They aren't SCIENCE deniers, they're GREED deniers (environmentalists, rating, elect)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is it settled, because obama said it was settled? What good is a carbon tax going to do? You need to think about who and what gets that carbon tax money first.
I see now. So if you don't buy into the whole global warming thing, you are now labelled (by the left) as not just a global warming denier but a science denier? Geeezzz.......
Don't you just think it's common sense. Look at all the pollution we put upon this planet. How can it not affect it.
Peoples exhibit A that man and his activities has an effect on the environment are Mesopotamia, The Levant, the Magreb, The Niger River basin above the junction with the Benue River, the Indus River Valley and the Yellow River basin. All of these places where locals where man invented agricuture and domesticated plants and animals. If you go there todayit would be almost impossible to do that today because the soils have eroded and many have large levels of salt, arsenic and selenium all toxic to man.
Most pf the areas are desert-like if not meeting the WMO definition ofa sesert hence do not have the soil moisture to grow crops even ones originally developed there. All these areas are no longer the edens of mythology.
Colder winter temps means higher heating bills and on top of that they've raised heating costs by shutting down more economical coal fired power plants. So while they're still beating a dead horse about global warming, they'll be gouging citizens who have to struggle to keep warm.
Next it will be "smaller homes are less expensive to heat, you have to downsize" while they buy ever larger mansions in multiple locations.
We're not supposed to eat meat, live in large homes, drive large cars, eat fatty foods or drink sugary drinks or own guns and yet the 1% feel its fine if they do.
Just tell the 1% and the government to mind their own business and to ****.
well said. and that is the problem, the top 1% want the control that the warmers want to give to the government, and they will get it too, because the government will give it to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BullochResident
Why is Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite the fact that Mercury is closer to the sun? It's accepted among many in the science community that CO2 is capable of trapping heat.
very true,but venus is also a planet that never really cooled either. it changes its surface completely every so often, and its liquid core is far thicker than that of the earth.
very true,but venus is also a planet that never really cooled either. it changes its surface completely every so often, and its liquid core is far thicker than that of the earth.
I think you know this, but just to be clear (in case there is someone somewhere who doesn't know it): I'm fairly certain that you won't find any scientist anywhere in the world who would seriously try to argue that CO2 doesn't trap heat. THAT part of the science of climate change is, indeed, "settled". (In the sense that a great deal of chemistry is settled, e.g., chemists don't debate the number of electron's in the outer shell of an oxygen atom, etc.) The question is not whether CO2 can trap heat. The questions arise from the fact that there are a lot of other factors to consider in climate, other than just the well-understood fact that CO2 can trap heat.
Faith is far easier than science because Faith is Certain and science, based on observation, is not.
Faith does not require confirmation, just belief. Faith really is easier.
To people like me Faith is not enough. I do not trust what some Priest, Madge or Politician says. I trust what has been observed and discussed by many trained and intelligent observers and reported for all to see and criticize.
Faith is far easier than science because Faith is Certain and science, based on observation, is not.
Faith does not require confirmation, just belief. Faith really is easier.
To people like me Faith is not enough. I do not trust what some Priest, Madge or Politician says. I trust what has been observed and discussed by many trained and intelligent observers and reported for all to see and criticize.
100% correct.
So how do you feel about the "it is settled science so quit arguing" tactic? Seems to me to be another side of the same well worn coin.
This post contained a long list of claims, but I've picked this one to serve as an example. Instead of just making a claim, you should look to see what climatologists have said in response. (Hopefully all of you realize that, for every claim made against the reality of global warming, climatologists have responded.) Your job is to understand the response made by scientists, and then to show us why their response is inadequate.
BTW, this "skepticalscience" site is maintained by a scientist and it is an easy "one-stop-shopping" site for responses to the anti-AGW claims. It lists all of the major arguments and gives links to scientific references. In other words, this site makes it easy to find the arguments that you need to respond to if want to say something useful in the AGW debate.
General rule: If you want to make an anti-AGW claim, go to this site [ Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says ] and find out what scientists have said in response to your claim. Then, you can respond to the arguments, and hopefully include links to some science that supports your views. (Notice the difference: In the quote above, Workingclasshero is simply making a claim. This accomplishes almost nothing. But if you follow my general rule, you will be responding to some fairly good scientific arguments and data. Hopefully you will also offer some links to other scientific sources to support your claim. This is a far better use of everyone's time.)
This is basically the trouble with the AGW argument. One side say's "it's all about the science, and all these studies and details prove that we are right" -- and then neglect to consider that the details do not necessarily prove what they claim.
THAT is why I was making such a big deal of the infamous treatment of Dr. Bengtsson in that other thread - he appears to understand the intellectual honesty that is absolutely required in the practice of scientific inquiry, and understand it far better than 97% of climate scientists. The correct answer to his criticisms of numerical modeling is to acknowledge the weaknesses and work to improve the models - or abandon them entirely in favor of newer and more accurate ones when they come along. The absolutely incorrect and unscientific answer is to circle the wagons and shun the man as "not helpful".
When science becomes the cudgel of politicians who screech "We must act NOW, before it's too late", it must then also become 100% correct, which is simply not possible. AGW has become that cudgel.
Science is not about consensus, science is about coming to an understanding of what we observe. It is not about making long term predictions in order to set public policy. It is not capable of doing that.
The current AGW crowd is about as scientific as the Creation Science crowd - there is actually some interesting genetic work going on there, but understanding is hampered by the desire to prove a preconceived notion - the notion that "God did it", in a nutshell.
Now the weakness of the climate skeptic position is that they are basically trying to prove a negative, which is not possible either. The parallels drawn to the abortion debate are elegant proof that none of the AGW discussions here are about science at all - they are about public policy decisions, regulation, power, and taxation.
Yes, never doubt scientists! They have us DDT, Agent Orange and predicted we would be in an ice age by now 30 years ago! How can anyone doubt their hair brained ideas about the Earth?
Yes, never doubt scientists! They have us DDT, Agent Orange and predicted we would be in an ice age by now 30 years ago! How can anyone doubt their hair brained ideas about the Earth?
They also brought you many modern conveniences - cell phones, refrigerated food, pasteurization, antibiotics, tv and the internet, literally countless others.... on the balance human existence is vastly improved by scientific research and the engineering advancements that follow it.
The science isn't hair brained, it's the idiots we elect and the idiots we watch on tv that are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.