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?
I do not believe in faith as the road to the truth.
You are religious, not scientific, in your willingness to accept the IPCC summary report claims.
I don't think you understand how corrupt everything is
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.
Fat Hurts - I liked your previous answer but this one not so much. You were nearing the "science is settled" stuff.
But I have just one question to ask you. What happens when the Earth enters the next cooling cycle and there is no global warming? We all know that it's coming and I am really curious how you feel about that. Also, will all the climate scientists accept that global cooling is happening?
So you are choosing #2. You think there is a global scientific conspiracy.
There may not be a global scientific conspiracy but all the climate scientists know they must "toe the company line." Those who don't are ostracized and their grants and funding mysteriously dry up. You just can not be a climate scientist today and disagree with the "global warming science."
This is really scary stuff. The Libs calling for the national guard and military police to be deployed to monitor school board meetings. Just imagine if the Libs had even more power than they currently do. They would call for the military to monitor the Repubs in Congress and those on the supreme court.
This is really scary stuff. The Libs calling for the national guard and military police to be deployed to monitor school board meetings. Just imagine if the Libs had even more power than they currently do. They would call for the military to monitor the Repubs in Congress and those on the supreme court.
take a deep breath, actually read the article and see if you want to issue a retraction. I mean read it, looking for the right wing spin. Take note of what was in a draft letter, never sent to anyone.
Would be a cool exercise! truth! how to read biased 'news' articles!
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.
Wasn’t trying to make that claim. Was trying to respond generally. Sorry for the confusion mr carmine. I would imagine that the scientific studies on the climate would be too complex and nuanced for most regular people to understand. In general I trust the brain tree of scientific consensus. If most of the smartest people are saying this thing is happening, we should probably listen to them. Not saying make crazy radical changes but recognize that a huge shift might need to be made to ensure the future of human beings. I don’t think we’ll be cooling down any time soon so I’m pretty sure we are going to be having this conversation the rest of our lives and the data will only mount as the planet continues to heat up.
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?
I do not believe in faith as the road to the truth.
You are religious, not scientific, in your willingness to accept the IPCC summary report claims.
I don't think you understand how corrupt everything is
I am aware of the shortcomings of the IPCC's process for developing the summaries. But it's the best we've got if you want a summary of the current science that a layman can understand.
I do not believe in a worldwide scientific conspiracy. This would require cooperation between scientists all over the world from every different nation, from every walk of life, and from every political persuasion.
The belief in such a conspiracy is the thing that would require faith over reason.
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.
Fat Hurts - I liked your previous answer but this one not so much. You were nearing the "science is settled" stuff.
But I have just one question to ask you. What happens when the Earth enters the next cooling cycle and there is no global warming? We all know that it's coming and I am really curious how you feel about that. Also, will all the climate scientists accept that global cooling is happening?
I am not aware of any science that says global cooling is an immediate threat. Nor am I aware of any science that says a possible cooling cycle would offset global warming in the coming centuries.
Global warming is a threat that could wipe out all of humanity in as little as 100 years. We should not take the risk.
Fat Hurts - I liked your previous answer but this one not so much. You were nearing the "science is settled" stuff.
But I have just one question to ask you. What happens when the Earth enters the next cooling cycle and there is no global warming? We all know that it's coming and I am really curious how you feel about that. Also, will all the climate scientists accept that global cooling is happening?
I am not aware of any science that says global cooling is an immediate threat. Nor am I aware of any science that says a possible cooling cycle would offset global warming in the coming centuries.
Global warming is a threat that could wipe out all of humanity in as little as 100 years. We should not take the risk.
The Earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years. Are you saying that the Earth will not be going through a cooling cycle in the future?
I am not aware of any science that says global cooling is an immediate threat. Nor am I aware of any science that says a possible cooling cycle would offset global warming in the coming centuries.
Global warming is a threat that could wipe out all of humanity in as little as 100 years. We should not take the risk.
The Earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years. Are you saying that the Earth will not be going through a cooling cycle in the future?
I'm saying that the Earth's natural cycles are not an immediate threat.
