If you can't see the crap that scientists proclaim and then redact on a constant basis, I won't do any good listing them all in front of you. The eggs was a tiny example of many.
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.
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'm not passing them of as laws. I'm telling you that scientists can't make up their mind because there's evidence that contradicts what they claim all the time. It's plain as day that scientists in general can't stake claim of "scientific fact" because there will usually be contradicting evidence.
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.
No, there won't "usually" be contradicting evidence. Sometimes there will be. Sometimes there will be supporting evidence. Sometimes there will be evidence that slightly alters the conclusion. Sometimes there will be evidence that invalidates everything around it. But it's not "usually" contradictory. Again, it's not that scientists can't make up their minds, it's that the process requires continued research and new evidence
can alter conclusions.
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.
Yep, and that's why you and the scientists that you agree with CANNOT call it a fact that we're in Global Warming. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades....NOT our extremely complex climate prediction...
Yes, we can. That's how science works. The evidence supporting it is, once again,
overwhelming. And it's agreed upon by the majority of the community. The chances of it being completely wrong are infinitesimally small.
I'm willing to bet you were too young when all the wish wash of "suggestive findings" in the '70's and '80's were abound. Otherwise, you'd understand all the garbage that scientists have proclaimed, suggested, or (pick your favorite lawyer term here) have presented. Take the eggs issue again. First, it was a craze to separate the yolk from the white for a much "healthier" meal. Then, it was eat only two a week....then, they're nutritious for you...
"Suggestive findings" are just that. Suggestive findings. They are not a consensus. If you and the rest of the population was duped by news reports then it's your own damn fault, not the nutritionists and biologists that made those findings.
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?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe long enough to see that they can't even draw their own conclusions with a PHD and all. What do I know? I'm just a silly knuckle dragger hillbilly...
So in other words, none? I'm sorry but if you don't understand the process of scientific research then nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise unless you make an effort to learn about it yourself.
PhDs are not out there arbitrarily changing their minds. Learn how the process works, understand that research takes time and recognize that what you've read in high school and in the magazines does not direct the actual information or the statements by the scientific community.
Like we trusted the scientists back in the '70's when the big next Ice Age was coming? Don't give me "that was thirty years ago" stuff. They thought they had it nailed on their theory just like they think they have it nailed now about GW...
No, they hadn't.
And, based on your graph, it appears that you draw your overwhelming evidence that has happened in the past few years. Everybody elses stats prove otherwise on the GW "fact"...
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.
And I pose two of my questions in one of my very first post that has YET to be answered:
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".
The answer is very easy. I have it. Normal everyday people have it. But, the pro GW scientists probably don't. And they never will due to their tunnel vision and arrogance...
Coulda sworn I'd gotten to those, maybe I missed them.
1. Depending on how far along the geologic time line you're looking there is really no such thing as "normal" climate. However when localized and compared to various other times we can see that there are long periods of stable climate and that it tends to change at a predictable rate. So while there may not be a "normal" climate for the earth over it's 4.5 billion year history but there is a pretty solid idea as to what the "normal" climate is supposed to be
right now.
2. Mother nature cannot "intend" anything. The earth is not intelligent, we have no evidence to the idea that it has any sort of consciousness in order for it to have "intention" of anything at all.
We know full well that rapid, unstable climate is bad for biodiversity and it's especially bad for human civilization. Who's to say?
US. We, as a species, know that sea level rise puts the lives of millions at risk. We, as a species, know that massive die-offs in niches could result in entire sections of food chains falling apart.
Now if these changes were shown as completely natural, this would be a different argument. Then I'd agree that we don't really have a right to alter the course of the earth's climate, that we should adapt to it rather than try to mess with it. But they're not shown as completely natural. The changes are compared to our pollution and they match up. The natural forces that dictate climate change have been taken into account and shown to not have enough impact by themselves to be causing the current changes.
So you can go on thinking that you and everyday people have an answer to something this complex but it won't make you right.