- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 47,558
- Reaction score
- 23,174
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
It's label "opinion" for a reason.
It's opinions based on scientic data from the most brilliant scientists in the world, and they have the documented data to prove it.It's label "opinion" for a reason.
It’s informed opinion.It's label "opinion" for a reason.
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.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.
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.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.
No exactly - climate science is very much in turmoil based on interpretations of various data and the outputs of various climate models.It's opinions based on scientic data from the most brilliant scientists in the world, and they have the documented data to prove it.
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.When you can disprove it, let us know.
The left just want the other half to acknowledge their beliefs. It's nothing more than a religion.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.
Cite any scientific organization anywhere which says climate change is no big deal.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.
Just the usual chicken little nonsense from the climate cult. CNN is a major purveyor of this propaganda. If any of what theyve been saying for decades was even remotely true we'd all be dead by now.
Teach the controversy!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.
Actually, the confirmation bias isn't coming from the "left." (Is Elon Musk the "left?" Ex-governor Sandoval?)The left just want the other half to acknowledge their beliefs. It's nothing more than a religion.
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.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.
???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.
The left just want the other half to acknowledge their beliefs. It's nothing more than a religion.
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.
Your point is as sharp as a beachball.Teach the controversy!
(Where have we heard that before?)
My point is obvious.Your point is as sharp as a beachball.
Can you quote the consensus statement that achieves such a high level of agreement?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.
Of course not. Hyperbole indicates sarcasm. The point is that a tiny minority of researchers can always be found to contradict accepted science.Can you quote the consensus statement that achieves such a high level of agreement?
The consensus is a very limited subset of the concept of catastrophic AGW.Of course not. Hyperbole indicates sarcasm. The point is that a tiny minority of researchers can always be found to contradict accepted science.
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.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.