I didn't see any citation of science in that video. If you can identify what scientist or scientific organization published that video, I'd appreciate that. Until then, you can't claim it came from science.
Science isn't authoritarian, its objective--decide for yourself the truth or falsehood of a premise, "fact", postulate, theory, or truth by reference to reality, e.g., there is a reason rational minds are without a belief in unicorns, though others believe them real.
It's a device of logic, reductio ad absurdum. In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is a form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.[4][5] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.[6]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum In this case, I just follow the logic of the argument of the apoplectic climatologists--The creative activity of man is creating his own destruction. Well, one of those activities is sharing a burger with your girl while sharing a coke by sipping through straws. Hence, eating burgers and being in love is destroying the universe. That's basically what their argument boils down to.
Wouldn't it be nice...if climatologists had the moral integrity of this scientist--she admits her errors openly. "Frances Arnold, an American scientist and winner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry, retracted a paper published last year after admitting to faulty research." https://www.foxnews.com/science/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-retracts-paper
No, science does NOT propose that you get to decide for yourself. The methodology of science calls for independent testing and review on a continuing basis to REMOVE that factor. You DO get to decide whether to reject science in favor of any abject nonsense you choose. But, that has nothing to do with science. It has to do with YOU and your freedom of thought.
Science isn't saying that. Warming of this planet can certianly be a catastrophe, but no scientist is saying it will destroy the universe or even just Earth. They aren't even saying that humans won't survive. They ARE saying that various of our behaviors is causing enough warming that it will be a huge problem. Our own DoDefense says it is a serious issue of national security. Do you think they take that kind of thing lightly? Do you think our generals are a bunch of environment crazy flower children? There are several seriosuly extreme actions we could take that would individually make a real difference. We could build equipment to extract CO2 from our atmosphere. We could work to plant all surfaces not currently growing something. We could radically change our diets. We could move to clean energy in a big way - covering all roofs with solar, building wind power, etc., while seriously decreasing use of fossil fuel. Etc., etc. I don't believe we will try to solve the problem by doing just one of these - it's far more likely that we can do some of each while preparing for the warming that will still result. But, this is a political question - not a scientific question. If scietists say we can make a real difference by seriously reducing meat in our diets, that should be believed. But, it doesn't mean we're going to rely on that one solution - removing all beef from our diet, or whatever. We don't have to rely on one solution alone.
This isn't surprising in any way. Science is like that. What would be impressive is to see politicians behave in that way. For example, for decades there have been politicians who suggest that if we cut taxes we'll have higher revenue because of all the new enterprise. And, it has not even come CLOSE to working like that. Yet, we still hear politicians claim they are right!!
No, there have been other notable events that have to be taken into account. Recovering from the Bush recession made a significant change in tax revenue, for example. When huge numbers of people aren't finding employment, revenue goes down. And, today we're living on the trillion dollars/year that we're handing out.
Really? Could have fooled me. https://www.reference.com/science/destroying-environment-de752a6876d0b563
Where do you see "satellites?" From the post you misread: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the report based on a year of research from more than 100 scientists hailing from 30 countries.
Again where do you see the word "satellites?" The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the report based on a year of research from more than 100 scientists hailing from 30 countries.
No "WE" are not discussing crap YOU made up! The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the report based on a year of research from more than 100 scientists hailing from 30 countries.
Wow based on a year of research? From weather men from 30 countrys. What about the other 165 country's in the world .. The IPCC released 5 reports so far beginning with James Hansen in 1990. The science adviser for Al Gores movie
Yea not scientist but weatherman I am telling you facts I know all about the politics of AGW been studying it since the early 1970s
What problem do you have with this article? I'd say it points out what I said above - it's a combination of factors and the result is doing real damage that we will pay for. Here's the quote (paraphrased, I'm sure) concerning what scientists say: "Scientists agree that burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas to generate large amounts of energy is the human activity that has the greatest impact on global warming. Deforestation for housing, farming and industry has a direct effect on ecosystems and endangered species." The word "destroy" was used NOT by science, but by some reporter. I don't like it when they do that. I speak out against that kind of crap reporting. This is a tough enough subject without reporters attempting to sell stories with over the top rhetoric.
NO. NO!!! Science reports what is found in nature. POLITICIANS decide what to do about it - representatives voted by the people. Our political response to problems is infomed by religion, budget, practicality, science, etc. Science is only one of the inputs into governmental decision making. I'd argue that it is an important imput, as it is the only one that is based on what is actually happening in nature. But, it certainly isn't the only input.
It is estimated that more than 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere due to deforestation, mainly the cutting and burning of forests, every year. https://www.climateandweather.net › ... Deforestation and Climate Change - Climate and Weather
What does that even mean? The big banks of Europe refuse to lend money to Africa, people die by the hundreds of thousands over the southern hemisphere from indoor smoke inhalation.. You want to protect future generations, but who protects the ones today? Household air pollution and health - World Health Organization May 8, 2018 · Each year, close to 4 million people die prematurely from ... In poorly ventilated dwellings, indoor smoke can be 100 ... World Health Organization › news Indoor air pollution – the killer in the kitchen - WHO Oct 14, 2004 · Thick acrid smoke rising from stoves and fires inside homes is associated with around 1.6 million deaths per year in developing countries – that's one life lost every 20 seconds to the killer in the kitchen. Vox The deadliest environmental problem today is indoor air pollution — killing 4 million a year Sep 15, 2014 · These homes often have poor ventilation, and the smoke can cause all sorts of respiratory diseases. All told, indoor air pollution kills between 3.5 million and 4.3 million people each year. National Geographic › news › 1... WHO Report: Indoor Air Pollution Is Greatest Environmental Health Risk Mar 27, 2014 · Seven million people die each year because of exposure to air pollution. That's one in eight deaths across ... TreeHugger › Living › Culture 4 million people a year die from indoor cooking smoke | TreeHugger May 15, 2014 · The WHO estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to inhaling unhealthy airborne particles, which makes indoor cooking fires the biggest culprit for these deaths
