Climate Change denial vs History

Probably by 2050 in the artic in the summer

 

I do happen to believe that those who deny scientific facts are science deniers. Not meant as an insult, though. Just the statement of a fact.

But not like the Holocaust. Denying the Holocaust is horrific. Denying Science, I think, is just a matter of misinformation, and therefore not nearly as bad.

 

So.. Like... Your hero, al gore, said they'd be gone by 2014. Was the "science" not in then? At least he had the nuts to make a guess on the data he "believed" in. I can understand why leftist admire him.

 

So we can keep track . To be gone by 2050, like 3% gotta melt a year. By 2020, if the ice caps are the same, you're a joke.

 

Well they are smaller now so I guess you are a joke. LOL

 

Really? I haven't noticed. I imagine if the ice caps were noticeably smaller, they would be milking Americans for money to pay for it.

 

Didn't quote u right

 

Well the arctic is noticably smaller....but you are not a scientist so you would not likely know

 

Hate to break it to you, but the term "settled science" is a oxymoron. It's called the scientific meathod, look it up sometime.

 

If that is all you have read your education is lacking and your knowledge of global warming is incomplete. But it is no wonder that you believe that all warming is human caused.

 

All knowledge is incomplete. That is not excuse for inaction

 

What action and what will be the effect on the global average temperature in 2100 ?? If action produces no significant result on global average temperature but causes economic damage then why act ??

 

It will be lower. If inaction causes significant harm that could be prevented by action....why not act?

 

Because its a way to redistribute American wealth

 

Only if we do it right

 

How much lower and what are the policies necessary to achieve this reduction ?? If inaction provides the wealth necessary to deal with any negative effects of the net beneficial warming then why act ??

 

That's behind all of this. ^^

 

Lets hope so

 

How much wealth and exactly how will it deal with the negative effects?

 

The collectivist even admit it

 

So do the scientists. LOL

 

Al Gore said the IPCC would be gone by 2014? I would need to see a quote to comment. I doubt he would say that.

Now, of course, Al Gore is not a scientist. I admire him as a politician. Mostly as a technocrat (if I can call him that)

 

So would you say that the Heliocentric Theory (scientific theory that holds that the planets move around the Sun) is an oxymoron?

 

So my knowledge is incomplete if I only read the Science?

That's a very weird statement. However, no... it's not the "only" thing I have read. I've read a few things. Articles here and there, and information from many sources. Including Rush Limbaugh and Fox. Not much value in these last two, but I have heard what they have to say.

I can tell you one thing: my knowledge is most certainly incomplete, Mainly because I'm not a climatologist. But my understanding of how Science works does give me the tools to know what is and what is not accurate Scientific knowledge.

I assume that you are saying that, contrary to mine, your knowledge is complete. Which means, at a minimum, that you have read all the studies in the IPCC reports. So please point out what specifically in the IPCC reports would make you think that AGW is not human caused. Be specific, please. Cite the peer-reviewed studies (remember: conclusions must be replicated many times), what the conclusions were, and the corresponding links (to abstract and peer-reviewed publication).

You can dispense with this if your "incomplete knowledge" accusation is just B.S.

I suspect that this is what you will do..

 

Nope. I'm not saying what I didn't say, haha.

I think you just had a kneejerking reaction. I didn't day NSA or the like are "alarmist", and I didn't say that anyone who believes in AGW or calls for any action on it is an alarmist - that would make me an alarmist.