No Science Zone
- Thread starter Sea Save Foundation
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Gr8WyattWhale
Registered
Ifthe climate doesn't naturally fluctuate up and down...how did we get out of the last ice age? Were Wooly Mammoths and Saber Tooth Cats driving gas guzzling pickup trucks?
Shouldn't we be expecting that either,
we will eventually enter another ice age if the system is cyclical
Or
the earth will continue to warm even if every human disappeared tomorrow
In either case, fleecing the public for hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes will have zero effect. Which is Murky's point and it's a dang good one IMHO.
It seems to me if you think the government "cares" about the environment, you're terribly naive.
The government cares about two things; money and power, that's it.
In climate change they have a vehicle to acquire both at a rate that has previously been unimaginable.
I think it wise to be sceptical.
Shouldn't we be expecting that either,
we will eventually enter another ice age if the system is cyclical
Or
the earth will continue to warm even if every human disappeared tomorrow
In either case, fleecing the public for hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes will have zero effect. Which is Murky's point and it's a dang good one IMHO.
It seems to me if you think the government "cares" about the environment, you're terribly naive.
The government cares about two things; money and power, that's it.
In climate change they have a vehicle to acquire both at a rate that has previously been unimaginable.
I think it wise to be sceptical.
Enjoyable discussion for the most part gentlemen, and although I did not pursue the details of the science which are surely beyond my comprehension and which I had no intention of doing in the first place, I did continue to learn about people, and how they engage, or fail to engage others in arguments of persuasion. This is a hot topic, and the manner with which people participate in the discussion is entirely interesting and intriguing.
Over and out.
Over and out.
Actually skeptic you don't see gravity everyday. You just see the effects of it. Gravity is not simply a way to explain a natural behavior, it is actually one of the physical forces of the universe. So, if someone says they need to "see" something to believe it, then why call it gravity (referring to the physical force). Instead, maybe it's just the finger of god pushing objects towards the earth. Likewise, what about those oxygen molecules I was talking about? How do you know they are really two atoms with specific properties that are stuck together and that we used for metabolism?
Climate scientist actually know that temperature rise and CO2 accumulation is not an instantaneous or linear 1:1 phenomenon. So a lack of warming for a period of 17 years itself didn't debunk climate change. We have to be looking longer term. Regardless those data have been corrected, and scientists found that more warming had occurred than they thought during that time frame. Remember, science is continually self correcting.
Climate scientist actually know that temperature rise and CO2 accumulation is not an instantaneous or linear 1:1 phenomenon. So a lack of warming for a period of 17 years itself didn't debunk climate change. We have to be looking longer term. Regardless those data have been corrected, and scientists found that more warming had occurred than they thought during that time frame. Remember, science is continually self correcting.
Well since you want to be pedantic, I guess I will be too.
Gravity is 100% absolutely man's way of describing an observation of reality.
What is a force? Another way for man to describe our observations.
"Gravity" and "force" are ideas created by man to communicate our observations and understanding of our shared experience of reality.
Of course, and I didn't say it did.
Exactly, the science of global climate is far from settled, that was my point.
And you would be incorrect. Gravity as described by direct observation (Newton's law of universal gravitation) turned out to be unable to predict all outcomes and has been replaced by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity which at its introduction did explain the limitations observed in Newton's law, but had other implications that had not yet been validated. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is still being validated (hint, scientific method), however to date it has proved accurate
So we have a theory (model in Climate Science realm) that explains past behaviors and can be used to predict future events.
@Gr8WyattWhale, read the literature on anthropogenic climate change and then explain why the science is wrong. I'm happy to explain anything of the jargon in the reports that aren't clear. The issue of policy and the politics surrounding what we do with that information is a different topic.
@Skeptic14, likewise, back to my original challenge, read the literature. The self correcting nature of science doesn't mean its wrong. Quite the contrary in the case of climate science, the evidence just continues to mount. Climate science is about as settled as anything in modern history. Cite some studies and tell me where they are wrong.
@Skeptic14, likewise, back to my original challenge, read the literature. The self correcting nature of science doesn't mean its wrong. Quite the contrary in the case of climate science, the evidence just continues to mount. Climate science is about as settled as anything in modern history. Cite some studies and tell me where they are wrong.
cbm32
Contributor
Similar threads
- Question
