|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 23, 2023 20:40:50 GMT
FFS we know what caused those climate changes and we know what's causing this one. The hole in the ozone layer was caused by US we did something about it and its healing (Not healed.) I have lots of sense, though less sence. We are trying to do something about AGW and hopefully we will mend that to. What really makes me sick is stupid people referring to climate changes from our past without any idea at all of their catastrophic effects. They say we had Ice ages and medieval warm periods but have no knowledge of the species wiped out by them or the crop failures and displacement of humans. Sigh. The problem is that we do not know, people think they know and tell the rest of us they are right and that everyone else must conform to their agenda. Indeed from the MWP we have very good information as regards what happened during and after and even better information as regards the little ice age. What we do not have is a crystal ball, although some say they have. Those crystal balls have been supplying our fortune for over 30 years and so far if we had paid attention to them it would have not made blind bit of difference to the planet. It is not clear why we should continue to worship at the feet of their findings. For "people" read "Scientists". For "The rest of us" read "people" |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 23, 2023 20:42:07 GMT
Why should I present anything to you. You have the whole of Google to look at. Try reading some articles from SD or New Scientist or Nature, instead of some bloke on Youtube. Read some history to see what happened in the medieval warm period or the Ice age. Go learn, its all out there and its not my job to educate you. I guess Zanygame has never "considered the possibility". I just read stuff, just like anyone else can if they choose. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2023 20:44:14 GMT
The problem is that we do not know, people think they know and tell the rest of us they are right and that everyone else must conform to their agenda. Indeed from the MWP we have very good information as regards what happened during and after and even better information as regards the little ice age. What we do not have is a crystal ball, although some say they have. Those crystal balls have been supplying our fortune for over 30 years and so far if we had paid attention to them it would have not made blind bit of difference to the planet. It is not clear why we should continue to worship at the feet of their findings. For "people" read "Scientists". For "The rest of us" read "people" I'm a computer scientist. I understand their prediction models, including their flaws. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 23, 2023 20:47:39 GMT
Neither do we know how many species benefitted and how many species evolved as a result of those periods to give Earth the variety we have today. But we do know, that's the point. You may not but scientists do. What's your point here? That because humans spent the last thousand years trashing the planet without "extremists running round flapping" that we should continue the same. Scientists don't know with an enormous degree of accuracy but in any case I was talking about the general population across the planet and the demise of creatures had many causes, some of which still occur and cause climate variations. Perhaps if you followed your forebears and stopped flapping you might make progress, you may even realise you don't have the answers. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 23, 2023 20:53:18 GMT
For "people" read "Scientists". For "The rest of us" read "people" I'm a computer scientist. I understand their prediction models, including their flaws. And know better than they. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 23, 2023 20:55:05 GMT
The problem is that we do not know, people think they know and tell the rest of us they are right and that everyone else must conform to their agenda. Indeed from the MWP we have very good information as regards what happened during and after and even better information as regards the little ice age. What we do not have is a crystal ball, although some say they have. Those crystal balls have been supplying our fortune for over 30 years and so far if we had paid attention to them it would have not made blind bit of difference to the planet. It is not clear why we should continue to worship at the feet of their findings. For "people" read "Scientists". For "The rest of us" read "people" And we are back to the 97% consensus which has been debunked on several occasions. Not all Scientists agree and there is a sizeable minority that believe that the climate emergency is largely based on junk science and is a political standpoint rather than a scientific one. Should we ignore those scientists and go with the majority even though the majority is split in their beliefs as regards what should be done and how fast? Science is not a democracy, it is process of proving or disproving hypotheses through observation and experimentation. If it was a democracy Copernicus would have been isolated and we would still believe the earth was the centre of the universe. Not accepting the consensus is usually how new consensuses are born. Currently the 'settled science' is hanging its coat on an ever more shoogly peg. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2023 20:55:54 GMT
I'm a computer scientist. I understand their prediction models, including their flaws. And know better than they. Ah, the mysterious "they". |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 23, 2023 21:02:31 GMT
