Why? You already shown you are willing to poo poo published papers without reading them or challenging any of its content.Show me his published science.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why? You already shown you are willing to poo poo published papers without reading them or challenging any of its content.Show me his published science.
Yes, I believe I have tried to explain that to you before. Consensus is merely a symptom of the science, when it overwhelimingly points in one direction.If it’s consensus, it isn’t science.
This is still you not challenging the content. Science doesn't work by consensus. It works on data.About 30,000 research papers that touch on climate change in one way or another make it through good peer review and are published EVERY YEAR. 30,000.
But hey, look at this... a single paper by authors of low credibility, published in a journal of low credibility, that was not subjected to proper peer review. Looks like the jig is up!
Prior to Einstein the consensus was that time was constant.Right, there is consensus in scientists. This arises from the evidence. I know you don't understand this. Like, at all. and I doubt I have the remedial education skills or patience to make you understand.
Again...Yes, I believe I have tried to explain that to you before. Consensus is merely a symptom of the science, when it overwhelimingly points in one direction.
And if you truly understood this, you would understand how utterly worthless you posting the opinion of 500 people is. So clearly it is you who has a lot of catching up to do.
The answer is to heavily invest in alt energy sources (yes, including nuclear) to subsidize both faster development and cheaper prices. Make it more economical to use other sources of energy, and the rest will take care of itself.That is not realistic.
What action? Exactly.
Build 5,000 Nuclear Power plants?
Build 1,500 sq. mile solar arrays?
EV cars? Haha... yeah.. no... that would be an environmental holocaust.
I am all for better energy technology. 100%. But neither side of the government is the least bit interested. Both - BOTH - are in the pockets of the investor class who want things to stay just as they are. The "Green initiative" - laughably inadequate and filled to the brim of padding pockets.
We will never replace them either. Because they have us so divided we would never vote for change.
Oh, no.The right is waking up to the reality of climate change.
However since they spent a couple of decades saying it was all a hoax and not real, the republican politicians are now having to use the words" extreme weather."
No matter what terminology they use, they are finally waking up to the reality of it and finally taking some steps to combat the effects of climate change.
The sad thing, we never would have had to do this if the right had not spent so much time denying it's happening and actually took steps to combat it we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.
It's going to cost much more and we will have to take more steps to combat it since it was allowed to get so bad.
I sure wish the right had woken up decades ago to this problem. It wouldn't be as bad as it is now.
That half a billion that DeSantis is going to spend isn't federal tax dollars. It's state tax dollars which means the state of Florida is going to have to raise taxes in some way soon.
They will probably do as they have been doing with taxes for decades.
Hit the guests who go there as tourists. The last time I was in Florida there were FIVE separate taxes on hotels and car rentals. While the taxes on the people who live there are very low.
The last thing a republican is going to do is be responsible and pay their own way.
So don't be surprised if it's much more expensive to visit Florida than it already is.
Don’t call it climate change. Red states prepare for ‘extreme weather’
Bracing for global warming is the rare climate issue that appeals to both Republicans and Democrats, and 34 states have done some sort of climate-adaptation planning.www.politico.com
The right is waking up to the reality of climate change.
However since they spent a couple of decades saying it was all a hoax and not real, the republican politicians are now having to use the words" extreme weather."
No matter what terminology they use, they are finally waking up to the reality of it and finally taking some steps to combat the effects of climate change.
The sad thing, we never would have had to do this if the right had not spent so much time denying it's happening and actually took steps to combat it we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.
It's going to cost much more and we will have to take more steps to combat it since it was allowed to get so bad.
I sure wish the right had woken up decades ago to this problem. It wouldn't be as bad as it is now.
That half a billion that DeSantis is going to spend isn't federal tax dollars. It's state tax dollars which means the state of Florida is going to have to raise taxes in some way soon.
They will probably do as they have been doing with taxes for decades.
Hit the guests who go there as tourists. The last time I was in Florida there were FIVE separate taxes on hotels and car rentals. While the taxes on the people who live there are very low.
The last thing a republican is going to do is be responsible and pay their own way.
So don't be surprised if it's much more expensive to visit Florida than it already is.
Don’t call it climate change. Red states prepare for ‘extreme weather’
Bracing for global warming is the rare climate issue that appeals to both Republicans and Democrats, and 34 states have done some sort of climate-adaptation planning.www.politico.com
Experts on what? Not climate science.500 experts
Man, I wish that were true. I'm not sure it is. Look at the effort these guys put forth. You don't see them doing this with other scientific theories. I mean, yeah, it's no actual challenge to the theory. But it is quite a challenge to acting on it.They don't have to wake up to it. They don't even have to wake up to the fact that they lost the messaging war on it a long time ago.
You missed the point AGAIN.100% correct. Consensus arises from the science, not the other way around.
Try to keep in mind: YOU are the fool who always has this backwards. YOU are the one who accuses scientists of inventing and fudging science to match the consensus.
or did you forget? So, maybe go find a mirror and repeat your little lecture.
So, you admit that it's not scientific? Just propaganda?They don't have to wake up to it. They don't even have to wake up to the fact that they lost the messaging war on it a long time ago.
Never claimed it was. Science is scientific.Consensus is NOT scientific.
Make up yours.Never claimed it was. Science is scientific.
Yet here you are, presenting the opinions of "500 experts".
So make up your mind.
Oh yes, there is still overwhelming consensus.So there's no fucking consensus (500 experts)
Here you are again, relying on consensus.Oh yes, there is still overwhelming consensus.
And science it is NOT.Bootney Lee Farnsworth
So, IPCC is not a consensus of opinion. It isn't meant to be. It is basically just a compilation of the evidence and the best short term climate predictions. It's "actionable intelligence" for governments and the private sector. Their opinions of what to do about it are up to them.
These are separate topics entirely.