Seriously, do you believe in the scientific inferences of carbon dating ? How about the fossil remains in the layered sediment in the earths crush. Nope, we’ve been studying the earths composition which includes it’s climate history for much longer then 50 years. “ authoritative knowledge ” ? If you’re waiting around for absolute fact, prepare not to get out of bed in the morning. Science works the same way we think. We all behave in line with accumulated experiences with the knowledge we have at hand, then we act accordingly to probability. . Science in the last 100 years just gives us more tools. It’s laughable to think anyone thinks in absolutes when making important decisions, religion included.
That's kinda superficial, don't you think? The assertion is "never before happened", which, frankly is unknowable. And NASA know that. But if they frame the conversation in an as hyperbolic scare tactic as possible, this is what moves legislators to grant more funds... And frankly you have zero idea of why climate changes, do you. And because this is an area where the ability to test or model assumptions in a scientific way, neither do most of the scientists who claim funds to research it. If you were being really honest here, you could, for example explain to the world why places like New York City aren't currently buried under thousands of feet of ice. And why, absent any influence of Man, those glaciers receded all on their own. The wonder... If you're so worried about the cost to the climate, why do you not stop using the energy that you claim causes future harm?
Well, there you go. Off to different questions. And why is this? Satellite monitoring of the poles started in 1979, or did you forget. That makes for a less than 50 year record of actual observation. You must know this, right? Inferential proxy studies have the ability to induce folks to assume things for sure. But, absent actual observation, how much stock can you put into it? We can guess and be right, or we can guess and be entirely wrong. I suppose you still believe Eugenics is science too though, huh....
No, Not what I said. But prior to having the satellites monitoring the polar ice extent, previous observations were local and not comprehensive and subject to individual bias. Or did you forget that part?
As we all know the climate does change without man's help. It might possibly change because of man's behavior. To what degree nobody knows. Every estimate has failed to be true so far. Perhaps one day they will nail it down. When they do I will reduce my skepticism.
Well as one of my friends was a scientist with the Scott polar research institute for 40 years I will disagree that their measurements were bias or inaccurate. Certainly not to any degree that mattered.
My point exactly. Why give all that money and power to government for a possibility? Government should tell us how they intend to spend money to change climate. I doubt mother nature takes bribes.
So I would be wrong saying that I don't think climate change depends on catastrophic events. That means all the climate change over millienia have all resulted from a catastrophic events. It also means CO2 emissions caused by humans are catastrophic events. Well you would be wrong on both counts.
Sorry...your thoughts are incorrect according to climate change experts. The dinasours which literally ruled the earth was made extinct by a sudden catastrophic event which alters the temps. . The rate of changed in temperature from the last one hundred years has been the fastest since the earth was created. I’d say these are just couple of catastrophic events.
Hmm.. no credibility. Now that NASA et al have put some actual measurements out there, this is where the data timeline starts. I can pull numerous notations from around or about the 1905-1920s where lots of folks were rejoicing that the arctic would be ice free. And know what? It never happened. Will it in the future? Perhaps but for now, there is zero data that suggests that it will in any short term timeframe. Again, why not just acknowledge that you actually don't understand this?
Seriously. I have not heard deniers on this board with the ability to interpret the data. Really, all you have to do is go to their website references in any articles they print. You can be overwhelmed with information if anyone actually does the research. Most just listen to Fix News and right wing crapola.
A lot of bragging about what you say you can do but we see nothing on the scale of what NASA prints weekly...nothing. Any denier can whine about what ever they want yet they never produce a reference that contradicts AGW. Geesus, every one of them without fail, don’t even know what climate change is about....I’ve yet to hear a correct version of what they actually disagree with. Go ahead, give it a try. Tell us exactly what’s wrong with AGW.
You never used the word EVERY. Now you’re afraid you’ll be wrong and are redefining the parameters. Instead, just do some research instead of making up one story after another. first, you need to look in a dictionary and define what a catastrophic event is https://earthlyuniverse.com/10-catastrophic-events-that-transformed-the-earth/#:~:text=10 Catastrophic Events that Transformed the Earth 1,through the heart of Iceland. More items...
The answer is pretty simple. We do not yet have the ability to understand the complexity of the number of constantly changing variables in sufficient detail to make an authoritative declaration of understanding. I doubt a single scientist would ever assert they do, but here you are, asserting assurances for them. How unlikely anyone would find your commentary credible then. I have always observed, correctly that the climate has changed. We know because of the geologic record. It is changing, hence why the last glaciation period has subsided, and we enjoy a relative respite from the harshness of ice that not long ago clung to the world we inhabit. And we can guess that our climate will continue to change as we move forward. These things we know. What we don't actually know is why. And not only why, we can't answer how. And to latch onto the financial model of AGW and the climate offsets BS that Goldman Sachs hatched seems, well, stupid. If you cannot see that, well, that's a failing on your part I suggest becoming better informed.
Against what, your claims that because we do not everything we know nothing. Science is not an accumulation of nothing but facts, it is extrapolation, evidence. If we waited until we had certainty before acting on anything we would still be in the dark ages. There is copious evidence that the changes in our climate are associated with man made Co2 production and that those changes are real and continuous. Your job is easy, you just have to say "You can't prove it beyond doubt" Others have the job of actually dealing with it.
Wrong. YOU’RE BOGUS WOO WOO MENTIONED NOTHING ABOUT RATE OF CHANGE. Nope, you still don’t have a clue what science at every climate science institution in the world is saying. Science says, at any point on the graph of the mean temps on earth the slope ( rate of change) is greater during the industrial revolution then any time in the history of earth, while our species has been here. Show a refuting graph. Give a SCIENCE INSTITUTION THAT SAYS DIFFERENTLY . This is for just last 1000 years for obvious reasons of scale. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg
