This will be my only response to this:Reality, math, and science have a well known liberal bias...
You are mistaking the noise for the signal. I could cherry-pick short term data just like you that makes the loses look worse than they are, but I don't; doing so mistakes a short-term random variation for the powerful long-term trend behind the data.
Let me guess; both of your opinions on this start and end with people who are constantly stating that "I am not a scientist but..." Your argument is almost entirely based on the Appeal to Consequences logical fallacy.
Thanks for answering so that the rest of us don't have to. I thought Tech was the last bastion of people who still trust science. Climate change deniers always make me think we have entered a new Dark Ages of silliness and superstition.
Of course it does, nothing is absolute especially when it come to opinions from a bunch of egg heads. If I jump out of an airplane w/o a parachute I am most likely gonna die. It's not absolute, there is documented cases of people surviving when parachutes have failed to deploy. Does that mean I want to jump out of airplane w/o one? How 'bout you?Did you read it? It makes my point. It literally begins, "Most climate scientists agree ..." and then summarizes the theory which the data no longer supports. However, if you put your faith in "most climate scientists," good for you. It is Sunday after all.
Of course it does, nothing is absolute especially when it come to opinions from a bunch of egg heads. If I jump out of an airplane w/o a parachute I am most likely gonna die. It's not absolute, there is documented cases of people surviving when parachutes have failed to deploy. Does that mean I want to jump out of airplane w/o one? How 'bout you?
Scientific Consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
I'll side with the opinion of 97% of the world experts on the topic over the 3% that don't. Especially when those 3% don't actually disagree, they just want more data.
Excuse me, this thread is titled "we have no business winning these next two games" not "we have no business surviving these next two ice ages."
Despite the evidence supporting climate change for the hotter, most climate scientists agree we are heading towards another ice age.
Oh, and at some point, plate techtonics is going to stop, but only after another supercontinent forms. Other than that, all is well.
what is going on in this thread?? Guess I will have to stop reading it here. Haven't seen any football in it.Thanks for answering so that the rest of us don't have to. I thought Tech was the last bastion of people who still trust science. Climate change deniers always make me think we have entered a new Dark Ages of silliness and superstition.
OK. I am going to step in as moderator and respectfully ask that we stick to football. I don't want to lock this thing down. If you want to talk climate science, great, just do it in the appropriate forum. Thanks.
No kidding! Blacks voting 95% for one party is a travesty. It doesn't get more polarizing than that!Why do you have to be "Liberal" to believe in science?
Why are we so quick to label & ridicule the opposite side. Georgia is so polarized along racial lines in voting it's so troubling to me.
Moderators please do not clean this post because I really think this dialogue would be healthy, to some degree at least.
Don't Troll the post it's serious to me. I actually agree AA shouldn't be so blindly loyal to one party.No kidding! Blacks voting 95% for one party is a travesty. It doesn't get more polarizing than that!
Not trolling when we agree!Don't Troll the post it's serious to me. I actually agree AA shouldn't be so blindly loyal to one party.
Now that we have completely hijacked this thread please not that core drilling ice produces a snapshot of climate changes that is older than 1975. And the question has never been whether or not earth will survive; the only question has been what kind of earth we want to leave for future generations. Right now the picture on that is not too good.The earth is 6 billion years old and data ranging back to 1975 is "long term" data...
I think it's clear that climate is changing but not so clear that it'll be an apocalypse. This ol' ball o'dirt has been through a lot in 6 billion years. She ain't as good as she once was, but she's as good once as she ever was.
You do not have to speculate about this. We have pretty good indications of what happened. It is one of the reasons why organizations like NOAA and institutions as main stream as The Weather Channel completely changed their position on global warming a few years ago.This will be my only response to this:
What do you think happened on this planet from the time it was born until the time people started keeping records? Any warming or cooling trends in the past several hundreds of thousands of years?
This is a scam to cheat the American tax payers out of their money in the name of science and redistribution of wealth. Try peddling this stuff to the Chinese who are the absolute worst offenders when it comes to pollution.