01 May 17
Originally posted by apathistAnd there will be much more wall to read the writing as more ice disappears. No problem though, right? Who cares if Florida disappears, becomes half its original size, we just move inland a bit, right? And just LOOK at all that new farm land that will happen in Montana and Canada, right?
The ice caps are disappearing. Read the writing on the wall.
All those marine creatures gone extinct, no big deal, something will replace it. I guess you don't mind never having fish to eat anymore, right? Just grow salmon on fish farms I guess. Great for the previous genetic diversity, diversity Shmersity, who gives a shyte?
02 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI have learned a lot from this thread.
And there will be much more wall to read the writing as more ice disappears. No problem though, right? Who cares if Florida disappears, becomes half its original size, we just move inland a bit, right? And just LOOK at all that new farm land that will happen in Montana and Canada, right?
All those marine creatures gone extinct, no big deal, something wi ...[text shortened]... farms I guess. Great for the previous genetic diversity, diversity Shmersity, who gives a shyte?
It seems unlikely that individual opinions on this issue will change, ever. Regardless of the strength of this particular scientific argument, the data can be interpreted differently depending on ideology. I just read a fascinating New York Times column written by a climate skeptic comparing this issue to Hillary Clinton's loss in the presidential election [1]. Essentially, election polling was wrong so maybe climate scientists are wrong. It is of course true that the exact anthropogenic contribution to climate change will never be fully understood. We only have one planet to study. Imagine if you were trying to decipher the health benefits of diet and exercise if you only had one study subject?
We need the models. To most trained scientists, the benefit of models are obvious. I use cell culture models to study cancer. Cells don't mimic cancer exactly, but they are extremely useful in understanding root causes of disease. The climate models are used in exactly the same manner: To identify the underlying variables that cause climate change (CO2, aerosols, land use, etc. etc.) We have learned a lot about our climate through their use. But...not perfect. Despite this acknowledgement from every credible scientific article, skeptics leverage every imperfection to assert all climate science must be wrong.
It seems like climate skeptics clearly are exploiting the reality of scientific uncertainty to create a paralyzing, log-jam argument. An argument that begins with "show me the data" and "there is no consensus" proceeds through "that data is no good, there are still unanswered questions, 69% might be 45% so it's not primary" and finally "We can't do anything about it and we'd be better off with a warmer planet anyway."
Is this hopeless? The US is now giving up on efficiency standards for autos and the Paris Climate agreement. Is there any way to bridge the ideological divide and come up with common-sense solutions to slow the forces of climate change?
The one thing most everyone agrees on is: It is happening. Are we going to build a giant retaining wall around Florida to keep the ocean out? Relocate all of those people to Ohio?
Maybe, just maybe, if we reduce our carbon emissions by decommissioning coal plants, using fuel efficient/electric cars, efficient light bulbs, alter land use policy, we can slow climate change and give us a more sustainable world for a longer period of time. But since we don't know for sure if that will help, or by how much, climate skeptics continue to think we should do nothing. Certainty is not a requirement for most political decisions. Why is certainty necessary for climate policy?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html
04 May 17
Originally posted by humyAssuming is your weak link. Learn to be open minded. Habitual assuming is a great fault of yours.
false; at least regarding your education specifically on science; just reading your moronic posts about science gives us all a very good clue.I have repeatedly refused to disclose my educational level.
And we very obviously all know why you refuse; you are certainly no science expert. Obviously, you refusing confirms this for there is no other creditable motive for your refusal.
12 May 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainSkeptics have a place in society but they are being glommed onto by politicians in their abrogation of responsibilty, let George do it, hopefully in the year 2075 when I will be long dead and gone thank you.
You are assuming too. What is wrong with you? There are other skeptics that make a lot of sense and exposes falsehoods.
13 May 17
Originally posted by sonhouseNope. Skeptics have it right. They just don't get funding as often, that is why their point of view is being suppressed.
Skeptics have a place in society but they are being glommed onto by politicians in their abrogation of responsibilty, let George do it, hopefully in the year 2075 when I will be long dead and gone thank you.
13 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainAnd what if they are 100% wrong? What then, man of metal?
Nope. Skeptics have it right. They just don't get funding as often, that is why their point of view is being suppressed.
You can't just come back with , well they are NOT wrong. You need to consider the idea they may be 100% wrong.
15 May 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainNo one gets grant funding just for being a skeptic. You need a testable hypothesis, and a realistic means to test it, and some preliminary evidence that your idea might be correct. There are a lot of researchers testing your solar flare idea, for example, but they're not considered skeptics. They're scientists. If you "have it right" as you say, you are not a skeptic.
Nope. Skeptics have it right. They just don't get funding as often, that is why their point of view is being suppressed.
15 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainI never said CO2 was the only cause of warming. Methane is 20 times stronger as a greenhouse gas and the only reason it is not dominant is because it is much less dense in the atmosphere, like hundreds of times less dense V CO2, now clocking in at 400 PPM and rising. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.
"Who said the "blame" was solely on CO2?"
Who is blaming anything else? Not humy or sonhouse.
"Interesting hypothesis about the sun. How should we test it?"
Time is the only test. You cannot test the past solar activity. Maybe the sun is why the ice ages are cyclical. Can you prove they are not. No, you cannot. Curb your own propaganda before whining about others.
We have solar records going back near 100 years, I saw one of the solar observatories at Mount Wilson near where we used to live, very instructive tour given to us, 2 15 year old HS students who happened on the chief astronomer and he took a liking to us and gave us a grand tour of the 100 inch scope and the solar observatory. Obviously not as accurate as what we have today but there were observations going on most of century 20.
16 May 17
Originally posted by wildgrassMany skeptics have tenure positions and that is the only reason they still have jobs in their fields. Skeptics without tenure find themselves unemployed much of the time.
No one gets grant funding just for being a skeptic. You need a testable hypothesis, and a realistic means to test it, and some preliminary evidence that your idea might be correct. There are a lot of researchers testing your solar flare idea, for example, but they're not considered skeptics. They're scientists. If you "have it right" as you say, you are not a skeptic.
Climate models are NOT a realistic means to test a hypothesis, yet they still receive funding.
http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/