I didn't argue that the world was cooling, or that the predictions from the 70s were correct. I argued that they happened.
Why you painfully stupid people think proof that my argument was correct makes you look is baffling.
You can't be that stup!d. Can you?
Your "argument" was that the predictions of the imminent ice age popularized in the 70s (i.e., the pop culture of the time) were essentially equivalent to the current scientific understanding of global climate change and that therefore, today's scientific community detailing the manner, causes and future expectations with respect to climate change had no more credibility than the pop culture ("the ice age is coming, the ice age is coming") of the 70s.
In doing so, you showed that, beyond being stupid on a fairly pedestrian level, you were (and remain) completely incapable of understanding the difference between pop culture and science. That is also what Sally's article outlined - how stupid and ignorant people like you simply are incapable of understanding something so simple.
The article laid some blame on the Newsweeks and Times of the 70s for inadvertently catering to the morons of the 2020s (i.e., you). I wouldn't be so hard on Time, etc. They had to sell their magazines. And their target audience was the morons of the world. Not really their fault any more than it is Fox "News" fault that there are so many morons.
And in truth, it probably isn't really your fault either. You are a moron. You cannot understand anything beyond what your average 8 year old understands. It is simply beyond your fundamental capabilities. So, although I am tempted to despise you for it, I really need to channel my better self and simply pity you for your intellectual limitations.
You have my pity, dude. You are beautiful in your own, moronic way. But I simply don't have any more time to waste on someone who is not capable of understanding.
Carry on. You will be ignored by me from here. So, be sure to get your final, idiotic post in.
Cheers.
You are truly the dumbest person on this board...
The "pop culture" you're referring to was created by SCIENTISTS in the 70s.
It's "so simple" that you're too dumb to even understand why you're wrong... lol...
I honestly can't understand why you're here pretending you're not a moron when you should be at the beach filling sandbags in preparation for the coming flood.
The infallible scientists of today haven't slipped into "pop culture" yet so we can be certain that THIS TIME they are right and the end is nigh.
Right now we are just establishing that climate scientists overwhelmingly accept anthropogenic climate change.
Since you can only name one long-retired climate scientist who doesn't share this view, I am obviously right about it.
I am sure you would agree that climate scientists should never accept that global warming is happening and that humans are to blame, i.e., that it is settled science.
Practically all climate scientists accept that global warming is happening and that humans are to blame. That is what the data is telling them.
Everything in science is up for debate. But when we make public policy, we should do so on the best available science, which overwhelmingly says that we have to stop burning fossil fuels.
You said there were thousands of climate scientists who deny anthropogenic climate change.
So far, you have named one guy who retired almost 10 years ago.
Why can't you just admit that your assertion was false?
There's plenty of them. They all make similar arguments. You have NO IDEA what the arguments are. You just want names so you can attack the name rather than the argument.
The assertion is not false.
You are too dumb to comprehend that EVERYTHING you think you know about climate change comes through a lens. I've seen both sides of the debate. You deny any debate exists.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Much like your party's 26,000 genders... "anthropogenic climate change" is a SPECTRUM.
You have no idea what the term even means...
It does NOT mean that 100% of warming is man made. In fact, there isn't a scientist alive that can tell you what percentage of the warming has anything at all to do with man's activities.
ALL scientists agree that greenhouse gases can cause warming. This does not mean they all agree that man is the primary or even a significant driver of the warming.
I gave you 1 name and you still have NO IDEA what he thinks. All you've managed to figure out is that you don't like Prager University because they don't confirm your bias like the rest of the bubble you live in. Why would I waste my time providing you with more names of people you won't even listen to and certainly couldn't understand anyway??
So you haven't named anyone else because you are afraid I might subject him or her to scrutiny? Why would you be afraid of that?
You said there were thousands of climate scientists who do not accept anthropogenic global warming. But you have only found one. I agree that your one is a qualified climate scientist. Why can't you find any more when you said there were thousands like him?
Or maybe you can finally admit that you were wrong about the thousands. Clearly, you were wrong about that.
I am sure you would agree that climate scientists should never accept that global warming is happening and that humans are to blame, i.e., that it is settled science.
Practically all climate scientists accept that global warming is happening and that humans are to blame. That is what the data is telling them.
Everything in science is up for debate. But when we make public policy, we should do so on the best available science, which overwhelmingly says that we have to stop burning fossil fuels.
We only "know" what we are told by the media and the pols.
