That's the equation for CO2 forcing global warming (it works for very large values of 2)...
Well, no, but that's the problem with this thread. How would most of us know it isn't the equation for CO2 forcing global warming?
Wayne in Maine wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:There's no such thing as a free lunch. If we ignore what scientistsactivists are telling us now, we will pay for it later. If we save money by ignoring it now, we pass that debt on to our children in the form of climate change. And it will cost them.
And some people also don't seem to realize that the things written in scientific journals and publications or advocated by scientific associations are actually scientific opinion. Gathering random stuff on the Internet doesn't give you that. Actually, this is a lot like the first example I quoted - most people have a hard time telling the difference. This is the kind of thing that scientists can sort out better than most of us can.
Bootstrap wrote:And some people also don't seem to realize that the things written in scientific journals and publications or advocated by scientific associations are actually scientific opinion. Gathering random stuff on the Internet doesn't give you that. Actually, this is a lot like the first example I quoted - most people have a hard time telling the difference. This is the kind of thing that scientists can sort out better than most of us can.
Scientific opinion? Not fact, not consensus? There are credible climate scientists who are, for good sound reasons, skeptical of the models and projected implications underlying the IPCC's recommendations that feed the Paris accords. They are called "deniers" not by scientists, but by activists. Because a well-founded, contrary opinion in science is respected and considered in real scientific circles.
Bootstrap wrote:And some people also don't seem to realize that the things written in scientific journals and publications or advocated by scientific associations are actually scientific opinion. Gathering random stuff on the Internet doesn't give you that. Actually, this is a lot like the first example I quoted - most people have a hard time telling the difference. This is the kind of thing that scientists can sort out better than most of us can.
Scientific opinion? Not fact, not consensus? There are credible climate scientists who are, for good sound reasons, skeptical of the models and projected implications underlying the IPCC's recommendations that feed the Paris accords. They are called "deniers" not by scientists, but by activists. Because a well-founded, contrary opinion in science is respected and considered in real scientific circles.
Yes, a well-founded, contrary opinion in science is respected and considered in real scientific circles. Those papers get published, they get summarized in the IPCC findings (which cover all relevant peer-reviewed literature), they get debated, every dissenting opinion is recorded and listed along with papers that argue against their conclusions. But most of what we see in this thread isn't that kind of work. And is it possible to stay on the topic long enough to even discuss one such paper in any depth? I don't think many people even want to do that.
Most of what we see here is not "well-founded contrary opinion" of the kind that scientists respect. It's random noise. That's why I keep suggesting that we focus on using scientific sources.
Bootstrap wrote:That's why I keep suggesting that we focus on using scientific sources.
You are welcome to suggest that.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Hats Off wrote:random noise is more fun and possibly just as accurate.
It's probably more fun for the people who can't understand the science anyway, and for those who don't want to take the time. And they can't tell that it's not as accurate.
But if we're going to do that, why not have some real fun and invent some truly wild theories? For instance, perhaps global warming is caused by kazoos ... nah, that's not terribly funny, perhaps someone else can help here, why not go all out if we want to ignore the scientific process?
my apologies - I don't know anything about global warming and don't know why I bother reading this thread. I am confused as to what is serious and what is not.
Bootstrap wrote:
But if we're going to do that, why not have some real fun and invent some truly wild theories?
Just because you claim that what I post is made up and wild, doesn't make it so.
Much of what I post has data that supports it. You just do not seem to like the data. You like to get in the weeds. I like the overview. Feel free to dig in the weeds, but that does not mean I have to get in the weeds also. I can post and say what I want. I AM the OP, you are not. Not sure why you feel you should be able to set the perimeters that I use. I do appreciate that you do not ridicule me, only what I post. That is at least a step in the right direction.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
