The Climate Alarmist 97% Lie !!!

Just because we are coming out of the little ice age doesn't mean the cause isn't CO2. Our temperature is normal compared to the last 5 million years but abnormal compared to the last 2,000 years, it depends on the time period. We can decide what the temperature should be by looking at what it was in the past and whether artificially changing it at an extreme rate will harm the economy.

 

Hey, dude! It's not meant as an insult. Not knowing something is not a bad thing. If you were to say to me "You don't know anything about... heart surgery...." or "you don't know the difference between an AR-15 and an M16 " I wouldn't take it as an insult. You would just be stating a fact. Because I don't. People can't know about everything.

 

I have been involved in science my whole adult life including a stint as a meteorologist. You have not demonstrated any knowledge of science whatsoever. Not an insult. Just a fact.

 

Anything that affirms his religion is the gospel truth. Anything that does not is the work of the devil.

If you read and cite the work of the devil you are a heretic I mean denier.

 

Well you know the scenario where we're supposed to be underwater because of the ice caps melting? That was supposed to happen in 1997.

It was based on the rate of ice melt they had recorded at the time. During the time of their recording there was record ice melt since then all the ice that had melted and refrozen and then some.

They were scrambling for an explanation for this and instead of just saying well it's a phenomenon that we don't understand they made up this nonsense about global warming. when it was discovered that it was nonsense they started calling it climate change.

 

And yet you post nothing of science, just right wing politics.

You seem to think scientists rarely agree. But, your average scientist spends seven years learning scientific facts. Proven facts. Everyone agrees that DNA is the genetic blueprint that all living things use. Everyone agrees that it is gravity that keeps planets in their orbits, and keeps people and things attracted to the ground. Everyone agrees that heat is a measure of particle motion. Everyone agrees on the properties of electricity. Indeed whole industries have grown up around that common understanding.

There is very much agreement on the interaction between molecules, atoms, and electromagnetic radiation. In fact, modernity is only possible, because of that shared understanding. A understanding that time and time again has proven highly accurate.

Yet for the denial arguments to work, we must ignore all that we know to be proven highly accurate.

In the end, it is the empirical evidence that wins the day. That empirical evidence has been consistently showing, going back to the 1800's, that increases in the emissions of fossil fuels has correlated to rises in average surface temperatures.

Perhaps some have made unrealistic predictions, but it takes noting from the underlying science.

By the way. Back in the 70's, when global warming first started making its way into the public discussion, there was a credible objection, made by many scientists. An objection, by the way, I first thought, but the science has proven the objection, not to have the counteracting effect that at first seems intuitive.

The whole global warming issue has greatly increased my interest in that science that lives where physics and chemistry meet. The dance between particles. I've always been amazed, at how something simple, on the smallest scale, can be repeatedly duplicated, and the end result, is something entirely different.

In nature, all of life is mostly made of proteins. There are many millions of types with many different properties and characteristics, yet all have a nearly identical underlying structure.

They are made from amino acids. There are 22 amino acids. They are nearly identical in that they have a central ring, that is common to all. But each type has a slightly different tail.

When your body builds things, like to repair and maintain your body, essentially what happens, is the cell reads the DNA, and then makes proteins. Each protein has a recipe something like, a sting of 100 of amino acid A followed by a string of 50 of amino acid B, and another 100 of amino acid A. It is from these simple strings that all the variety of life is created.

At an even lower level, there is basically only 3 things, the electron, proton and neutron. In a similar fashion, by regular combinations, all the variety of the universe can be created.

Below that, just a vibration in a field.

 

My studies and actual empirical experience is in Epistemology. But you're right. I haven't shown any knowledge of science in this discussion. I have shown what I know in other similar discussions, but not in this one. But I also haven't shown any ignorance of Science. You, on the other hand, have shown plenty of the latter.

 

When you come into this discussion and helps you to understand the people posting it a lot better if you first understand that when people say science they mean anything that supports left-wing politics. it is the definition of a confirmation bias they want this to be true they desperately needed to be true and they will ridicule you and call you a science denier for suggesting it's not. Just like how the Catholic Church treated Galileo when he said the Earth is not the center of the solar system.

 

Show me specifically where I am wrong.

 

Wrong?

"Wrong" would imply that you know what you're talking about and that you just made some sort of "mistake" or something...

This doesn't even have anything to do with Climate Change. You deny the effectiveness of Science itself. And you don't even know what Science is or how it works. This is not an insult. What in the world could I tell you after that?