Practically all climate scientists accept that global warming is happening and that humans are to blame. That is what the data is telling them.
Everything in science is up for debate. But when we make public policy, we should do so on the best available science, which overwhelmingly says that we have to stop burning fossil fuels.
We only "know" what we are told by the media and the pols.
There's plenty of them. They all make similar arguments. You have NO IDEA what the arguments are. You just want names so you can attack the name rather than the argument.
The assertion is not false.
You are too dumb to comprehend that EVERYTHING you think you know about climate change comes through a lens. I've seen both sides of the debate. You deny any debate exists.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Much like your party's 26,000 genders... "anthropogenic climate change" is a SPECTRUM.
You have no idea what the term even means...
It does NOT mean that 100% of warming is man made. In fact, there isn't a scientist alive that can tell you what percentage of the warming has anything at all to do with man's activities.
ALL scientists agree that greenhouse gases can cause warming. This does not mean they all agree that man is the primary or even a significant driver of the warming.
I gave you 1 name and you still have NO IDEA what he thinks. All you've managed to figure out is that you don't like Prager University because they don't confirm your bias like the rest of the bubble you live in. Why would I waste my time providing you with more names of people you won't even listen to and certainly couldn't understand anyway??
So you haven't named anyone else because you are afraid I might subject him or her to scrutiny? Why would you be afraid of that?
You said there were thousands of climate scientists who do not accept anthropogenic global warming. But you have only found one. I agree that your one is a qualified climate scientist. Why can't you find any more when you said there were thousands like him?
Or maybe you can finally admit that you were wrong about the thousands. Clearly, you were wrong about that.
I'm not "afraid" you will scrutinize them I'm 100% certain you won't bother to listen to their arguments because you're close minded. AOC told you the science that neither you nor her have any idea about is "settled" and your brain is completely turned off on the matter.
The point you've completely lost in your stupidity is that if there is even ONE "qualified climate scientist" who can argue the science isn't settled... the science ISN'T settled.
None of which any of us actually read or would understand anyway
IPCC summary reports can be understood by most people. It's true that most people don't read those though.
It's obvious that climate scientists overwhelmingly believe that anthropogenic climate change is a very serious problem. It's also obvious that there is no longer any serious debate about it in the scientific community.
So the question just becomes what should public policy be?
Since doing nothing risks all of humanity, the "do nothing" route would be foolish. Plus, the solutions would have tremendous benefits to humanity in the form of cleaner air, cleaner water, cheaper electricity, and a higher standard of living for everyone.
The only ones hurt by these solutions would be companies who fail to adapt to the new low-emissions economy.
None of which any of us actually read or would understand anyway
IPCC summary reports can be understood by most people. It's true that most people don't read those though.
It's obvious that climate scientists overwhelmingly believe that anthropogenic climate change is a very serious problem. It's also obvious that there is no longer any serious debate about it in the scientific community.
So the question just becomes what should public policy be?
Since doing nothing risks all of humanity, the "do nothing" route would be foolish. Plus, the solutions would have tremendous benefits to humanity in the form of cleaner air, cleaner water, cheaper electricity, and a higher standard of living for everyone.
The only ones hurt by these solutions would be companies who fail to adapt to the new low-emissions economy.
So you rely on someone's summary.
We do not know if climate change is human created and a serious problem.
"I believe that trump won the election because a convicted felon, wife-beating, fired ex-university president told me it was stolen. In a movie.'
"I don't believe human beings cause climate change because thousands of PhDs tell me that human beings cause climate change."
I am not a Trumpist and did not vote for Trump but I know that there is a good chance the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
A simple review of the vote totals in three key states in the days after the election shows Biden getting a near impossible % of the votes. This did not occur in the congressional races in those states.
It is idiotic to dismiss the possibility the election was stolen
So you haven't named anyone else because you are afraid I might subject him or her to scrutiny? Why would you be afraid of that?
You said there were thousands of climate scientists who do not accept anthropogenic global warming. But you have only found one. I agree that your one is a qualified climate scientist. Why can't you find any more when you said there were thousands like him?
Or maybe you can finally admit that you were wrong about the thousands. Clearly, you were wrong about that.
I'm not "afraid" you will scrutinize them I'm 100% certain you won't bother to listen to their arguments because you're close minded. AOC told you the science that neither you nor her have any idea about is "settled" and your brain is completely turned off on the matter.
The point you've completely lost in your stupidity is that if there is even ONE "qualified climate scientist" who can argue the science isn't settled... the science ISN'T settled.
