Climate change is an important topic which we need to have more discussions about. Thank you for keeping the issue at the forefront.
As a bonus, and in addition to resteeming for exposure. We are awarding you a small 10 Steem Power deposit as a thank you for creating quality STEM related postings on Steemit. We hope you will continue to educate us all!
Without taking a position on the climate change political drama... In any other context, my first reaction to that graph would be that it looks like there's a programming bug.
I don't have much time to spend on it, but I was curious, so I did a little googling on bing. Note that I'm not making any sweeping claims about climate change, I'm just responding to this particular graph. I found this site with this graph: .
I guess maybe that's the data behind the global anomaly in the top level post.
To put it mildly, I'm suspicious of that last data point. I suspect an instrument malfunction. Check back in 6 months, and if it hasn't been corrected, then I'll start worrying.
Emphasis on global. Recent news feed, imo, seems to be on artic area and might make some folks think sea ice has increased in Antarctica and other areas, very troubling indeed.
Yep, there are areas where ice has increased in thickness, however globally things are much different. Climate change is real, it's a big deal, and human activities are contributing to it. The earth will be fine, however if these trends continue millions if not billions of people will die.
Man, in his infinite wisdom, has only been tracking weather for a little over 100 years...of the billions of years Earth has been in existence...this thing they call "science" is educated guesswork at best, especially as it applies to vastly changing weather patterns and cycles...their own "evidence" suggests that Earth goes through "warming trends" for decades before a new "ice age" occurs...yet they all seem to want to forget that as they overstate faulty "facts" to drive the fear campaign that we should all surrender more of our money to help them solve a non-existent problem...I, for one, am not buying it...and I am sure I am in the minority...and that is fine with me...followers make up the flock!
If you are a "science" denier then I don't think we have much of a discussion.
You are correct though, science indicates we have had numerous past warming trends, but they occur over thousands of years. It is the speed at which this is occurring that is alarming.
Of course we do not have much of a discussion...because people of "science" believe themselves above everyone else...in the grand scheme of things, there are a handful of people who call themselves scientists...they firmly believe their word is more important than any other piece of information available to man...and yet, how many hundreds of "proven science theories" have been changed throughout the history of man...flat earth/round earth...hell, they can't even prove gravity, other than to say it exists but they have no clue how...every single time they "learn" something new, it changes a "fact" they established in the past...science itself is the single biggest science denier!
Whether it is their word, or their "scientific process" matters not...if it alters the "facts" that were established by previous "scientific processes," then the entire system is faulty. In order for something to be proven factual, it must stand the test of time...which much of science does not.
But obviously you are ill equipped for such a debate, so I will bid you farewell. Thanks for the opportunity to comment...have a great holiday!
if it alters the "facts" that were established by previous "scientific processes," then the entire system is faulty
Dude they are not facts. They are theories and they are better than anything else anyone has to offer because they are testable. Please read the diagram below three or four times please. This is my last comment on this thread. Happy holidays to you too.
You continue to find new names for the faulty information you want others to blindly accept right along with you..."theories" or "facts", they continue to be debunked by future "theories" and "facts."
...and your continued refusal to actually engage in debate, leads one to assume you do not fully believe the "science" stuff yourself...which actually amounts to hypocrisy...but what do I know, I'm not an intelligent "science" supporter!
Of course it leads to nowhere...you are incapable of debate...either we all accept your "flawed" processes as scientific "proof" of errant theories, or we are not worthy of being spoken to...how do you people breathe with your heads jammed so far up there?
I find it very interesting that those who go around spouting nonsense like "the science is settled" are completely unaware that the large majority of scientists conducting research in this area are, in one way or another, funded by government money. Whether through university grants or via employment directly by said government. So, if said government wants to push a particular agenda (like global warming) and the scientist finds results that don't follow the agenda, guess which scientist does not get funded again. Why do we distrust the government in almost every other way (weapons of mass distruction / economy / etc...) but give them 100% trust when it comes the environment? I am a climate change believer...I know that the climate changes...it has been changing since our planet was a ball of gas. To be so naive as to think that arresting climate change would be anything other than catastrophic for our planet is beyond arrogant. Arresting those changes would surely cause the death of the Earth.
