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.
That post was to disprove the denier's myth that warming stopped 18 years ago]
“the observed global-mean surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.”
“the observed global-mean surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.”
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Nobody who says "the science is settled" has any idea what the scientific method is either. Let's see, who was it again that says that? Oh, that's right - the AGW folks.
So what is YOUR understanding of the scientific method.
No one who is a denier has even attempted to answer that question. Do you want to be the first?
So why do you keep calling it a "denier's myth" that the warming has stopped or "paused"? The IPCC admits it, NASA admits it and they are all scrambling to find excuses for it to reconcile with their alarmist predictions.
Maybe we can start referring to you and your ilk as "climate pause deniers"!
So what is YOUR understanding of the scientific method.
No one who is a denier has even attempted to answer that question. Do you want to be the first?
I'll take a stab at it as skeptic...
If a theory proposes that the Earth's temperature will rise if man keeps emitting CO2 and for the past 18 years there has been less warming despite the same level or increased emissions, the scientifically sound course would be to re examine your theory, in light of new evidence, not keep proceeding as if it were correct and the missing heat was "hiding" somewhere.
The AGW, alarmist crowd uses the scientific theory in REVERSE! You START from a given premise, search for any evidence that supports it, toss out or marginalize any evidence that doesn't and hail your findings as the ONLY possible conclusion. If anyone dares raise any skepticism they are pejoratively referred to as "deniers".
It's your choice not to read the relevant literature and educate yourself. It's your choice to take an ideological conspiracy-based stance on the science rather than an evidence-based stance.
Actually there is plenty of evidence of corruption, from the climategate emails to skeptical scientists who claim an environment of bias in the scientific community. The response by you and your ilk is conspiracy-based stance that any skeptic has been paid off by big oil and COULDN'T POSSIBLY have reached their conclusions on their own.
You don't get to claim that the pro AGW scientists are all honest and the skeptics are all corrupt. If there is corruption in science and if science can be influenced by politics, activism, dogma and greed then it is naive and stupid to think that only the scientists who you disagree with are guilty of it.
And exactly what about that indicates that human activity was involved?
Nothing. But the AGW alarmists don't care. If the climate is changing it has to be man's fault because the science is settled as Al Gore likes to say (on the way to the bank).
FWIW - I do have a bachelors degree in Environmental Science. I have worked in that field for almost 40 years. I have observed the climate I have lived in for way more than 60 years. My observations indicate the climate is warming in the New England. My readings in the field have led me to the same conclusion. As there are no other explanations for the increase such as solar changes or orbital dynamics to explain the changes I am left to conclude that discharging previously sequestered Carbon, in the form of Carbon dioxide from burning coal, is the primary cause of those temperature change. Thus it seems to me that eliminating the burning of coal would stabilize the climate or even reverse the direction of the change.
Aside from the economics of providing a market for the owners of the coal deposits It makes sense to stop polluting our common atmosphere for the profit of the few at the potential expense of the many. There is a way to provide all the electricity and heat our economy requires without burning any coal. Reducing metals from their ore is one of the few exceptions to not requiring coal combustion.
So I propose that the world, not just the developed countries, stop burning coal for energy.
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.
