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 above link is an example of how misguided your "belief" in consensus is. If we were to worship at the altar of your fallacy, we would never expand our knowledge. Science is not a consensus, and to appeal to such is actual stupidity.
When all your experts can tell me what the optimum temperature of the earth should be then get back to me.
lol. There is no optimum temperature, the climate needs balance. The climate (including humidity, radiation, salt levels in the ocean, gulf stream, co2 output, etc etc is a lot more complicated than setting a thermostat, but im sure thats why you have no idea what youre talking about
The above link is an example of how misguided your "belief" in consensus is. If we were to worship at the altar of your fallacy, we would never expand our knowledge. Science is not a consensus, and to appeal to such is actual stupidity.
Nice source, did your daughter make that website?
Science has no altar. It isnt a fallacious religion, as much as you zealots wish it were.
And yes, science is consensus, that doesnt mean it cant change. Thats the beauty of science, adjusting theories when new evidence is gathered, not stubbornly clinging to the same idea for two millenia.
Then how can they say it's warmer than it should be if they don't know what the optimum temperature is? What are they basing their nonsense off? Their arse? Yep that's what I think.
What is the optimum salt level in the ocean? Optimum co2 in the atmosphere etc. etc. etc.
You can't answer and neither can they but by golly it's warmer today than yesterday so run for the hills. lol
Then how can they say it's warmer than it should be if they don't know what the optimum temperature is? What are they basing their nonsense off? Their arse? Yep that's what I think.
What is the optimum salt level in the ocean? Optimum co2 in the atmosphere etc. etc. etc.
You can't answer and neither can they but by golly it's warmer today than yesterday so run for the hills. lol
Im smart enough to know I cant answer some of these questions, since like you, im no climatologist.
However, its very simple why warming will be bad. Increased CO2 levels cause warming in the atmosphere, which causes ice to melt, particularly in the Arctic. Higher sea levels dont only mean flooding, the desalinization of the ocean causes currents, and in turn weather patterns, to change. I dont have numbers for you, but theres a ripple effect. Its not as simple as you are.
Science has no altar. It isnt a fallacious religion, as much as you zealots wish it were.
And yes, science is consensus, that doesnt mean it cant change. Thats the beauty of science, adjusting theories when new evidence is gathered, not stubbornly clinging to the same idea for two millenia.
What the hell do you think consensus is? Seriously, what are you? A liberal arts graduate?
Consensus means taking the opinion of a group as validity. Science is a process of verification, validation, and replication.
The article I gave you, if you read it, shows how out of a consensus two scientists had different ideas as to what causes an ulcer. The "consensus" refused to accept that the cause could be from bacteria. The consensus is "stubbornly clinging to the same idea".
Did you even read the article? I mean, you appear to have not as your response looks rather stupid in the face of it as evidence in the discussion.
Please, for the sake of not continuing that trend and for the sake of actually being more than a mindless automaton, read and think! /boggle
Im smart enough to know I cant answer some of these questions, since like you, im no climatologist.
However, its very simple why warming will be bad. Increased CO2 levels cause warming in the atmosphere, which causes ice to melt, particularly in the Arctic. Higher sea levels dont only mean flooding, the desalinization of the ocean causes currents, and in turn weather patterns, to change. I dont have numbers for you, but theres a ripple effect. Its not as simple as you are.
No but they are and they can't answer em either. Your co2 nonsense is just that. If anything warming will be a good thing. I like to fish up in Minnesota. If it weren't for warming glaciers would still be covering that place. You sky is falling loons will destroy the planet before saving it with your dumping iron into the ocean and man made volcanoes and whatever other nonsense these loons come up with to get funding. It's pure insanity.
Science has no altar. It isnt a fallacious religion, as much as you zealots wish it were.
And yes, science is consensus, that doesnt mean it cant change. Thats the beauty of science, adjusting theories when new evidence is gathered, not stubbornly clinging to the same idea for two millenia.
That is a nice statement you made here... however, my problem with what you are saying is reality.
Take for instance the most recent peer reviewed bit of science that came out a few weeks ago...
A well-known scientist, who has worked with the likes of Michael Mann etc., published a Peer Reviewed paper indicating that modern warming is substantially higher than at any point in the current Optimum.
That would be quite worrisome to anyone who follows climate science and especially the CAGW debate.
This paper was written by a well-respected member of the scientific community, he is a man who believes that man caused global warming is real, and a very serious problem. His paper was peer reviewed with little notation and the published worked was signed off on by a number of very credible scientists who all agree in CAGW.
Your statement above would lead one to think that would end the debate. However….
Once the paper was published, other people who are not believers in CAGW but who are hard scientists got ahold of the data. They shredded the paper. Dozens of problems were discovered, any number of which should have been found in peer review and anyone one of which would have been enough to prevent the paper from being published. Data was inverted, time series were shifted, and instrumental records were spliced onto proxy data without notation (a very big, very serious no-no in the science of Palio-Climatology). The paper is balderdash and isn’t worth the paper it was printed on. Its only value was to give a headline to those who are pushing for a Big Government political solution. It isn’t science.
This is what we on the skeptical side keep pointing out over and over again. You guys keep pretending the “science” is settled, but your settlers are lying their tails off and producing shoddy work that gets slapped down time and time again.
Peer Review has become a serious joke. Michael Mann and Phil Jones and others are ON RECORD as going after any Scientific Journal that is willing to publish papers that do not toe the party line. Peer Review has become a slap on the back to the Believers and it has become a roadblock to any paper that does not point to dire consequences if CO2 is not dealt with.
You might consider doing some research on what happens to your science once the light of day is shined on it. research Yamal and Taljander. It is eye opening.
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.
