Global Warming---Oops!!

[1Sam15]

That's what freed the ship. The discussion is about what trapped the ship, unexpected heavy ice

Blown in around the ship.

That's the point. The wind patterns have become somewhat more confusing than in the past perhaps due to the stratospheric cooling from the ozone depletion down in Antarctica.

That's why I kept posting the science you chose to ignore.

It's not like the ship was in calm water and suddenly it all froze up around them.

 

[AirPo]

You know the old saying! If it walks like a duck...

Which doesn't apply ...

 

[1Sam15]

It's the Global Warming religion

Funny...you know when I talk religion at least I can quote the bible and even talk knowledgably about Christian soteriology and theology.

But when you guys talk science I never see any....ummmm...science.

 

[1Sam15]

Don't ask him to stop. Report him for this behavior whenever he does it.

I did so.

And later I was approached by a mod to change the language in one of my posts to NHE. I said I would do so gladly and could the mod please talk to NHE about his posting behavior.

He said he would.

I changed my language. But the posts I provided to the mod (at his request) to show NHE's consistent behavior have remained unchanged.

I really like that. It says about everything I need to know.

 

[MachZer0]

Funny...you know when I talk religion at least I can quote the bible and even talk knowledgably about Christian soteriology and theology.

But when you guys talk science I never see any....ummmm...science.

You don't see any science you like. But the more important point is that this is not the science forum. It's the politics forum.

 

[AirPo]

You don't see any science you like. But the more important point is that this is not the science forum. It's the politics forum.

Glad to see you realize that denialism is about politics, not science.

 

[BostonTzar]

I did so.

And later I was approached by a mod to change the language in one of my posts to NHE. I said I would do so gladly and could the mod please talk to NHE about his posting behavior.

He said he would.

I changed my language. But the posts I provided to the mod (at his request) to show NHE's consistent behavior have remained unchanged.

I really like that. It says about everything I need to know.

Do you want me to create a poll showing 97% or 98% agreement?

 

[BostonTzar]

Glad to see you realize that denialism is about politics, not science.

Both sides are all about politics. That's the point.

 

[bhsmte]

Consider this ...

To me, cooler heads equates with relying on objective evidence, instead of emotion or ideology.

In this regard, no matter how you slice it, science has religion licked.

 

[AirPo]

Both sides are all about politics. That's the point.

No, it's not. That's the point.

 

[bhsmte]

You don't see any science you like. But the more important point is that this is not the science forum. It's the politics forum.

A political forum in which your position is you disagree with what the majority of scientific experts in this field state in regards to this topic.

Science has held up over time based on this; if science has something wrong, there are always plenty of scientists more than willing to show someone is wrong and the process self corrects itself as objective evidence is gathered.

I have an advanced degree in a science related field, but am no expert on climate change, just as I am no expert in evolution, but I wouldn't bet the 99% of scientists most familiar with evolution, are wrong about their conclusions, nor would I bet against the vast majority of scientists most familiar with climate change and their conclusions.

 

[BostonTzar]

No, it's not. That's the point.

Sorry you missed it.

 

[BostonTzar]

A political forum in which your position is you disagree with what the majority of scientific experts in this field state in regards to this topic....

You're not really going to stand behind the 97% or 98% myth are you?

 

[bhsmte]

You're not really going to stand behind the 97% or 98% myth are you?

Frankly, I don't know what the numbers are, but my observation is a high percentage of scientists in this field agree they have enough objective evidence to come to the conclusions they do.

Could they be wrong? Sure they could be wrong and if they are, scientists will be the ones to point this out, but I wouldn't bet on them being wrong when you have a high majority agreeing.

 

[AirPo]

Sorry you missed it.

Sorry, I nailed it.

 

[1Sam15]

You're not really going to stand behind the 97% or 98% myth are you?

It's not a myth. At least two independent studies using different measures found the figure of about 97% consensus in the field.

With my degree and experience in earth sciences I've seen more people who believe agw is real than not.

Science isn't done by consensus, but a good hypothesis will, over time, develop a consensus.

The really cool thing about global climate change science is the basic science is pretty reasonable and makes sense. It's hard to argue with a century or two of thermodynamics, physics and chemistry.

The subtle details around climate change may be more difficult to grasp, but the basics are easy enough to grasp. And the science so far seems pretty lined up in the direction that global climate change is real and likely mostly caused by human activity.

 

[1Sam15]

You don't see any science you like. But the more important point is that this is not the science forum. It's the politics forum.

A political topic based solely on science. Parse it as you like.

If people like yourself have no earthly idea how to even begin to understand the TECHNICAL aspects then you are not going to make informed decisions about it.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It's not a myth. At least two independent studies using different measures found the figure of about 97% consensus in the field.

The last time someone was asked to provide references I seem to recall that the only believable reference indicated about 74% consensus among scientists.

 

[1Sam15]

Both sides are all about politics. That's the point.

Actually not really. The scientists are doing it from a "political" stand point when they do the calculations. The numbers are what the numbers are. The Oxygen-Carbon double bond doesn't care one way or another about Right vs Left. It will absorb in the IR regardless of poll numbers and politics.

And fossil fuels will still produce CO2 when burned (along with other stuff).

1+1 = 2 regardless of politics.

If someone says "2" is TOO EXPENSIVE and they won't agree to it, well that's tough. 1+1 is going to wind up with 2.

 

[1Sam15]

The last time someone was asked to provide references I seem to recall that the only believable reference indicated about 74% consensus among scientists.

And it was explained to you your error there. The value shifted to higher levels with higher degrees of expertise in the field.

At the highest levels of expertise in the field according to the bounds of the study, the consensus was 97%.

You should know better than to ignore what was said DIRECTLY TO YOU even if you disagree with it.

You should try to be more TRUTHFUL and give the FULL story about what that conversation entailed.

But I understand that's hard for you.