Kinda hard to argue against.
Pretty sure it isn't a big risk to say "I'll take the same side as the astrophysicist."
Pretty sure it isn't a big risk to say "I'll take the same side as the astrophysicist."
"Science in America" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
- Thread starter surfstar
- Start date
- Status
But which "evidence" do you believe?
Global warming caused by humans is a theory. It is still being tested. For every "proof" it exists, there is a "proof" that it does not.
Is it warmer now than 100 years ago, yes. 500 years ago, maybe. 1000 years, 10,000 years?
Is this a natural phenomenon or is mankind causing (or accelerating) it, that is the big debate.
So wonder how long till this gets political and locked.
Global warming caused by humans is a theory. It is still being tested. For every "proof" it exists, there is a "proof" that it does not.
Is it warmer now than 100 years ago, yes. 500 years ago, maybe. 1000 years, 10,000 years?
Is this a natural phenomenon or is mankind causing (or accelerating) it, that is the big debate.
So wonder how long till this gets political and locked.
Bob Hoye on climatology
I've been reading this guy's occasional articles on climate change over the years...and he is trained in that science. Plenty of room for a debate. The next time a glacier rolls over half of North America and Europe, and it will, what will be reasons given?
I've been reading this guy's occasional articles on climate change over the years...and he is trained in that science. Plenty of room for a debate. The next time a glacier rolls over half of North America and Europe, and it will, what will be reasons given?
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,187
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Bob Hoye on climatology
I've been reading this guy's occasional articles on climate change over the years...and he is trained in that science. Plenty of room for a debate. The next time a glacier rolls over half of North America and Europe, and it will, what will be reasons given?
Not going to happen, in the near or far future. As long as the earth remains, there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night. Period.
Global warming is a hoax. Get over it. Oh, and shut this thread down. Global warming itself is a religion; you can believe in it if you want. No evidence exists except that which has been fabricated.
Bob Hoye on climatology
I've been reading this guy's occasional articles on climate change over the years...and he is trained in that science. Plenty of room for a debate. The next time a glacier rolls over half of North America and Europe, and it will, what will be reasons given?
Not going to happen, in the near or far future. As long as the earth remains, there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night. Period.
Global warming is a hoax. Get over it. Oh, and shut this thread down. Global warming itself is a religion; you can believe in it if you want. No evidence exists except that which has been fabricated.
Originally Posted By: blupupher
But which "evidence" do you believe?
Global warming caused by humans is a theory. It is still being tested. For every "proof" it exists, there is a "proof" that it does not.
Is it warmer now than 100 years ago, yes. 500 years ago, maybe. 1000 years, 10,000 years?
Is this a natural phenomenon or is mankind causing (or accelerating) it, that is the big debate.
Easy:
1. One side of the "evidence" is mainly non-scientists (ideologues, oil industry folks, etc.) and scientists who don't actually work in this field. The other is basically all other scientists, including the ones who study this stuff for a living. The second camp is the one to believe. They know what the evidence actually is and what it means.
2. "Theory" in science doesn't mean some random guess. It means a systematic explanation of known facts.
3. No, it's not warmer now than it has been before in earth's history. What's different now is the pace of the warming (i.e. WAY faster now than any other time), as well as the rate of ocean acidification and other stuff. Ecosystems and human populations can't adapt if it happens this quickly (think mass migrations from coastal areas -- tens of millions of people), and the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect increases.
4. There has been a lot of work done to try to figure out how much of the warming is caused by earth's distance from the sun, changes in solar activity, natural cycles, etc. The vast majority of it seems to be caused by human activity.
5. Yes, there's plenty of debate. But on what? Scientists who study this stuff are mainly quibbling about details -- whether it's warming a lot or a LOT, what exactly humans are doing to cause it, etc. But the main idea is completely settled. The dissenters are basically a tiny fringe in that community. The people asking the questions you're asking are the people I mentioned earlier: non-scientists of various kinds, and scientists who don't work in that field but have an axe to grind.
