AuRevoir · 36-40, M
It’s already been disproven to the point that they went from ice age scare tactic, to global warming scare tactic, and now it’s no longer specifically about warming, it’s simultaneously supposed to be about both warming and freezing so now it’s Climate Change.
So as far as current scientists are concerned. Yes, global warming is obsolete.
So it most indefinitely is a matter of opinion.
So as far as current scientists are concerned. Yes, global warming is obsolete.
So it most indefinitely is a matter of opinion.
AuRevoir · 36-40, M
@wildland Lol you’re hilarious. You’re the one that doesn’t understand grammar.
The way you wrote it wrong.
What you implied with the way you structured your sentencing. Is that people who don’t understand science, will believe that it is only a matter of opinion. Not that scientist can articulate global warming as a distinctive separation from science itself and chalk it up to mere opinion.
If you don’t believe me then copy and paste your own post verbatim into Chatgpt or whatever your preferred AI model is and ask it about sentence structure and whether the statement reads as suggesting that other people are misinterpreting the meaning of science. Or if it implies what you do incorrectly believe you had implied.
The way you wrote it wrong.
What you implied with the way you structured your sentencing. Is that people who don’t understand science, will believe that it is only a matter of opinion. Not that scientist can articulate global warming as a distinctive separation from science itself and chalk it up to mere opinion.
If you don’t believe me then copy and paste your own post verbatim into Chatgpt or whatever your preferred AI model is and ask it about sentence structure and whether the statement reads as suggesting that other people are misinterpreting the meaning of science. Or if it implies what you do incorrectly believe you had implied.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
It's not likely that people grow up unaware of science. The people against the material viewpoint run our society for the elites. Their flock includes the conservatives and moderates - that's everyone in Western politics.
I give the no science population greater credit for understanding.
I give the no science population greater credit for understanding.
View 2 more replies »
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@Therealsteve huge and very old.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@wildland you certainly begged the question of Marxism vs anti history, anti materialism, and anti science. The USA fights dialectical materialism by killing reality and making official narratives to replace knowing in the USA. Beg that question and we're just being tangential.
Therealsteve · 31-35, M
@Roundandroundwego And so what are they, then?
ElwoodBlues · M
@AuRevoir says
Let's start with the facts about scientific cooling vs warming predictions. Cooling predictions were NEVER a major thing; propagandists blew them out of proportion. Look at the facts:
Source https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml
The change in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" was done because there are many ramifications to warming that are more significant than mere temperature. The most serious is sea level rise.
Sea level rise, mm/year, as measured by GPS
Sea levels have risen 6 to 8 inches in the past 100 years. But the process continues even after the warming stops.
8000 years of sea levels
Sea levels have been quite stable for the last 2000 years while humans built coastal cities. Climate change now threatens to raise sea levels and swamp those cities.
Increased coastal flooding in last 20 years
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-coastal-flooding
It’s already been disproven to the point that they went from ice age scare tactic, to global warming scare tactic, and now it’s no longer specifically about warming, it’s simultaneously supposed to be about both warming and freezing so now it’s Climate Change.
It's SCARY how wrong you are, and how much propaganda you've internalized.Let's start with the facts about scientific cooling vs warming predictions. Cooling predictions were NEVER a major thing; propagandists blew them out of proportion. Look at the facts:
The change in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" was done because there are many ramifications to warming that are more significant than mere temperature. The most serious is sea level rise.
Sea level rise, mm/year, as measured by GPS
Sea levels have risen 6 to 8 inches in the past 100 years. But the process continues even after the warming stops.
Between about 21,000 years and about 11,700 years ago, Earth warmed about 4 degrees C (7.2 degrees F), and the oceans rose (with a slight lag after the onset of warming) about 85 meters, or about 280 feet. However, sea levels continued to rise another 45 meters (about 150 feet) after the warming ended, to a total of 130 meters (from its initial level, before warming began), or about 430 feet, reaching its modern level about 3,000 years ago.
This means that, even after temperatures reached their maximum and leveled off, the ice sheets continued to melt for another 8,000 years until they reached an equilibrium with temperatures.
Stated another way, the ice sheets’ response to warming continued for 8,000 years after warming had already ended, with the meltwater contribution to global sea levels totaling 45 additional meters of sea-level rise.
From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea-level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/ This means that, even after temperatures reached their maximum and leveled off, the ice sheets continued to melt for another 8,000 years until they reached an equilibrium with temperatures.
Stated another way, the ice sheets’ response to warming continued for 8,000 years after warming had already ended, with the meltwater contribution to global sea levels totaling 45 additional meters of sea-level rise.
