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.
IF that is the case, and IF it is spread through that ENTIRE field, it won't last forever, because eventually reality will clash with the research and it will have to be revised. These kinds of things just take some time to shake out.
well... that's kinda what this thread is about isn't it?
what I do know is that there is no statistical trend in global ACE over the satellite era, there has been no trend in tornado activity since the 1950s with the exception of the increasing technological ability to find F1 tornadoes. and for the last 50+ years there has been no trend at all in global hydrology.
those are verifiable facts that can be found in the peer reviewed record. yet global alarmism is the watchword of the day.
You can take it however you like but you are still wrong.
People say "97% consensus" as a way of bullying people with opposing viewpoints into submission.
"Gee 97% is a BIG number...if THAT many people think X than X must be true!!"
Except it isn't. I'm damn tired of professional contrarians, as most climate change deniers are. At this point, they literally have nothing meaningful to support their position except their sense of self-worth is tied up in the right-wing extremism of the Republican party, and they feel they must follow the far-right on everything, no matter how stupid. So, they deny basic science and offer nothing creditable when it comes to their reasons for denial.
Too many people out there - mostly on the far right these days - believe that if the majority of experts in a field support a position, it must be wrong. This is willful ignorance and a form of stupidity since if we apply the same "logic" of climate deniers to everything else, those same people should believe in everything from a flat earth to diseases are caused by evil spirits since the vast majority of scientists also rightly discredit those positions as well.
Science is reality, not belief or partisan nonsense, and basic science, as well as of years of data, make two facts quite clear:
- The climate is changing, so we need to adapt
- Some of that change is caused by human actions, so we should try to curtail those actions.
Nearly every major extinction event in earth's history or collapse of a civilization has been caused by climate change of some sort; it is foolish and utterly irresponsible of the people on the far right to continue to deny reality just so they can score political points and feel "smarter than all those dumb scientists who actually understand the data."
So you actually believe that if there are people who don't BELIEVE as you do, that the climate gods will be angry and warm the eath sooner and faster????
right out of the inca /aztec belief system, a non believe shall be shunned or killed because faith in the gods has been questioned.
the deniers believe, they believe government intervention is a hoax.
The climate is always changing, so let's look down the road a bit further and be concerned about the global cooling that will take place after the gloabl warming.
The dynamic earth goes through heating and cooling cycles. Are you not farsighteed enough to be concerned about gloabl cooling????
Weaponized science is no longer science. Science no longer exists if it is not challenged.
The same people who can't get the food pyramid right have an uncanny ability to predict the the impact and schedule of climate change. Using the same modeling, they couldn't even predict what the claimate was one hundered years ago.
If science (and scientists) can be corrupted or influenced for the sake of oil interests wny is it so hard to believe that it can be corrupted or influenced when BILLIONS of dollars of research funding are predicated on their being an immediate crisis?
It doesn't have to be some secret conspiracy, it's the realization that scientists do not exist in a vacuum, they are influenced by politics, funding realities, egos, hubris and even dogma.
It's an imperfect system yet we are attempting to impose absolute certainty over it and ridiculing anyone who is skeptical as a anti-science or a flat-earther.
and there in lies the whole problem with this debate, politics. one side politically makes a claim, the other side makes a counter claim, and the debate is on. and as long as the debate is healthy, meaning we have people on both sides wiling to listen to what the side is saying, and really look at the evidence they have, and recognize that climate change evidence can come from a number of sources, they dont have to all be one discipline, then we can move forward with the debate.
but when one side says the science is settled, and then tells everyone if you dont agree with us you are a denier, then it ceases to be science, and becomes a religion.
in the end the only science that is truly settled is basic math, because 2+2 will always = 4, 2x2 will always = 4.
but even higher math is always evolving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
well my friend, you did bring up the Scientific method.... and you are in defense of CAGW theory... and my point is, there really is a "scientific peer reviewed paper" that was published that made the 97% claim. its an utter and complete falsehood and its stands as this standard bearer for the CAGW cause.
my point is this is so politicized that it is no longer science.
you are right, the science of climate change has become a religion. the 97% number was a poll of IPCC scientists who claimed that climate change was man caused.