Antrhopogenic global warming is an immediate threat.
Call it what you like. They routinely alter the data to match their political agenda.
The models are WRONG. This simple fact is inescapable and no amount of personal attacks on other people will change it.
If you think the models are wrong then you are choosing #1. You are saying that you know better than the experts.
If you think the models are fraudulent, you are choosing #2. You are saying there is a global scientific conspiracy.
Both #1 and #2 require you to suspend reality and rely on your own imagination.
You seem completely unaware that the models exist...
Are you literally unaware that you can look at the data? Do you not realize the models are available for public viewing?
Are you so ignorant that you don't realize they all fail to predict the future behavior of the climate?
You have absolutely NO IDEA wth you're talking about.
If the model predicts it will warm by 2 degrees over the next 10 years and then it does not warm by even 1 degree let alone 2 degrees you do not need a PHD to figure out the model is flawed.
The DATA proves you wrong. Insisting the data says something it clearly does not say is using your "imagination" not the other way around.
Fat Hurts - I liked your previous answer but this one not so much. You were nearing the "science is settled" stuff.
But I have just one question to ask you. What happens when the Earth enters the next cooling cycle and there is no global warming? We all know that it's coming and I am really curious how you feel about that. Also, will all the climate scientists accept that global cooling is happening?
I am not aware of any science that says global cooling is an immediate threat. Nor am I aware of any science that says a possible cooling cycle would offset global warming in the coming centuries.
Global warming is a threat that could wipe out all of humanity in as little as 100 years. We should not take the risk.
Jesus Christ....
CO2 is an essential ingredient of life. Warmer temperatures means MORE farmland available on the planet.
In exactly ZERO scenarios is the even the wildest prediction that human life will be wiped out in 100 years...
Even if the laughably stupid hockey stick prediction were true humanity would be just fine.
Sea levels rose like 150 feet between the end of the last ice age and today. We're still here. The oceans could rise another 150 feet in the next 100 years and humanity would be fine.
You're advocating restructuring the way the entire world works and you have literally NO IDEA wtf you're talking about... lol....
If you think the models are wrong then you are choosing #1. You are saying that you know better than the experts.
If you think the models are fraudulent, you are choosing #2. You are saying there is a global scientific conspiracy.
Both #1 and #2 require you to suspend reality and rely on your own imagination.
You seem completely unaware that the models exist...
Are you literally unaware that you can look at the data? Do you not realize the models are available for public viewing?
Are you so ignorant that you don't realize they all fail to predict the future behavior of the climate?
You have absolutely NO IDEA wth you're talking about.
If the model predicts it will warm by 2 degrees over the next 10 years and then it does not warm by even 1 degree let alone 2 degrees you do not need a PHD to figure out the model is flawed.
The DATA proves you wrong. Insisting the data says something it clearly does not say is using your "imagination" not the other way around.
Stop being stupid.
The climate scientists do not believe that the models are flawed.
You seem completely unaware that the models exist...
Are you literally unaware that you can look at the data? Do you not realize the models are available for public viewing?
Are you so ignorant that you don't realize they all fail to predict the future behavior of the climate?
You have absolutely NO IDEA wth you're talking about.
If the model predicts it will warm by 2 degrees over the next 10 years and then it does not warm by even 1 degree let alone 2 degrees you do not need a PHD to figure out the model is flawed.
The DATA proves you wrong. Insisting the data says something it clearly does not say is using your "imagination" not the other way around.
Stop being stupid.
The climate scientists do not believe that the models are flawed.
I trust the experts over your assessment.
You keep asserting that yet you have no idea it even means.
Climate scientists understand that the models have no predictive ability.
Show me ONE model that has accurately predicted 15 years of warming.
The models are created to reproduce the PAST. The models can accurately spit out the data it already knew the value of but they CANNOT accurately predict the future.
You don't even know who the "experts" are. Everyone you've ever heard is either a salesman or a politician.
You literally think humanity will be wiped out in 100 years because you heard another stupid person say it. You have no idea why said it... you just believe it.. LOL!