"The more logical conclusion," this just keeps getting better and better...so, now the rest of the "non-believing" world is illogical at best...nothing like bathing in hypocrisy, eh?
Actually we have analyzed temperatures for tens and even hundreds of thousands of years through secondary analysis. Your closemindedness to science and iterative discovery is part of the problem that people face. It's hard to deal with these issues when a good portion of the population refuses to deal with logic and reason. The problem is not non-existent, it's large and right in front of you. You are just refusing to see it.
Logic and reason...your acceptance of "flawed" processes to "prove" theories is the closemindedness that creates problems...you holier than thou types cannot handle other people having different opinions...your so stuck on your delusions, you will spare no expense to be the epitome of hypocrisy that permeates today's society...BRAVO SHEEPLE...continue to be led around by the nose, rather than do any real thinking for yourself!
I accept only factual processes. I can't help if you struggle to comprehend correct science and travel down any path where there is some sort of overarching government conspiracy. There are plenty of things where people's opinions matter, science is all about facts. My opinions don't matter either, only facts and reality. No I don't recognize opinions on science, because I am a scientist and know what science IS.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...you literally just proved my point...I forgot that scientists and Liberals were almost identical twins from the hypocrisy hymen!
There is a great deal of conflict in the science community regarding this. Political ends tend to bring certain perspectives to the foreground. But little is conclusive, other than the raw data that can be obtained. Even then, there are some disagreements. And the interpretation of the data is anything but consistent across the scientific spectrum.
What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate.
No, there no conflict in the scientific community about this. Speaking as a member of said community in contact with a plethora of other scientists the consensus is as close to universal as any other scientific topic. Climate change is exacerbated by human actions. We all agree.
Anyone who would have you believe otherwise is pushing an adjenda. Pure and simple.
A few crackpots don't make up the consensus of the scientific community. Just because a conference has climate in its name doesn't make it legitimate. You will be able to find a ton of bullshit in the world to support your viewpoint, that doesn't make what you are thinking in this regard true. I can't ask people who lack training to try to decipher actual scientific literature because it's written in a bunch of jargon and jibberish and is hard to make sense of unless you have been forced to learn it. So you just have to trust the general consensus of the community. To choose to believe the fringes is to fall prey to those with an adgenda.
Thanks for the explanation. I understand the basis of the argument, including the methane aspect, at least to some degree.
Here are some reasons some people are very resistant:
Science has claimed that poisons from everything from DDT to glyphosate were harmless to humans. It's been going on a long time, and continues to happen with each new round of destructive chemicals.
Science provided us with saccharin and aspartame as healthy alternatives to sugar.
Science has been known to have inbreeding, including self-peer-reviews. Hyung-In Moon is a great example.
Universities have also been known to teach what their benefactors sell.
Science claims that plants are bad for us but synthesized food and medicine are good.
USDA - Reams could be written. I already mentioned dietary standards based on false data.
FDA - Ditto
Some scientists claim one thing while others claim another.
You're probably more aware of these types of things than I am. But Stanford had a bit to say about it here.
Add to this asinine legislation such as carbon taxes, fart taxes and myriad other fees, regulations and draconian impositions, and people are fed up. Scientific consensus has lied to us and been wielded as a mechanism of control by the state, as well as corporations, often for cronyistic reasons and to both the physical and financial detriment of those who buy into the claims.
Al Gore.... not much more needs to be said here.
This isn't an attack on your personally. But you and your colleagues would do well to be empathetic to folks who are sick of being yanked around by the nose by so-called science. It's incredibly difficult to know who to believe. And just claiming credentials and expertise simply isn't enough, especially when someone is attempting to wield the claimed results in a way that's detrimental to most of us. It has as much credibility as saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
Ad hominem comments don't help. Discerning readers will recognize this and dismiss it.