But which "evidence" do you believe?
Global warming caused by humans is a theory. It is still being tested. For every "proof" it exists, there is a "proof" that it does not.
Is it warmer now than 100 years ago, yes. 500 years ago, maybe. 1000 years, 10,000 years?
Is this a natural phenomenon or is mankind causing (or accelerating) it, that is the big debate.
Easy:
1. One side of the "evidence" is mainly non-scientists (ideologues, oil industry folks, etc.) and scientists who don't actually work in this field. The other is basically all other scientists, including the ones who study this stuff for a living. The second camp is the one to believe. They know what the evidence actually is and what it means.
2. "Theory" in science doesn't mean some random guess. It means a systematic explanation of known facts.
3. No, it's not warmer now than it has been before in earth's history. What's different now is the pace of the warming (i.e. WAY faster now than any other time), as well as the rate of ocean acidification and other stuff. Ecosystems and human populations can't adapt if it happens this quickly (think mass migrations from coastal areas -- tens of millions of people), and the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect increases.
4. There has been a lot of work done to try to figure out how much of the warming is caused by earth's distance from the sun, changes in solar activity, natural cycles, etc. The vast majority of it seems to be caused by human activity.
5. Yes, there's plenty of debate. But on what? Scientists who study this stuff are mainly quibbling about details -- whether it's warming a lot or a LOT, what exactly humans are doing to cause it, etc. But the main idea is completely settled. The dissenters are basically a tiny fringe in that community. The people asking the questions you're asking are the people I mentioned earlier: non-scientists of various kinds, and scientists who don't work in that field but have an axe to grind.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
1. One side of the "evidence" is mainly non-scientists (ideologues, oil industry folks, etc.) and scientists who don't actually work in this field. The other is basically all other scientists, including the ones who study this stuff for a living. The second camp is the one to believe. They know what the evidence actually is and what it means.
Why should we blindly believe the scientists? Science has been wrong many, many times before. These same scientists said 30 or so years ago we were headed for an Ice Age. What changed?
Not to mention Neil deGrasse Tyson is an Astrophysicist, which has nothing to do with climate science. So we should discount him too since he doesn't actually work in the field?
1. One side of the "evidence" is mainly non-scientists (ideologues, oil industry folks, etc.) and scientists who don't actually work in this field. The other is basically all other scientists, including the ones who study this stuff for a living. The second camp is the one to believe. They know what the evidence actually is and what it means.
Why should we blindly believe the scientists? Science has been wrong many, many times before. These same scientists said 30 or so years ago we were headed for an Ice Age. What changed?
Not to mention Neil deGrasse Tyson is an Astrophysicist, which has nothing to do with climate science. So we should discount him too since he doesn't actually work in the field?
Last edited:
We'll have to get Bill Nye The Science Guy to explain all this bunk!
Global warming is a power grab, period. More control over the populace, more revenue, etc.
The Earth has always warmed and cooled, and we are but specks of sand on a really large beach!
Global warming is a power grab, period. More control over the populace, more revenue, etc.
The Earth has always warmed and cooled, and we are but specks of sand on a really large beach!
Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
Global warming is a hoax. Get over it. Oh, and shut this thread down. Global warming itself is a religion; you can believe in it if you want. No evidence exists except that which has been fabricated.
Ah, yes. 'Quick! Shut this thread down before anyone can disagree with me so I can get my opinion in!'.
Global warming is a hoax. Get over it. Oh, and shut this thread down. Global warming itself is a religion; you can believe in it if you want. No evidence exists except that which has been fabricated.
Ah, yes. 'Quick! Shut this thread down before anyone can disagree with me so I can get my opinion in!'.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Why should we blindly believe the scientists? Science has been wrong many, many times before.
Rightyo...we can't trust scientist because they have been wrong before.
So we trust non scientists, as their gut feelings and embedded belief systems aren't "scientists ... who have been wrong before"".
