Shocker: study finds global warming may be net beneficial for the global economy

Just pointing out how content this isn't science.

 

people agreeing that they can not prove false the current theory, is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

 

All I ever asked you for we're names and credentials of all these marvelous cosmologists that you can produce.

It's funny how easy you claimed it was so I'm thinking you were lying when you said that.

 

It is when it's a lot of people, specifically trained to study that particular issue, who all find that they are achieving the same results independently of each other. That is the scientific process. Start with a hypothesis, test, retest, re retest, and then get someone else to test it as well. Then publish, and get it tested by other testers. If everyone comes to the same conclusions, that's a consensus. There are many instances where the consensus is invalidated somewhere along the line, or in the future when knew information becomes available, but there is nothing in the scientific world that is considered a metaphysical certitude. Except maybe 1+1=2

 

All I ever asked you for we're names and credentials of all these marvelous cosmologists that you can produce.

It's funny how easy you claimed it was so I'm thinking you were lying when you said that.

 

opinions are not facts in no way shape and form.

Laymen should really keep their noses out of science

meaning consensus isn't science.

I'm sorry consensus is just people agreeing with each other that's opinion not truth not Fact not science in any way shape and form.

 

A consensus has nothing to do with the information the individuals are interacting with.

The theory of gravity is a scientific consensus.

That what the vast majority of people see as the color 'blue', is a consensus.

I think your focusing way to much on the word itself, because the definition is simply a 'general agreement'.

The concept of a consensus in science is simply the word used to say that almost everyone who is asked about that particular subject, agrees.

 

That's what I have been telling you. Consensus is just opinion.

no it isn't it's a theory based on physics.

no it isn't. Things that are blue reflect a specific wavelength of light.

you don't seem to understand the concept of a consensus in science. You think the laws of physics are based on consensus. They are not based on observable data.

 

Consensus is the consolidated scientific approval by the body of individuals.

Yes. And the consensus is that gravitational pull is based on our understanding of physics.

Yes, and the consensus, is that specific wavelength will be known as 'blue'.

No, I believe that the consensus is the general agreement that the observable data adheres to the previously understood physics.

 

No, consensus is just people agreeing with each other.

I'm sorry that statement didn't make any sense. nothing in physics is based on our understanding.

so there's consensus and language sure blue means blue that's consensus.

That's a bit of a bizarre foray into semantics.

you believe ignorant things. Consensus is people agreeing with one another.

 

Yes. and Scientific Consensus is scientists agreeing whit each other.

?? Our understanding of physics is based on the consensus of the studiers of physics.

Yep.

Welcome to this entire comment chain. I wondered how long it would take for you to arrive here.

You can't believe ignorant things because ignorance is the lack of knowledge of things. The things can't be ignorant or knowledgeable.

 

yes so it's just opinions.

our understanding of physics is based on actual data.

yes consensus in the meaning of words is how we formulate languages that makes sense. It's not science.

I'm sorry I thought you were talking about consensus as in science not consensus as in linguistics.

That's a whole different think yes there has to be consensus on what words mean otherwise languages don't exist.

I don't know how that means consensus is science but here we are.

Okay you believe incorrect things.

 

you mean these scientists?

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

 

I gave you a link with dozens of scientists.

Stop acting ignorant.

 

Pointing out that people 400 years ago held an inaccurate belief does not mean that the climate change science is suddenly not science.

 

Not what I said. Are you trying to be dishonest about what I said?

Once again, not what I said. Are you trying to be dishonest about what I said?

LOL And strike 3. Not what I said. Are you trying to be dishonest about what I said?

Stick to what my actual argument is not the strawman you set up instead of dealing with it. I'll say it again. There is no proof whatsoever that anyone can point to as the primary catalyst of climate change and there is no proof humans are the primary cause of climate change.

Next time stick to what I actually said cubed.

If you really cared about the environment you would stick to what can actually be proven such as trash in the ocean, human created chemicals fouling the land etc.

Your style of argument is always the same. You pretend to be neutral on the argument only to be proven you are anything but when your actual words are revealed.

A revenue neutral carbon tax is the most efficient and 'free market' approach to dealing with climate change. We are at 20$ a tonne and that (up to maaaybe 30) seems reasonable

And


I wondered when this argument would start getting rolled out.

From: There is no such thing as climate change

To: Well its to late. We screwed ourselves so bad we can't do anything about it. Might as well do less now and enjoy life while we still can

Just mind-blowing sometimes.

And

Yes. If even North Korea realizes the problem of climate change is serious enough to warrant action, that says more negatively about America then everyone else.

Its always amusing when you try and back track after you are corned and I have to dig up your posts to bring you back to your actual feelings on the issue. Of course you have pretended we as humans can actually combat climate change without a shred of evidence to support you. Heck you even support a tax to do it!

LOL I need evidence for human based climate change? Why would I need that? I'm not the one making the argument.

Nope. Are you?

 

Hans-Otto Pörtner
CV found here: https://www.ipcc.ch/people/hans-otto-portner/

 

Credentials please.

 

Oh you misunderstand me. I never said climate change was not science.

I just don't think the Doomsday prophecy is science.

My apologies I didn't make that clear.

 

I don't look at likes it's not my job to go out and prove your argument. That's your burden.

acting ignorant the f*** are you talking about? You only listed in one scientist and zero credentials.

Don't call me names because you're lazy.

 

Yes, I am too lazy to copy and paste an entire CV and so I just copy and pasted a link to the CV.

You are either wilfully ignorant or admitting that you are too lazy to click a link.

 

Modern genetics have really helped on the water use efficiency side on ag crops. We are growing more food even in dry years. We have had droughts before. They are nothing new. We’ve got it covered.

On locusts I’ll just say LOL and leave you with this.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sc...ng-insects-could-help-us-save-the-planet/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...his-health-app-is-betting-yes/?outputType=amp
Leftist are never happy. They want to eat insects. They get insects and they complain.

Honeybee colony collapse looks like a fungicide (and other pesticides) issue at this point. If you think global warming will produce hot dry weather, fungicide use will decrease dramatically. The bees will be happy. Historically, the most significant killer of colonies is long cold winters. A warming climate with shorter winters would greatly benefit honeybees. You have brought up a good point though. Colony collapse must be solved.

 

then also isn't what I'm asking.

See the problem with online debate is that people like you are too lazy to actually debate.

Links are not meant to be arguments. They should be references that support your arguments.

if you're too lazy to prove your own argument what the hell are you doing here?

It's not my burden to read links. Your argument is your burden to prove.

Demanding I research your argument is laziness on your part. You are very reluctantly posted a link after you told me to Google you're claim.

I don't think this is laziness. I think it's dishonesty and ignorance. You don't want to put forth the effort because you don't want to discuss it.

You just want to label me a heretic or a denier because it's easier unless I'm comfortable than evaluating your own beliefs.

You already believe that I don't think it changes science which is something you cooked up in your own skull because you don't want to address this. Just like any other religious person who is challenged on their beliefs.

It's called disgust based thinking. It's Savage tribalism for the modern era. If something goes against your ideology it is there for the devil. Puritans thought this way.

I'm not here to be adversarial I'm here to get you to make a cogent argument to try and get you to actually think for yourself.

 

I know those aren't what you said. I was explaining the 3 potential options that exist. It's called elucidating on the point for which neither of us has a concrete answer for.

Sure. I'm not disagreeing with you because I have not been presented with any evidence that answers that question with 100% certainty.

I never said I believed that there was said evidence.

Just because I don't have evidence that humans are the categorical reason for the changing climate that we are experiencing, doesn't mean I cant support measures to help deal with the problem presented.

I do support a carbon tax, because I believe it can generate revenue used to invest in green technologies because I believe that using fewer fossil fuels and harnessing the power of our planet and basically not treating it like a poophole, is a benefit both environmentally and economically.

Nothing in any of those posts Indicate anything about my thoughts on what caused climate change, but simply the recognition of the changing climate and the desire to do what we can to make things better.

Your making the argument that humans have not affected the climate, correct? If not, what argument Are you making? Or is this just about me?

Nope. Glad to see both of our opinions hold the same amount of actual weight. Zero.

 

Yes, those scientists included.