Nobody disputes that at all. The question is “To what degree?”
Many, many people, unfortunately definitely dispute that. You haven't been paying attention if you haven't seen it. In fact, our own President has disputed it many times.
There is a question to what degree and it is an important one. And it is a valid discussion. But that is, unfortunately, usually not what the discussion is about.
Except it isn't. I'm damn tired of professional contrarians, as most climate change deniers are. At this point, they literally have nothing meaningful to support their position except their sense of self-worth is tied up in the right-wing extremism of the Republican party, and they feel they must follow the far-right on everything, no matter how stupid. So, they deny basic science and offer nothing creditable when it comes to their reasons for denial.
Too many people out there - mostly on the far right these days - believe that if the majority of experts in a field support a position, it must be wrong. This is willful ignorance and a form of stupidity since if we apply the same "logic" of climate deniers to everything else, those same people should believe in everything from a flat earth to diseases are caused by evil spirits since the vast majority of scientists also rightly discredit those positions as well.
Science is reality, not belief or partisan nonsense, and basic science, as well as of years of data, make two facts quite clear:
- The climate is changing, so we need to adapt
- Some of that change is caused by human actions, so we should try to curtail those actions.
Nearly every major extinction event in earth's history or collapse of a civilization has been caused by climate change of some sort; it is foolish and utterly irresponsible of the people on the far right to continue to deny reality just so they can score political points and feel "smarter than all those dumb scientists who actually understand the data."
I'm tired of skeptics of alarmism being called climate deniers and I'm not a right winger or a republican.
I also have absolutely no quarrel with your two points:
Quote:
- The climate is changing, so we need to adapt
- Some of that change is caused by human actions, so we should try to curtail those actions.
The problem I have is with the alarmism, such as the IPCC and NASA regularly engage in and the media eagerly goes along with.
At 1 time didn't MOST scientists agreed that the world was flat?
As usual the point is missed that NO ONE believes that climate doesn't continue to change, as it has since the beginning of time so, repeating it over and over by the left gets nauseating.
The QUESTION is, how much affect does MAN have on the change in climate.
When pressed those that believe man has a GREAT deal to do with that change CANNOT explain how we got an "ice age" and and the melting of the ice age when man hadn't invented ANY of the stuff they now claim is the cause.
Yes, this is an important question. But the issue comes when people want to deny data, misinterpret figures/graphs of data (this one happens A LOT!), or speak on theories they don't fully understand...they generally make bad arguments. And then the debate sours because we're not speaking the same language.
Skepticism is one thing. Denial (or boderline-denial) is quite another. The latter is, unfortunately, FAR more common in this debate.
If you want to make counter arguments, have the data at hand. Show why it is wrong. Don't just yell nonsensical things like "the world has always warmed!", or some other climate change-denial trope.
If you want to know why scientists who study these things might come off a bit defensive, you should look at the context in which they are working. Their work is constantly under attack. And not just in a "skepticism" way - people are outright misrepresenting or denying data.
But I do know. Ocean currents shape the climate zones on earth. Tides are created by the gravitation interaction of the earth moon and sun....Wind is created by uneven heating by the sun. It's not complicated, it's simple physics, so I'm surprised you don't know that.
Yes it is complicated but the science is there, do you want to study this for 30 more years and look in the rear view mirror.
"This is the inescapable conclusion of a landmark paper, published in Nature Geoscience, which finally admits that the computer models have overstated the impact of carbon dioxide on climate and that the planet is warming more slowly than predicted."
The smart ones in here will go back to their canned responses unphased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Yes it is complicated but the science is there, do you want to study this for 30 more years and look in the rear view mirror.
Okay Einstein, tell us what your rational solution to thwart global warming is, and how we can ignore the rearview mirror in 30 years.
I'll not be holding my breath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
you are right, the science of climate change has become a religion. the 97% number was a poll of IPCC scientists who claimed that climate change was man caused.
The honest 3% lost their funding.
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.
