Climate change: July set to be world's warmest month on record

[Danderman123]

Arctic sea ice is quickly declining.

 

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

Al Gore talked about a 75% chance of summer sea ice disappearing Real Soon Now, but it is really going to happen within the lifetime of most posters here.

 

Why is Arctic sea ice diminishing?

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Arctic sea ice is quickly declining.

 

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

Al Gore talked about a 75% chance of summer sea ice disappearing Real Soon Now, but it is really going to happen within the lifetime of most posters here.

 

Why is Arctic sea ice diminishing?

Now that you've mentioned "Al Gore" can we expect a torrent of Pavlovian responses from climate denialists?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Your new reply is utterly irrelevant.

I guess because I've exploded your consensus nonsense. What you fail to understand is that there's a difference between polling scientists and polling their research. There have been studies of both kinds. And it's the polling of the scientific research that is ultimately dispositive.

Come on, placeholder.  The truth is always relevant.  What's more relevant than that?

You haven't exploded anything, except you have perhaps in your own mind.  Polling has nothing at all to do with the question of whether consensus alone is equal to truth.  But you want to argue that science is exempt?  Do you really want to risk that?

Again, this is why I don't post any data or studies on the climate change issue here.  What for?  If you guys can't even bring yourselves to accept such a fundamental truth that consensus does not equate to truth then how could anyone believe that you would be willing to accept anything that would be even slightly debatable?

To be honest and with sincerity I do hold you to be a very intelligent guy and I respect you.  But all of that goes to waste when you willingly abandon any truth which intelligence brings to awareness for the sake of wanting to be right.  There's one cure and only one cure for that . . . pure objectivity.  As one poster here stated a while back, he doesn't care whether climate change is real or not.  He just wants the truth.  Once anyone realises they're heavily invested intellectually and emotionally in a given outcome then they've lost any and all objectivity.  Don't let that happen to your fine mind.

This thread is a joke for this reason.  Climate change deniers say white and climate change believers say black.  Climate change deniers say black and climate change believers say white.  What a frickin' joke.  You're not here to debate or to learn.  You're here purely to espouse.  That ain't debating.

[Eleftheros]

28 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The point is,, that this was in the very early days of climatology. Questions that were legitimately asked back then have since been answered, thanks in large part to the huge advances in both computing power and in the ability of instruments to gather data.

No, that is not the point.

 

The point is that experts can always be wrong, and thus their conclusions should always be able openly challenged. It's not enough to call them all "deniers" and continue to believe in your own perfection.

 

As the great Richard Feynman said: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

 

The moment that you accept as truth one particular narrative - which is the only way to explain absurd political initiatives such as Net Zero - you have abandoned science in favor of dogma.

 

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered rather than answers that cannot be questioned." Doesn't work that way in the 21st century, Richard - in fact, it's the complete opposite.

 

No wonder people are losing trust in "science".

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

No, that is not the point.

 

The point is that experts can always be wrong, and thus their conclusions should always be able openly challenged. It's not enough to call them all "deniers" and continue to believe in your own perfection.

 

As the great Richard Feynman said: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

 

The moment that you accept as truth one particular narrative - which is the only way to explain absurd political initiatives such as Net Zero - you have abandoned science in favor of dogma.

 

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered rather than answers that cannot be questioned." Doesn't work that way in the 21st century, Richard - in fact, it's the complete opposite.

 

No wonder people are losing trust in "science".

That's exactly why consensus matters, thanks

[positivevibes]

I am sorry but the global warming agenda was lost on me when they had to rebrand it to climate change. Mainstream media completely ignoring the fact that both poles have seen massive increases in sea ice is just one recent example of the bias.

 

Same with the c19 and the medicine mandates. They lost me when Pfi$er tried to bury it's own trial data for 70 years.

 

Some of us so called deniers were never so and always trusted the science.

 

Science should always be questioned and debated, as it always was.

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, positivevibes said:

I am sorry but the global warming agenda was lost on me when they had to rebrand it to climate change. Mainstream media completely ignoring the fact that both poles have seen massive increases in sea ice is just one recent example of the bias.

 

Same with the c19 and the medicine mandates. They lost me when Pfi$er tried to bury it's own trial data for 70 years.

 

Some of us so called deniers were never so and always trusted the science.

 

Science should always be questioned and debated, as it always was.

