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.
The climate has been relatively stable for the last 10,000 years of human civilization, when we developed agriculture and formed organized communities. Now we are throwing that stability out the window by pumping trillions of tons of heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere and drastically changing our environment. Our populations are starting to feel the stress of this with extreme heat waves, drought, floods, fires, storms, etc which will only continue to get worse as time goes on if we continue business as usual.
10,000 years ago, the Sahara Desert was a lush, green savanna... sh*t (and climate change) happens!
The peer review process is thoroughly flawed, as has been well documented. Here is a link to one such report published by the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and the NIH:
Okay, so your an isolationist, you don't want studies and research to be under the scrutiny of peers. How convenient. How great it would be to make claims that can't be scrutinized by others and claim them as truth and fact. Oh wait....sounds like the current President and his war on the press.
So I'll play your game....let's ignore the peer-review system, then tell me where are all these climate denial scientists and where is all their research showing that current warming is natural??
I believe that deniers are under the influence of the Dunning-Kruger effect...The effect is a type of cognitive bias, where people with little expertise or ability assume they have superior expertise or ability. This overestimation occurs as a result of the fact that they don’t have enough knowledge to know they don’t have enough knowledge.
So when do you get your PhD in Climate Science?
How many of the climate scientists make their living proving climate change?
How many climate scientists who don't make their money from grants are taking a position that climate change is man-made?
"In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.
So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue."
One pound of methane traps 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than a pound of carbon dioxide. When you get around to murdering all the cows in the world and capping volcanoes maybe then we can talk about carbon tax.
"In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.
So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue."
One pound of methane traps 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than a pound of carbon dioxide. When you get around to murdering all the cows in the world and capping volcanoes maybe then we can talk about carbon tax.
Are climate scientists and scientists in general suppose to work for free? By the way, the Fraser Institute is a Canadian right-wing think-tank. And as usual, you dig deeper into these claims and you find out it's been greatly distorted. The American Meteorological Society did a new study and found out 96% of it's members agree with the reality of man-made climate change. https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP...RR9lW0HjZaiVV3
I believe that deniers are under the influence of the Dunning-Kruger effect...The effect is a type of cognitive bias, where people with little expertise or ability assume they have superior expertise or ability. This overestimation occurs as a result of the fact that they don’t have enough knowledge to know they don’t have enough knowledge.
"Deniers" is a politically oriented term that alarmists constantly use to try to insult, denigrate and de-legitimize people who disagree with them for the purpose of trying to stifle discussion and the expression of dissenting viewpoints on this topic.
The term “deniers” is what people who have denied the holocaust are commonly referred to – as in “holocaust deniers”. By using this term, the AGW alarmists are collectively trying to associate people who have doubts and concerns about this alarmist movement with Adolph Hitler and his murderous campaign against the Jews.
Each and every time they do this, they are invoking Godwin's law, which states that if a discussion goes on long enough, it will eventually devolve to a point where comparisons to the Nazis are made, and whoever invoked the Nazis reference automatically loses whatever debate was in progress.
Since the common leftist name-calling slurs, including "Racist," "Bigot," "Homophobe," "Sexist," and "Misogynist" are clearly out of place here, they had to dig down deep to come up with an insult that was at least as vile and hateful as these other appellations are. The comparison with Hitler and the Nazis is what they have collectively agreed upon.
So these are the tactics that the left has devolved to here.
Do you know who funds NOAA? They are the people doing the bulk of climate research in your country, but right now they are part of the government shutdown.....Are you calling them Progressive, liberals, communists?
No, that's what I'm calling YOU. You want to talk science? Well, tell what comes first: rising temps, or rising CO2 levels? That correlation has not been defined as you warmists present the "problem".
I'm a reasonable person....it's easy to look around the globe and suggest that the human population will continue to grow despite climate change.
It's just that our world will become more of a sewer. Hey, wanna be like India?
There will eventually be competition for resources and drier land. This generally means war.
No one can predict the future. But we CAN look at the data of the past and present.
It's you (types) that seem to be the deniers....
Predictions are just that....predictions. Many of the predictions have already ended up being WAY on the low side, for example sea level rise (see recent articles). At present rates they are now talking in FEET - say from a low of 2 feet to a high of 17 feet or more. I can't do the geography now, but my thought is that would affect billions of people and untold 100's of TRILLIONS of dollars.
And all because you want a 18 MPG SUV instead of an electric car?
It doesn't make sense, but as scientists know.....getting people to care AT ALL about what happens long after they are dead is difficult.
I'll tell you this much. Here in "conservative, Red and Republican governed" Florida, the government and planning agencies and builders and investors and everyone else is taking it really seriously. Really.
You can tell us they are all crazy if you like. But consider who might be right and who may be wrong......do I believe someone who gets their "data" from blogs and hate radio and TV...or from government, planning commissions, developers, scientists, meterologists, etc......
I'll have to think hard. One of them must have superior data.
Politicians in general....and the left in particular......have been caught lying so many times in the past.
WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE YOU NOW ?
Okay, so your an isolationist, you don't want studies and research to be under the scrutiny of peers. How convenient. How great it would be to make claims that can't be scrutinized by others and claim them as truth and fact. Oh wait....sounds like the current President and his war on the press.
So I'll play your game....let's ignore the peer-review system, then tell me where are all these climate denial scientists and where is all their research showing that current warming is natural??
The peer review process would be great if it were thorough, consistent and not corrupt. As it stands, it needs to be taken with a large spoonful of salt.
In fact, anything that comes down to "we just have to trust them," whether it be in science, or politics, or anything, should be regarded with skepticism. People need to think for themselves and not just abandon their thinking functions to a professional class that is not nearly as knowledgeable or trustworthy as some people would have everyone believe that they 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.
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.
