• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate scientist explains people are not appreciating how big the problem is

Bullseye said:
It's label "opinion" for a reason.
Click to expand...
It's opinions based on scientic data from the most brilliant scientists in the world, and they have the documented data to prove it.

When you can disprove it, let us know.
 
Last edited:
If a two year pandemic which literately shut down the global economy did so little for climate change then what chance do we really have? My thinking is man should learn how to adapt and live in a ever-changing climate just like they've been doing for centuries. Use the ice age as an example.
 
Jessie C said:
It's opinions based on scientic data from the most brilliant scientists in the world, and they have the documented data to prove it.

When you can disprove it, let us know.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. There is absolutely no data being presented, just a very biased personal opinion by one so-called scientist. A real scientist would be following the data, not manufacturing it to suit his political agenda. You clearly didn't read the article since it is based entirely on a psychological study and not scientific evidence. In other words, more Fake News by CNN. :rolleyes:
 
dmpi said:
If a two year pandemic which literately shut down the global economy did so little for climate change then what chance do we really have? My thinking is man should learn how to adapt and live in a ever-changing climate just like they've been doing for centuries. Use the ice age as an example.
Click to expand...
Shutting down the economy is not nearly enough for these sick and twisted leftists. They want billions to die, and they will go out of their way to make that happen.
 
Jessie C said:
It's opinions based on scientic data from the most brilliant scientists in the world, and they have the documented data to prove it.
Click to expand...
No exactly - climate science is very much in turmoil based on interpretations of various data and the outputs of various climate models.
Jessie C said:
When you can disprove it, let us know.
Click to expand...
As I said there major differences of opinion within the climatology world. I could cite a dozen or so books you could read, but I doubt you would bother.
 
Glitch said:
Shutting down the economy is not nearly enough for these sick and twisted leftists. They want billions to die, and they will go out of their way to make that happen.
Click to expand...
The left just want the other half to acknowledge their beliefs. It's nothing more than a religion.
 
Bullseye said:
No exactly - climate science is very much in turmoil based on interpretations of various data and the outputs of various climate models.

As I said there major differences of opinion within the climatology world. I could cite a dozen or so books you could read, but I doubt you would bother.
Click to expand...
Cite any scientific organization anywhere which says climate change is no big deal.
 
People tend to suck at risk internalization when its not obvious and in their immediate environment.
 
Bullseye said:
No exactly - climate science is very much in turmoil based on interpretations of various data and the outputs of various climate models.

As I said there major differences of opinion within the climatology world. I could cite a dozen or so books you could read, but I doubt you would bother.
Click to expand...
Teach the controversy!

(Where have we heard that before?)
 
dmpi said:
The left just want the other half to acknowledge their beliefs. It's nothing more than a religion.
Click to expand...
Actually, the confirmation bias isn't coming from the "left." (Is Elon Musk the "left?" Ex-governor Sandoval?)

See post #8. If you have 99.9999999% of scientists in agreement, that still leaves one to confirm people's biases.
 
Imo, it's a waste of time to discuss climate change and the consequent extinction of species with deniers. Their ignorance is the only protection they have from the harsh reality that the planet and its species are in severe decline. It doesn't matter anymore what the causes of the decline are because we've been told for a long time what would happen if we continued to irresponsibility use earth's resources and we didn't listen. Now it's too late for 110 species that have gone extinct between 2010-2019, those that went extinct between 2019 and 2022 and the 21 that went extinct in 2023 and and sooner than we think, it will be too late for us.
 
Michael Cole said:
Actually, the confirmation bias isn't coming from the "left." (Is Elon Musk the "left?" Ex-governor Sandoval?)

See post #8. If you have 99.9999999% of scientists in agreement, that still leaves one to confirm people's biases.
Click to expand...
What is a court of law? Confirmation bias from one lawyer vs. confirmation bias of another. I would argue that bias is a necessary step to determine the truth.
 
dmpi said:
What is a court of law? Confirmation bias from one lawyer vs. confirmation bias of another. I would argue that bias is a necessary step to determine the truth.
Click to expand...
???

Teach the controversy!

Again, is ex-governor Sandoval and Elon Musk the "left?" You have science and politics (and court for some reason) confused.
 
dmpi said:
The left just want the other half to acknowledge their beliefs. It's nothing more than a religion.
Click to expand...

Bullseye said:
No exactly - climate science is very much in turmoil based on interpretations of various data and the outputs of various climate models.

As I said there major differences of opinion within the climatology world. I could cite a dozen or so books you could read, but I doubt you would bother.
Click to expand...

A quick scan of the OP's citation it seems that it is indeed opinion, and it's focus is more on the concern of people who are already inculcated in the climate change religion feeling helpless (probably by design from the get go), and the climate change religion heretics who are reasonably and legitimately questioning that 'science', which is legitimately part of the scientific method (8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists) ).
 
Bullseye said:
Your point is as sharp as a beachball.
Click to expand...
My point is obvious.

98% of scientists agree with AGW theory.
98% of scientists agree with the theory of evolution.

2% of scientists say "teach the controversy."

There is no controversy. The 2% are politically driven.
 
Michael Cole said:
Actually, the confirmation bias isn't coming from the "left." (Is Elon Musk the "left?" Ex-governor Sandoval?)

See post #8. If you have 99.9999999% of scientists in agreement, that still leaves one to confirm people's biases.
Click to expand...
Can you quote the consensus statement that achieves such a high level of agreement?
 
longview said:
Can you quote the consensus statement that achieves such a high level of agreement?
Click to expand...
Of course not. Hyperbole indicates sarcasm. The point is that a tiny minority of researchers can always be found to contradict accepted science.
 
Michael Cole said:
Of course not. Hyperbole indicates sarcasm. The point is that a tiny minority of researchers can always be found to contradict accepted science.
Click to expand...
The consensus is a very limited subset of the concept of catastrophic AGW.
I ask because the consensus boils down to two basic points
A: The average temperature of the earth has increased over the last century, and
B: Human activity is likely involved.
The consensus has nothing about how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, or the effects.
 
longview said:
The consensus is a very limited subset of the concept of catastrophic AGW.
I ask because the consensus boils down to two basic points
A: The average temperature of the earth has increased over the last century, and
B: Human activity is likely involved.
The consensus has nothing about how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, or the effects.
Click to expand...
Point A is supported by empirical evidence. Point B is not supported by any evidence. Point A is reality, while point B is pure fantasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom