Climate cooling strikes again
- Thread starter Warborg
- Start date
That's your informed reply?
I am a bit mad ( in the angry sense) that we crap on our planet so much. We only have this one planet earth, this small blue marble , it might be a good idea to look after it as well as we can, out of self interest.
I am a bit mad ( in the angry sense) that we crap on our planet so much. We only have this one planet earth, this small blue marble , it might be a good idea to look after it as well as we can, out of self interest.
dude, i know we do bad stuff to the planet. We'll get it fixed, we've changed alot already.
We do worse stuff to each other tho, shipping asbestos to India? Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.
We do worse stuff to each other tho, shipping asbestos to India? Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.
TheRealAndyCook;4860691; said:
no argument from me here!
( see...we CAN agree on some things! LOL)
I don;t share your optimism about our ability to fix things tho. We are much better at breaking things than fixing them.
And wouldn't any fix be science generated? the same group of people whose work is so derided by AGW deniers?
The real underlying problem imo is massive overpopulation.
Warborg;4860659; said:
Its well below average here. Has been for weeks. I luv winter but.this is getting out of hand
Posted on mobile.monsterfishkeepers.com
Lepisosteus platyrhincus;4860724; said:
I still remember the snow up there from the 60's and 70's.
Maybe a decade ago it would have been possible to deny that their is scientific consensus that global warming is real and that man is contributing to it.
But no longer.
As I posted earlier, "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.
The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
Lots of people in this world continue to believe that the sun rotates around the earth...that the world is only a few thousand years old and that evolution is a myth.
Evidence, no matter how valid, is not going to change their beliefs.
Matt
But no longer.
As I posted earlier, "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.
The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
Lots of people in this world continue to believe that the sun rotates around the earth...that the world is only a few thousand years old and that evolution is a myth.
Evidence, no matter how valid, is not going to change their beliefs.
Matt
The problem also seems to be some kind of mistrust in science. I've heard a bunch of times on this forum stuff like, "I'm not gonna believe data some scientist could have manipulated behind closed doors," or "Scientists will publish anything to get money." I don't think people realize the safeguards against this in the scientific community, not to mention, it's just not worth it, considering your reputation would be ruined forever if you falsified data.
There is distrust because "science is always changing its mind." Well of course science is gonna change its mind sometimes, that is the ETHICAL thing to do if you are wrong, and evidence proves you wrong. So by demanding that science never change its mind, you are either demanding that science not admit new data, which would be unscientific, or that science know everything from the beginning, which is preposterous.
But really, if you think there's some big plot, become a scientist in the field. If you think climate change is a big hoax, become a climate scientist. Learn almost everything there is to learn on the subject, taught by people who have done research in the field, and then, in the end, if you still find flaw with the theory, then collect evidence and present your evidence, put it through peer review. Dissenting views are NOT ignored when there is evidence. There was a paper published a little while ago as an alternative to AGW, which proposed that the warming was caused by the sun blocking cosmic rays, which would seed clouds, which would cool the planet. The paper got through peer review because it wasn't a bad idea... except new data came up that the total solar irradiance has been dropping, so this hypothesis was dismissed.
There is distrust because "science is always changing its mind." Well of course science is gonna change its mind sometimes, that is the ETHICAL thing to do if you are wrong, and evidence proves you wrong. So by demanding that science never change its mind, you are either demanding that science not admit new data, which would be unscientific, or that science know everything from the beginning, which is preposterous.
But really, if you think there's some big plot, become a scientist in the field. If you think climate change is a big hoax, become a climate scientist. Learn almost everything there is to learn on the subject, taught by people who have done research in the field, and then, in the end, if you still find flaw with the theory, then collect evidence and present your evidence, put it through peer review. Dissenting views are NOT ignored when there is evidence. There was a paper published a little while ago as an alternative to AGW, which proposed that the warming was caused by the sun blocking cosmic rays, which would seed clouds, which would cool the planet. The paper got through peer review because it wasn't a bad idea... except new data came up that the total solar irradiance has been dropping, so this hypothesis was dismissed.
dogofwar;4860763; said:
