Why is the climate changing. (Page 3)
theHating: when i show up, the bottom of the barrel gets scraped, no morsel left for mice. op has the burdon of proof, not i.
Learn to pronounce
a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., rain cats and dogs, see the light ).
theHating: well, shouldnt surprised me that someone that cant do science cant do lateral thinking correctly either...
ghostgeek: People who are wedded to man-made climate change to the exclusion of any other possible cause are following a religion in all but name.
theHating: "wedded to man-made climate-change"
i like that particular phrasing, its almost like you are marginalizing the science to help your psuedo-logic
theHating: science deniers like to copy and paste and strong arm their "dogmatic"opponents into a one-sided debate, but the second you take away there ability to find an argument to plagiarize, they wouldnt know how to even begin to find the first step to gaining knowledge from observation.
so i guess lets even the playing field, your claim is against the total census of climate scientists, so i will agree not to use this fact and other copied sources if you can summarize a testable claim to prove your objection to the census.
ghostgeek: The total consensus of climate scientists? What do you think Henrik Svensmark is? A man who leads the Sun-Climate Research Center at the Danish National Space Center and has held research positions at Berkeley, the Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics, the Niels Bohr Institute and the Danish Meteorological Institute is a top flight climate scientist. And yet you dismiss his research out of hand without investigating it. Please don't talk about science when you plainly cannot lift yourself above your dogmatic beliefs.
ghostgeek: The present belief in climate change has ceased to be science and has become a religion that cannot be challenged.
ghostgeek: Perhaps you should consult Nir J. Shaviv, who is currently Professor and Chair of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Of more direct relevance to the climate-change debate was a series of papers Shaviv wrote, beginning in 2002, detailing a bold theory linking earth’s ice ages with successive passages of the planet through the various spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy, and with cosmic radiation more generally. He has also expressed his conviction that variations in solar radiation have played an equal, if not greater, role in the observed rise in mean global temperature over the course of the twentieth century than has human activity. He maintains, not only that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have played a smaller role in global warming than is usually believed, but also that the earth’s climate system is not nearly so sensitive as is usually assumed.
[ https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/ ]
Achilles942: It may well be true, for all I know, that scientists enjoy a consensus on the issue.
But this is to say very little.
As Kuhn taught us to see, anyone who goes against the regnant scientific paradigm, effectively is excluded from science, and is liable to be ridiculed and accused of perpetrating pseudoscience. Or simply labelled a "crank".
Anyone who challenges evolutionary orthodoxy, say, is immediately branded either "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked" (Richards Dawkins' exact words).
It's not hard to boast a consensus, when dissidents are unceremoniously kicked out the door of "good science" (whatever the heck that is).
(Edited by Achilles942)
Achilles942: Compare: "We're all agreed on this point. Because those who disagree had their membership suspended".