After 8 years, next IPCC report on climate change on its way

[renniks]

Your personal incredulity is noted.



Actual experts say otherwise.

I'm an expert because I said so.
As expert as the fortune teller so called climate experts.

 

[Belk]

I'm an expert because I said so.
As expert as the fortune teller so called climate experts.

Amazingly enough your incredulity is still not an argument against the evidence amassed by experts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm an expert because I said so.

That's not how it works.

We all understand how the contrarians reject the opinions of experts and the very idea of expertise itself. But if you reject the idea of expertise, that doesn't make everyone an expert.

It just makes the idea of knowledge futile, and you adhere to the fantasies most pleasing to you.

Nevertheless, knowledge and expertise do not evaporate.

 

[sjastro]

I'm an expert because I said so.
As expert as the fortune teller so called climate experts.

Ignorance and a limited capacity for comprehension are not prerequisites for expertise.

 

[renniks]

Ignorance and a limited capacity for comprehension are not prerequisites for expertise.

So... Calling someone ignorant because they don't agree with certain " experts" is allowed by the rules? I've been banned for less

 

[sjastro]

So... Calling someone ignorant because they don't agree with certain " experts" is allowed by the rules? I've been banned for less

Why don't you enlighten us on why you disagree with the experts?
Is it because you have a profound understanding of the Navier Stokes equations and realise they are inapplicable for climate change models in post #57; or is it because you have reasons to question the ensemble mean forecasts and hindcasts made by climate models in 2004 which agree with measurements as illustrated in post #5?

Your true motivations are transparent; the only reason why you disagree with the experts is that you see science as an attack on your faith and not on the science itself which you are clearly ignorant of.

 

[renniks]

Why don't you enlighten us on why you disagree with the experts?
Is it because you have a profound understanding of the Navier Stokes equations and realise they are inapplicable for climate change models in post #57; or is it because you have reasons to question the ensemble mean forecasts and hindcasts made by climate models in 2004 which agree with measurements as illustrated in post #5?

Your true motivations are transparent; the only reason why you disagree with the experts is that you see science as an attack on your faith and not on the science itself which you are clearly ignorant of.

What in the world does my faith even have to do with this topic?

 

[Strathos]

What in the world does my faith even have to do with this topic?

Very little, other than the fact that:

- The right-wing populist faction of US politics has, over the past half-century or so, succeeded in effectively hijacking Christianity and indoctrinated US Christians into supporting their side of all of their pet issues, even if such positions on those issues are not supported by, or even contradicted by, the Bible.

- One of those issues is the denial of anthropogenic climate change (as the fossil fuel lobby has spent billions of dollars to discredit the science, because they don't want to lose their profits to renewable sources of energy).

- Hence, many Christians in the US deny climate change, even though such a position is really not consistent with Christianity. We're supposed to be stewards of the earth, and it's awfully sinful to wreck the world that God made for us.

 

[sjastro]

What in the world does my faith even have to do with this topic?

If it has nothing to do with faith then you must be disagreeing with the science in which case why have you ignored the first paragraph in my previous post?

Here it is again.

Why don't you enlighten us on why you disagree with the experts?
Is it because you have a profound understanding of the Navier Stokes equations and realise they are inapplicable for climate change models in post #57; or is it because you have reasons to question the ensemble mean forecasts and hindcasts made by climate models in 2004 which agree with measurements as illustrated in post #5?

 

[renniks]

Very little, other than the fact that:

- The right-wing populist faction of US politics has, over the past half-century or so, succeeded in effectively hijacking Christianity and indoctrinated US Christians into supporting their side of all of their pet issues, even if such positions on those issues are not supported by, or even contradicted by, the Bible.

- One of those issues is the denial of anthropogenic climate change (as the fossil fuel lobby has spent billions of dollars to discredit the science, because they don't want to lose their profits to renewable sources of energy).

- Hence, many Christians in the US deny climate change, even though such a position is really not consistent with Christianity. We're supposed to be stewards of the earth, and it's awfully sinful to wreck the world that God made for us.

It's actually pretty simple. The climate has always changed and still does.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's actually pretty simple. The climate has always changed and still does.

What the data show is that it is changing much more rapidly, and because of human action.

Whether humans want to do anything about it, to mitigate the ensuing effects, is a separate question.

 

[mindfulzen]

i didn't complain about the cleaner reactor itself, but that they are not going to give a bad report on china's issues. when they got a partnership with china. if you read what the poster said about oak ridge report on china pollution of coarse the company isn't going to report something negative.

I do not bother going back, to see all the moved goalposts. Point is, you dogged Oak ridge company, and could not be trusted because of a clean energy partnership in China. In a thread about cutting emissions. Does not make sense, you argue sides now, partypolitics, instead of the object that is emissioncuts and the envirnoment. I do not do partypolitics on this issue. I just do reality, and that you need current energycompanies to make the transitional energysource that is cleaner, meanwhile you wait for green energy to be possible to replace fossil fuel, or nuclear fuel. View it as a sodamanufacturer, soda is bad for you, so they make a dietsoda without sugar, still not healthy, but less harmful. While we waith for a soda that is healthy, we do not stop drinking soda while waiting.

 

[BeyondET]

I do not bother going back, to see all the moved goalposts. Point is, you dogged Oak ridge company, and could not be trusted because of a clean energy partnership in China. In a thread about cutting emissions. Does not make sense, you argue sides now, partypolitics, instead of the object that is emissioncuts and the envirnoment. I do not do partypolitics on this issue. I just do reality, and that you need current energycompanies to make the transitional energysource that is cleaner, meanwhile you wait for green energy to be possible to replace fossil fuel, or nuclear fuel. View it as a sodamanufacturer, soda is bad for you, so they make a dietsoda without sugar, still not healthy, but less harmful. While we waith for a soda that is healthy, we do not stop drinking soda while waiting.

because you didn't go back and read you are misunderstanding what i said or trying to create a scenario of what i said of something i did not mean.

 

[renniks]

What the data show is that it is changing much more rapidly, and because of human action.

Whether humans want to do anything about it, to mitigate the ensuing effects, is a separate question.

It never changed rapidly before? Sure it did.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It never changed rapidly before? Sure it did.

What evidence has made you sure of this?

 

[Strathos]

What evidence has made you sure of this?

It has changed rapidly before. That usually was the result of natural disasters like massive volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts, which led to mass extinctions. This time we're the ones causing it.

 

[sjastro]

It never changed rapidly before? Sure it did.

I have said this many times the signature condition of human involvement in climate warming is the troposphere and the lower stratosphere are now out phase, the troposphere is becoming warmer and lower stratosphere cooler.
This doesn't happen when climate change occurs naturally through variation in solar radiation heating up the surface and atmosphere.

Lower stratospheric cooling was a prediction made in the 1960s when human induced climate change was still a theoretical consideration.

 

[durangodawood]

I have said this many times the signature condition of human involvement in climate warming is the troposphere and the lower stratosphere are now out phase, the troposphere is becoming warmer and lower stratosphere cooler.
This doesn't happen when climate change occurs naturally through variation in solar radiation heating up the surface and atmosphere.

Lower stratospheric cooling was a prediction made in the 1960s when human induced climate change was still a theoretical consideration.

You have this quaint idea that reality leads and ideological commitments follow.