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.
It will eventually cool down. These things have cycles you know.
Not worried about it.
When it comes to taking your opinion or the opinion of the vast majority of scientists who have the education and experience, and study this stuff on a daily basis, to make a qualified assessment on AGW, I think I will side with the scientific community. It is the reason we have Universities to train and educate people to become scientists - we then rely on them to analyze complex situations and come up with well founded recommendations. And they have. If you choose to ignore it, that is your prerogative.
When it comes to taking your opinion or the opinion of the vast majority of scientists who have the education and experience, and study this stuff on a daily basis, to make a qualified assessment on AGW, I think I will side with the scientific community. It is the reason we have Universities to train and educate people to become scientists - we then rely on them to analyze complex situations and come up with well founded recommendations. And they have. If you choose to ignore it, that is your prerogative.
The utter ignorance of the above statement, which is often trotted out in these debates, never ceases to amaze me!
Do you SERIOUSLY think that science is done in a vacuum that is divorced from politics?
Why do people think science can be bought and corrupted when they accuse oil companies of doing it but refuse to think that NASA or these other government agencies and scientists are not influenced by politics, activism or an agenda?
I really get sick of how this issue keeps being presented in black and white terms, where it's noble scientists fighting for the planet versus the greedy capitalists who want to protect their profits!
The reality is that any politics, activism, ego and greed affect scientists on BOTH sides of this issue!
Google "Climategate" where emails from these scientists where hacked and they showed scientists manipulating data and seeking to silence critics by ruining their careers. The "investigation" that was conducted in it's wake was an utter FARCE! The very same guilty organizations were allowed to investigate themselves and *surprise* found nothing wrong.
Yes climate change is real and we need to clean up the environment and find cleaner energy.
I'm not denying that.
What I am saying is there are good scientists working who are skeptical of this and there are good scientists who are worried about it.
There are also scientists on BOTH sides who let politics, activism, ego and greed influence the science they conduct. Many don't have a choice! Good luck finding funding for your work if you announce findings that are skeptical of the current alarmism.
When it comes to taking your opinion or the opinion of the vast majority of scientists who have the education and experience, and study this stuff on a daily basis, to make a qualified assessment on AGW, I think I will side with the scientific community. It is the reason we have Universities to train and educate people to become scientists - we then rely on them to analyze complex situations and come up with well founded recommendations. And they have. If you choose to ignore it, that is your prerogative.
Feel free to gnash your teeth, fret impotently, while life goes on regardless of what people do.
"MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has ridiculed the ‘hottest year’ claims. “The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree. When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record, what are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said. “If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree.”
Two satellite datasets agree: The Pause lives on: ‘No warming for the last 18 years’
RSS Confirm 2016 Is Tied With 1998 As Warmest Year
the margin of error is 0.1C, so statistically 2016 is tied with 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record. The fact that there has been no warming for the last 18 years is a massive blow to the credibility of climate science.
Assuming you are correct, does it just happen like sunrise and high tide, those we can explain.
Last edited by Goodnight; 01-18-2017 at 06:20 PM..
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.
