Fact: Scientists claimed their findings indicated in the '70's we could be headed into an Ice Age very soon.
"Indicated"
"could"
Those are not the same as claiming a consensus. And if you're going to post such things as fact then I assume you can point to the reports from the 70s that made said claims?
Fact: I didn't believe it for a second. Of course, WE DIDN'T. Sounds like the opposite findings to me, ja?
Sounds like you're not listening to me. Science is about progression of knowledge through observation using empirical evidence. You have to remember the
progression part. You can't just read an article in the paper that says "scientists suggest" and pretend that they're claiming it's an absolute fact.
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.
Far from it. The changes in climate are not "very recent". Read the actual published reports and stop relying on talking heads and op-ed pieces.
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.
No, you haven't given me an example. You've given me the punchline to a joke. If you want to back up "the egg thing" then I implore you to cite the published reports in peer-reviewed journals that indicate what you're claiming. Otherwise you're just parroting the public conception derived from shoddy reporting.
And I also have a full time job as well as a full time school schedule, I'm just really good at managing my time.
You may not want to waste your time producing these reports but until you do your arguments are invalid.
I've already responded to post 29.
Jimpeel's links did not "blow every facet out of the water". Not even close. I remember that thread and remember being as equally frustrated with the number of people that holler up and down about looking at solid evidence in regards to gun control yet will jump to support some of the most circumstantial evidence against climate change just because it falls in line with their political agenda. Jimpeel's stuff was certainly interesting but much of it has been challenged and debunked, some of it easily explained and even all of it put together is still pretty insignificant compared to the amount of data on the other side of the argument.
Nope. Just proving that scientists keep contradicting themselves CONSTANTLY. Their suggestive reports change all the time.
No, not constantly and you're still ignoring the fact that different researchers can work on the same issue and find differing results and that those results are eventually refined. You're still ignoring the fact that reporting something like "finding suggested" is NOT a claim of consensus. So no, you haven't proven any such thing.
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...
I already live in the real world, thanks. And I don't read the New York Times.
But while I don't have time to learn all the things I'd
like to learn I do insist on being informed when I'm arguing a position. So I'm sorry if you're too busy to read the dang report but until you do I don't see why your arguments should hold any weight.
To give an example, why would I accept your review of a rifle you've never even fired?
Common sense is nice but it falls flat on its face when people believe that
their version of common sense is the truth and nothing can change their mind. Those folks in lab coats
are using rational reasoning. That's one of the core principles of the scientific method so no, the average layman who relies purely on his "common sense" is not going to be more accurate.
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.
If you've done your own reading of published reports, that's wonderful. However if the only amount of reading you've done has been from news articles and op-eds then I'm sorry but you haven't done your homework. You haven't formed an opinion based on data, you've allowed others to form your opinion for you by presenting small chunks of relevant information. You're not getting anywhere close to the whole story.
The IPCC is a good starting point but there are other sources of information for consumption, including opposing sources. The simple fact is that the "stats and links" others have posted are still a mere drop in the bucket of the total amount of data available. I don't flat out deny anything; some of the things posted have been debunked, others are simply
outdated.
Bull! I'm calling you out on this. You stated GW is a FACT. Not in this thread, but you outright said it is.
Well then I apologize for being unclear.
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?
Oh, that's one of many sources of information regarding sea level rise. I just picked a pretty one.
I'm not expecting you or anyone else to read it cover to cover but at least have a rough understanding of it
or some of the other published reports out there.
Well, there you go. You just supported my opinion. Different researches coming to different conclusions. Sounds like they contradict themselves, doesn't it?
Contradict
each other, not contradict
themselves. There's a significant difference in those two phrases. That being said, you're pretending like there isn't a step following that. If two or more differing conclusions are found then research continues until we know more. But when two or more differing conclusions are found they don't hold press conferences and announce a consensus and start putting things into textbooks.
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
Asked and answered. And I brought up the intelligence aspect because
you referenced the part about mother nature's "intentions". That's not the same question as asking whether or not it's supposed to change in a certain way.
Still, asked and answered.
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....
I drove along I-40 once and completely forgot to stop at Winslow and get a picture of myself standing on a corner. Maybe one day.
However in real life a scientists would probably pull out a GPS receiver, good the coordinates and probably even pull out a globe just for fun.