Shane Tuttle
Staff
I don't see it because it doesn't happen on a constant basis. What you think are scientists turning around in their opinions is the process itself; different researches coming to different conclusions based on newer data and refining their knowledge of the issue. That is how science works. Just because you're only seeing the tip of the iceberg and acting like a few newspaper articles that you read frak knows how many years ago are somehow representative of the scientific community doesn't mean your claim has any validity.
Fact: Scientists claimed their findings indicated in the '70's we could be headed into an Ice Age very soon.
Fact: I didn't believe it for a second. Of course, WE DIDN'T. Sounds like the opposite findings to me, ja?
This is one major of many, many examples that scientists were out in left field thinking that they can really predict mother nature.
Today, scientists are claiming GW as real only by seeing VERY recent "abrupt" changes in climate. That's called tunnel vision. Call it what you want. You can state they are having peer reviews. You can state that they are "gathering more evidence". But, just because it's happened only recently doesn't mean there's GW on the horizon.
Scientists are so set on reading one sentence that they fail to read the whole book.
So yeah, list them. It's spring break and there's nothing good on tv tonight. The egg thing is not a valid example. It's the punchline to a comedy routine made funny by the fact that most people have never actually looked into it. If you want to actually argue the egg issue then find the reports and read them.
I've given you one simple and a big blunder of one. Apparently unlike you, I have a full time job that commands more than just a 9 to 5 schedule. Also, I have more important things to do than utterly waste my time on reading from cover to cover all the published reports like having a life. Read post #29. I won't repeat it.
If you're the one to assert so much on providing stats, I think there's plenty here given as well as Jimpeel's links in past threads that blow just about every facet of GW out of the water.
I didn't say you were. But you're acting like these articles you're reading that are snippets of published reports or press releases are somehow binding.
Nope. Just proving that scientists keep contradicting themselves CONSTANTLY. Their suggestive reports change all the time.
So in other words, none?
Nope, none at all. I believe everything what The New York Times publishes... When you step out in the real world one of these days, you'll find out that you won't have time to research every piece of information of every arguable subject that hits the headlines. Common sense and rational reasoning can actually be more accurate than a bunch of scientists in lab coats trapped under a glass...
Unless you were actually reading the published reports yourself then you have absolutely no foot to stand on in claiming to know what scientists were and were not saying.
You don't trust the media when they report on guns but you'll trust them to report on food?
Who said I trusted what they said about eggs? Point anywhere in my posts that I believed what they said.
Maybe I have done my own reading and just maybe have a formed opinion. I don't need to waste my time to prove to you otherwise. Besides, it's only my opinion.
It doesn't matter if I've read two sentences or more reports than you. One of the key arguments here is that you claim over and over again it's overwhelming majority of scientists agree. Others posted here some stats and links to prove you otherwise that appear to be just as reputable and you flat out deny the findings. Looks like to me you use the IPCC reports as if it's The Bible. Now, to me, that's scary in itself.
Again, I'm not claiming anything is ironclad but the overwhelming amount of evidence is pointing to the same conclusion.
Bull! I'm calling you out on this. You stated GW is a FACT. Not in this thread, but you outright said it is.
Which graph? I've posted a number of them. But more importantly, I have actually read the IPCC report in its entirety. So I have actually made a concerted effort to understand the issue at hand instead of relying on news articles and talking heads to tell me what to think.
Post #70. Good for you. Just because I may or may not have read the IPCC report from cover to cover doesn't mean that I haven't made the effort to do the same. And again, where did I say that I allow news articles and talking heads to do my thinking?
I don't see it because it doesn't happen on a constant basis. What you think are scientists turning around in their opinions is the process itself; different researches coming to different conclusions based on newer data and refining their knowledge of the issue. That is how science works.
Well, there you go. You just supported my opinion. Different researches coming to different conclusions. Sounds like they contradict themselves, doesn't it?
But yes, one can make a claim of scientific fact if virtually all of the data examined by a whole gaggle of researches all points to the same damn conclusion.
No, they can't. Especially on GW.
1. Who's to say what climate is normal?
2. Who's to say that slow, steady climate change if acceptable compared to quick change is better? Maybe mother nature intends to have abrupt changes to cycle out certain species or perform its own "population control".
1. NOONE. Nobody knows what climate is normal.
2. NOONE. Just because nature isn't "intelligent" doesn't mean that it supposed to act/change a certain way that humans think it should.
That's the whole point of my assertion: The arrogance of most scientists.
B
ut we can't simply sit back and shrug our shoulders until generations hundreds of years in the future are able to say they know everything that could possibly be known about the Earth's climate. Right now the science points in one direction. Virtually all of the science in astrophysics point to the same conclusions about black holes and quasars. Virtually all of the science in human physiology point to the same conclusion about Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Virtually all of the science in biology points to the same conclusion about evolution. Virtually all of the science in geology points to the same conclusion about plate tectonics.
And in that same vein, virtually all of the science in climatology points to the same conclusion about climate change.
Yep, they're standing in Winslow Arizona and we're asking to point to Munich, Germany. Scientists are pointing east. Sure, it's east. But, they're also pointing to about 400,000 other cities as well....