AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

@BillRM,

Still not addressing my point. Oh well. Run little chicken, run.

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Still not addressing my point. Oh well. Run little chicken, run.

So far your only point is the logical fallacies of an appeal to the experts/authority.

We for example do not live in a steady state universe even those at one point in the history of science the majority of cosmologists supported that theory over the big bang theory.

Hell I even have books that not all that old that supported the steady state universe theory with big names in the field giving support to the theory.

Their supports did not change the nature of the universe we are living in.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

To say that climatic catastrophies are impossible because the club of rome got it wrong, that is absurd.

To say that you know nothing about a particular computer model but you don't trust it, is absurd.

To equate scientific consensus with an oppinion poll, is absurd.

Why are YOU, Bill, an otherwise fairly rational person, say these irrational things? Because you are in denial.

You there's such a thing as denial, don't you?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You there's such a thing as denial, don't you?

You know there's such a thing as devotion, don't you? You are devoted to AGW. You wont listen to reason and show all the hallmarks of a religious fanatic.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

To say that climatic catastrophies are impossible

Who stated anywhere on this thread that climate catastrophes are impossible??!!

Not proven and not likely yes indeed but not impossible

Quote:

To equate scientific consensus with an oppinion poll, is absurd.

Since you been happily referring to such polls of 'experts' all through this thread it is strange now you are backing away from them.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

You wont listen to reason and show all the hallmarks of a religious fanatic.

That also is my impression of him a religious fanatic type approach to life and take note that most religious faith claims that men are sinners and will unless they toe the line bring doom down on themselves.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You did state that you cannot believe in climate change having potentially catastrophic consequences because the club or Rome and some other punks got it wrong. This is a non sequitur, and it was my beef all along. But since you did not want to understand me, you kept running around in circles like a headless chicken.

Likewise, you decided to misunderstand me on the difference between opinion polls and scientific consensus. Oh well...

0 Replies

@BillRM,

I and 80+% of world climatologists, plus 90% of world governments... we are all fanatically, religiously wrong. Of course.

Does that make you feel less scared?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

No and an agreement that the climate is warming and some of that warming is likely cause by humans doe not mean that there is an agreement that we are looking at a climate catastrophe no matter how you and others try to state otherwise.

Nor that there is faith in the predicts of current climate models.

I am all for more research and moving to energy sources that produce less CO2 with special note of nuclear and in fact we have been doing so, but not for crash programs that harm or may harm the world economics.

Climate doom is just another low probability risk similar to an impact of an asteroid or comet a risk high enough to spend some funds guarding against but not something to loss any sleep over.

For some reason humans seems to have a desire to dream up dooms and all the better if those dooms is the result of our "sins".

2 Replies

@BillRM,

The research is on-going; the consensus of climate scientists agree that human activity causes climate warming. Nobody has claimed a "climate doom."

1 Reply

I once made a salt in science class. Does that count?
It was nitrogen triiodide; and I got in trouble.
But it was enough fun that it was worth it.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

human activity causes climate warming.

Cause all climate current warming and without humans the climate for the first time in a billions years or so would be in a steady state?

That is nonsense on it face as climate is always in a state of flux with or without humans and only twenty thousands years ago or so parts of New York state was under a mile or so of ice sheets.

Quote:

Laurentide Ice Sheet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Laurentide Ice Sheet was a massive sheet of ice that covered millions of square miles, including most of Canada and a large portion of the northern United States, multiple times during Quaternary glacial epochs. It last covered most of northern North America between c. 95,000 and c. 20,000 years before the present day. At times, its southern margin included the modern sites of New York City and Chicago, and then followed quite precisely the present course of the Missouri River up to the northern slopes of the Cypress Hills, beyond which it merged with the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The ice coverage extended approximately as far south as 38 degrees latitude in the mid-continent.[1]

3 Replies

@BillRM,

Nobody denies the cycles of climate change. Most climate scientists have stated that human activity affects climate change.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Do understand the statement "scientific consensus?"

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Most climate scientists have stated that human activity affects climate change

So what as all life effect the climate to one degree or another. The reason that we have 20 percent O2 in the atmosphere and not near zero percent is due to life on earth.

Hell the reason we have life on dry land instead of just in the oceans is due to O2 reaching the point that there is enough O2 in the upper atmosphere to be turn into O3 to block ultraviolet light from the surface.

Life had have one hell of an impact on the earth climate long before man came along the questions number on is the current effect of mankind having a significance effect and it so is it on the whole a good effect or a bad effect from the viewpoint of mankind.

Neither of the two part questions we have any idea about at this time.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Do understand the statement "scientific consensus?"

consensus about what? That the climate as it always had is changing or that mankind is having some degree of impact on that change?

I have no problem with there being either consensus however if you are telling me that there is a consensus that human kind is a major factor in the current climate change or that the change will on the whole will be bad for mankind due to human input on the climate I question that there is such a consensus.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

False dichotomy. Because climate changes without humans doesn't mean humans can't change it.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

False dichotomy. Because climate changes without humans doesn't mean humans can't change it.

An it does not mean that just because the climate is indeed changing as it always had been changing humans are now a major driver of that change.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Who said anything about "major?"

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Because climate changes without humans doesn't mean humans can't change it.

Oh, like your argument that because climate changes without CO2 it must mean CO2 is the main driver of climate. Got it.

0 Replies

AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know