Climate Change Environmentalists Duped By And Colluding With Russians

[icanhelp1]

Climate change is "Settled Science" which is why there is no alternative theory floating around to explain anything that is happening other than rando bulls whit. Maybe its sunspots! Or the Earth tilted on its axis, or we're in a warming cycle (which isn't actually false).

In the end science is never truly settled so that argument gets real old real fast. I've heard of a thing called 'Germ Theory.' Is it your stance that bacteria cause infections and illnesses and viruses not only cause diseases or that both can move from person to person and even animal to person and back again?

I've heard of a theory of evolution. Are you denying that Covid-19 exists or that it has variants that have emerged and will continue to emerge?

Perhaps read this:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1906691116

"The idea that the science of climate change is largely “settled,” common among policy makers and environmentalists but not among the climate science community, has congealed into the view that the outlines and dimension of anthropogenic climate change are understood and that incremental improvement to and application of the tools used to establish this outline are sufficient to provide society with the scientific basis for dealing with climate change."

 

[pecksniff]

So does articulation. What do you mean?

Presumably, that anthropogenic climate change is "settled science" to the maximum extent that a final settlement of any question is possible in science.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Perhaps read this:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1906691116

"The idea that the science of climate change is largely “settled,” common among policy makers and environmentalists but not among the climate science community, has congealed into the view that the outlines and dimension of anthropogenic climate change are understood and that incremental improvement to and application of the tools used to establish this outline are sufficient to provide society with the scientific basis for dealing with climate change."

That's just using larger words to say what I said. Which is why I compared it to gravity, evolution and germs. I don't see anybody questioning that Corona is real, that it is evolving, though we like the word mutating better.

This is part of why I hate 'theory' since in a scientific sense it doesn't mean a guess. That would be a hypothesis. A 'theory' really means nobody can prove me wrong if we're going to put it into children's terms. OR what Peck said. He tends to be a little easier to read than I.

 

[ll74]

Perhaps read this:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1906691116

"The idea that the science of climate change is largely “settled,” common among policy makers and environmentalists but not among the climate science community, has congealed into the view that the outlines and dimension of anthropogenic climate change are understood and that incremental improvement to and application of the tools used to establish this outline are sufficient to provide society with the scientific basis for dealing with climate change."

Climate change due to anthropogenic process is agreed upon. The degree of effect is not.

 

[pecksniff]

Science works like this: You study your data, form a hypothesis, and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal of the field. The peer-review process does not decide whether the hypothesis is correct, only that your data and arguments for it are scientifically sufficient that it should be taken seriously. Then other scientists in the same field try to poke holes in your hypothesis, explain the data in some other way. You might revise your hypothesis in response. It goes round and round until some consensus is reached. Whatever is left standing after that process is a theory.

 

[ll74]

Science works like this: You study your data, form a hypothesis, and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal of the field. The peer-review process does not decide whether the hypothesis is correct, only that your data and arguments for it are scientifically sufficient that it should be taken seriously. Then other scientists in the same field try to poke holes in your hypothesis, explain the data in some other way. You might revise your hypothesis in response. It goes round and round until some consensus is reached. Whatever is left standing after that process is a theory.

There is no completely natural oriented climate model that has aligned with temperature and climate changes of recent history. Only those which have included human contribution have been anywhere close.

 

[icanhelp1]

Science works like this: You study your data, form a hypothesis, and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal of the field. The peer-review process does not decide whether the hypothesis is correct, only that your data and arguments for it are scientifically sufficient that it should be taken seriously. Then other scientists in the same field try to poke holes in your hypothesis, explain the data in some other way. You might revise your hypothesis in response. It goes round and round until some consensus is reached. Whatever is left standing after that process is a theory.

But when someone claims that a specific area of scientific research which is still being studied and data still being collected as **SETTLED SCIENCE** I have to point out that that individual is not well versed in the scientific method. Could this someone be you?

 

[pecksniff]

But when someone claims that a specific area of scientific research which is still being studied and data still being collected as **SETTLED SCIENCE** I have to point out that that individual is not well versed in the scientific method. Could this someone be you?

Of course it is still being studied. That does not mean a consensus has not been reached -- it has been, and the consensus is that climate change is happening and human activity is causing it. There is no longer any reasonable doubt on that point.

 

[icanhelp1]

Of course it is still being studied. That does not mean a consensus has not been reached -- it has been, and the consensus is that climate change is happening and human activity is causing it. There is no longer any reasonable doubt on that point.

There's consensus on both sides of the argument, consensus =/= fact... IT = AGREEMENT. Back in the day there was consensus among the intellectuals of the day that the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. WHO KNEW!!

 

[Rightguide]

As I stated above, no such animal as "settled science" exists. I firmly believe that humans are a huge contributing factor here but still.

...no evidence

 

[Rightguide]

House GOP demands a lot of things, but rarely anything worth taking seriously.

By all means stay dumb.

 

[ll74]

...no evidence

Bullshit

 

[GeorgeSoros]

...no evidence

The Koch brothers thank you for your fealty.

 

[pecksniff]

There's consensus on both sides of the argument, consensus =/= fact... IT = AGREEMENT. Back in the day there was consensus among the intellectuals of the day that the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. WHO KNEW!!

No, there never was. Educated people from the Ancient Greeks to Columbus' day knew of the round Earth.

And thus was smallpox introduced into the previously Undying Lands.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Climate change is real, so your attempt to say it's not is ignored.

This is true. It's been changing for several billion years and will continue to do so.

 

[phrodeau]

Hard to believe that some people still argue about this, after decades of clear evidence.

 

[pecksniff]

This is true. It's been changing for several billion years and will continue to do so.

[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before.

 

[ll74]

This is true. It's been changing for several billion years and will continue to do so.

Yes, at an accelerated rate thanks to human contribution.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Ooooo.....how scary! We'd better give all ou money, freedom and autonomy to Democrats, pronto!!

Except, except....Michaeal Mann's "hockey stick" graph is a fraud: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com...ck-update-now-definitively-proven-to-be-fraud

 

[Sean Renaud]

...no evidence

As has been shown time and time again not only in this thread but over dozens and dozens over the decades that there are tons of evidence. From tree rings, to ice cores, to geography to literally centuries old science. You refusing to believe there is proof is no different from arguing we never went to the moon.

There's consensus on both sides of the argument, consensus =/= fact... IT = AGREEMENT. Back in the day there was consensus among the intellectuals of the day that the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. WHO KNEW!!

There is no "both sides" of the argument. There is one side and some trolls. Your other two examples are actually genuine oddities. The consensus amongst intellectuals hadn't been that it was flat for a very, very long time before we like to pretend.

Nobody REALLY cared on an intellectual level if we were or weren't the center of the universe, it didn't matter.

However yes, every now and again someone will come along and turn something on its head that everybody else was wrong about. There will always be one more thing, and sometimes we kinda know about it. Like we know the universe has something we're not observing eating up a lot of space. However a minority of kooks who every so often come out on top shouldn't be the basis for how we teach or behave.

There are not two sides to this one anymore than there are two sides to if the holocaust happened.

This is true. It's been changing for several billion years and will continue to do so.

While claiming it has been changing for several billion years is one of those half truths that paints with SO broad a brush that it means absolutely nothing. You may as well claim that Mass Media has existed for as long as humans have traveled to new places and told each other stories.

 

[pecksniff]

Ooooo.....how scary! We'd better give all ou money, freedom and autonomy to Democrats, pronto!!

Except, except....Michaeal Mann's "hockey stick" graph is a fraud: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com...ck-update-now-definitively-proven-to-be-fraud

No, it isn't. That canard was debunked a long time ago.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Yes, at an accelerated rate thanks to human contribution.

A monkey clings to a nice, ripe mango less tightly than you to any rationale for regimenting society along lines you and your pals dictate. I bet you were a big acid rain guy, too.

 

[ll74]

Ooooo.....how scary! We'd better give all ou money, freedom and autonomy to Democrats, pronto!!

Except, except....Michaeal Mann's "hockey stick" graph is a fraud: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com...ck-update-now-definitively-proven-to-be-fraud

I could easily post the next five sources you'd use to support your ignorance.

Watts up with that, eh?

Good luck with that.

 

[Rightguide]

[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before.

It's a cycle. The earth has had at least 5 ice ages, all of which required a cooling period after a heating period. It's going to happen again and again.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

No, it isn't. That canard was debunked a long time ago.

Rational wiki? Don't you have some tea leaves or flocks of birds as proof, something believable?