Also, scientists are people, they have biases. It's not a coincidence that most scientists are left wing. In universities libertarians know to keep their mouth shut otherwise their grades will be affected, the same applies to professors who risk losing tenure.
I like the biblical harvest reference. Insects have always harvested human corpses.
Mencken1976 wrote:
Also, scientists are people, they have biases. It's not a coincidence that most scientists are left wing. In universities libertarians know to keep their mouth shut otherwise their grades will be affected, the same applies to professors who risk losing tenure.
Of course they are human with biases, but that is why there are rules such as peer review, literature citing, publications etc.
Most of the denial science is funded by vested interested corporations, how many of the overwhelming evidence in favour of climate change is funded by vested interests?
Researchers are poor, they do it for advancement of knowledge, not for corporations.
...and saying, "if you cannot tell me the exact effect, when it will happen, and how much, or I won't do anything", and that other developing countries will spew out more CO2, is just an admission of not understanding.
There are undeveloped countries today that could entirely skip the fossil fuel phase
I am Sam wrote:
Mencken1976 wrote:
Also, scientists are people, they have biases. It's not a coincidence that most scientists are left wing. In universities libertarians know to keep their mouth shut otherwise their grades will be affected, the same applies to professors who risk losing tenure.
Of course they are human with biases, but that is why there are rules such as peer review, literature citing, publications etc.
Most of the denial science is funded by vested interested corporations, how many of the overwhelming evidence in favour of climate change is funded by vested interests?
Researchers are poor, they do it for advancement of knowledge, not for corporations.
...and saying, "if you cannot tell me the exact effect, when it will happen, and how much, or I won't do anything", and that other developing countries will spew out more CO2, is just an admission of not understanding.
There are undeveloped countries today that could entirely skip the fossil fuel phase
"Of course they are human with biases, but that is why there are rules such as peer review, literature citing, publications etc. "
False. Who makes the rules?
https://reason.com/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-judith-curry/"Most of the denial science is funded by vested interested corporations, how many of the overwhelming evidence in favour of climate change is funded by vested interests?"
False. Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money"Researchers are poor, they do it for advancement of knowledge, not for corporations."
False.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/climate-sceptics-pai-heartland-instituteMencken1976 wrote:
Also, scientists are people, they have biases. It's not a coincidence that most scientists are left wing. In universities libertarians know to keep their mouth shut otherwise their grades will be affected, the same applies to professors who risk losing tenure.
Yup. Liberals put excessive weight in science, and are ruining this country by doing so. What they need to do instead is have faith. Faith has been proven over the past 2,020 years to be far more powerful that facts.
#FeelingsOverFacts
Here is another non believer
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/
Yes or no: do you believe in electricity?
belial wrote:
Yes or no: do you believe in electricity?
Or do you believe in life, or that man made factors (lifestyle) affect mortality rates?
Or that CO2 exists...or that CO2 (and other GHG) affetc IR radiation...
....or that....?
Best revert to talking about 'consensus' - which is actually majority of people holding an opinion...rather than weight of evidence that is peer reviewed.
...best infer that all scientists make money...hang on , where are they?, our company is a scientific supplier..
....best to obfuscate that somehow the US funded climate researchers get to a certain peer reviewed proof because Uncle Sam wants them to...after all they paid for it
...as opposed to energy companies sponsoring denial outcomes, look the other way, nothing to see there, they like giving money to science.
Citizen Runner wrote:
fisky wrote:
My question is how do you explain the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and the subsequent warming from 1700 to roughly 1900 when CO2 levels changed very little?
In the off chance that you really care about the current understanding these events are discussed in the IPCC WG1 AR5 report in (at least) chapter 5-paleoclimate and chapter 10-attribution.
Thank you. I just reviewed IPCC AR5 Ch 5 Paleoclimate and Chapter 10 Attribution. I found it humorous that their charts clearly showed the Medieval Warm Period, but they referred to it as the "Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA)".
Here is a quote from IPCC AR5 Ch5...
"The median of the NH temperature reconstructions (Figure 5.7) indicates mostly warm conditions from about 950 to about 1250 and colder conditions from about 1450 to about 1850; these time intervals are chosen here to represent the MCA and the LIA, respectively."
It then goes on to state that the "NH temperature of the last 30 or 50 years very likely exceeded any previous 30- or 50-year mean during the past 800 years."
That's beside the point. The MCA and the LIA are clearly shown in charts in that same chapter and clearly show significant warming and cooling without a change in CO2 levels.
I did not see an explanation for the MCA and LIA in Chapter 10. Then again, when scientists refer to the Medieval Warm Period as the "Medieval Climate Anomaly," it's obvious they can't explain it... that's the definition of anomaly. Oh, and then there's the rise from 1700 to 1850 also before the rise in CO2 levels started.
Citizen Runner, you seem like a very smart guy. Surely, you can't just ignore three major changes in global temperature in the past 2000 years as "anomalies" and then believe, without reservation, that CO2 is the driving force this time. We have four changes... MCA, LIA, 1700-1850, and 1850 to present... and you're ignoring the first three.
Stem-less wrote:
belial wrote:
Yes or no: do you believe in electricity?
Or do you believe in life, or that man made factors (lifestyle) affect mortality rates?
Or that CO2 exists...or that CO2 (and other GHG) affetc IR radiation...
....or that....?
Best revert to talking about 'consensus' - which is actually majority of people holding an opinion...rather than weight of evidence that is peer reviewed.
...best infer that all scientists make money...hang on , where are they?, our company is a scientific supplier..
....best to obfuscate that somehow the US funded climate researchers get to a certain peer reviewed proof because Uncle Sam wants them to...after all they paid for it
...as opposed to energy companies sponsoring denial outcomes, look the other way, nothing to see there, they like giving money to science.
^^^
...We're at craz-con 9. ...All your base are belong to us! ...
Stem-less wrote:
belial wrote:
Yes or no: do you believe in electricity?
Or do you believe in life, or that man made factors (lifestyle) affect mortality rates?
Or that CO2 exists...or that CO2 (and other GHG) affetc IR radiation...
....or that....?
Best revert to talking about 'consensus' - which is actually majority of people holding an opinion...rather than weight of evidence that is peer reviewed.
...best infer that all scientists make money...hang on , where are they?, our company is a scientific supplier..
....best to obfuscate that somehow the US funded climate researchers get to a certain peer reviewed proof because Uncle Sam wants them to...after all they paid for it
...as opposed to energy companies sponsoring denial outcomes, look the other way, nothing to see there, they like giving money to science.
Do you believe in the grace of Christ?
Do you believe in the charity and good deeds that Christians do all around the world?
Do you believe in salvation by reading the bible?
Do you believe in the stability of the union created between a man and his wife?
Do you believe in the transformative power of western culture, which had dragged the Earth kicking and screaming from mud and dirt, immorality, and insanity?
#FeelingsOverFaith
Libertarian Centrist wrote:
Do you believe in the grace of Christ?
No, I believe in the grace of all good people
Libertarian Centrist wrote:
Do you believe in the charity and good deeds that Christians do all around the world?
Ditto, there are people like me , and even more giving, that volunteer to good causes, support the disenfranchised and give to charities that do worthy causes...they do not have to be any religion, nor any at all
Libertarian Centrist wrote:
Do you believe in salvation by reading the bible?
No, the bible is the most discredited document of all, no peer review, just consensus of religious nutters
Libertarian Centrist wrote:
Do you believe in the stability of the union created between a man and his wife?
As much as one can...it is not for me to dictate how people want to live, I believe in families and villages (extended friends/family) making for good people, but will not tell someone to stay married
Libertarian Centrist wrote:
Do you believe in the transformative power of western culture, which had dragged the Earth kicking and screaming from mud and dirt, immorality, and insanity?
Westerners are but one culture that has improved civilisation, through nothing other than necessity, desire, invention. They have piggy backed onto previous advancements and we will continue to have advancements from various cultures that do not want to ruin their only planet...
....because hey matey, wake up...there ain't no heaven
I am Sam wrote:
For the religious nuts, nothing will convince them, so I can play Devils Advocate (pun intended).
What if they rock up to the Pearly Gates one day , and say;
"I believed, went to church, prayed and did all the stuff you asked me, can I come in"?
Peter says; " You failed.'
Believer; "But all those animals are in here. And all those 'non believers' what about them".
Peter; "It was a big experiment. God is actually the Sun. We gave you the best brain, all those temptations, how much money your can make by using stuff that are finite and screw the planet, while all the time the Sun was right there every day and you instead of using Him, blocked him , wasting His energy, making things hotter. You were supposed to figure that out to pass. Even the animals worked out what to do dependent on their intelligence and requirements. Have you ever tried to lead a horse to water when he's not thirsty?
Go burn"
Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you mock their beliefs? Do you even know how to interpret the Bible? I will pray for your soul. Its plight is much worse than that of our environment.
kids have the power and they know it wrote:
I do not believe in man made climate change.
I do believe we pollute and f-up our planet through contaminated water supplies, air pollution, etc.
Spot on!
kids have the power and they know it wrote:
Libertarian Centrist wrote:
No
Not in the bible, doesn't matter to me.
Do you believe we pollute our planet and can harm human civilization if companies go unchecked?
He is a troll and says the opposite of what he is thinking
duhhhh wrote:
Are you people stupid stop denying SCIENCE
Stop denying God!
I am Sam wrote:
....because hey matey, wake up...there ain't no heaven
Not for you, but there can be.
The Devil says, so people all die, what’s so bad about that?
Nope. Nada