DerpHerder: A good scientist is always open to discussing and review of his work.
Farking Canuck: DerpHerder: A good scientist is always open to discussing and review of his work.Yes. With someone qualified to discuss it intelligently. This does not mean having to address every talking-point endlessly repeated from right-wing blogs.The discussions are happening at a level way beyond you. All of the history has been considered and the conclusion is that the natural forcings cannot account for our current warming.You can spew all of your "muddy the waters" and "you can not be 100% sure" crap you want but it doesn't change the fact that you are just a political shill pretending to talk science.
DerpHerder: What are your qualifications, and the tests you've conducted that prove human influence on current warming so they can verify the results and test them as well as be informed about what you'll be discussing. You are after all a scientist and not a political shill pretending to talk about science right?
Farking Canuck: I do not claim to be a climate scientist ... I am telling you what the climate scientists are saying.You are telling us that the climate scientists are wrong because they somehow forgot to look at climate history.See the difference??
dready zim: Yes, you are saying climate scientists are right because they are climate scientists and he is saying they may be wrong because they are human and he would like more proof to be convinced.
dready zim: HighZoolander: dready zim: current warming is unprecedented and novel which is the stated reasoning behind the statement that there is an anthropogenic cause for the current warmingNo. This is simply wrong. Factually incorrect.Your assertion that I am wrong is simply wrong. Factually incorrect (unless your point relies on `unusual` not meaning `novel or unprecedented. I`ll concede that the claim that the warming is unprecedented is only one of the stated proofs.). Please edit the WIKI page if you think you are correct. See how far you get there..."Attribution of recent climate change to human activities is based on multiple lines of evidence:A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming."A previous rapid large unexplained warming invalidates these two points which are part of the evidence attributing warming to an anthropogenic cause. Failure to model is not proof of anything (being logically similar to proof of god, can`t explain it so GOD!, god being the default explanation). Failure to model previous warming would invalidate the models. The current understanding of the natural forces is unable to explain the current warming but then the current understanding is unable to explain (or model) the previous warmings either. There isn`t much to argue with as far as point one goes but it is not in isolation, it is regarded as proof when combined with the other dubious points.of course, if they could model the previous warming then it would validate the position that their failure to model the curr ...
Farking Canuck: dready zim: Yes, you are saying climate scientists are right because they are climate scientists and he is saying they may be wrong because they are human and he would like more proof to be convinced.An example:I take my car into the mechanic. He examines the car thoroughly, does some test, gets very clear results and then concludes I need a new O2 sensor.Derpherder walks into the garage off the street, declares that the Model-T did not need an O2 sensor so the mechanic must be wrong or part of a world-wide mechanic conspiracy. So I should do nothing to repair my car until I have examined all of Derpherder's concerns and the concerns of every other provider of derp out there.You feel that I should give this opinion from the unqualified guy who walked in off the street equal footing with the theories and evidence scientific community. If we listen to people like you and the derpster then I don't have a functioning car and we have a planet who's ability to support human life is falling rapidly.But you keep on spreading the derp.
HighZoolander: So so what if they fail to account for warming in other periods?
Farking Canuck: people like you
Farking Canuck: keep on spreading the derp
HighZoolander: continue with nonsense
HighZoolander: Yes, that would suggest that the models are missing something
HighZoolander: Logically of course that suggests the possibility that the current change is natural
dready zim: So what is it? Is my logic sound or am I talking nonsense? Is there a possibility that the current warming started naturally or not? Are the models flawed? I think there are some things we are not aware that we do not know. It would be folly to think otherwise. It`s the insults and rigidity of thought on both sides that taints these threads. If you think you already know, sometimes that stops you finding out. Always question. If the questions make people angry you know they are the right ones.
dready zim: It is other people who ... wish to ignore fairly important things.
dready zim: Show me where I have stated innacuracies or used faulty logic
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 23 2017 02:07:11
Runtime: 0.290 sec (290 ms)