For "people" read "Scientists". For "The rest of us" read "people" And we are back to the 97% consensus which has been debunked on several occasions. Not all Scientists agree and there is a sizeable minority that believe that the climate emergency is largely based on junk science and is a political standpoint rather than a scientific one. Should we ignore those scientists and go with the majority even though the majority is split in their beliefs as regards what should be done and how fast? Science is not a democracy, it is process of proving or disproving hypotheses through observation and experimentation. If it was a democracy Copernicus would have been isolated and we would still believe the earth was the centre of the universe. Not accepting the consensus is usually how new consensuses are born. Currently the 'settled science' is hanging its coat on an ever more shoogly peg. Debunked? I don't think so. The most you have done is dispute the sheer number of scientists who agree on AGW. So over to you, demonstrate a majority of scientists who do not believe in AGW. A sizeable minority? Is still a minority. So just how big is this minority? 5% 10%. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2023 21:03:26 GMT
For "people" read "Scientists". For "The rest of us" read "people" And we are back to the 97% consensus which has been debunked on several occasions. Not all Scientists agree and there is a sizeable minority that believe that the climate emergency is largely based on junk science and is a political standpoint rather than a scientific one. Should we ignore those scientists and go with the majority even though the majority is split in their beliefs as regards what should be done and how fast? Science is not a democracy, it is process of proving or disproving hypotheses through observation and experimentation. If it was a democracy Copernicus would have been isolated and we would still believe the earth was the centre of the universe. Not accepting the consensus is usually how new consensuses are born. Currently the 'settled science' is hanging its coat on an ever more shoogly peg. I think Zanygame demonstrates the problem. I should venture further into climate science and demand a bigger grant. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 23, 2023 21:17:42 GMT
And we are back to the 97% consensus which has been debunked on several occasions. Not all Scientists agree and there is a sizeable minority that believe that the climate emergency is largely based on junk science and is a political standpoint rather than a scientific one. Should we ignore those scientists and go with the majority even though the majority is split in their beliefs as regards what should be done and how fast? Science is not a democracy, it is process of proving or disproving hypotheses through observation and experimentation. If it was a democracy Copernicus would have been isolated and we would still believe the earth was the centre of the universe. Not accepting the consensus is usually how new consensuses are born. Currently the 'settled science' is hanging its coat on an ever more shoogly peg. Debunked? I don't think so. The most you have done is dispute the sheer number of scientists who agree on AGW. So over to you, demonstrate a majority of scientists who do not believe in AGW. A sizeable minority? Is still a minority. So just how big is this minority? 5% 10%. I have to raise the subject of Piltdown Man yet again. Most scientists supported the story for donkey's years, as did most of the public. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 23, 2023 21:21:12 GMT
Debunked? I don't think so. The most you have done is dispute the sheer number of scientists who agree on AGW. So over to you, demonstrate a majority of scientists who do not believe in AGW. A sizeable minority? Is still a minority. So just how big is this minority? 5% 10%. I have to raise the subject of Piltdown Man yet again. Most scientists supported the story for donkey's years, as did most of the public. Finding one place where science got it wrong is not much of an argument that science is wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2023 21:29:20 GMT
I have to raise the subject of Piltdown Man yet again. Most scientists supported the story for donkey's years, as did most of the public. Finding one place where science got it wrong is not much of an argument that science is wrong. The same could be said for religion, and they also became very wealthy out of scaring the crap out of people. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 23, 2023 21:34:59 GMT
I have to raise the subject of Piltdown Man yet again. Most scientists supported the story for donkey's years, as did most of the public. Finding one place where science got it wrong is not much of an argument that science is wrong. lol, Zany thinks scientists are almost faultless. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Feb 23, 2023 21:39:00 GMT
Finding one place where science got it wrong is not much of an argument that science is wrong. The same could be said for religion, and they also became very wealthy out of scaring the crap out of people. Believe what you wish. I do not consider science to be the same as religion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2023 21:43:30 GMT
The same could be said for religion, and they also became very wealthy out of scaring the crap out of people. Believe what you wish. I do not consider science to be the same as religion. You could have fooled me.
|
|