I'm not interested in the arguments of one retired climate scientist. I'm not a climate scientist and I'm not qualified to assess his claims.
I do have a background in science and technology. As one of my professors said, "There is nothing more dangerous than a little knowledge." In other words, we should not make scientific judgements outside our area of expertise. Instead, trust the experts.
You were wrong about the thousands of climate scientists who reject anthropogenic climate change. If you were right, then I might rethink my position.
But given that the scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic climate change, there are three possibilities: 1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people. 2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy. 3)The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"
I could find some and link them if that's what you're after. But several of the articles on transgender athletes and their retention of strength through hormone treatment. A few on the evolution of white matter and grey matter in the brain for an argument about aging that I lost. Several others on genetics and IQ.
IPCC summary reports can be understood by most people. It's true that most people don't read those though.
It's obvious that climate scientists overwhelmingly believe that anthropogenic climate change is a very serious problem. It's also obvious that there is no longer any serious debate about it in the scientific community.
So the question just becomes what should public policy be?
Since doing nothing risks all of humanity, the "do nothing" route would be foolish. Plus, the solutions would have tremendous benefits to humanity in the form of cleaner air, cleaner water, cheaper electricity, and a higher standard of living for everyone.
The only ones hurt by these solutions would be companies who fail to adapt to the new low-emissions economy.
So you rely on someone's summary.
We do not know if climate change is human created and a serious problem.
I would guess it is.
But that's all it is is a guess
Yes, of course I can rely on the IPCC summary reports. It is the best summary we have. We use the best available science to make decisions. And we do this knowing that nothing in life is 100% certain.
When you turn on the lights, do you worry that Ohm's Law could be wrong?
None of which any of us actually read or would understand anyway
IPCC summary reports can be understood by most people. It's true that most people don't read those though.
It's obvious that climate scientists overwhelmingly believe that anthropogenic climate change is a very serious problem. It's also obvious that there is no longer any serious debate about it in the scientific community.
So the question just becomes what should public policy be?
Since doing nothing risks all of humanity, the "do nothing" route would be foolish. Plus, the solutions would have tremendous benefits to humanity in the form of cleaner air, cleaner water, cheaper electricity, and a higher standard of living for everyone.
The only ones hurt by these solutions would be companies who fail to adapt to the new low-emissions economy.
The IPCC has an agenda. Their models are garbage in garbage out.
Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected dramatic warming from...
IPCC summary reports can be understood by most people. It's true that most people don't read those though.
It's obvious that climate scientists overwhelmingly believe that anthropogenic climate change is a very serious problem. It's also obvious that there is no longer any serious debate about it in the scientific community.
So the question just becomes what should public policy be?
Since doing nothing risks all of humanity, the "do nothing" route would be foolish. Plus, the solutions would have tremendous benefits to humanity in the form of cleaner air, cleaner water, cheaper electricity, and a higher standard of living for everyone.
The only ones hurt by these solutions would be companies who fail to adapt to the new low-emissions economy.
The IPCC has an agenda. Their models are garbage in garbage out.
I could find some and link them if that's what you're after. But several of the articles on transgender athletes and their retention of strength through hormone treatment. A few on the evolution of white matter and grey matter in the brain for an argument about aging that I lost. Several others on genetics and IQ.
You claimed to have read several studies about climate change.
I'm not interested in the arguments of one retired climate scientist. I'm not a climate scientist and I'm not qualified to assess his claims.
Yea, people had a similar level of ignorance about a certain patent clerk too. The scientific method doesn't require your approval. Truth is truth whether the ignorant slobs are interested or not.
I do have a background in science and technology. As one of my professors said, "There is nothing more dangerous than a little knowledge." In other words, we should not make scientific judgements outside our area of expertise.
Says the fool with less than "little knowledge" making scientific judgments outside his area of expertise...
Instead, trust the experts.
They don't all agree...
You were wrong about the thousands of climate scientists who reject anthropogenic climate change. If you were right, then I might rethink my position.
I never claimed there were thousands of climate scientists I said there were thousands more like Lindzen. Still, one is all you need if the data is on their side. The data is clearly on Lindzen's side as the climate models are all hot garbage.
But given that the scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic climate change, there are three possibilities: 1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people. 2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy. 3)The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
4) The scientific community is made up of smart well meaning people who just happen to be WRONG.
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!" Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.
If they had any idea what the hell they were talking about the models wouldn't all be wrong. Yet 100% of the models overpredict warming.
