Why is the climate changing. (Page 29) smokemeblind: lol, pathetically numb to its own existence, is how would describe the conscious atmosphere of intellectual thought atm smokemeblind: i went to a climate event where Katherine hayhoe, a climatologist, gave a video presentation. turna out she is christian. because she couldnt pass up the opportunity to endorse superstition in the face of a greater empirical threat. but nobody wanted to touch my question of why she felt it was necessary to promote chritianity. why does she think it is our divine duty under god to be custodians of the earth? why is that even relevant? its not, so, do yourselves a favor and save your money, leave relevant questions to the experts, but maybe as a skeptic of scientists, consider the possibility of how science could be used to promote humanist and proper policy, and contrast it with how it is and has been used politically to promote or check boxes on an agenda. if you have a mental condition such as a learning disability, i would accept that as an excuse for being willfully ignorant. smokemeblind: and if skept sci is seems like a bunch of brainwashed lunatics to you. again, on the basis of qualified peers - consider the source citation counts from the alleged "500 scientists' or '97% consensus against AGW'" and just skeptical science .com. compare it to the source count on reddit for crying out loud. then compare it to the data yields from working group one. smokemeblind: what you will see if for every 1 citation the group posits as evidence against anthropogenic global warming, skept sci can cite three to 12 on average FOR AGW. reddit cites an average of 4-12 FOR AGW and if im not mistaken, working group 1 can cite nearly 160 FOR AGW.  zeffur: Why aren't scientist recommending planting more CO2 consuming & O2 producing trees? CO2 sequestering is also a feasible technology--why aren't they promoting it to capture & store CO2? Why isn't more being spent to develop higher energy density storage materials? Carbon taxing schemes don't work without effective alternative solutions--they just cost society enormous amounts of $$$. I think many people don't trust the 'climate experts'. There have been reports of manipulated data & modeled predictions that don't match real measurements over time. Personally, I think an enormous amount of research had to be done in order for us to better understand the climate since Al Gore's harbinger warnings (which don't seem to be on track with his hyperbole, btw). We've also launched better space tools to study the sun. In time we might be able to accurately model climate--but, honestly, they can't even accurately forecast the weather where I live, so I don't have much confidence at this point in their ability to predict warming trends by the end of this century. (Edited by zeffur) smokemeblind: because we are still having to have the discussion with denialists about the science... in reality, scientists ARE pushing for co2 sequestration implentation, they ARE screaming to the roof about the importance of forests and natural carbon sinks. the media are not to frisky with these ideas, however, and they dont compress well into 5-second soundbytes, placed next to some harvard professor paid by you-know-who oil company that interupts the process to challenge the irrefutable AGW model. smokemeblind: but if you go beyond media interviews and circular blogs and put your ear to the traintrack, you can hear the scientists prescriptions perfectly clear  ghostgeek: Mmm ... so how are all those warming periods in the past to be explained when the internal combustion engine had still to be invented? (Post deleted by smokemeblind ) smokemeblind: the answer to your question has been answered already by THOSE WHO LAID ITS CLAIM ON THE MODELS, the IPCC reports, go do your homework, son zeffur: re: "smokemeblind: because we are still having to have the discussion with denialists about the science..." On the contrary, it is those denialists who are the people that have forced climate scientist to get their act together & improve their accuracy & predictions (which still aren't that good, imo). re: "in reality, scientists ARE pushing for co2 sequestration implentation, they ARE screaming to the roof about the importance of forests and natural carbon sinks." Where is that true? I have never read an article on climate change or global warming that is calling for everyone to pitch in & plant a massive amount of certain trees that optimize CO2 absorption & O2 production. re: "the media are not to frisky with these ideas, however, and they dont compress well into 5-second soundbytes, placed next to some harvard professor paid by you-know-who oil company that interupts the process to challenge the irrefutable AGW model." Sorry pal, that is not going to suffice as an valid excuse. (Edited by zeffur) smokemeblind: you do not understand the science, you are just regurgitating old debunked mantras, ghost smokemeblind: well, i thought we were about to talk about things we complain no one talks about, but then... left turn right back into comprehending in irrelevant terms and flat out denying science smokemeblind: ghost, you will be waiting for an answer until you read the IPCC reports and study high school science, or when the resource wars begin, yoir choice | Science Chat Room 4 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
