What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
If not consensus, then pay your dues and become a climate scientist yourself. Then you can make authoritative conclusions. But if a non-scientist looks at his backyard weather gauge and plays at being a scientist and draws some conclusion contrary to the consensus of real scientists, he is fooling himself.
Click to expand...
Since you do not appear to reflect sufficient Climatology Knowledge by which to - for instance - draw your own valid opinions - then I suggest to you that you bone on on the topic - which, btw, is nowhere’s near the level of let us say, “Rocket Science” .
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
If not consensus, then pay your dues and become a climate scientist yourself. Then you can make authoritative conclusions. But if a non-scientist looks at his backyard weather gauge and plays at being a scientist and draws some conclusion contrary to the consensus of real scientists, he is fooling himself.
Click to expand...
Since you do not appear to reflect sufficient Climatology Knowledge by which to - for instance - draw your own valid opinions…
Click to expand...
I have not been giving my own personal opinions. I have been quoting the opinion of real scientists.
  • then I suggest you bone on on the topic - which, btw, is nowhere’s near the level of let us say, “Rocket Science” …
Click to expand...
Actually, it is harder. Rocket science has fewer unknowns. It can be done without computers. (As long as you have a Katherine Johnson on staff.) Climate science - especially modelling - is extremely complex, involving supercomputers.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Very few, compared to those that agree.
Click to expand...
That’s a falsity…

I suspect you’re about to not speak of what you know about Climatology Itself,
but rather … about 97% …

I’d read where 97% of those who play the 97% card -
have zero idea of how that number was actually arrived. 🙂

You really should bone up a bit on Climate … so that you can speak more in a science sense,

This way - you’d probably be more able to process some Climatological parameters…
from which - a deeper discussion might possibly ensue between, eg - you and I … 🙂

)
_
 
LeafByNiggle said:
If not consensus, then pay your dues and become a climate scientist yourself. Then you can make authoritative conclusions. But if a non-scientist looks at his backyard weather gauge and plays at being a scientist and draws some conclusion contrary to the consensus of real scientists, he is fooling himself.
Click to expand...
You are deflecting again, with strawmen this time.

Nobody here is making such simple deductive arguments.
 
EndTimes said:
I’d read where 97% of those who play the 97% card -
have zero idea of how that number was actually arrived. 🙂
Click to expand...
A clever meme, but there were several surveys with the same general result and no surveys at all that put the agreement at anything less than 60%.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
A clever meme, but there were several surveys with the same general result and no surveys at all that put the agreement at anything less than 60%.
Click to expand...
In other words, you do not know exactly how 97% was arrived. 🙂

How about many surveys completely counter the false 97% consensus? 🙂
 
A stunning picture of an iceberg floating past Newfoundland Can

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Climate change doesn’t matter. It will matter when billionaires start installing scrubbers on their massive, tons of pollution factories, when China stops burning so much coal and people stop wearing face masks, and when wealthy property owners start selling their beachfront property.

Otherwise, they and everyone else will be dead soon. But I’m not seeing any movement from them. On Wall Street, buy oil. Really? At this point?
 
A well-reasoned explication of the current state of the Estimate of Climate Sensitivity (ECS) that shows alarmism isn’t warranted.

 
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-insider-embeds-climate-denial-131113056.html

An official at the Interior Department embarked on a campaign that has inserted misleading language about climate change — including debunked claims that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial — into the agency’s scientific reports, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times.

The misleading language appears in at least nine reports so far, including environmental studies and impact statements on major watersheds in the American West that could be used to justify allocating increasingly scarce water to farmers at the expense of wildlife conservation and fisheries.

The effort was led by Indur M. Goklany, a longtime Interior Department employee who, in 2017 near the start of the Trump administration, was promoted to the office of the deputy secretary with responsibility for reviewing the agency’s climate policies. The Interior Department’s scientific work is the basis for critical decisions about water and mineral rights affecting millions of Americans and hundreds of millions of acres of land.

The wording, known internally as the “Goks uncertainty language” based on Goklany’s nickname, inaccurately claims that there is a lack of consensus among scientists that the Earth is warming. In Interior Department emails to scientists, Goklany pushed misleading interpretations of climate science, saying it “may be overestimating the rate of global warming, for whatever reason;” climate modeling has largely predicted global warming accurately. The final language states inaccurately that some studies have found the earth to be warming, while others have not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top