The Science Is Settled: Man Made Climate Change Is Now A Proven Fact (economy, vs)

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by Matadora

Why do you think moving into alternative energy sources creates poverty?

This is the most nonsensical statement I've ever read.

Care to help us understand how you come to such an odd conclusion?

where did you read it and what does it have to do with me?

Maybe you can tell us how switching to more expensive sources of energy wont lower standards of living?

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

where did you read it and what does it have to do with me?

You stated it.

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Why should we be made poorer today on predictions that have been made before (and been wrong) since as of right now the evidence shows crop production up, lifespans are up and poverty is down.

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Maybe you can tell us how switching to more expensive sources of energy wont lower standards of living?

First answer my question from the previous post. Why do you think moving into alternative energy sources creates poverty?

Next explain what "more expensive sources of energy" you're referring to and how this is going to lower the standards of living?

Your claims are simply not based on reality.

The true cost of fossil fuels

[montydean]

Originally Posted by Leo58

Can you explain, please?

Race is a social construct. People have varying degrees of melanin in their skin, but there is no clear division, no test that can say "this person is black and this person is white". Scientists agree that race is not a useful biological category.

Scientists also agree that man-made climate change is happening. So what do you mean by "selective use of science"?

The races (breeds is actually a more accurate term but for the sake of this discussion) began in Africa then evolved separate and apart based on where each group stayed. This occurred for tens of thousands of years and is the reason why whites, Asians and blacks act as they do and look as they do. It’s genetic and DNA based. Further each race has been studied and shown to have different skull size, brain size, organ size etc... I recommend you read Hart- History of People (title is something like this) or check out humanbiodiversity.com
which has a lot of information. And no, to respond to what you wrote, scientists do not agree that there is no race and it’s not useful to study. Not sure why you say that. Take for example medical examinations which weight a persons race very heavily in diagnosis.

The idea that race is a social construct is a myth petprated by liberals to construct a non-racist world. Which is a noble cause. The problem is that science easily contradicts this. Further when liberals force feed these lies they make people question what else they are lying about - ie climate change.

[KS_Referee]

Originally Posted by Matadora

What does this have to do with the link and the fact that you missed the point of the NASA link?
Um when did I claim what you are ascribing to me?

FYI since you brought it up.
Scientific scrutiny

Climate Science research indeed scrutinized as is all science research. So what's your point?

I read the nonsensical link you provided to Berkeley's "social side of science" and all I can do is laugh even though it is anything but funny. You do realize that social science is NOT hard science, rather it is consensus based politics.



While many of the science disciplines used to create climate science are very scientific and their specific science's theoretical conclusions can withstand scientific scrutiny, modern climate science which claims to be able to predict climate 10, 20, 50, 100 years out or more is NOT hard science, it is AT BEST theoretical science, more likely attempts at divination or prophecy (seeing into the future) and at worst, given YOUR link in an attempt to redefine scientific scrutiny, pseudo or JUNK science which seeks to drive social policy (politics) via theoretical models and not a single one has been correct at projecting 10, 20 or more years out, much less 100 or more years.


I'm retired from a hard science, electrical engineering. In my field we relied upon reproducible advanced math, physics, strength and properties of materials, and so much more, all of which must be reproducible science, but is not static as our field has learned a LOT in the past 50, 30 and even 10 to 15 years as the existing science gets challenged and is upgraded to more sound science.


Even on the "science" of electrical earth grounding, I have argued for over 30 years, due to my amateur radio experience, that the typical 8' ground rod is terribly insufficient at providing a proper ground. Every person that I helped install an antenna or tower, I pushed hard for them to let me install 40' deep or more ground rod. Low and behold, in 2011 the NEC changed the rules on ground rods, requiring they have a maximum resistance of 25 ohms. In order to achieve the low resistance, the rod typically needs to be 4' to 8' below the permanent water line (water table). This new concept on grounding was ground breaking science and was completely new to what builders, electricians and electrical engineers were taught since the beginning of electrical standards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg6G5VUSsWA


So even with electrical earth grounding, something we thought we, as several industries, KNEW to be true, we had to change as the science was challenged and changed. This is also the case with ALL science in order for it to be called science. It MUST withstand actual scientific scrutiny, not the social science (political) consensus tripe being pushed by some universities today in their attempt to push a political agenda via theoretical supposed science. One thing is certain, scientific scrutiny was NOT defined the way Berkeley's "social side of science" has tried to redefine it.


But then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by DCMann2

OK? You know this topic is about anthropogenic climate change. Don't be obtuse thinking you're being clever.

There is no such thing as ACC. Look at the graph I posted charting 4+ billion years of the earth's CO2 levels vs. ΔT.

Perhaps science isn't your "thing."

[Raddo]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

There is no such thing as ACC. Look at the graph I posted charting 4+ billion years of the earth's CO2 levels vs. ΔT.

Perhaps science isn't your "thing."

To make such a matter-of-fact statement shows you are just as bad as the alarmists. You are just as close-minded as they are.

Extremists on both sides are the main problem. You are part of it.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by KS_Referee

I read the nonsensical link you provided to Berkeley's "social side of science" and all I can do is laugh even though it is anything but funny.

Of course that's all you can do. You have no science understanding and it's clear to anyone who reads your rubbish and confusion.

Originally Posted by KS_Referee

You do realize that social science is NOT hard science, rather it is consensus based politics.

LOL the link is not about social science...it's about the peer review process explained at a basic level. I chose that link because you appear to have zero understanding on science...especially. I was trying to make it easy for you but it went right over your head.

Scientific scrutiny

You have completely embarrassed yourself.

Originally Posted by KS_Referee

I'm retired from a hard science, electrical engineering.

OMG I've heard it all now. No EE is not a hard science degree. My brother holds duel degrees in EE and Astrophysics.

His Astrophysics degree is considered a hard science not his EE degree.

I hold 3 degrees in the hard sciences. It's clear you have no clue what is considered the hard sciences.

Originally Posted by KS_Referee

In my field we relied upon reproducible advanced math, physics, strength and properties of materials, and so much more, all of which must be reproducible science, but is not static as our field has learned a LOT in the past 50, 30 and even 10 to 15 years as the existing science gets challenged and is upgraded to more sound science.

So what? An EE degree is not a hard science.

The hard sciences are considered to be courses in the Natural Sciences. EE is not a Natural Science degree.

Natural science

I hold 3 Natural Science degrees.


Come back when you know what you're talking about.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Raddo

To make such a matter-of-fact statement shows you are just as bad as the alarmists.

Nope. If ACC (anthropogenic climate change) was really an issue, that would show up in the scientific data of CO2 levels vs. ΔT. It doesn't.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

where did you read it and what does it have to do with me?

Maybe you can tell us how switching to more expensive sources of energy wont lower standards of living?

What more expensive energy sources are you talking about?

[Raddo]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Nope. If ACC (anthropogenic climate change) was really an issue, that would show up in the scientific data of CO2 levels vs. ΔT. It doesn't.

WRONG.

To believe that shows you have a very shallow understanding of all the factors at play, so you've left dozens of them out of your equations. Although I know you don't know enough about science to use equations when coming up with your hypotheses anyway.

There is much more to it than one chart that you seem to hang your hat on.

For you to dismiss any other possibilities so quickly, like you do in every post you make about this, proves my point about your close-minded attitude.