wilkinda65
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2014
- Threads
- 23
- Messages
- 1,726
- Reaction score
- 695
- Location
- Sun City Center, FL
- First Name
- David
- Vehicle(s)
- 2020 Charger ScatPackWB
Which one of them? Or both?have a snickers
Sponsored
Which one of them? Or both?have a snickers
I'd rather have a Guinness and a steak.have a snickers
The Hangry one!Which one of them? Or both?
Ignore me all you want. I did lots of research.
Going to pause this right here . . . do we know anything about historical abnormal fluctuations?Have you read any of the links I posted or are you just a deliberately obtuse troll. Literally a handful of posts above shows data confirming sea levels are rising, the earth is warming (due to the effects of man) at a rate well above normal fluctuations
For me at least, it's not about whether issue itself is 'a religion' or a scientific likelihood. More that the tone of urgency that comes along with the message seems overly strident at times, comparable to, ummm . . . religious fervor., but oh no - you just keep banging on it is a 'religion' 'all made up' etc etc. Proven facts make no difference to your deluded views and your mind is closed no matter what.
I tell my friends I'm a vegan. I eat plants post-processed by cow, sheep and chicken.I'd rather have a Guinness and a steak.
They did the same thing in the 1970's with DDT, said it was killing birds by making the egg shells so weak they were breaking when the mother sat on them.I suspect that today's instant-communication, sound-bite world has something to do with it.
I did post a load of links / graphs previously and I am inclined to believe NASA and thousands of other experts in their fields. If you refuse to accept scientific experts in their fields when it is something you don't like the idea of the world is doomed. Scientific progress is well documented with hypotheses that are then proven correct or incorrect in a logical and defined way. Science works - planes fly, boats float, medicines work - not because of guesswork and assumption but because of rigorous scientific method. Climate change, it's links to human activity, sea level change, pollution levels in cities are all proven rigorously. Again I have provided some links but there is a huge amount of data on the subject.Going to pause this right here . . . do we know anything about historical abnormal fluctuations?
For me at least, it's not about whether issue itself is 'a religion' or a scientific likelihood. More that the tone of urgency that comes along with the message seems overly strident at times, comparable to, ummm . . . religious fervor.
I suspect that today's instant-communication, sound-bite world has something to do with it.
Norm
I spent most of a career in engineering, so I understand the point about science over guesswork with little or no basis.I did post a load of links / graphs previously and I am inclined to believe NASA and thousands of other experts in their fields. If you refuse to accept scientific experts in their fields when it is something you don't like the idea of the world is doomed. Scientific progress is well documented with hypotheses that are then proven correct or incorrect in a logical and defined way. Science works - planes fly, boats float, medicines work - not because of guesswork and assumption but because of rigorous scientific method. Climate change, it's links to human activity, sea level change, pollution levels in cities are all proven rigorously. Again I have provided some links but there is a huge amount of data on the subject.
Anybody who challenges this has to come up with equally rigorously produced data and evidence, and if they had done NASA and others would have been professionally forced to consider it - that is how scientific progress happens.
As with many things where there is dispute, my take is that the truth probably lies somewhere between the extremes. And I rather strongly suspect that academia - where the sciences tend to be developed (industry applies the sciences as engineering) - is not free of politics.I agree there will always be extremists who bang the environmental drum, but also the deniers who do just the opposite, but the overwhelming weight of evidence is that all these things are happening. 98% of climate scientists agree on climatic change and what is causing it, 2% don't and their 'evidence' is either cherry pick data to 'prove' their point, or are just plain proven wrong.
There are ways of measuring stuff from thousands of years ago either directly or by extrapolation such as ice core samples, carbon dating, tree growth from peat bogs etc. There are some surprisingly old data sets going back hundreds of years that can be used to correlate data.However. I do have a few questions involving the lack of directly observed data in real time over the millions of years.
Norm
that 'statistic' is a bald-faced LIE which puts paid to all the so-called "science" purported to buttress their position. A couple of flunkies sent out a survey to a bunch of climate "scientists" and 98% of those who RESPONDED to the survey agreed with the nonsense assertion.The fact that 98% of climate scientists agree doesn't necessarily make it so.
I understand that.There are ways of measuring stuff from thousands of years ago either directly or by extrapolation such as ice core samples, carbon dating, tree growth from peat bogs etc. There are some surprisingly old data sets going back hundreds of years that can be used to correlate data.