Science works. The Scientific Method works. It can be improved. It has been improved. Much progress has been made in modern (experimental) Science since Galileo. And it's still improving. But Science has proven it's worth. We have been to the moon. We have built great technology based on scientific knowledge. We have expanded human life expectancy (average was about 40 years before experimental Science)..... So when you start hearing denialist nonsense, and they start describing something that is so obviously not Science.... there is nothing more to say other than show me something that has shown to be better. As a matter of fact.... show me something that is even half as effective, or that has delivered even a fraction of what Science has delivered

 

You claim I am ignorant of science and yet you do not show any place where I was wrong. You only make these empty claims that I am scientifically ignorant.

There is a fundamental problem with the science. That is a problem with verification. They have been consistently wrong in the past. There is no reason to have confidence in their projections. That being the case I am reluctant to say we should be spending monumental amounts of money trying to change the outcome.

 

.
Science is not based on verification. It's based on falsification.

 

This particular science has a fundamental problem. They have been consistently wrong in the past which gives me little confidence they will do any better in the future. You take it on faith because someone convinced you that it must be correct. I see little in the science to give me that faith.

But again. You said I was scientifically ignorant, but you fail to show me where I have been wrong about anything. Only that I disagree with your blind faith.

 

You left out the Department of Defense, and the EPA (at least before Trump started trying to destroy it).

 

The flat earth crowd loves this nonsense.

They’re just about the only people left on the planet that do.

 

That the American Meteorological Society is listed is interesting. The membership opinion differs widely in the effect of man on global warming and especially on the ability to accurately predict the effects.

 

The above is fine. We on the republican side also were educated in science courses. I suspect we were not educated in all science courses. I know the courses I am weakest in. I know my strengths too. I also have paid a lot of attention to scientists who are famous in the field of climatology. I find there is a wide variation in the beliefs. Believing in atoms is not like studying the global impact of footprints of climate.

Let me illustrate footprints.

The Arctic is a footprint. It is so different from the Deserts it qualifies as do Deserts. The bulk of earth is composed of water. As it turns out, Clouds, a major component of climate are dispersed well. I believe that roughly 70 percent of Earth has cloud cover at one time. 30 percent with no cloud cover has a different impact than the parts with clouds. And the changes to climate are striking. Anyway, the idea that one comprehends weather with no formal study is rare. And the idea one comprehends climate even more rare.

I would say for example that both Dr. Curry and Dr. Lindzen are true experts on this topic. Both caution us not to lose a lot of sleep over climate.

Humans survive at both poles that are both extremes as well in deserts. Humans find a way to survive. The alamists show up with laws but not solutions.

 

There is no "particular science" There is only science: Which is any discipline that follows the scientific method. This is where your ignorance shines. You asked, and I have answered: This, and what I have already pointed out (that long ago defunct concept of "verification") is what reveals you lack of familiarity with the most basic concepts of science. Any first year science student.... even a non-science college student who is taking their first basic general studies classes, will learn that the scientific method is based on falsifiability on their first year on their first day on the first hour of their first class. I know because I used to teach that class.

 

That is BS. Of course there are particular sciences. Methods and procedures are different. Even the scientific method differs according to the particular discipline. Based on what I have heard so far, I can come to only one conclusion. You have only blind faith in believing something which you have been told you should believe. No technical reason to believe. That is the worse reason to believe.

 

I have no idea why anyone wastes their time on this asinine nonsense. The world has moved on.

And so has the business world.

Renewables exceeded coal in electric production in April. This is an anomaly at the moment. But not for much longer.

Wind and solar are spreading like wildfire,

The success of the Landsale wind powered battery farm in Australia has ignited a stampede to install similar technology all over the world. The demand for lithium ion batteries (or a better replacement) will increase 13 fold in less than ten years.

By then, Power Walls will be standard equipment in new production housing. You’ll be able to buy one at Home Depot.

Of course, by then, most people will already have bought their last gas powered car.

And all of this will be at the cost of high cost, high liability, and inefficient central power plants, and that means coal, nuclear, and even some natural gas.

 

It does not!!!! From Physics to History. From Chemistry to Linguistics to biology to exobiology... Physical sciences, biological sciences, social sciences.... the core Scientific Method is the same

Forget it.... It's obviously too much for you.

 

You were saying a while ago there was no particular science. Only science and yet you list all those different sciences.
There isn't even a core scientific method. There is a general concept at best. You believe because someone convinced you should believe, not because you have any real understanding.

 

Curry and Litzen are crackpots who work for oil companies. They’re junk science guys, and they alway have been.

 

That is so wrong i was tempted to blow it off as just dumb.

Even if both worked for oil companies, that does not invalidate their hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers on the topic of climate. And they are deep researchers. They actually understand this topic.

 

Everyone works for someone and they tend to owe their allegiance to that employer, whether it be an oil company or the US government. As I mentioned once before, most scientists are not as objective you most people believe. They have their pet projects and pet ideas and once they get entrenched in those ideas, you cannot convince them otherwise.