Well said. 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, positivevibes said:

I am sorry but the global warming agenda was lost on me when they had to rebrand it to climate change. Mainstream media completely ignoring the fact that both poles have seen massive increases in sea ice is just one recent example of the bias.

 

Same with the c19 and the medicine mandates. They lost me when Pfi$er tried to bury it's own trial data for 70 years.

 

Some of us so called deniers were never so and always trusted the science.

 

Science should always be questioned and debated, as it always was.

If you get lost because of a change in phrase then no wonder you have no idea of the science involved:

 

“Climate change” encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These include rising sea levels; shrinking mountain glaciers; accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic; and shifts in flower/plant blooming times. These are all consequences of warming, which is caused mainly by people burning fossil fuels and putting out heat-trapping gases into the air.

 

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

No, that is not the point.

 

The point is that experts can always be wrong, and thus their conclusions should always be able openly challenged. It's not enough to call them all "deniers" and continue to believe in your own perfection.

 

As the great Richard Feynman said: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

 

The moment that you accept as truth one particular narrative - which is the only way to explain absurd political initiatives such as Net Zero - you have abandoned science in favor of dogma.

 

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered rather than answers that cannot be questioned." Doesn't work that way in the 21st century, Richard - in fact, it's the complete opposite.

 

No wonder people are losing trust in "science".

Well said as well. 

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

If you get lost because of a change in phrase then no wonder you have no idea of the science involved:

 

“Climate change” encompasses global warming, but refers to the broader range of changes that are happening to our planet. These include rising sea levels; shrinking mountain glaciers; accelerating ice melt in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic; and shifts in flower/plant blooming times. These are all consequences of warming, which is caused mainly by people burning fossil fuels and putting out heat-trapping gases into the air.

 

You forgot the punchline:

"So we believe."

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You forgot the punchline:

"So we believe."

I know what you believe but you've never provided any credible links to it.

[Eleftheros]

15 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

That's exactly why consensus matters, thanks

That's exactly why consensus doesn't matter, in fact.

 

Because the idea of a consensus is used, always, to create some single fixed and sacred unchallengable narrative (as with global warming and many other topics), and is thus the opposite of science.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

That's exactly why consensus doesn't matter, in fact.

 

Because the idea of a consensus is used, always, to create some single fixed and sacred unchallengable narrative (as with global warming and many other topics), and is thus the opposite of science.

You are going against logic now. Any studies contradicting the present scientific consensus can be published and independently reviewed. Including where there funding comes from. Got any?

[placeholder]

32 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Come on, placeholder.  The truth is always relevant.  What's more relevant than that?

You haven't exploded anything, except you have perhaps in your own mind.  Polling has nothing at all to do with the question of whether consensus alone is equal to truth.  But you want to argue that science is exempt?  Do you really want to risk that?

Again, this is why I don't post any data or studies on the climate change issue here.  What for?  If you guys can't even bring yourselves to accept such a fundamental truth that consensus does not equate to truth then how could anyone believe that you would be willing to accept anything that would be even slightly debatable?

To be honest and with sincerity I do hold you to be a very intelligent guy and I respect you.  But all of that goes to waste when you willingly abandon any truth which intelligence brings to awareness for the sake of wanting to be right.  There's one cure and only one cure for that . . . pure objectivity.  As one poster here stated a while back, he doesn't care whether climate change is real or not.  He just wants the truth.  Once anyone realises they're heavily invested intellectually and emotionally in a given outcome then they've lost any and all objectivity.  Don't let that happen to your fine mind.

This thread is a joke for this reason.  Climate change deniers say white and climate change believers say black.  Climate change deniers say black and climate change believers say white.  What a frickin' joke.  You're not here to debate or to learn.  You're here purely to espouse.  That ain't debating.

As I've pointed out, this isn't about a consensus of opinion. It's about a consensus in the results of research. At this juncture, there is virtually no research that supports denialist claims. Their predictions have repeatedly come croppers. Whereas the big predictions of climatological research continue to come true.

You don't seem to understand that  modern science depends heavily on statistics and probability. Even nuclear physics, which is generally considered to be the hardest of sciences. You seem to want to set a standard of absolute 100%. 99.9999% isn't good enough for you. So even though the research overwhelmingly confirms ACC over and over again, you won't accept that. 

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

That's exactly why consensus doesn't matter, in fact.

 

Because the idea of a consensus is used, always, to create some single fixed and sacred unchallengable narrative (as with global warming and many other topics), and is thus the opposite of science.