Consensus does not determine fact. It attempts to recognize it, but has been proven wrong often enough to question it.
Everyone has an agenda. For some, it's the truth. For others, it's what someone else convinces them of. And yet, for others, it's their own for various reasons.
Universities train with an agenda, often set by those who fund them the most. We see this perhaps most clearly in the medical field, but it's also evident in agriculture and other sciences.
If we read the headlines and "just trust the general consensus of the community", we will be lead by our noses wherever the most visible "community" cares to take us. We'll think that a carb rich diet is the most nutritious and that animal fat causes obesity, for example.
So, no, I won't buy that for a second. I will, however, concede that I do not have enough information to form a solid opinion (as I shared with Brian). Rather, I will read such claims with doubt and continue to watch until I am more confident that conclusions drawn are not just part of a narrative, but are indeed true.
Even if the increase in CO2 is mainly from man, the solutions proposed by the scientific "community" are often political in nature and sometimes nonsensical. Carbon sequestration is actually quite simple and better for everyone involved, from the smallest microecosystem to the atmosphere in general. And it helps remediate flooding and topsoil loss. This much I do understand. It costs nothing while offering everything. But it doesn't fit anyone's agenda unless they can charge for it, or at least tax it.
The increase in CO2, is not entirely caused by humans, it is worsened by our activities but there are a variety of natural factors involved in these processes. The consensus is that humans are contributing to the warming, not that we are the sole controlling factor. The Earth's temperatures is dictated through such a large number of complex equilibria CO2 is just one component. Methane is actually a significant greater concern, and if current warming trends continue, and current ice composition restructuring continues it will lead to the release of significant pockets of methane. This will result in more drastic changes to the temperature, at least models indicate that the quantities of methane available to be released will. This is just one contributor to people's doomsday talk. In reality our influence on climate change isn't huge, but we are pushing things to a point where other factors will have larger results. Keep reading about the subject. It's not a joke, and there is no scientific conspiracy. The data is legitimately troubling, and at least my colleagues and I don't understand why people are so resistant to the data. Many I know are tired of arguing about it, that much is certain. It really gets irritating, and it's a huge struggle to not get defensive about this sort of stuff as one can only be called a shill so many times.
I'd love to see some studies by truly idependent researchers...those who have not been funded by university grants or direct government money. I'd bet the "consensus" would evaporate rapidly under a true market economy analysis such as that. To take the 180 years of climate data we, as humans, have amassed and say that it is somehow representative of the Earth's 4.5 billion years is absurd at best and criminal at worst. Since when can a legitimate scientist say that a 0.000004% sampling means more than nothing?
Since when does being funded by government grants induce bias? Those are completely without strings. Your talking nonsense about things you clearly don't understand. We have a lot more than 180 years worth of data. Through ice core samples and other techniques we can get a picture of Earth's temperatures over significantly longer periods of time. Your reasoning is completely off base, and illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the topic at hand.
government grants do not induce bias?...are completely without strings?...HA! You sir are the one who is either completely ignorant or extremely un-informed. There is a huge community of debate around that very issue. Further, like most climate extremists I find it pathetic that the first course you have elected to take is to insult those with differing opinions. If you can't speak to the topic resort to insults...I'm probably a racist too.
I don't know anything about your opinions on race to pass judgement. With climate change things either are or they are not. The facts show that warming is occuring and that it is exacerbated by human production of green house gasses. Your opinions don't have any bearing on the reality.
Yep...typical. "the science is settled". No room to discuss. Those who think differently are not to be taken seriously...for I am a scientist and you are not... Your piousness does not help you sell your opion nor make you automatically correct. And by the way, since when does someone with a bio-chem background have more credence than another person with an unrelated science background? Which I happen to have but typically don't feel the need to be holier-than-though about it.
