Science cannot say what the weather was like at any point in time in the past with any certitude because weather is a daily occurrence , but they can easily look at fossil remains and other evidence, and tell what the overall climate was over one larger general period. Of late, each decade has set new records for warmth in the world’s average temps since record keeping started. With evidence, we can easily generalize the climate during each period for thousands of years back. So, we have accurate ideas of what is happening.
The degree to which people live in fantasy land is shocking and horrifying. An old friend of mine has been getting sucked into the right-wing hyperbole to such an extent that he is now completely irrational at times. He is becoming incapable accepting any information he doesn't like. I can debate something with him and prove I'm right. But in a week, it's like it never happened and he's making the same bogus arguments. And he bounces from one irrational objection to the next, with no time for thought. At times it even sounds rehearsed - like he's committed every dodge and equivocation to memory and reacts on impulse. In short, he is mimicking the talking heads on RW media. I would bet that 90% of RW posts here are just the mindless regurgitation of what they heard on TV, the internet, or the radio.
I know the type. It’s especially obvious when they group, usually at golf courses which seems to be a GOP breeding ground, and reinforce each other. When that happens, it’s an impenetrable barrier to truth. Obvious too, how one can predict what side many will come down upon on nearly every topic in the forum.
You’ll have keep disagreeing with our own military and soon, a majority of red states hit harder and harder by the evidence of climate change, not just in violent weather, but by newer and more viral strains if diseases that evolve faster then we humans can adapt. * peopleandtheplanet.com *Climate change will also affect infectious disease occurrence.” A number of diseases well known to be climate-sensitive, such as malaria, dengue fever, West Nile virus, cholera and Lyme disease, are expected to worsen as climate change results in higher temperatures and more extreme weather events.*
Aside from the fact that computer models aren't the primary or even secondary line of evidence scientist use to predict the global mean temperature they actually do quite well at both past and present climate eras. In fact, it is computer models and only computer models that have successfully hindcasted the glacial/interglacial cycles with reasonable skill. They do even better with more contemporary climate change. The only people who are dead wrong are those that selectively ignore one or more known climate forcing agents. If you ignore CO2 you won't even come close to explaining past or present climate change. That is a fact.
Thats exactly right. Well put. Any number of scientist can made any claims they wish but general consensus is always open to potential discoveries. The general concensus is always limited by “ what we know now.” Global warming is a fact, not a concoction.
This is not the first time that experts, in some narrow field of expertise, were sincerely left to believe that the world as we know it depends upon their wisdom and guidance. I have personally heard preachers and politicians make the same claim. In fact, the whole global warming hoax smacks of religion. I'm not buying it. The emperor has no clothes.
Narrow field of expertise ? Every university in the world, every major corporation, every free world military, every free world Govt.... .......narrow field ? How about the Bricklayers Union, they joined the BlueGreen Aliance in recognizing Climate change. The religion of bricklayers ? https://www.workdayminnesota.org/articles/bricklayers-join-bluegreen-alliance .
You overstate the significance of those who agree with you and understate the significance of those who disagree with you. I have read quite a bit from many contradictory points of view. I have had no problem finding very credible arguments made by very credible people who disagree with those you cite. I find their arguments to be reasonable. I do not find your arguments at all plausible. In my opinion, anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change is, at best, an anthropocentric arrogance, or at worst, a hoax. The same can be said of the others religions.
If you Google "people who agree that Bigfoot exists" you're going to get a lot of hits for people who agree that Bigfoot exists. So when you start looking for "scientists who think climate change is a hoax," you're going to find conformational bias that climate change is a hoax. But like Bigfoot believers - it's still a very small sub-set of actual scientists.
All the universities and research institutes , the military, every major corporation and every govt In the free world aren’t credible ? What is ? Go ahead, list some of your credible resources. I’ve listed mine.....let’s compare. Btw, Science is based upon evidence. Religion is based upon faith. Faith by definition, requires the lack if evidence. AGW us not a religion. Not believing in AGW is a religion.
Even your fellow bricklayers union disagrees with deniers. Other then Fox, you’d be hard pressed to find any institute that does not believe in AGW.
The OP's premise is essentially because we don't have perfect knowledge of climate change it must therefore be a hoax and any prescribed mitigation steps are an overreach. That's as ridiculous a statement as saying because we don't know exactly how cancer works it must therefore be a hoax and any prescribed treatments of it are an overreach.
Exactly... Not believing in AGW is the religion. All deniers have to do is create one element of doubt in one vague aspect of AGW, and their religious belief is realized.
The sad thing about Fox or anyother collection of influential deniers is, they know they are spewing BS, and they do it anyway, including the simpleton inthe WH.
I've read both sides. So far, I find the anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change polemics to be, quite frankly, ridiculous - no matter who makes them. I am not swayed by the who or how many people proffer an argument. I read. I consider, and I make up my own mind. My opinions are subject to change; but so far, they are what they are. In my opinion, Anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change is, at best, an anthropocentric arrogance; or at worst, a hoax.
The only "evidence" extends from computer models that have been wrong since they have been employed over the last decades and have never been able to accurately predict climate in the past. I want to be remembered has having called BS.
I'm sitting in my office now looking at dozens of well written books on the topic. If you are that unfamiliar with the countermanding literature, that could explain your position. I rarely take other people's opinions at face value when it comes to the most important things. I read. I consider, and I make up my own mind. Just who or how many others hold positions counter to mine plays absolutely no part when it comes to actually putting their ideas to the test. It may influence what ideas I test, but it has no influence upon the tests themselves.
Selective reading of those who we already agree with is not the search for truth.. Just find any major institution that agrees with deniers, and you might have a point. Right now, it’s just an opinion.
You seem to be unaware of ideas with which you disagree. You're written nothing to indicate, to me, that you're at all familiar with the body of literature available. Ideas that emanate from "major institutions" carry no more or less weight with me. I evaluate the information on its merits. AGW is not credible; it is incredible. It is, at best, an arrogance or at worse a hoax.
It would literally defy the laws of physics to claim that man has no impact on his environment. EVERY component of an environment has an impact on that environment. Removing one ounce of water has an impact on that environment. It defies logic to claim 7 billion people dumping billions of tons of waste products every day into an environment would not impact that environment.
I couldn't get through the first line of the above post. "No impact" is hyperbole. I have an 'impact' on sea level every time I pee in the ocean.
I am fully aware of the non fact based regious fever of non scientific endeavors to convince the GOP that fossil fuel companies need more profits. There is no debate. The world is not flat either. Why would I ever read tripe that disagrees with every accredited university and research facility in the entire world. It isn’t like it’s even close. I Respect your right to believe anthing you want.
