Originally posted by @metal-brainit is not a matter of bloody opinion, how many times must we yell that into your face?
If you could contact every climate scientist in the world you would neglect to contact the known skeptics in the style of Samuel George Morton.
Do you support doing a poll that gets the opinions of at least half of climate scientists or are you happy with flawed studies as long as you get the result you want?
do you support doing a poll that gets the opinions of all geologists? including the ones that support flat-earth and young earth? or are you happy with flawed studies? how about a poll that gets the opinions of all imunologists, including the ones that say vaccines don't work and cause autism?
science is not up to opinion.
Originally posted by @zahlanziI agree. Tell that to the alarmists that keep bringing up consensus as if it is proof of something. Tell that to sonhouse.
it is not a matter of bloody opinion, how many times must we yell that into your face?
do you support doing a poll that gets the opinions of all geologists? including the ones that support flat-earth and young earth? or are you happy with flawed studies? how about a poll that gets the opinions of all imunologists, including the ones that say vaccines don't work and cause autism?
science is not up to opinion.
Those other examples you used are not pushing a carbon tax that will hurt the poor more than the wealthy.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraIt was you that brought up consensus in this thread. Read Zahlanzi's last post.
I'm saying that PBS broadcasts aren't part of "science" in any meaningful sense, and neither is Al Gore's film. If you think there is something wrong with the science, find errors in the peer reviewed literature.
Again, you can't claim to have a view "based on science" if you're not a scientist. The best you can do as a layman is find out what the s ...[text shortened]... y shows that the scientific method tends to be more accurate than pseudoscientific explanations.
2 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainZ's point is you ignore that which you don't believe as a layman and just believe what you will, like the words of Don Easterbrook, a well known climate change denier or your favorite, Fred Singer.
It was you that brought up consensus in this thread. Read Zahlanzi's last post.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/19/checkmate-how-do-climate-science-deniers-predictions-stack-up
You should recognize some of these folks:
https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/top-10-climate-deniers/
Did you see the part where Singer gets $5,000 a month from the Heartland Institute?
Originally posted by @sonhouseHe didn't say that. He said science is not about opinions. Let Z express what he meant. You didn't program him to have a certain point.
Z's point is you ignore that which you don't believe as a layman and just believe what you will, like the words of Don Easterbrook, a well known climate change denier or your favorite, Fred Singer.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/dec/19/checkmate-how-do-climate-science-deniers-predictions-stack-up
You should recognize some of t ...[text shortened]... -deniers/
Did you see the part where Singer gets $5,000 a month from the Heartland Institute?
I think he mistakenly thought I brought up consensus and ended up contradicting you and Kaze. I think it is hilarious since he isn't even on my side, but you 3 work it out. LOL
Fred Singer is not a climate change denier.
Originally posted by @metal-brainNo, he just denies humans are responsible.
He didn't say that. He said science is not about opinions. Let Z express what he meant. You didn't program him to have a certain point.
I think he mistakenly thought I brought up consensus and ended up contradicting you and Kaze. I think it is hilarious since he isn't even on my side, but you 3 work it out. LOL
Fred Singer is not a climate change denier.
"Key Deeds
May 15, 2018
Singer wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal titled “The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change.” In the article, Singer claimed, “the temperature of sea water has no direct effect on sea-level rise. That means neither does the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.” [72]
“This conclusion is worth highlighting: It shows that sea-level rise does not depend on the use of fossil fuels. The evidence should allay fear that the release of additional CO2 will increase sea-level rise,” Singer wrote. [72]
He does admit that “there is also good data showing sea levels are in fact rising at an accelerating rate” however comments that “The cause of the trend is a puzzle.” [72]
“Currently, sea-level rise does not seem to depend on ocean temperature, and certainly not on CO2. We can expect the sea to continue rising at about the present rate for the foreseeable future. […] There is nothing we can do about rising sea levels in the meantime. We’d better build dikes and sea walls a little bit higher,” Singer concluded. [72]
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) offered commentary on Singer's WSJ piece, noting that the counter to Singer's claims, “science is crystal clear” regarding the reason for sea level rise: [73]
“[W]e know that without strong policy to limit CO2 emissions, the rising water will continue to accelerate, inundating all the coastal cities of the world,” UCS noted. “The reason that sea levels are rising faster and faster is because every bit of coal, oil, and gas we burn adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere, absorbing more of the Earth’s radiant heat, and contributing more to the thermal expansion of seawater and the loss of land ice. This is not a mystery. It’s extremely well understood and documented by millions of direct measurements.”
