politicize ANYTHING, not just climate change) in receiving funding, which eventually gets embezzled into other projects. Sometimes the only way to receive funding for other, more beneficial research,
3. I wanted to type something witty and clever, about not wanting to listen to dissenting opinions, but usually, it's already because of going full retard.

If there is an honest and open debate, both sides can agree, that there is still wasteful spending on proving/disproving climate change, and the effects it has on the various global ecologies and micro-ecologies which sustains the functions of the planet, and the species living on it.

Both sides, admittedly can agree that finding financially sound ways to keep the air and water (and thus our food sources) cleaner and healthier, is a good thing.

However, the biggest argument seen about global warming, coming from the "skeptics", and I use that quoted term loosely because the applicable group of people I am referring to, aren't actually skeptics that question the science, scientific method, or the general consensus, have also gone full retard. I say this, simply because the general referral happens to be "liberal this", "liberal that", or "liberal agenda keeping us in check", when really, any argument that starts off as an anti-political party rant, that doesn't even look at the science from their side, or more accurately, refuses to compare the science from both sides due to political affiliation, it isn't skepticism - it's HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE, and doesn't deserve to be part of the debate. Again, this also applies to both sides of the climate change argument.

There have been liberally affiliated scientists that have refused to be a part of the debate, because they don't believe in the scientific models, not the method, to test the theories being touted, as an accurate portrayal of the events, or believe there is no accurate model able to be designed by our current way of looking at climate change.

The closest analogy I could possibly give to global climate change, is this:

Take your house for example (yes it's a bad example, but humor me) freshly built, sufficiently insulated so no heat escapes, none gets in. Your ventilation system makes it so that the air continues to be fresh and filtered for years to come, assuming there are no unnecessary particles clogging or accumulating in the filtration system. All particles absorb thermal energy, that would be naturally found in the environment of your home. Of course, they would also reflect miniscule rays of light, and emit some of that thermal energy. Of course, each increase in total surface area would increase the amount of thermal energy being emitted into the environment as well. So it's not necessarily about the particular gas itself, but the concentration of particles absorbing, and re-emitting that stored energy in a greater surface area. Some green house gases, or emissions, have a higher amount of particles found within them. As it builds up, and the filter clogs, your home begins to smell less... fresh. Contaminated even. Of course, in a home, it's much easier to clean, or change the filter, than say that of the Ozone layer of the planet, or the re-planting of trees being cut down annually for human progress.

Add in "industrial toxins", as it were, in this case, we'll scale it down to cigarette smoke as a comparison (you don't actually have to smoke to see where I'm going with this.) there are 108 different chemicals in cigarettes, that are designed pollutants to your lungs, so we'll use that to represent, say, 108 different chemical pollutants in the air. They get mixed together in the air, combining the particle surface that absorbs heat, as well as poisons the air, which poisons the natural filter (clogging it), and contaminates the local fauna and plant life, reducing their life expectancy, and their ability to provide sustenance and impeding their ability to filter the air. The increase in particles that absorb and/or emit heat, will change the climate - it with either become colder in one area, and warmer in another, colder over-all, or warmer over-all.

Now, puncture a hole, or wear and tear happens as the house gets older, and suffers from the long term abuse of collective pollutants in a single area, causing deterioration in the insulating membrane (this could be windows, insulation, crumbling foundation, etc.) and it opens things up to an incredible amount of other factors to consider, in how the climate changes, and affects those dwelling in the environment.