Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

It is problematic when people promote unproven CRAP about serious issues when we have experts all over the world who know better.

The Republican direction today is to consider ANYTHING from educated study and expertise to be crap as a knee jerk reaction.

Sorry. That kind of idiocy is just plain dangerous.

 

If you would prefer a different word for those who deny what science says about climate change, then perhaps you should propose it.

 

Ohhhh, so in other words, it does not matter what a scientist believes or discovers. They must all shut up, bow down to the party line, and suppress anything that does not follow the party line.

"Rewarded for being right"? You are aware that you are not discussing science, but some kind of Orwellian Belief, and any that does not agree must be punished.

I guess next you think we should start star chambers and persecutions for any that do not agree?

 

There are experts in ALL the related scientists throughout the entire world working on this issue and coming to the same general conclusion that Earth is warming due to human activity.

Yet, YOU want to believe ... whom??

WHO is YOUR expert? Who is it that YOU listen to?

 

Of course not. Unless it is about the climate I suppose. Then all must throw up the right arm at a 45 degree angle and give oath to follow what the climate gurus tell us to believe.

 

Look, you need to do a better job of reading that that. I've never suggested we should ignore experts. Ever.

Your headed for la la land, and you should not go there.

 

No, you simply say over and over that we should only listen to experts that you believe in, and no others.

 

When you want to contradict what the vast majority of experts are stating, I want to know who it is that you are listening to and what their credentials are. And, those credentials better be in a serious and related science.

And, I'm going to want to know what the rest of the world of experts would say about what your 1 person is projecting.

The tactic I've objected to here is when someone cherry picks one paper (out of the tens of thousands per year on the topic) with that paper picked because it SOUNDS like it might agree with that person's personal agenda.

Unfortunately, that always seems to come with NO examination of how the rest of the field of climatology incorporates that paper.

That is an anti-science tactic.

 

I've NEVER said that. I DO say that those who comment on the science better have the credentials to back up their comment. Plus, in terms of discussion here, we also need to know what the majority view is concerning what is being said.

So, I still want to know who it is that YOU are listening to.

Who is it that you see as more important, more qualified?

Who is it that convinces you to be a denier?

 

Much of what you are told about climate change is false and it’s not Republicans doing it. There’s mis and disinformation all over from both sides.

I know it’s hard to see it when one gets to wrapped up in one side or the other.

Marketing with fear is effective but unethical and counterproductive in the long run.

 

Please remember that science organizations all over the world publish their results and conclusions concerning climate.

Your idea that Republicans aren't involved in disinformation campaigns on climate is just flat out laughable.

 

And this along with so many other statements from you shows that you view this not as an issue of science, but as a political doctrine, even dogma.

It is funny, that the more you talk, the more laughable your stance is. You remand that you have to approve of any sources others present (and you almost universally dismiss them out of hand). Then you yourself use blatantly political sites as your own "proof".

You spin away when things like this are brought up over and over again, and I find it funny that you still try to deny it. I just find it hilarious that you seem to think everybody agrees with you, and anybody that does not agree is not worth listening to.

Of course, I have seen in other threads in here how little you seem to grasp most areas of science. In one recently, you along with others were bringing up space laser swords and "life incomprehensible to us", as I was discussing the elemental production of stars of differing populations. And that no life was possible at all in the early Pop II stars, as about the heaviest element was maybe some carbon and sodium. We had to be in the last Pop II and Pop III stars until any kind of life other than fantasy "gas cloud beings" from Star Trek were at all possible.

You see, I do not give a damn what is "popular", I look at things logically and do not let "public opinion" sway my beliefs. Like so many others, the actual science does not even seem to matter, this is entirely political to you. But the truth is, political animals on both sides will distort and lie if it suits their purpose. I recognize that both sides do it, pretty much equally. That you seem to see only one side is doing it shows how blind you are.

 

Sure. All scientists in fields related to neurogenesis and neuroregeration told us for decades neither occurred in adulthood.

The current evidence points to AGW. I stated that clearly. I’m not naive enough to say we know it all. I’m not naive enough to think there isn’t much yet to learn. The more important the subject, the more important it is to keep an open mind and pursue truth as opposed to engaging in bias confirmation.

Ahhhh. You give the game away. I don’t want to believe anybody. Or any specific thing. I’m only interested in the truth based on evidence. If one “wants” to believe a person or thing the ability for critical thought is lost. Objective examination of any subject becomes impossible

I don’t appeal to authority. It’s dangerous. It’s not part of the scientific method. I’m only interested in evidence. If you present compelling evidence I accept evidence. I don’t listen to anybody—I only judge evidence on it’s merit.

I certainly don’t listen to people who “want” to believe something.

 

Please remember the history of science by consensus. It isn’t pretty.

The idea Republicans aren’t involved in disinformation is not mine. It’s your strawman. I clearly stated both sides provide misinformation. I simply pointed out the misinformation you subscribe to isn’t coming from Republicans. I reject it from both sides. You won’t even question information from your “tribe”.

 

Oh, good lord.

I can comment on both even when you choose to stick to the political nonsense.

 

No, they do not.

 

Use of the term "deniers" makes the OP a false choice and a dishonest presentation.

 

I dunno...that comment on "experts" struck me as wildly naïve. I can understand someone (hell I probably did) touting the "experts" twenty years ago. But in 2022 we've had two decades on the "experts" being wrong on just about every facet of expertise. At this point, relying on the "experts" seems disqualifying.

 

Here is the irony of this statement.

I mention nothing of politics, I simply comment on your obsession with politics. You are the one that points fingers at one party, and uses sites of another to try and prove your claims. I do none of that at all.

Look into the mirror, you are the politically obsessed one.

 

Of course it is, which is why it is not science.

Galileo was threatened with death because he refused to follow the consensus.

Go back a few decades, and the consensus among many was that certain races were inferior, and that could be proven scientifically. Or even that "undesirable" traits among some groups of people could be eradicated through eugenics.

But see, this is different! We simply have to believe what some say, and ignore anything that others say that do not agree.

 

They completely blow up any argument they make when they start talking about what/who they “want” to believe and ask what/who you “want” to believe. So transparent.

 

IOW, it means that they are "unbelievers" with regard to the Church of Global Warming religion.

 

Maybe... maybe not... That's a religious belief as well.

 

The only "source of science" is science itself, which are the laws themselves.

NASA and NOAA are government agencies; they are not science.

There is no such thing as "fossil fuel"... Fossils are not used for fuel because they don't burn very well. I take it you mean carbon-based fuels (coal, oil, natural gas)?

Unknown. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy because we don't have near enough thermometers (would need hundreds of millions of them) and it is impractical to strictly adhere to the requirements of statistical mathematics in attempting to do so (service roads are needed to access and service the instrumentation, thus the instrumentation can't be uniformly spaced).

"significantly faster" is subjective language, and this is unknown (see above).

Religious fear mongering.

 

A lying announcement to cover up another wind power shortfall.
Blackouts… Because Climate Change! Blame Natural Gas!
David Middleton
Guest “They got it bass-ackwards, once again” by David Middleton Electricity operators must wake up to climate change — or brace for summer outagesBY ROMANY M. WEBB, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR –…