Are the anti-science zealots accepting anthropogenic climate change yet?

[ding]

Your failing here is your implication that there exists some sort of significant plurality of scientific opinions on this topic. The number of scientists who reject the idea that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming observed since 1850 represent less than 1% of the world's climate scientists. That is not a plurality. That is a gnat floating in a 2-liter jug.

It’s not a popularity contest.

The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice” (Sarewitz 2011)

 

[ding]

In recent years, the ideologues in denial have been failing to make their case in their assault upon science and against the world's climatologists. (Well, maybe they succeeded in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan.)

A federal climate report published in late 2017, for example, found that there is no natural explanation for recent global warming. ​

​

"This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," the report said. "For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence."​

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

 

[abu afak]

I expect that a residue of ideologues in denial of anthropogenic climate change will always be with us, like those who refuse to accept biological evolution, prefer an earth-centric universe, or still embrace their flat earth cosmology.

Meanwhile, others will deal with reality.

And indeed some/Many of the climate deniers ARE evolution deniers too... and anti-Vaxxers, etc.
Discrediting science in general makes more room for their god/designer and a myriad of other conspiracy theories.. like MAGA.
Flacaltenn, Meister, CrusaderFrank, Rev PoliticalChic, ding, westwall, toadster, etc.
`

 

[Crick]

It’s not a popularity contest.

It is a contest to find the theory that best explains natural phenomena. When such a theory is found and withstands all challenges its acceptance among the scientific community grows.

The very idea that science best expresses its authority through consensus statements is at odds with a vibrant scientific enterprise. Consensus is for textbooks; real science depends for its progress on continual challenges to the current state of always-imperfect knowledge. Science would provide better value to politics if it articulated the broadest set of plausible interpretations, options and perspectives, imagined by the best experts, rather than forcing convergence to an allegedly unified voice” (Sarewitz 2011)

Pay special attention to the term "plausible interpretations" because the nonsense you've been pushing simply doesn't meet that criterion.

 

[ding]

It is a contest to find the theory that best explains natural phenomena. When such a theory is found and withstands all challenges its acceptance among the scientific community grows.



Pay special attention to the term "plausible interpretations" because the nonsense you've been pushing simply doesn't meet that criterion.

Except they didn’t do that. They only present what confirms their bias. They tune natural variation out of their models. They play games with water vapor. It’s very dishonest how they lump feedback in with CO2 and report it as CO2. They are corrupt as hell.

 

[ding]

Pay special attention to the term "plausible interpretations" because the nonsense you've been pushing simply doesn't meet that criterion.

You’ll see your house of cards argument collapse in your lifetime. Mark my word.

 

[Crick]

You’ll see your house of cards argument collapse in your lifetime. Mark my word.

Mark your word? I'd rather have a look at some data. Got any that isn't 50 million years old?

 

[boedicca]

And indeed some/Many of the climate deniers ARE evolution deniers too... and anti-Vaxxers, etc.
Discrediting science in general makes more room for their god/designer and a myriad of other conspiracy theories.. like MAGA.
Flacaltenn, Meister, CrusaderFrank, Rev PoliticalChic, ding, westwall, toadster, etc.
`

You are boring and banal. Bye bye!

 

[2aguy]

Worsening extreme weather events attributable to climate change is consistent with climatological predictions, but denied by ideologues.

Why Ian will rank among worst hurricanes in Florida History​

Over less than 22 hours, from Monday to Tuesday, Ian got 67% stronger, the National Hurricane Center said. That dramatic escalation fits the pattern of one of the characteristics of hurricanes that scientists have shown is linked to climate change.

In fact, the number of intensifying storms in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific over the last 40 years has increased by 25%, according to data from the NHC analyzed by the Associated Press.

No, they haven’t… but thanks for playing.

 

[ding]

Mark your word? I'd rather have a look at some data. Got any that isn't 50 million years old?

It’s 50 million years worth of data, not 50 year old data.

 

[Correll]

Whoever the unidentified folks are whom you reference, their data must have been of insufficient merit for nearly 200 nations ((excluding Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan) to take them seriously enough to undertake such measures.

Is there poverty and starvation driving many of the planet's burgeoning human populace to migrate? Clearly.

Climate change is a major contributory factor.

So, are you arguing that the panic mongers of the 70s were correct or are you arguing that they were not? Becuase you seem to be tryihng to have it both ways.

Also, they were clearly wrong. If we had listened to them, we would have wrecked the world economy and greatly curtailed human rights and society, for no reason.

