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.
As someone that has been on THE OTHER SIDE...dealing with SCIENCE DENIERS from the environmental community I need to remind people that SCIENCE is not a vote.
Remember that Copernicus and Galileo were SCIENCE DENIERS in their day.
When I went through school I had a very good professor tell me...."focus on the argument, not the person. The issue is the science, not the personalities".
I and ALL of my science based professional friends are NOT science deniers.
It is hard to deal with liberal arts graduates without ANY SCIENCE CLASSES talk about us being science deniers. The truth will eventually come out, but by then the liberal crowd will move on to other "truths".
Copernicus and Galileo were not science deniers. They were religious heretics. This was at a time when science was in it’s early days and religion was at it’s most powerful.
Inconceivably, there are still people today who think the earth is 6000 years old, there is no such thing as fossil fuels, and man has no ability to alter the climate which was established by God.
Copernicus and Galileo were not science deniers. They were religious heretics. This was at a time when science was in it’s early days and religion was at it’s most powerful.........................
.
No. They were SCIENCE DENIERS at the time. That was the conventional SCIENCE at the time.
Yes, it had religious backing, but it was still THE SCIENCE at the time. There are plenty of scientists that sell their souls for religious reasons, it is very prevalent today.
Follow the science, argue the science, forget the personalities and pontificating by science illeterates.
Today, it is the environmental movement that is a RELIGOUS movement. It totally lacking in science knowledge.
Basically a bunch of lawyers with liberal arts degrees saying listen to the PRIESTS.
The argument is always.....follow the PRIESTS, don't think for yourself.
It seems to me that Democrats don't use the word "solve." They're more likely to use realistic words like "combat" or "mitigate."
And if you genuinely want to know the proposed solutions, there are endless articles written about it, so all you have to do is start reading.
It seems lost on you that this might be because they aren't actually equipped to solve anything.
But what they are (very) well equipped to do is do what they've done with poverty, and with crime, and with racism, and with homelessness, and with Covid: engage in a bunch of theater over how these problems are going to end humanity unless we give their politicians more votes and their political agencies and NGOs more money.
Last edited by tribecavsbrowns; 12-30-2022 at 09:12 PM..
No. They were SCIENCE DENIERS at the time. That was the conventional SCIENCE at the time.
Yes, it had religious backing, but it was still THE SCIENCE at the time. There are plenty of scientists that sell their souls for religious reasons, it is very prevalent today.
Follow the science, argue the science, forget the personalities and pontificating by science illeterates.
Today, it is the environmental movement that is a RELIGOUS movement. It totally lacking in science knowledge.
Basically a bunch of lawyers with liberal arts degrees saying listen to the PRIESTS.
The argument is always.....follow the PRIESTS, don't think for yourself.
Yes, follow the science. Scientists say the earth is warming, mostly due to human activity. Scientists don't say that is good or bad. They don't say everyone should buy an EV. Those are political decisions.
Do neoCons actually believe in Climate Change ? In COVID ? In Dinosaurs ?
Isn't cleaning up the air, the water, the soil actually a good thing ?
Why can't you actually defer on this issue to the people who have spent their lives studying the climate ?
These endlessly skeptical anti-science threads makes me embarrassed for my fellow Americans.
Your generalities and apparent willingness to take someone's word as fact is incompatible with science.
If I were to outsource my thought process to someone else (defer), as you suggest, it wouldn't be to someone that has as much to gain or lose based on the conclusions reached as a climate scientist.
Claims made in the name of science should always be greeted with skepticism.
Yes, follow the science. Scientists say the earth is warming, mostly due to human activity. Scientists don't say that is good or bad. They don't say everyone should buy an EV. Those are political decisions.
To get a correct answer you have to start with a well thought-out question.
Assumptions tend to lead to rabbit trails and typically require more assumptions.
For this reason, whenever possible, data should be examined in isolation.
This is extremely difficult to do when the subject is something as complex as the Earth's surface temperature.
There are many factors that contribute to the Earth's surface temperature on any given day and many of these factors are interrelated with feedback effects that can be always positive, always negative or sometimes either, depending on other circumstances or particular combinations of circumstances.
Moreover, the fact that there is no complete and verifiable surface temperature record predating the satellite era makes the recurring, "Warmest ______ Ever!!!" headline baseless at best.
The claim is that the Earth's surface is warming and that this warming is due primarily to increased levels of CO2.
If the Earth is truly warming, this warming is slight, irregular and follows several centuries of declining temperatures.
Even with fudge-factored GHCN make-believe temperature records, there is nothing to point to with regard to increased surface temperature (assuming) that cannot be explained in ways that don't require significant input from increasing levels of CO2.
We'll never know what the average surface temperature would have settled at (assuming) following the Little Ice Age had the Industrial Revolution never taken place, so there is no specific temperature that we can say is the correct average surface temperature.
Without that, the entire CAGW conversation lacks context.
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.
