I don't care how many people agree with the myth that they somehow know what the temperature was before man existed. That isn't science it is faith. I'm not even denying your face I just don't share it. I know my pointing this out to you causes you angst. You need me to believe in your religion to affirm it and I'm not going to.
WRONG. Religion is, logically speaking, an initial circular argument with other arguments extending from it. For instance, Christianity's initial circular argument is that "Jesus Christ exists and is precisely who he says he is, namely the Son of God". All other arguments of Christianity stem from that particular unfalsifiable argument. All that religions have to offer are supporting evidence for and against them. Science, rather, makes use of CONFLICTING evidence, because science concerns the falsifiable rather than the unfalsifiable. Science is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature.
I understand you have faith in this this is your dogma this is your mysticism I don't share that with you.
It's kind of like how the fossil record is ignored when you're talking to someone who believes the Earth was created 6,000 years ago.
Every single hurricane that hit in my neck of the woods is somehow mysteriously caused by global warming even though the frequency hasn't changed any over the past 100 years. The severity hasn't changed over the past 100 years. It's like this all plays on emotion you not caring about the environment the way these people think you should is what causes these catastrophes so it's your sin that incurs God's wrath it's just another religion. Frankly it's a rip off of Christianity.
Why do you keep trying to sell me a book? Are you on commission and do you realise unit is against the forum rules?
you can mislabel your religious beliefs scientific principles if that makes you feel better about them it doesn't change what they are. so it is required of me to take a leap of faith sounds too much like a religion and I've had enough of that in my life
I guess you don't get the irony of this. You keep asking me to prove your beliefs wrong. You asked me for evidence that there is no evidence for your claims. I don't think you would know critical analysis if it jumped up and bit you on the nose.
Well heck. If you want to involve religion go ahead. I have an Associate degree in Biblical studies. But I don't identify with Christianity anymore than I identify with a church of globul warming. Which....by the way ... doesn't exist. I am more of a Taoist or Buddhist. And then not so much as a religion but a way of life. As such, it is my obligation to work with nature and not against it. Because nature is a powerful force and nature... including the whole universe ...cares not about you...or me. Being an uncaring and sometimes an unforgiving bitch. She also cares not if I thrive. I think man should choose to thrive.
I am being asked to respond to whyt it is possible to claim global warming or climate change is different than it used to be and it is because of human activity. Interestingly I provided all the articles but I do not those who disagree do not read them. 1-I do appreciate deniers of human-caused climate change rely on the argumen that the earth has experienced plenty of natural warming and cooling phases long humans began emitting Co2 and other gases into the atmosphere and so they argue present-day warming isn’t necessarily dangerous or even that unusual and anyone who says otherwise is a liar, fear mongerer, doesn't understand science, math and the truth, etc.; 2-I also appreciate they do not agree with scientists who debunk such arguments but do not come on this or any forum with specific scientific date to contradict the data they say can not be; 3-the actual studies deniers deny have shown carbon dioxide concentrations are currently higher than they’ve been at any point in human history, global temperatures are rising at unprecedented rates, and warming is poised to surpass anything the planet has experienced in millions of years-deniers claim this is false; 4-all I can repeat is that Raphael Neukom of the University of Bern investigated the scope of natural warming and cooling events experienced by the planet since the start of the Ccommon era two millennia ago including the famous Little Ice Age between the years 1300 and 1850 CE; the Medieval Warm Period between about 800 and 1200 CE; the Late Antique Little Ice Age between 400 and 800 CE; and the Roman Warm Period in the first 400 years of the Common Era; (hisnpaper was published yesterday in Nature, July 24, 2019); 5-using a database of ancient climate records drawn from all over the world, from ancient tree rings to fossilized corals to long-frozen ice cores drawn from the hearts of glaciers, the researchers determined that the Earth’s previous warm and cold periods were actually mainly regional events that is to say the entire globe didn’t cool down or heat up at the same rate or at the same time and regions changed at their own pace; 6-however and this is the big however today’s climate change is different- in fact the warming that’s been occurring since the industrial era is now a global phenomenon, affecting the entire Earth at once in a way that previous warming and cooling periods never did; 7- this difference compared to previous periods of natural climate change can NOT be explained by natural variability of the climate system. This is precisely why so many scientists are alarmed. Not because they are fear mongers but because of this blatant difference and this is why for example the Royal Society published a detailed explanation: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/ro...nce-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf The above does NOT engage in fear mongering. In fact the Royal Society tries to explain the phenomena in a rational and calm manner, i.e., https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-6/ when it states: "Recent estimates of the increase in global average temperature since the end of the last ice age are 4 to 5 °C (7 to 9 °F). That change occurred over a period of about 7,000 years, starting 18,000 years ago. CO2 has risen more than 40% in just the past 200 years, much of this since the 1970s, contributing to human alteration of the planet’s energy budget that has so far warmed Earth by about 1 °C (1.8 °F). If the rise in CO2 continues unchecked, warming of the same magnitude as the increase out of the ice age can be expected by the end of this century or soon after. This speed of warming is more than ten times that at the end of an ice age, the fastest known natural sustained change on a global scale." Today, CO2 levels are 40 percent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began; they have risen from 280 parts per million in the 18th century to over 400 ppm in 2015 and are on track to reach 410 ppm this spring.1 In addition, there is much more methane (a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term) in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years—two and a half times as much as before the Industrial Revolution. While some methane is emitted naturally from wetlands, sediments, volcanoes and wildfires, the majority of methane emissions come from oil and gas production, livestock farming and landfills.2 source for 1 and 2: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/ This is why NASA stated: "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95% probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over millennia.1 Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate. The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause Earth to warm in response. Also NASA stated: The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.12 degrees Fahrenheit (1.18 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and other human activities.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 40 years, with the seven most recent years being the warmest. The years 2016 and 2020 are tied for the warmest year on record. (source for above:https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence) Here is a time line of rising co2: https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm This is also why NASA stated: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." The above comment and list of organizations is at: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ In fact NASA has calculated the individual driving forces of recent climate change through direct satellite observations. What it found was consistent with what climate models have shown for decades, and that is that greenhouse gases and suspended pollution particles in the atmosphere, called aerosols, from the burning of fossil fuels are responsible for the lion's share of modern warming. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-human-cause-nasa-study-carbon-emissions/ On March 25, 2021 NASA released a study which identifies the degree to which human activity is responsible for global heating and can be found in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. https://cleantechnica.com/2021/04/0...rming-scopex-geoengineering-flight-cancelled/
No its not and if that is the kind of response you have respond to someone else. Your childish comments are not helpful. I actually respect skeptics and go out of my way to debate them with respect. You make no effort on this topic to do a damn thing to back up your positions.
