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.
Probably true, but if even 1% of the yahoos reading this get nudged in the direction of evidence, the post was worth it.
The issue has taken on serious weight with the Trump administration's war on the EPA, so I'm not about to give up, nor are the scientists. This isn't like Creationism or Flat Earthism, which can be put in the crazy bin while not posing a direct threat to our future.
the one line response monkeys are hardly worth engaging. They come here to defecate on anything that might be considered vaguely center or left. in fact anything that is left of extremist right. One has only to view a few of their posts to see they offer nothing add nothing other than insult and ignorance to virtually every discussion .
it is easy to reject and shout down complex ideas, It is hard to use ones critical thinking skills and accept something new and different.
About maybe 15 years ago i did not agree with climate change. I had not put a lot of thought into it and it was super easy to just say "the science is not in yet". I no longer reject climate change because clearly the science is "IN". Those rejecting today are a mix of lazy thinkers , zealots and liars.
it really is that simple. Many here who say it is "bunk" are lying. they know it is not but refuse to admit it on a public forum. others are just fools or too lazy to actually look at the science. they often post the same handful of scientists that are well paid to disagree with the other 99%... because that is all they have , a couple of liars paid to lie and nothing more.
It's a worldwide conspiracy. Thankfully a small fraction of people in the USA have figured it out and are rebelling. Let's get those emissions back up to the max!
No doubt, you can easily explain how such eclipses are predicted.
Anyway, I enjoyed when a scientist tweeted such about 'why do the climate deniers readily accept that an eclipse will occur' (paraphrased).
So, people dislike, for political reasons, the science concerning the Greenhouse Effect (first predicted in 1824), but will accept science about upcoming eclipses.
I guess if Al Gore had predicted this eclipse back in the 1980s, pundits would have denied it.
There's a huge difference between the science of mathematics and AGW. Even you know that 2+2 will always equal 4.
The theory of AGW is not mathematics. If it was, we could predict the temperature of NYC on December 21, 2024 and then sit around and watch the mathematics in action.
The theory of AGW has been adjusted on dozens of occasions. The only mathematical fact is that there has been a slight increase in temperatures over the last 50 years. Mathematically temps have stabilized over the last decade. The "why" has not been proven. While there is some evidence that points to CO2, there is equal evidence of normal warming due to orbital anomaly.
Using your eclipse analogy, we can graph the long term temps including the proxy data and conclude that in 8700 years Manhattan will be under a sheet of ice again. That's a mathematical fact.
Few if any people are questioning how scientists know exactly when the 2017 eclipse will occur at locations along its track, the width of the shadow, and the historical knowledge that lead to such calculations. They are not being blamed for the eclipse so they have no political or economic reasons to question the science. It's not layman's stuff you can pick up by listening to some talk show host yell for 15 minutes. The staff at Fox News has no idea how to create an accurate map like this, or the computers it's plotted on: https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/d...map/index.html
Anti-intellectuals (typically Republicans) cherry-pick "bad" science when it suits them, but trust it the majority of the time because they have no interest in doing the work on their own. Same deal with a rube who rolls coal on bicyclists with his diesel truck but would never have invented such an engine.
"If you respect and honor the scientists who did this work, then spare another moment to think about the scientists whose work is under attack today, and why."
That author is being polite to millions of selectively-ignorant people who populate this country. Of course, they'll claim that understanding climate change is vastly "different" than understanding the movement of planets, since they have little interest in understanding the scientific method.
It's also interesting that Trump is getting the worst flak of his Presidency over his Nazi apologetics, yet his denial of AGW and weakening of pollution controls will cause far more future harm. Both issues say a lot about the people who voted for him.
If we go to eclipse science websites, we do not, unlike the IPCC website, see references to income inequality and gender inequality and redistribution of wealth. We don't see that. So there is no reason to question that type of science.
AGW science, however, is political science. We see that because nearly every climate scientist is also down with hating Capitalism, freedom, and individual rights. We see mention on so many climate sites of solutions that involve stripping away individual rights, mandating the behavior of men, and dealing with income inequality, social justice crap, gender inequality, and other such nonsense.
So eclipse science is true science and should be respected.
Climate science is social science and political science and should be questioned very carefully.
Eclipse science is without agendas.
Climate science is consumed by agendas.
I hope I have explained this to your satisfaction. But there remains within me an inking of doubt.
If we go to eclipse science websites, we do not, unlike the IPCC website, see references to income inequality and gender inequality and redistribution of wealth. We don't see that. So there is no reason to question that type of science.
AGW science, however, is political science. We see that because nearly every climate scientist is also down with hating Capitalism, freedom, and individual rights. We see mention on so many climate sites of solutions that involve stripping away individual rights, mandating the behavior of men, and dealing with income inequality, social justice crap, gender inequality, and other such nonsense.
So eclipse science is true science and should be respected.
Climate science is social science and political science and should be questioned very carefully.
Eclipse science is without agendas.
Climate science is consumed by agendas.
I hope I have explained this to your satisfaction. But there remains within me an inking of doubt.
Well you know, NASA put out a lot of information about the eclipse, and everybody knows that NASA is part of the AGW conspiracy. So I say we should be skeptical about eclipse science.
Humans expel Co2 and burn fuels. The world's human population has increased 5 fold in the past 100 or so years, so it would be obvious that Co2 levels have risen.
Maybe if certain groups would stop breeding like rabbits it would help the situation. Nuking the middle east would help too .
The medieval warming period was not global, nor was it warmer than today.
It may be 0.03C lower than the early to mid 20th Century that's the official line. However regionally Temps did match even exceed current regional temperatures. For instance the Sargasso was 1C warmer 950-1250 than currently. During the following LIA it fell to 1C cooler than currently.
Further it's kind of hard to determine overall temperatures, since the MWP is seen everywhere from trees and ice cores in New Zealand and Antarctica to mollusk shells in Iceland. Do we base annual average global temperature on anomalous highs, or lows, or an average of averages? If the Sargasso was 1C higher than currently then the implication is that for an extended period enough temperature rise existed to raise sea temperatures in that area by 50% higher than between say 1500 and now, that temperature can't have been localized, but at very least across the entire North Atlantic.
While I'm not saying we're not experiencing a climate variance, not even disputing CO2 as a contributing factor, what do you think a climate effect like the MWP that raised those sea temperatures would have based on our current atmospheric composition including the increase in CH4 and CO2, with the meteorological sensor networks we have now would be interpreted? Would we egotistically think we caused it? Or logically question it's cause? It's very easy to fall into the Post Hoc fallacy that Temps are up, CO2 is up, we burn and produce CO2 and Methane, both are GHG's so we're the cause. I'm not convinced we are the cause, that does not mean that we should belch out billions of tons of CO2 and Methane and other pollutants, indeed it's better sense to reduce them. However if we decide to, let's reduce them, let's not run political circuses that show how much the world is doing while achieving little (because world annual emissions still keep climbing) but actually reduce emissions globally, not because of a belief we're damaging the climate, but because it's the right thing to do.
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.