Its about the results of research, not about opinions.

[Danderman123]

40 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Come on, placeholder.  The truth is always relevant.  What's more relevant than that?

You haven't exploded anything, except you have perhaps in your own mind.  Polling has nothing at all to do with the question of whether consensus alone is equal to truth.  But you want to argue that science is exempt?  Do you really want to risk that?

Again, this is why I don't post any data or studies on the climate change issue here.  What for?  If you guys can't even bring yourselves to accept such a fundamental truth that consensus does not equate to truth then how could anyone believe that you would be willing to accept anything that would be even slightly debatable?

To be honest and with sincerity I do hold you to be a very intelligent guy and I respect you.  But all of that goes to waste when you willingly abandon any truth which intelligence brings to awareness for the sake of wanting to be right.  There's one cure and only one cure for that . . . pure objectivity.  As one poster here stated a while back, he doesn't care whether climate change is real or not.  He just wants the truth.  Once anyone realises they're heavily invested intellectually and emotionally in a given outcome then they've lost any and all objectivity.  Don't let that happen to your fine mind.

This thread is a joke for this reason.  Climate change deniers say white and climate change believers say black.  Climate change deniers say black and climate change believers say white.  What a frickin' joke.  You're not here to debate or to learn.  You're here purely to espouse.  That ain't debating.

Climate change Deniers sow doubt. They quote people who support Denial, and attack people who support the Global Warming Hypothesis.

 

No facts, just political discourse.

 

I post data, you post long trolls.

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You seem to want to set a standard of absolute 100%. 99.9999% isn't good enough for you. So even though the research overwhelmingly confirms ACC over and over again, you won't accept that. 

The guy posts zero data to support his position, which is that he doesn't believe in Science.

 

Its more of an admission of a psychological problem than a scientific debate. At the end of day, his position boils down to: "how can anyone know what is real?"

 

[Danderman123]

16 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

That's exactly why consensus doesn't matter, in fact.

 

Because the idea of a consensus is used, always, to create some single fixed and sacred unchallengable narrative (as with global warming and many other topics), and is thus the opposite of science.

Nope.

 

The data is used to prove or disprove a scientific hypothesis.

 

Your internet friends have deluged you with talking points about the term "consensus", but zero data disproving the Global Warming hypothesis. Strange.

 

What part of the Global Warming Hypothesis do you think has been disproven?

[Eleftheros]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

You are going against logic now. Any studies contradicting the present scientific consensus can be published and independently reviewed. Including where there funding comes from. Got any?

There is no scientific consensus. There is a political consensus.

 

And there's no need to drag up the fabled "97% consensus", because that is and always was a vague and pointless mess. I agree with that 97% consensus because the questions were so broad - Has the earth warmed since 1850? Can human beings change the climate?

 

That is not the issue at hand, as activists well know. The issues at hand are: How much of climate change can be attributed to human activity? Is climate change dangerous? Can we do something about it? Would the cure be worse than the disease?

 

On that score, there is full political consensus, but no scientific consensus, as there could hardly be, given the speculative nature of the enterprise.

[Danderman123]

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You forgot the punchline:

"So we believe."

What part of the Global Warming Hypothesis do you believe has been disproven? What data supports your position?

 

I suspect you don't understand what I just posted.

[Danderman123]

Just now, Eleftheros said:

There is no scientific consensus. There is a political consensus.

 

And there's no need to drag up the fabled "97% consensus", because that is and always was a vague and pointless mess. I agree with that 97% consensus because the questions were so broad - Has the earth warmed since 1850? Can human beings change the climate?

 

That is not the issue at hand, as activists well know. The issues at hand are: How much of climate change can be attributed to human activity? Is climate change dangerous? Can we do something about it? Would the cure be worse than the disease?

 

On that score, there is full political consensus, but no scientific consensus, as there could hardly be, given the speculative nature of the enterprise.

The scientific consensus is that the Global Warming Hypothesis is the best explanation for the available climate data.

 

Do you disagree? If so, what is a better explanation? What data supports your position?

[Danderman123]

34 minutes ago, positivevibes said:

I am sorry but the global warming agenda was lost on me when they had to rebrand it to climate change. Mainstream media completely ignoring the fact that both poles have seen massive increases in sea ice is just one recent example of the bias.

 

Same with the c19 and the medicine mandates. They lost me when Pfi$er tried to bury it's own trial data for 70 years.

