Flat Earthers...
#141
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
You're missing the point. No one on this forum is qualified to make a claim regarding climate change.
It is akin to a non-pilot telling 97% of pilots they're flying wrong.
Which is why we rely on scientists.
So if you say it isn't happening, the only way to support your argument is to provide links to scientific research, in the form of peer-reviewed studies. Or some concrete evidence of a conspiracy on the part of hundreds of scientific organizations.
In decades worth of following the subject I've seen not a single piece of well-researched evidence of either.
The onus is on folks who do not want to listen to the scientific consensus.
Or, they can admit, which I'm coming to believe is a more honest truth, that they don't really care whether the climate is changing because of human activity.
It is akin to a non-pilot telling 97% of pilots they're flying wrong.
Which is why we rely on scientists.
So if you say it isn't happening, the only way to support your argument is to provide links to scientific research, in the form of peer-reviewed studies. Or some concrete evidence of a conspiracy on the part of hundreds of scientific organizations.
In decades worth of following the subject I've seen not a single piece of well-researched evidence of either.
The onus is on folks who do not want to listen to the scientific consensus.
Or, they can admit, which I'm coming to believe is a more honest truth, that they don't really care whether the climate is changing because of human activity.
But for you, explain why a settled science has models, where almost all are horribly dead wrong. If you flew an ILS, and when you broke out at DH, you were 6 miles off the runway, would you say it's settled that the ILS is accurate?
#142
Actually, I'm qualified, my degree is in engineering, and statistics, so I know when someone is lying to me mathematically. Also, I'm more qualified than Bill Nye.
But for you, explain why a settled science has models, where almost all are horribly dead wrong. If you flew an ILS, and when you broke out at DH, you were 6 miles off the runway, would you say it's settled that the ILS is accurate?
But for you, explain why a settled science has models, where almost all are horribly dead wrong. If you flew an ILS, and when you broke out at DH, you were 6 miles off the runway, would you say it's settled that the ILS is accurate?
#143
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 137
Actually, I'm qualified, my degree is in engineering, and statistics, so I know when someone is lying to me mathematically. Also, I'm more qualified than Bill Nye.
But for you, explain why a settled science has models, where almost all are horribly dead wrong. If you flew an ILS, and when you broke out at DH, you were 6 miles off the runway, would you say it's settled that the ILS is accurate?
But for you, explain why a settled science has models, where almost all are horribly dead wrong. If you flew an ILS, and when you broke out at DH, you were 6 miles off the runway, would you say it's settled that the ILS is accurate?
You're actually making the claim that the scientists are lying to you?
Your picture appears to show climate measurements versus models. Yet the temperatures appear to be rising.
Maybe you could explain the relevance of the picture.
And even if the inaccuracy of the models wasn't taken into account, which it is, maybe you would explain how rapidly increasing carbon dioxide concentration isn't going to be a severe problem?
NASA information here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
#144
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Yep, I also have a BS in engineering, and extensive training in statistics. I leave the physics to the physicists.
You're actually making the claim that the scientists are lying to you?
Your picture appears to show climate measurements versus models. Yet the temperatures appear to be rising.
Maybe you could explain the relevance of the picture.
And even if the inaccuracy of the models wasn't taken into account, which it is, maybe you would explain how rapidly increasing carbon dioxide concentration isn't going to be a severe problem?
You're actually making the claim that the scientists are lying to you?
Your picture appears to show climate measurements versus models. Yet the temperatures appear to be rising.
Maybe you could explain the relevance of the picture.
And even if the inaccuracy of the models wasn't taken into account, which it is, maybe you would explain how rapidly increasing carbon dioxide concentration isn't going to be a severe problem?
Remember, the Church jailed Galileo because they knew he was right, and his findings questioned the legitimacy of the church based government. Does "We need to jail climate deniers", sound familiar?
As far as the models go, they describe an alarmingly exponentiation rise in global climate, implying an impending catastrophe outcome, however, the actual data points to a natural fluctuation in temperatures. Also, look at the fossil record, mammals thrive in much higher CO2 concentrations, around 1200-1400pmm compared to our 400ppm rate.
Also, the Temperature will rise, possibly to melt all the ice on the planet, a condition that has existed on this planet many times in the past. The place I'm writing this post from was once covered in 2 miles of ice, a mere 20,000 years ago. We will have many thousands of years to deal with rising sea levels.
Furthermore, there is no scientific consensus on the effects of global warming. The consensus exists on whether or not the climate is changing due to man made influence. Almost all actual climate scientists, don't buy into the AGW hysterics, only the policy makers do.
Lastly, another ice age is far and away more scary than a warming planet.
#145
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 137
Sure, priests lie to you, politicians lie to you, the company, and the union lie to you. Are scientists somehow the only group exempt from lying?
Remember, the Church jailed Galileo because they knew he was right, and his findings questioned the legitimacy of the church based government. Does "We need to jail climate deniers", sound familiar?
As far as the models go, they describe an alarmingly exponentiation rise in global climate, implying an impending catastrophe outcome, however, the actual data points to a natural fluctuation in temperatures. Also, look at the fossil record, mammals thrive in much higher CO2 concentrations, around 1200-1400pmm compared to our 400ppm rate.