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Not to mention Neil deGrasse Tyson is an Astrophysicist, which has nothing to do with climate science. So we should discount him too since he doesn't actually work in the field?
And this guy is out of his field in that commentary (*), so can't be believed, as hes not IN his field...while those who are in THE field can't be trusted as scientists in the past have been wrong...and those who aren't in ANY field, with their gut feel and embedded beliefs are right...interesting...
I'm not taken on the "science" as I can follow both the scientific points of view...when presented as science...the science that uses radiation back to the Earth's surface as proof is also ignoring the fact that the T^4-t^4 component in radiative heat transfer is premised on the fact that radiation from a black body is every single direction based on it's temperture (K), and the T^4-t^4 is the nett effect...can't count the back radiation of an atom as a positive, and discount it's outwards component in the same breath.
It's the polarised religious systems on both sides that make the discussion that needs to take place utterly impossible...shouting over your opponents isn't science, but it's observable WHAT shouting over your opponents IS
Why should we blindly believe the scientists? Science has been wrong many, many times before.
Rightyo...we can't trust scientist because they have been wrong before.
So we trust non scientists, as their gut feelings and embedded belief systems aren't "scientists ... who have been wrong before"".
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Not to mention Neil deGrasse Tyson is an Astrophysicist, which has nothing to do with climate science. So we should discount him too since he doesn't actually work in the field?
And this guy is out of his field in that commentary (*), so can't be believed, as hes not IN his field...while those who are in THE field can't be trusted as scientists in the past have been wrong...and those who aren't in ANY field, with their gut feel and embedded beliefs are right...interesting...
I'm not taken on the "science" as I can follow both the scientific points of view...when presented as science...the science that uses radiation back to the Earth's surface as proof is also ignoring the fact that the T^4-t^4 component in radiative heat transfer is premised on the fact that radiation from a black body is every single direction based on it's temperture (K), and the T^4-t^4 is the nett effect...can't count the back radiation of an atom as a positive, and discount it's outwards component in the same breath.
It's the polarised religious systems on both sides that make the discussion that needs to take place utterly impossible...shouting over your opponents isn't science, but it's observable WHAT shouting over your opponents IS
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Why should we blindly believe the scientists?
If you don't want to, you shouldn't. Read the papers. Just be prepared for a slog, because scientific literature tends to be pretty thick if you're not used to it.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Science has been wrong many, many times before.
And it will continue to be wrong in the future. No question.
The question for us isn't whether it's right or wrong. The question is whether it's more or less likely to be right than we are, sitting here with our keyboards. The fact that you HAVE a keyboard should make the answer pretty obvious.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
These same scientists said 30 or so years ago we were headed for an Ice Age. What changed?
Once, we thought the earth was a sphere. Then we realized that was wrong, and started calling it an oblate spheroid. Now we know that's wrong, too, because there are other slight bulges here and there. Knowing that, are you now prepared to say we can't trust science about the roundness of the earth? Does this make you any more willing to listen to someone who says the earth is flat? Science was wrong, after all!
Climate science has moved on quite a bit in 30 years. Details have come to light. Projections have improved. The fundamental idea -- that human activity is altering the climate, with potentially bad consequences -- has become more obvious, not less.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Not to mention Neil deGrasse Tyson is an Astrophysicist, which has nothing to do with climate science. So we should discount him too since he doesn't actually work in the field?
Absolutely. His point about science generally is the important part here. I happen to know he's also right about climate science, but I agree that you should discount his opinion on it because he's not in a relevant field.
Here's a better place to start -- lots of sources cited, all of them well respected scientific institutions in the relevant fields: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Why should we blindly believe the scientists?
If you don't want to, you shouldn't. Read the papers. Just be prepared for a slog, because scientific literature tends to be pretty thick if you're not used to it.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Science has been wrong many, many times before.
And it will continue to be wrong in the future. No question.