 

Some of us so called deniers were never so and always trusted the science.

 

Science should always be questioned and debated, as it always was.

"Climate change" is a term coined by Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster working for John McCain.

 

The massive increase in Arctic sea ice you mentioned is a lie. Please retract that statement.

[Danderman123]

48 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

No, that is not the point.

 

The point is that experts can always be wrong, and thus their conclusions should always be able openly challenged. It's not enough to call them all "deniers" and continue to believe in your own perfection.

 

As the great Richard Feynman said: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

 

The moment that you accept as truth one particular narrative - which is the only way to explain absurd political initiatives such as Net Zero - you have abandoned science in favor of dogma.

 

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered rather than answers that cannot be questioned." Doesn't work that way in the 21st century, Richard - in fact, it's the complete opposite.

 

No wonder people are losing trust in "science".

Do you trust the data supporting the Global Warming Hypothesis, or do you believe that's fraudulent?

 

 

[Danderman123]

29 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

That's exactly why consensus doesn't matter, in fact.

 

Because the idea of a consensus is used, always, to create some single fixed and sacred unchallengable narrative (as with global warming and many other topics), and is thus the opposite of science.

Do you believe in any scientific consensus in any field, or do you pick and choose which are correct?

 

Do you think  that the consensus that 1 + 1 = 2 is the opposite of science?

[Tippaporn]

28 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

That's exactly why consensus doesn't matter, in fact.

 

Because the idea of a consensus is used, always, to create some single fixed and sacred unchallengable narrative (as with global warming and many other topics), and is thus the opposite of science.

Eleftheros, how is it that you understand my posts yet the climate change believers can't seem to?  Come on, tell us your secret to understanding plain English and logic. 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Do you believe in any scientific consensus in any field, or do you pick and choose which are correct?

 

Do you think  that the consensus that 1 + 1 = 2 is the opposite of science?

Just be careful in conversing with these people to make it clear it's about the consensus of research results, not about the opinions of individuals.

[Bkk Brian]

17 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

There is no scientific consensus. There is a political consensus.

 

And there's no need to drag up the fabled "97% consensus", because that is and always was a vague and pointless mess. I agree with that 97% consensus because the questions were so broad - Has the earth warmed since 1850? Can human beings change the climate?

 

That is not the issue at hand, as activists well know. The issues at hand are: How much of climate change can be attributed to human activity? Is climate change dangerous? Can we do something about it? Would the cure be worse than the disease?

 

On that score, there is full political consensus, but no scientific consensus, as there could hardly be, given the speculative nature of the enterprise.

And there's no need to drag up the fabled "97% consensus", because that is and always was a vague and pointless mess. I agree with that 97% consensus because the questions were so broad - Has the earth warmed since 1850? Can human beings change the climate?

 

Its only your imagination that is claiming the consensus is political and only based on broad questions of earth warming & can human beings change the climate

 

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.

 

Scientific consensus on climate change

The current scientific consensus is that: Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s. Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause. Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.

 

Regards politics, there is numerous guidance for the policy makers in the IPCC report that is separate to the studies and data.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Do you believe in any scientific consensus in any field, or do you pick and choose which are correct?

 

Do you think  that the consensus that 1 + 1 = 2 is the opposite of science?

Can you pick out which fallacy relates to the use of your example?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[positivevibes]

20 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

"Climate change" is a term coined by Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster working for John McCain.

 

The massive increase in Arctic sea ice you mentioned is a lie. Please retract that statement.

That chart is a lie, along with the whole global warming agenda.

 

Biggest scam ever.

 

https://www.johnstossel.com/the-fake-climate-consensus/

[Eleftheros]

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Nope.

 

The data is used to prove or disprove a scientific hypothesis.

 

Your internet friends have deluged you with talking points about the term "consensus", but zero data disproving the Global Warming hypothesis. Strange.

 

What part of the Global Warming Hypothesis do you think has been disproven?

That depends on what you think the "Global Warming Hypothesis" is.

 

If you mean the 97% consensus view that the earth has warmed since 1850 and that human activity can change the climate, then none of it has been disproven.

 

On the other hand, if it includes predictions by people like Al Gore that the Arctic will be ice-free by 2013, or the UN's prediction that "nations would be wiped off the face of the earth by the year 2000 by rising sea levels" then there is an entire book that could be written about failed apocalyptic predictions.