I am in disagreement. The scientific community has reached consensus.
When it comes to this issue a quote from the blog of some lawyer (opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own) doesn't hold much weight. Post an article from a scientist and present their data/findings and I will consider it closely.
Thanks for the comment @anotherjoe.
That's kinda nuts Brian. It's like saying that this author doesn't have anything to say since he's not a scientist and his opinion is his own, even while offering your own opinion as a non-scientist. He did research and provided insights from scientists. He also provided a link to scientific claims that prompted him to write what he did, giving him just as much credibility as you have. Even the quote does nothing more than point out what this particular group of scientists is saying.
But, to provide some scientific rebuttals to any claims of consensus (which, IMO, is a crazy assertion), here are 48 speeches from scientists who do not accept what you claim to be consensus. I'll let them share the data of their own research. http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc7/
Thanks Joe. I'll definitely watch some of the videos over the holidays - not all 48 though!
I respect your opinion so let me ask, do you have any comment on the data in the chart?
I gotta let this thread go though. My wife is yelling at me telling me to help get ready for the xmas eve dinner tonight.
Oh, I have no problem accepting that the ice being measured is in fact not increasing this year. I sure know that we've had a wacky year in our part of the world. Even deciduous trees are still green, in spite of a few hard freezes. It's just odd.
And my comment wasn't meant to discredit the data. It was to "discuss", as you requested. The verity of the conclusions that many reach is what is not conceded. I can see that this may not have been clear in my initial response.
Honestly, I have no opinion in regard to how much climate is really changing (or varying from historical norms of change). And I have even less of an opinion regarding how much, if any, is caused by man. My contention is that there is no consensus, specifically in regard to man's involvement. Claims that there are, IMO, are highly exaggerated and disingenuous.
Disclosure: I wouldn't listen to all those either. :)
Have a great Christmas.
[Join us on #steemSTEM]
Climate change is an important topic which we need to have more discussions about. Thank you for keeping the issue at the forefront.
As a bonus, and in addition to resteeming for exposure. We are awarding you a small 10 Steem Power deposit as a thank you for creating quality STEM related postings on Steemit. We hope you will continue to educate us all!
Without taking a position on the climate change political drama... In any other context, my first reaction to that graph would be that it looks like there's a programming bug.
I don't have much time to spend on it, but I was curious, so I did a little googling on bing. Note that I'm not making any sweeping claims about climate change, I'm just responding to this particular graph. I found this site with this graph:
.
I guess maybe that's the data behind the global anomaly in the top level post.
To put it mildly, I'm suspicious of that last data point. I suspect an instrument malfunction. Check back in 6 months, and if it hasn't been corrected, then I'll start worrying.
Thanks for publishing. Its... chilling, pun intended. And the comments of deniers here make it even more saddening.
Emphasis on global. Recent news feed, imo, seems to be on artic area and might make some folks think sea ice has increased in Antarctica and other areas, very troubling indeed.
Thanks for this comment. 'Global' is what makes this chart so worrisome. You can't chalk it up to a simple anomaly in one region of the world.
Yep, there are areas where ice has increased in thickness, however globally things are much different. Climate change is real, it's a big deal, and human activities are contributing to it. The earth will be fine, however if these trends continue millions if not billions of people will die.
Yes, Earth is alive.
Man, in his infinite wisdom, has only been tracking weather for a little over 100 years...of the billions of years Earth has been in existence...this thing they call "science" is educated guesswork at best, especially as it applies to vastly changing weather patterns and cycles...their own "evidence" suggests that Earth goes through "warming trends" for decades before a new "ice age" occurs...yet they all seem to want to forget that as they overstate faulty "facts" to drive the fear campaign that we should all surrender more of our money to help them solve a non-existent problem...I, for one, am not buying it...and I am sure I am in the minority...and that is fine with me...followers make up the flock!
If you are a "science" denier then I don't think we have much of a discussion.