The question for us isn't whether it's right or wrong. The question is whether it's more or less likely to be right than we are, sitting here with our keyboards. The fact that you HAVE a keyboard should make the answer pretty obvious.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
These same scientists said 30 or so years ago we were headed for an Ice Age. What changed?
Once, we thought the earth was a sphere. Then we realized that was wrong, and started calling it an oblate spheroid. Now we know that's wrong, too, because there are other slight bulges here and there. Knowing that, are you now prepared to say we can't trust science about the roundness of the earth? Does this make you any more willing to listen to someone who says the earth is flat? Science was wrong, after all!
Climate science has moved on quite a bit in 30 years. Details have come to light. Projections have improved. The fundamental idea -- that human activity is altering the climate, with potentially bad consequences -- has become more obvious, not less.
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Not to mention Neil deGrasse Tyson is an Astrophysicist, which has nothing to do with climate science. So we should discount him too since he doesn't actually work in the field?
Absolutely. His point about science generally is the important part here. I happen to know he's also right about climate science, but I agree that you should discount his opinion on it because he's not in a relevant field.
Here's a better place to start -- lots of sources cited, all of them well respected scientific institutions in the relevant fields: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
blupupher said:
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
1. One side of the "evidence" is mainly non-scientists (ideologues, oil industry folks, etc.) and scientists who don't actually work in this field. The other is basically all other scientists, including the ones who study this stuff for a living. The second camp is the one to believe. They know what the evidence actually is and what it means.
Why should we blindly believe the scientists? Science has been wrong many, many times before. These same scientists said 30 or so years ago we were headed for an Ice Age. What changed?
Not to mention Neil deGrasse Tyson is an Astrophysicist, which has nothing to do with climate science. So we should discount him too since he doesn't actually work in the field?
No, the prediction you reference was from a single paper, not the majority of scientists, then or now. Further, the few scientists who authored that paper eventually admitted their prediction was based on misinterpreting their data. A fact which was brought to light from peer review. And that is something the current scientists' predictions have gone through and passed. That's why you should put some stock in what they have to say.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
1. One side of the "evidence" is mainly non-scientists (ideologues, oil industry folks, etc.) and scientists who don't actually work in this field. The other is basically all other scientists, including the ones who study this stuff for a living. The second camp is the one to believe. They know what the evidence actually is and what it means.
Why should we blindly believe the scientists? Science has been wrong many, many times before. These same scientists said 30 or so years ago we were headed for an Ice Age. What changed?
Not to mention Neil deGrasse Tyson is an Astrophysicist, which has nothing to do with climate science. So we should discount him too since he doesn't actually work in the field?
No, the prediction you reference was from a single paper, not the majority of scientists, then or now. Further, the few scientists who authored that paper eventually admitted their prediction was based on misinterpreting their data. A fact which was brought to light from peer review. And that is something the current scientists' predictions have gone through and passed. That's why you should put some stock in what they have to say.
All I know is that the non science people in charge a.k.a. politicians, sure know how to fix this existing or non existing problem.
Originally Posted By: E365
Regardless of whether people think global warming is manmade or not, how is polluting MORE and wasting MORE the logical answer to anything?
Who says we are polluting and "wasting" more?
Regardless of whether people think global warming is manmade or not, how is polluting MORE and wasting MORE the logical answer to anything?
Who says we are polluting and "wasting" more?
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: E365
Regardless of whether people think global warming is manmade or not, how is polluting MORE and wasting MORE the logical answer to anything?
Who says we are polluting and "wasting" more?
Let's restate it to "polluting more than necessary and wasting, period." I guess there are people in this country who wouldn't mind living in Beijing?
Originally Posted By: E365
Regardless of whether people think global warming is manmade or not, how is polluting MORE and wasting MORE the logical answer to anything?
Who says we are polluting and "wasting" more?
Let's restate it to "polluting more than necessary and wasting, period." I guess there are people in this country who wouldn't mind living in Beijing?
- Status