With due respect Jack, Prof. Shaviv is free to state what he wants but he was soundly repudiated because of serious short-comings in his research. I appreciate deniers of global warming look for anyone they think supports them but this is probably not the guy they want. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040123001629.htm http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2016/12/nir-shaviv-debunked.html You ask me your stronger arguments for global warming deniers or skeptics would be with looking at the data gaps and asking if they have been addressed but interestingly no denier on this forum has done that or understands that. In that regard NASA and other scientists are working on the data gaps constantly and if anything what they have found is their global warming estimates were too low not too fast because of those gaps. I also think it important to say science is about methodology. If someone wants to actually prove a methodology process wrong of course they should but simply saying its wrong is bs.
What you said makes no sense with due respect. If you claim something is incorrect, false, prove it. Of course you have to prove his evidence is wrong if you claim its wrong. He never asked youf or evidence there is no evidence. He asked you to repudiate his evidence. Don't play Poly with words. It doesn't establish your case. If you have no scientific basis to repudiate the science sources provided then don't play. We get it. You have no evidence.
I am gonna say it one last time.Those of us who argue there is global warming get why people are skeptical and question. That is not the issue. We are not putting anyone down. What we are doing is stating our side of the argument and asking you to take the time to use scientific evidence to prove the evidence we provided is wrong. So far all we get is rhetoric, no references to scientists except Shaviv. Shaviv I get. I understand why he was referred to and I with due respect provided sources to counter his argument cosmic rays have caused the global warming increases not man made activities. I also wish to make this clear. Scientists are fallible and not of us claim they are. However to quote Bernie Lewin or non scientists as if they are we will challenge. He's not a scientist. He's a librarian.
Speaking as someone who used to be a fundamentalist-style "young earth" Christian, a number of such "young earth" Christians "ignore" (or otherwise reject) the fossil record because they mistakenly think that various dating methods, such as radiometric dating, are in direct conflict with their Christian faith. They also do so because they believe that the creation account of Genesis speaks of literal 24 hour days. Personally, while I no longer "ignore" (or otherwise reject) the fossil record or radiometric dating, I also do not consider such things to be science either. Why don't I? Radiometric dating is not telling us precisely how old something is (within a particular margin of error), but rather it is telling us an upper limit as to how old something COULD POSSIBLY BE (plus or minus X amount of time). This is because radiometric dating itself is a model based on speculations of past conditions (IOW, we don't have time machines, so we cannot verify that there was indeed absolutely zero decay material present at the object's formation, as we assume to be true under such a dating method). Radiometric dating also operates under the assumption that the "rate of decay" for the tested object was constant (when it might not have been). To summarize, there are three underlying faith based beliefs with regard to radiometric dating: 1. The belief that there was absolutely zero decay material at the formation of the object. 2. The belief that the rate of radioactive decay is constant. 3. The belief that no additional decay material contaminated the object during all those years. Because of this, I am now atheistic with regard to the age of the Earth. I don't hold a particular "old Earth" or "young Earth" belief at this time. I just leave it at "idk, and I don't think it's important in the grand scheme of things".
Bingo. Bowerbird is attempting to shift the burden of proof since she has made it blatantly apparent that she can't use her own reasoning to support her own beliefs (or to even define any of the buzzwords that she makes use of)... Death is doing this sort of thing too. Death keeps asking me to provide some data that disproves the data that he is appealing to, but my position is that there isn't any valid data to begin with, so how can I provide him with any valid data if, per my reasoning, there isn't any? He is making an impossible request of me.
skepticism and unproven things is not a positive claim so the burden of proof is not on me it's on him I'm not here to debate. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to debate there's your insistence that your religion is true and I'm not a believer if this causes you some angst that's not my problem.
I don't argue that people's beliefs are wrong or right. Unless of course they're really screwed up but. People aren't going to change my beliefs because they insist and that's seems to be what's going on here.
I think they're just buying into a particular religion. They really want the religious beliefs to be true so they're trying to recruit. It's not uncommon I just don't see why people need that kind of affirmation. If everybody on the planet thinks I'm crazy but I choose to believe something if they can't disprove then I'm going to stick to my guns.
Why the hail do I want to recruit anyone? You can think what you wish. I just do this to pass time. I am old now and need the conversation. Just for entertainment.
because the entirety of your position is based on an appeal to the majority. It's not even a real majority I'm sure a lot of people believe that.