You are correct though, science indicates we have had numerous past warming trends, but they occur over thousands of years. It is the speed at which this is occurring that is alarming.
Of course we do not have much of a discussion...because people of "science" believe themselves above everyone else...in the grand scheme of things, there are a handful of people who call themselves scientists...they firmly believe their word is more important than any other piece of information available to man...and yet, how many hundreds of "proven science theories" have been changed throughout the history of man...flat earth/round earth...hell, they can't even prove gravity, other than to say it exists but they have no clue how...every single time they "learn" something new, it changes a "fact" they established in the past...science itself is the single biggest science denier!
No, it is not their word. It is the scientific process.
Thanks for the comment anyway.
Whether it is their word, or their "scientific process" matters not...if it alters the "facts" that were established by previous "scientific processes," then the entire system is faulty. In order for something to be proven factual, it must stand the test of time...which much of science does not.
But obviously you are ill equipped for such a debate, so I will bid you farewell. Thanks for the opportunity to comment...have a great holiday!
Dude they are not facts. They are theories and they are better than anything else anyone has to offer because they are testable. Please read the diagram below three or four times please. This is my last comment on this thread. Happy holidays to you too.
You continue to find new names for the faulty information you want others to blindly accept right along with you..."theories" or "facts", they continue to be debunked by future "theories" and "facts."
...and your continued refusal to actually engage in debate, leads one to assume you do not fully believe the "science" stuff yourself...which actually amounts to hypocrisy...but what do I know, I'm not an intelligent "science" supporter!
Happy Holidays!!!
Sigh. I know I said I was done commenting, but the flaws you describe are part of the process! Please read the above diagram a few more times.
If the "process" has "flaws," then the "results" are "faulty!" Thank-you for finally seeing the light!
Well this road leads to nowhere so I'm taking the exit. I will enjoy reading your final comment though. Thanks and happy holidays.
Of course it leads to nowhere...you are incapable of debate...either we all accept your "flawed" processes as scientific "proof" of errant theories, or we are not worthy of being spoken to...how do you people breathe with your heads jammed so far up there?
I find it very interesting that those who go around spouting nonsense like "the science is settled" are completely unaware that the large majority of scientists conducting research in this area are, in one way or another, funded by government money. Whether through university grants or via employment directly by said government. So, if said government wants to push a particular agenda (like global warming) and the scientist finds results that don't follow the agenda, guess which scientist does not get funded again. Why do we distrust the government in almost every other way (weapons of mass distruction / economy / etc...) but give them 100% trust when it comes the environment? I am a climate change believer...I know that the climate changes...it has been changing since our planet was a ball of gas. To be so naive as to think that arresting climate change would be anything other than catastrophic for our planet is beyond arrogant. Arresting those changes would surely cause the death of the Earth.
Yes I agree
So maybe it all comes down to whether or not you believe governments and ngo's worldwide are pulling a fast one on us.
I'll stick with the more logical conclusion that climate change is real.
"The more logical conclusion," this just keeps getting better and better...so, now the rest of the "non-believing" world is illogical at best...nothing like bathing in hypocrisy, eh?
Of course climate change is real...I'm not disputing that...try to keep up...
Actually we have analyzed temperatures for tens and even hundreds of thousands of years through secondary analysis. Your closemindedness to science and iterative discovery is part of the problem that people face. It's hard to deal with these issues when a good portion of the population refuses to deal with logic and reason. The problem is not non-existent, it's large and right in front of you. You are just refusing to see it.
Logic and reason...your acceptance of "flawed" processes to "prove" theories is the closemindedness that creates problems...you holier than thou types cannot handle other people having different opinions...your so stuck on your delusions, you will spare no expense to be the epitome of hypocrisy that permeates today's society...BRAVO SHEEPLE...continue to be led around by the nose, rather than do any real thinking for yourself!