 

[abu afak]

So, are you arguing that the panic mongers of the 70s were correct or are you arguing that they were not? Becuase you seem to be tryihng to have it both ways.

Also, they were clearly wrong. If we had listened to them, we would have wrecked the world economy and greatly curtailed human rights and society, for no reason.

You know NOTHING.
You only have RW politics.
Do you post on any other Science topic? In that section?
NO.
Post any data here?

BTW, the most famous of the predictors (Hanssen) is right in range with his 30 year old calls as the last 10 years have shown him right.
(posting old newspaper articles with bad predictions is Fallacious/ldiotic.)

Now go back to politics MAGAt.

`

 

[Correll]

You know NOTHING.
You only have RW politics.
Do you post on any other Science topic? In that section?
NO.
Post any data here?

BTW, the most famous of the predictors (Hanssen) is right in range with his 30 year old calls as the last 10 years have shown him right.
(posting old newspaper articles with bad predictions is Fallacious/ldiotic.)

Now go back to politics MAGAt.

`

If we listened to you people back in the 70s, we would have wrecked the world and for no reason.

 

[abu afak]

If we listened to you people back in the 70s, we would have wrecked the world and for no reason.

"people" are not climate scientists and you are just repeating the Fallacious trash you've seen here or from other Trumpees.
Again, the most expert of the predictors, Hanssen was/is in range.

Why don't you give us Your opinion of warming/not, Why/or not, and sources or rationales for Your opinions.
LOL.
You are NOT Conversant on this topic, just a Partisan Hack.

Back to politics MAGAt.
`

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If we listened to you people back in the 70s, we would have wrecked the world and for no reason.

Just as we will do if we listen to those fools today.

 

[Correll]

"people" are not climate scientists and you are just repeating the Fallacious trash you've seen here or from other Trumpees.
Again, the most expert of the predictors, Hanssen was/is in range.

,,,,
`

I was there in the 70s. I was young, but politically aware. I grew up, concerned about the Population Bomb and the coming Ice Age because that was, or seemed to be, according to the media, the consensus among the experts.

Thank god we didn't base policy on what you people said back then. We would have wrecked the world, for no reason.

 

[abu afak]

I was there in the 70s. I was young, but politically aware. I grew up, concerned about the Population Bomb and the coming Ice Age because that was, or seemed to be, according to the media, the consensus among the experts.

Thank god we didn't base policy on what you people said back then. We would have wrecked the world, for no reason.

On the contrary. We could have greatly mitigated the damage that is happening and will happen if we listened even to Al; Gore in 2000.
He had it right.

IAC, if YOU Personally had a grasp of the science and the actual temp record you would understand.
But you do NOT.
You are NOT conversant xcept to shallowly cite to me vague predictions for the 70s.
There's a lot we know now and understand and this has been born out by the Rising temps.
ie, we have extensive satellite tech and climate records now.

The first people who noted CO2 was a "greenhouse gas" were late 19th Century.

There is not a single scientific org on the planet that denies AGW any more. The last to fold being the American Petroleum Geologists 15 years ago.
Exxon Mobil acknowledges AGW.

Again you are non-conversant and and undebatably too Ignorant to debate the meat of the issue.
You can't deny even current predictions because you are clueLESS and FactLESS.
You just have what you hear before we had satellite readings etc.

AND you don't care.
It's not warming because some people were wrong in 1970.. RIGHT?
That;'s your debate? (WITHOUT KNOWING ANY SCIENCE/DATA NOW)

You Stupid uneducated/incurious MFer.
It's so easy to find fact on the net these days, but you stick with what you heard in 1970.
MFer you are Stupid!!!
`

 

[Correll]

On the contrary. We could have greatly mitigated the damage that is happening and will happen if we listened even to Al; Gore in 2000.
He had it right.
.....

Question: if global warming was magically solved tomorrow, would you still support massives centralization of control and massive wealth transfer, and massive controls, for other, very good, in your opinion reasons?

 

[westwall]

Like nearly 200 nations (excluding Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Yemen, and South Sudan, but including all advanced democracies) I respect the consensus of the world's climatologists regarding climatology.

Who cares what they say. All they want is power and money.

 

[westwall]

Yes 200 countries are in on the conspiracy you brain damaged clown


EVERY Sci org on the planet accepts AGW.
The last to fold was the American Petroleum Geologists who got paid BY big oil.
In fact Exxon Mobil itself acknowledges AGW you demente Dum F***.

Yeah, they are. No actual draconian measures to "control" climate change. Just less individual rights, and the bankers take all of our money.

In other words, for you stupid people, it's okay to pollute you just have to pay them for the privilege.

DURRRRRR