GLOBAL WARMING -- Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else!!!!!!

[gfm7175]

SO the whole isotope discussion and the discussion of sulfate aerosols doesn't count as science.

I see you are even more stupid than I first thought.

^^^ Dimlight calling other people stupid.

 

[Daylight63]

^^^ Dimlight calling other people stupid.

Tell me what was wrong with the isotope discussion.

Of course you know what I'm talking about....so show the class what a BIG DOG you are in science.





Or not. I know you won't. You wouldn't know a 12-C from a 235-U. Just admit it: you don't know the science behind any of this. Meanwhile I know quite a lot. I can go on if you like.

How this: can you tell me why a CO2 molecule absorbs IR but an O2 molecule doesn't? Bet you can't.

 

[Tobytone]

I confess that I've never paid much attention to the AGW controversy, except to note that the overwhelming majority of climatologists say there is evidence of global warming, and at least part of it could be anthropogenic.

Do your guys say there is no global warming? Or if there is, that none of it is man-made, so there's nothing we can do about it? And what makes them so sure they're right?

In 2014 an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. They contrasted scientific skepticism—which is "foundational to the scientific method"—with denial—"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration". They said: "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetuating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."

One MAGA Enviromental Perspective:

Personally, I trust some accomplished physicists, but not all. Science, in a couple ways is no different than any human endeavor, take construction for example, they both have their share of good and bad actors, some are honest professionals, others are greedy and jaded and chase money and station above integrity and professionalism. So, like anything else, you have to use good judgement and serious evaluation to decide who you think is acting in the honorable and professional manner for their craft.

I should also point out that I give little weight to “climate experts” or 'climate change professional, a CC-P" or "sustainability experts", as they seriously lack the qualifications to address a topic with such massive implications, whether the news is good or bad. Many have taken two-week courses full of climate propaganda with nearly zero science taught, others are a couple of months of training at most, it's a scam in my opinion.

I’ve spent hours studying speeches, interviews, and writings by highly credentialed scientists with impressive resumes. So far, I’ve found no compelling evidence of existential climate threats in the near future, say, within a thousand years. Many acknowledge climate changes but attribute significant shifts to natural events. Some argue that increased CO2 could benefit plant life. Ice core data show much higher CO2 levels in Earth’s distant past, suggesting current levels are relatively low, and we may be gradually regaining CO2, whether by design or not. This change is slow, posing no immediate threat, and even long-term, it seems more like a challenge than a catastrophe. This is only one example of many that contradict what is so often called or perceived to be the prevailing wisdom of the scientific community. But, upon closer inspection you find that it's really a conglomerate of 'climate experts' and a fist full of bought and paid for climate studies and computer models that spell consumption tax, if you get my drift.

Even if we face serious challenges, humanity’s impact is too small to significantly alter the outcome. We struggle to grasp how insignificant we are in Earth’s vast history. Natural events like volcanoes or earthquakes unleash destruction that far overshadows human pollution. Countless massive natural disasters have shaped the planet and more will follow. Not to mention, we have steadily improved our processes, and I expect we will continue that trend even reducing our impact more despite using more.

My environmentalism stems from a moral duty to steward our blessings and preserve what we can, keeping our property, towns, cities, and states as clean as possible within reason. It’s like maintaining your room, then your house, yard, and beyond, leaving the land in as good or better condition than we found it. I could dive into regulatory details, but you likely get the gist.
I’m deeply skeptical of government-funded climate research. Scientists know how to secure hefty grants: align their conclusions with the “right” narrative.

Why would the government push a negative narrative with grant dollars? Politicians use these findings and computer models as a pretext to enact policies they crave, policies that bring power, money through taxes, and encroachments on private property rights. The environmental movement, especially since the Soviet Union’s collapse, has become a haven for Marxist ideologues who’ve turned it into a political weapon.

I support real science guiding best environmental practices and solutions. I prioritize our God-given rights in the Bill of Rights, followed by keeping our own properties, towns, cities, and states clean for future generations.

Trump like most of us wants to be sure we have the cleanest water and air possible (like nobody's ever seen before, lol) and have no issues with sensible laws and regulations that are designed to achieve that goal while prioritizing our rights with as little burden on citizens as possible.

I hope this clarifies one MAGA perspective.

 

[Daylight63]

Personally, I trust some accomplished physicists, but not all. Science, in a couple ways is no different than any human endeavor, take construction for example, they both have their share of good and bad actors, some are honest professionals, others are greedy and jaded and chase money and station above integrity and professionalism. So, like anything else, you have to use good judgement and serious evaluation to decide who you think is acting in the honorable and professional manner for their craft.

Here's the key: you are under no requirement to "trust" science. THere are bad people in science just as in any field as you point out. The KEY then is to:

1. Look to see how OTHER scientists take the claims. If you have a LOT of people who are skilled in the topic who find it feasible then it is unlikely that you would be wrong to trust the scientist.

2. Learn the science. This is harder to do but possible. And maybe not even requiring a HUGE amount of science, just sufficient to understand the metes and bounds of the problem and how people are actually addressing it.

I should also point out that I give little weight to “climate experts” or 'climate change professional, a CC-P" or "sustainability experts", as they seriously lack the qualifications to address a topic

Why do you, a non-scientist, think they lack "qualifications"? Surely you don't even know what those qualifications look like and you couldn't possibly understand their background lacking scientific training as you appear to.

I’ve spent hours studying speeches, interviews, and writings by highly credentialed scientists

You actually get the "good stuff" by reading the peer reviewed journals. But that requires a LOT more training in the appropriate sciences than you have. Reading interviews is nice and all, but the meaty stuff is really in the details.

That's why this topic is so fraught for non-scientists like yourself.

with impressive resumes. So far, I’ve found no compelling evidence of existential climate threats

Who cares? Seriously. No offense but you are a nobody and your opinion on science you can't possibly understand is of zero interest to anyone.

in the near future, say, within a thousand years. Many acknowledge climate changes but attribute significant shifts to natural events.

This is the field of PALEOCLIMATOLOGY. It's been going on for over a century now. OF course you don't know that it exists but it does. Paleoclimatology helps us understand these "natural" events you speak of.

And right now the data simply doesn't make sense unless you actually factor in human events. Human activities explain more than half of the warming we have seen over the last 60 years or so.

Ice core data show much higher CO2 levels in Earth’s distant past, suggesting current levels are relatively low, and we may be gradually regaining CO2, whether by design or not.

^^^^^THIS is Paleoclimatology. Trust me when I tell you: paleoclimatologists believe in anthropogenic global climate change.

Why would the government push a negative narrative with grant dollars?

Ahhhhh, the old "they're lying for money". Your imagination is astounding. Do you honestly think thousands upon thousands upon thousands of independent researchers all over the earth over the past 60 years almost all agree that human-caused climate change is real?



You'd have to be pretty stupid to think that such a conspiracy would exist.

I support real science

But wouldn't you have to know what science is first?

I hope this clarifies one MAGA perspective.

Sure does. It makes it astoundingly clear you guys don't like science if it says something you don't approve of. That's fair. Doesn't change anything, just makes you into a bunch of mouthbreathing morons, but hey, it takes all kinds.