I accept only factual processes. I can't help if you struggle to comprehend correct science and travel down any path where there is some sort of overarching government conspiracy. There are plenty of things where people's opinions matter, science is all about facts. My opinions don't matter either, only facts and reality. No I don't recognize opinions on science, because I am a scientist and know what science IS.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...you literally just proved my point...I forgot that scientists and Liberals were almost identical twins from the hypocrisy hymen!
Good luck.
There is a great deal of conflict in the science community regarding this. Political ends tend to bring certain perspectives to the foreground. But little is conclusive, other than the raw data that can be obtained. Even then, there are some disagreements. And the interpretation of the data is anything but consistent across the scientific spectrum.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#74afe9a41281
No, there no conflict in the scientific community about this. Speaking as a member of said community in contact with a plethora of other scientists the consensus is as close to universal as any other scientific topic. Climate change is exacerbated by human actions. We all agree.
Anyone who would have you believe otherwise is pushing an adjenda. Pure and simple.
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc7/
A few crackpots don't make up the consensus of the scientific community. Just because a conference has climate in its name doesn't make it legitimate. You will be able to find a ton of bullshit in the world to support your viewpoint, that doesn't make what you are thinking in this regard true. I can't ask people who lack training to try to decipher actual scientific literature because it's written in a bunch of jargon and jibberish and is hard to make sense of unless you have been forced to learn it. So you just have to trust the general consensus of the community. To choose to believe the fringes is to fall prey to those with an adgenda.
Thanks for the explanation. I understand the basis of the argument, including the methane aspect, at least to some degree.
Here are some reasons some people are very resistant:
Add to this asinine legislation such as carbon taxes, fart taxes and myriad other fees, regulations and draconian impositions, and people are fed up. Scientific consensus has lied to us and been wielded as a mechanism of control by the state, as well as corporations, often for cronyistic reasons and to both the physical and financial detriment of those who buy into the claims.
Al Gore.... not much more needs to be said here.
This isn't an attack on your personally. But you and your colleagues would do well to be empathetic to folks who are sick of being yanked around by the nose by so-called science. It's incredibly difficult to know who to believe. And just claiming credentials and expertise simply isn't enough, especially when someone is attempting to wield the claimed results in a way that's detrimental to most of us. It has as much credibility as saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
Ad hominem comments don't help. Discerning readers will recognize this and dismiss it.
Consensus does not determine fact. It attempts to recognize it, but has been proven wrong often enough to question it.
Everyone has an agenda. For some, it's the truth. For others, it's what someone else convinces them of. And yet, for others, it's their own for various reasons.
Universities train with an agenda, often set by those who fund them the most. We see this perhaps most clearly in the medical field, but it's also evident in agriculture and other sciences.
If we read the headlines and "just trust the general consensus of the community", we will be lead by our noses wherever the most visible "community" cares to take us. We'll think that a carb rich diet is the most nutritious and that animal fat causes obesity, for example.
So, no, I won't buy that for a second. I will, however, concede that I do not have enough information to form a solid opinion (as I shared with Brian). Rather, I will read such claims with doubt and continue to watch until I am more confident that conclusions drawn are not just part of a narrative, but are indeed true.
Even if the increase in CO2 is mainly from man, the solutions proposed by the scientific "community" are often political in nature and sometimes nonsensical. Carbon sequestration is actually quite simple and better for everyone involved, from the smallest microecosystem to the atmosphere in general. And it helps remediate flooding and topsoil loss. This much I do understand. It costs nothing while offering everything. But it doesn't fit anyone's agenda unless they can charge for it, or at least tax it.
The increase in CO2, is not entirely caused by humans, it is worsened by our activities but there are a variety of natural factors involved in these processes. The consensus is that humans are contributing to the warming, not that we are the sole controlling factor. The Earth's temperatures is dictated through such a large number of complex equilibria CO2 is just one component. Methane is actually a significant greater concern, and if current warming trends continue, and current ice composition restructuring continues it will lead to the release of significant pockets of methane. This will result in more drastic changes to the temperature, at least models indicate that the quantities of methane available to be released will. This is just one contributor to people's doomsday talk. In reality our influence on climate change isn't huge, but we are pushing things to a point where other factors will have larger results. Keep reading about the subject. It's not a joke, and there is no scientific conspiracy. The data is legitimately troubling, and at least my colleagues and I don't understand why people are so resistant to the data. Many I know are tired of arguing about it, that much is certain. It really gets irritating, and it's a huge struggle to not get defensive about this sort of stuff as one can only be called a shill so many times.