Scientists at Climate Feedback also examined the WSJ article, and found it “grossly misleads readers about science of sea level rise” and that Singer's claims were “contradicted by a wealth of data and research.” According to the scientists' feedback, “Singer bases his conclusion entirely on a cherry-picked comparison of sea level rise 1915-1945 and a single study published in 1990, claiming a lack of accelerating sea level rise despite continued warming. But in fact, modern research utilizing all available data clearly indicates that sea level rise has accelerated, and is unambiguously the result of human-caused global warming.” [74]
March 23, 2017
Singer was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 12th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12) on a “Cllimate Science” panel alongside Don Easterbrook and Willie Soon. [66]
Panel 1B) Climate Science
Panel 1B) Q&A
February 23, 2017
Fred Singer was a signatory of a petition (PDF) organized by Richard Lindzen of the Cato Institute urging President Donald Trump to pull the United States out of the United Nations international convention on climate change (UNFCCC). [64]
“In just a few weeks, more than 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals from around the world have signed the petition below,” Lindzen wrote in the letter. [64]
DeSmog investigated the list, and found that only a small handful of the signatories could be considered “even remotely ‘qualified’ or ‘eminent’ — but not in the field of climate science.” The list included individuals “interested in climate,” and one signatory who only identified as an “emailer who wished to sign the petition” while some signers provided no affiliation or address whatsoever. [65]
December 12, 2016
Fred Singer was an attendee at a private meeting also attended by Trump's EPA Transition team lead Myron Ebell on Capitol Hill. E&E News reported that the event was not open to the public or to the press and Ebell refused to give any details. The event was hosted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and held in the hearing room of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. The EPW committee is chaired by Senator James Inhofe who, like Trump, has described human-caused climate change as a hoax. [60]
DeSmog reported that the event featured the “Who's Who of Climate Science Deniers.” Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts, who spoke at the event, also wrote that the meeting was a gathering of the Cooler Heads Coalition and listed some of the participants on Facebook: [61], [62]"
Originally posted by @sonhouseLike I said, Singer is not a climate change denier. He talks about climate change all of the time. He mentions the ice age, the medieval warming period, the little ice age, etc.
No, he just denies humans are responsible.
"Key Deeds
May 15, 2018
Singer wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal titled “The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change.” In the article, Singer claimed, “the temperature of sea water has no direct effect on sea-level rise. That means neither does the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.” ...[text shortened]... ering of the Cooler Heads Coalition and listed some of the participants on Facebook: [61], [62]"
Thanks for agreeing with me. That doesn't happen often. 🙂
Originally posted by @metal-brainSo what exactly do you call it when he says the sea is rising but not due to climate change? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are pretty good its a duck.
Like I said, Singer is not a climate change denier. He talks about climate change all of the time. He mentions the ice age, the medieval warming period, the little ice age, etc.
Thanks for agreeing with me. That doesn't happen often. 🙂
Originally posted by @metal-brainGiven the evidence we have already seen, that would not change anyone's mind. There does not appear to be any experiment that can be done (within our lifetimes) to convince you.
Do you support a study that gets at least half of climate scientist's opinions instead of less than 25%?
By the way, I thought we were looking for evidence, not opinion.
Originally posted by @wildgrassI prefer evidence. Those that don't resort to consensus claims that are untrue.
Given the evidence we have already seen, that would not change anyone's mind. There does not appear to be any experiment that can be done (within our lifetimes) to convince you.
By the way, I thought we were looking for evidence, not opinion.
Originally posted by @metal-brainWhy are you asking for opinions then?
I prefer evidence. Those that don't resort to consensus claims that are untrue.
Originally posted by @zahlanzi
it is not a matter of bloody opinion, how many times must we yell that into your face?
do you support doing a poll that gets the opinions of all geologists? including the ones that support flat-earth and young earth? or are you happy with flawed studies? how about a poll that gets the opinions of all imunologists, including the ones that say vaccines don't work and cause autism?
science is not up to opinion.
science is not up to opinion.I disagree. If we were talking about mathematics where the truth of statements depends on whether they are derivable from axioms you'd be right. The difficulty for science is a given statement can only be falsified with certainty. So, while it is more than "just an opinion", doing a poll of scientists has merit in finding what the range of interpretations of the evidence is.
The difficulty for MetalBrain is that not enough scientists believe contrarian position for there not to be a consensus, so he's disputing the meaning of the poll.
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainAh, so glaciers disappearing, sea level rising, actual increases in both water and air temps,
I prefer evidence. Those that don't resort to consensus claims that are untrue.
oceans PH changing to acidic or more acidic, coral reefs dying, hurricanes stronger now,
those things are not evidence? Just what in the HELL do you think qualifies for evidence?
Originally posted by @sonhouseShow me the alarming sea level rise. Nova says sea level is rising quickly, but how much is quickly? Where is the rapid acceleration? Coral reefs are doing fine and hurricanes are not getting stronger.
Ah, so glaciers disappearing, sea level rising, actual increases in both water and air temps,
oceans PH changing to acidic or more acidic, coral reefs dying, hurricanes stronger now,
those things are not evidence? Just what in the HELL do you think qualifies for evidence?
Myths are not evidence.
Originally posted by @metal-brainAre you just being obtuse deliberately or are you just blind?
Show me the alarming sea level rise. Nova says sea level is rising quickly, but how much is quickly? Where is the rapid acceleration? Coral reefs are doing fine and hurricanes are not getting stronger.
Myths are not evidence.
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/coral.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/earth-ice-melting-glaciers-disappearing-glacier-los-glaciares-national-park-us-geological-survey-a7730466.html
I suppose all that is just fake news?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php
It sounds clearly like you see these reports but just want to hide your head in the sand and ignore ALL of these kind of reports and the science behind them.
You just go through the revolving door, WHAT EVIDENCE? YOU HAVE SHOWN ME NOTHING, Rinse and repeat. Again and again.