From about 3,000 years ago to about 100 years ago, sea levels naturally rose and declined slightly, with little change in the overall trend. Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea-level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.
8000 years of sea levels
Sea levels have been quite stable for the last 2000 years while humans built coastal cities. Climate change now threatens to raise sea levels and swamp those cities.
Increased coastal flooding in last 20 years
ElwoodBlues · M
@Therealsteve As I said above, the most serious aspect of our current anthropogenic climate change is sea level rise.
Rapid warming leads to rapid glacial melting leads to rapid sea level rise leads to more and more flooding of our low lying cities. See the bottom map of increased coastal flooding in the US. Walling our coastal cities off from extra feet of sea level is a very expensive proposition. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Rapid warming leads to rapid glacial melting leads to rapid sea level rise leads to more and more flooding of our low lying cities. See the bottom map of increased coastal flooding in the US. Walling our coastal cities off from extra feet of sea level is a very expensive proposition. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Therealsteve · 31-35, M
@ElwoodBlues There isn't anthropogenic climate change, though.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Therealsteve What data led you to that conclusion??
You call 800,000 years of correlated temperatures with greenhouse gases a mere coincidence??
800,000 years of CO2 & methane & temp data
You call 800,000 years of correlated temperatures with greenhouse gases a mere coincidence??
800,000 years of CO2 & methane & temp data
ElwoodBlues · M
@Therealsteve says
Fact is, anthropogenic global warming is accepted by a YUGE segment of the scientific community. Would you accept the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society? How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists? See https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
There isn't anthropogenic climate change, though.
Fact is, anthropogenic global warming is accepted by a YUGE segment of the scientific community. Would you accept the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society? How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists? See https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Therealsteve · 31-35, M
ElwoodBlues · M
@Therealsteve You said
What data led you to that conclusion??
There isn't anthropogenic climate change, though.
What data led you to that conclusion??
Pfuzylogic · M
They have shown with recent evidence that the old Big Bamg theory is only a far fetched opinion. Something to do with lack of evidence. 😁
Pfuzylogic · M
@ElwoodBlues Again I don’t do links.
Please be capable to explain your critical thought.
You brought Einstein into this. It is called the Hubble LeMaitre theory for a reason.
Please be capable to explain your critical thought.
You brought Einstein into this. It is called the Hubble LeMaitre theory for a reason.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Pfuzylogic You clearly didn't major in STEM, and it shows.
You have some rigid idea that theories are frozen in time at publication date. That's not how science works. Good theories always get refined as time goes on; that's the nature of the scientific process.
If you had said at the top that the Hubble LeMaitre theory had been supplanted, you'd have a case. But you didn't say that. You referenced the Big Bang theory and that name attaches to the constantly refinement theory beginning with Hubble that over time has been contributed to by many great physicists.
P fuzy logic, after telling me I had a high school understanding of Big Bang physics, blocked me for the above comment!
ROTFL !!!
You have some rigid idea that theories are frozen in time at publication date. That's not how science works. Good theories always get refined as time goes on; that's the nature of the scientific process.
Again I don’t do links.
That's your shortcoming, not mine. When you write and publish a scientific paper, it's full of footnotes or end notes and a bibliography. These are links to related work; they show what you've built on. Science is a structure that's constantly being added to, adjusted, refined; and the reference links are an essential component.If you had said at the top that the Hubble LeMaitre theory had been supplanted, you'd have a case. But you didn't say that. You referenced the Big Bang theory and that name attaches to the constantly refinement theory beginning with Hubble that over time has been contributed to by many great physicists.
UPDATE
P fuzy logic, after telling me I had a high school understanding of Big Bang physics, blocked me for the above comment!
ROTFL !!!
Pfuzylogic · M
@ElwoodBlues I stand by what I said.
I prefer a discourse of respect when I talk about science and that is not what I received. I wish you well. Please respond to others because you feel too entitled to harass a simple response of mine.
I prefer a discourse of respect when I talk about science and that is not what I received. I wish you well. Please respond to others because you feel too entitled to harass a simple response of mine.
lpthehermit · 56-60, M
some scientists have an agenda of their own and will NEVER admit to a mistake
wildland · M
@lpthehermit I'm sure SOME scientists do. But not 99.9% of them.
ElwoodBlues · M
@lpthehermit The US oil industry makes about $110 billion per year; coal another $20 billion. Big Oil spends $3.6 billion per year on advertising; a sum equal to about 8X the whole NSF climate budget. You're not naive enough to believe none of that money goes to propaganda, are you?