Also, the Temperature will rise, possibly to melt all the ice on the planet, a condition that has existed on this planet many times in the past. The place I'm writing this post from was once covered in 2 miles of ice, a mere 20,000 years ago. We will have many thousands of years to deal with rising sea levels.
Furthermore, there is no scientific consensus on the effects of global warming. The consensus exists on whether or not the climate is changing due to man made influence. Almost all actual climate scientists, don't buy into the AGW hysterics, only the policy makers do.
Lastly, another ice age is far and away more scary than a warming planet.
Remember, the Church jailed Galileo because they knew he was right, and his findings questioned the legitimacy of the church based government. Does "We need to jail climate deniers", sound familiar?
As far as the models go, they describe an alarmingly exponentiation rise in global climate, implying an impending catastrophe outcome, however, the actual data points to a natural fluctuation in temperatures. Also, look at the fossil record, mammals thrive in much higher CO2 concentrations, around 1200-1400pmm compared to our 400ppm rate.
Also, the Temperature will rise, possibly to melt all the ice on the planet, a condition that has existed on this planet many times in the past. The place I'm writing this post from was once covered in 2 miles of ice, a mere 20,000 years ago. We will have many thousands of years to deal with rising sea levels.
Furthermore, there is no scientific consensus on the effects of global warming. The consensus exists on whether or not the climate is changing due to man made influence. Almost all actual climate scientists, don't buy into the AGW hysterics, only the policy makers do.
Lastly, another ice age is far and away more scary than a warming planet.
And if the results suggest dangerous consequences for millions of people, then you would support emissions controls?
#146
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
So if you think the models are no good, and you say we can't accurately predict the changes, I think you would agree that better and more transparent research should be conducted.
And if the results suggest dangerous consequences for millions of people, then you would support emissions controls?
And if the results suggest dangerous consequences for millions of people, then you would support emissions controls?
In the mean time, don't buy crap from China.
#147
And lots that are claiming the sky is falling are funded by governments with an agenda.
In fact most of the research on both sides are funded by stakeholders.
Many of the "peer-reviewed" research depends on grants by governments and leftist organizations with an agenda. Most of them are unwilling to entertain anything that doesn't have confirmation bias in it because it doesn't serve their purpose.
As a friend of mine recently noted: "There are actually right leaning organizations seeking free market solutions to pollution, climate change, deforestation, etc. Because their solutions don't encourage massive expansion of government and diminishing individual liberty, the leftist climate movement won't give them the time of day."
#148
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 451
As a friend of mine recently noted: "There are actually right leaning organizations seeking free market solutions to pollution, climate change, deforestation, etc. Because their solutions don't encourage massive expansion of government and diminishing individual liberty, the leftist climate movement won't give them the time of day."
#149
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Lots of them, yes.
And lots that are claiming the sky is falling are funded by governments with an agenda.
In fact most of the research on both sides are funded by stakeholders.
Many of the "peer-reviewed" research depends on grants by governments and leftist organizations with an agenda. Most of them are unwilling to entertain anything that doesn't have confirmation bias in it because it doesn't serve their purpose.
As a friend of mine recently noted: "There are actually right leaning organizations seeking free market solutions to pollution, climate change, deforestation, etc. Because their solutions don't encourage massive expansion of government and diminishing individual liberty, the leftist climate movement won't give them the time of day."
And lots that are claiming the sky is falling are funded by governments with an agenda.
In fact most of the research on both sides are funded by stakeholders.
Many of the "peer-reviewed" research depends on grants by governments and leftist organizations with an agenda. Most of them are unwilling to entertain anything that doesn't have confirmation bias in it because it doesn't serve their purpose.
As a friend of mine recently noted: "There are actually right leaning organizations seeking free market solutions to pollution, climate change, deforestation, etc. Because their solutions don't encourage massive expansion of government and diminishing individual liberty, the leftist climate movement won't give them the time of day."
#150
You're missing the point. No one on this forum is qualified to make a claim regarding climate change.
It is akin to a non-pilot telling 97% of pilots they're flying wrong.
Which is why we rely on scientists.
So if you say it isn't happening, the only way to support your argument is to provide links to scientific research, in the form of peer-reviewed studies. Or some concrete evidence of a conspiracy on the part of hundreds of scientific organizations.
In decades worth of following the subject I've seen not a single piece of well-researched evidence of either.
The onus is on folks who do not want to listen to the scientific consensus.
Or, they can admit, which I'm coming to believe is a more honest truth, that they don't really care whether the climate is changing because of human activity.
It is akin to a non-pilot telling 97% of pilots they're flying wrong.
Which is why we rely on scientists.
So if you say it isn't happening, the only way to support your argument is to provide links to scientific research, in the form of peer-reviewed studies. Or some concrete evidence of a conspiracy on the part of hundreds of scientific organizations.
In decades worth of following the subject I've seen not a single piece of well-researched evidence of either.
The onus is on folks who do not want to listen to the scientific consensus.
Or, they can admit, which I'm coming to believe is a more honest truth, that they don't really care whether the climate is changing because of human activity.
GP
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post