It's not humanity that is doing the immediate suffering, you're smart enough to realize that. Eventually it will be humanity, but first it's the small things like plankton, or bees, or something else at the bottom of the food chain that numerous other species depend on for food/shelter/protection/fertilization/etc.
"The chief characteristic of the religion of science is that it works." - Isaac AsimovBecause conservatives by and large already have a religion.
"The chief characteristic of the religion of science is that it works." - Isaac Asimov
Excellent point.
By the way don't assume that I am intelligent enough to realize anything. I am an engineer, we are blithering idiots compared to scientists.
What a load of crap.
Science isn't an authority, but the way people are using science sure is biased. The golden age of science breakthroughs is actually long gone. The paper that discovered DNA was 1.5 pages. Nobody had any doubts about that one.
Co2 in this case is a pollutant, and it's simply a matter of reality that gubmint is the entity to deal with it.
Also, the government is the funding source for much of basic research.
Seems this isn't a topic you, or to be more precise your sources, knows anything about.
Lol. No one could get away with that story these days. Paternity tests would put an end to that shit immediately.Hey, no fair! It may have worked out very well for this lady.
Co2 is a naturally occuring part of the planet and needed for plant life growth, it was only reclassified as a pollutant by the EPA because it's increased in quantity. By which standard everything is a pollutant in high enough quantities which makes the term meaningless.
Saying it's simply a matter of reality that gubmint is the entity to deal with it is not an argument, the government doesn't actually fund anything, they take money from people and that funds the research. Only there's no actual free market of research, they basically run a monopoly on the science and that's why it's so badly done.
Why don't you just state why you disagree rather than claiming this is something me and my sources know anything about, make an actual argument rather than skirting around the issue.
Rather counterproductive to argue the finer points of science with people who think the tobacco research model is the way to go.
Who argued that? I'm arguing that climate science is treated no differently than any other science which has served us very well for centuries. I don't understand what's wrong with that.
The Scientific MethodBecause conservatives by and large already have a religion.
anything in the religious world that comes close to that as a method of proving hypotheses?
Not an argument.
Science that has been published and peer reviewed and has remain uncontested by other scientists is somewhat of an authority.
The problem is that science on global warming is still young and controversial. The science of warming and how that works is relatively well understood and uncontroversial, but the claims of catastrophic warming is still open for debate, primarily because most of the predictions are made using computer models and this isn't real science, there's no null hypothesis and it's not falsifiable, it's just a computerized prediction.
But individual scientists sure can be bias, because their livelihood often relies on their work and funding from government guarantees them lots of money in the way of grants. So it's fair to be skeptical of those results and hold them to the highest scrutiny.
Co2 is a naturally occuring part of the planet and needed for plant life growth, it was only reclassified as a pollutant by the EPA because it's increased in quantity. By which standard everything is a pollutant in high enough quantities which makes the term meaningless.
Saying it's simply a matter of reality that gubmint is the entity to deal with it is not an argument, the government doesn't actually fund anything, they take money from people and that funds the research. Only there's no actual free market of research, they basically run a monopoly on the science and that's why it's so badly done.
Why don't you just state why you disagree rather than claiming this is something me and my sources know anything about, make an actual argument rather than skirting around the issue.
Because either they are lemmings that buy into "the sky is falling" stuff or else they are trying to push the narrative in order to gain more control.
As of right now:That stuff is done in the US and USSR.
Global warming asshats can pack it now.
Not a damn thing.It's only pushed by leftist lemmings or their puppet masters.It's all bullshit.
Your sorry dumb ass will probably go quite far to spread your ignorance here.Me,probably notsomuch.Here's to the fucks I give which are NONE!
"Here's to the fucks I give which are NONE! "Your sorry dumb ass will probably go quite far to spread your ignorance here.Me,probably notsomuch.Here's to the fucks I give which are NONE!
This is interesting, Dr. Judith Curry also has a post about the article "The Real War on Science" So if you want to read what an actual climate scientist says (testified 4 times to Congress for both the Democrats and Republicans) have a read. After all who do you believe, an actual climate scientist or some hack on the internet?
https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/21/the-real-war-on-science/#more-22532
"
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.
The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.
Scientists try to avoid confirmation bias by exposing their work to peer review by critics with different views, but it’s increasingly difficult for liberals to find such critics. Academics have traditionally leaned left politically, and many fields have essentially become monocultures, especially in the social sciences, where Democrats now outnumber Republicans by at least 8 to 1. The lopsided ratio has led to another well-documented phenomenon: people’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth, . . creating what Jonathan Haidt calls a “tribal-moral community” with its own “sacred values” about what’s worth studying and what’s taboo.
Conservatives have been variously pathologized as unethical, antisocial, and irrational simply because they don’t share beliefs that seem self-evident to liberals.
The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century."
This is interesting, Dr. Judith Curry also has a post about the article "The Real War on Science" So if you want to read what an actual climate scientist says (testified 4 times to Congress for both the Democrats and Republicans) have a read. After all who do you believe, an actual climate scientist or some hack on the internet?
https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/21/the-real-war-on-science/#more-22532
"
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.
The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.
Scientists try to avoid confirmation bias by exposing their work to peer review by critics with different views, but it’s increasingly difficult for liberals to find such critics. Academics have traditionally leaned left politically, and many fields have essentially become monocultures, especially in the social sciences, where Democrats now outnumber Republicans by at least 8 to 1. The lopsided ratio has led to another well-documented phenomenon: people’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth, . . creating what Jonathan Haidt calls a “tribal-moral community” with its own “sacred values” about what’s worth studying and what’s taboo.
Conservatives have been variously pathologized as unethical, antisocial, and irrational simply because they don’t share beliefs that seem self-evident to liberals.
The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century."