I'd love to see some studies by truly idependent researchers...those who have not been funded by university grants or direct government money. I'd bet the "consensus" would evaporate rapidly under a true market economy analysis such as that. To take the 180 years of climate data we, as humans, have amassed and say that it is somehow representative of the Earth's 4.5 billion years is absurd at best and criminal at worst. Since when can a legitimate scientist say that a 0.000004% sampling means more than nothing?
Since when does being funded by government grants induce bias? Those are completely without strings. Your talking nonsense about things you clearly don't understand. We have a lot more than 180 years worth of data. Through ice core samples and other techniques we can get a picture of Earth's temperatures over significantly longer periods of time. Your reasoning is completely off base, and illustrates a complete lack of understanding of the topic at hand.
government grants do not induce bias?...are completely without strings?...HA! You sir are the one who is either completely ignorant or extremely un-informed. There is a huge community of debate around that very issue. Further, like most climate extremists I find it pathetic that the first course you have elected to take is to insult those with differing opinions. If you can't speak to the topic resort to insults...I'm probably a racist too.
I don't know anything about your opinions on race to pass judgement. With climate change things either are or they are not. The facts show that warming is occuring and that it is exacerbated by human production of green house gasses. Your opinions don't have any bearing on the reality.
Yep...typical. "the science is settled". No room to discuss. Those who think differently are not to be taken seriously...for I am a scientist and you are not... Your piousness does not help you sell your opion nor make you automatically correct. And by the way, since when does someone with a bio-chem background have more credence than another person with an unrelated science background? Which I happen to have but typically don't feel the need to be holier-than-though about it.
I am in disagreement. The scientific community has reached consensus.
When it comes to this issue a quote from the blog of some lawyer (opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own) doesn't hold much weight. Post an article from a scientist and present their data/findings and I will consider it closely.
Thanks for the comment @anotherjoe.
That's kinda nuts Brian. It's like saying that this author doesn't have anything to say since he's not a scientist and his opinion is his own, even while offering your own opinion as a non-scientist. He did research and provided insights from scientists. He also provided a link to scientific claims that prompted him to write what he did, giving him just as much credibility as you have. Even the quote does nothing more than point out what this particular group of scientists is saying.
But, to provide some scientific rebuttals to any claims of consensus (which, IMO, is a crazy assertion), here are 48 speeches from scientists who do not accept what you claim to be consensus. I'll let them share the data of their own research.
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc7/
Thanks Joe. I'll definitely watch some of the videos over the holidays - not all 48 though!
I respect your opinion so let me ask, do you have any comment on the data in the chart?
I gotta let this thread go though. My wife is yelling at me telling me to help get ready for the xmas eve dinner tonight.
Happy holidays.
Oh, I have no problem accepting that the ice being measured is in fact not increasing this year. I sure know that we've had a wacky year in our part of the world. Even deciduous trees are still green, in spite of a few hard freezes. It's just odd.
And my comment wasn't meant to discredit the data. It was to "discuss", as you requested. The verity of the conclusions that many reach is what is not conceded. I can see that this may not have been clear in my initial response.
Honestly, I have no opinion in regard to how much climate is really changing (or varying from historical norms of change). And I have even less of an opinion regarding how much, if any, is caused by man. My contention is that there is no consensus, specifically in regard to man's involvement. Claims that there are, IMO, are highly exaggerated and disingenuous.
Disclosure: I wouldn't listen to all those either. :)
Have a great Christmas.