Trump Is President

[rado]

I'm not going to debate this again and again, but the data is overwhelming that the RECENT increase in warming is almost entirely man made.

And the dinosaur comparison is irrelevant. Dinosaurs didn't care if the seas rose by 20 feet and came inland by a hundred miles.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

This to me just seems PURE COMMON SENSE...I wouldn't even think to debate this.

We've done this to ourselves

[Bouncer]

I'm not going to debate this again and again, but the data is overwhelming that the RECENT increase in warming is almost entirely man made.

And the dinosaur comparison is irrelevant. Dinosaurs didn't care if the seas rose by 20 feet and came inland by a hundred miles.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

The dinosaur comparison IS relevant because it shows that the Earth was even warmer WITHOUT human intervention. It's shows that heating and cooling can and will happen naturally.

[Bouncer]

This to me just seems PURE COMMON SENSE...I wouldn't even think to debate this.

We've done this to ourselves

The question is not whether we have done this to ourselves. The question is what percentage is the burning of fossil fuels and what percentage is a natural warming cycle. The Earth has gone through ice ages and "heat stages" many times before humans ever existed on Earth.

[chuckz28]

The question is not whether we have done this to ourselves. The question is what percentage is the burning of fossil fuels and what percentage is a natural warming cycle. The Earth has gone through ice ages and "heat stages" many times before humans ever existed on Earth.

Which this is impossible to quantify. It can only be based on the past analysis but the earths cycles aren't exactly the same every period of warming and cooling. The best we can do is be good stewards of the environment and work on ways to deal with the warming instead of wasting billions trying to slow or stop the inevitable force of mother nature.

[Scrumhalf]

The dinosaur comparison IS relevant because it shows that the Earth was even warmer WITHOUT human intervention. It's shows that heating and cooling can and will happen naturally.

The current rate of temperature rise is abnormal and inconsistent with historical cyclical trends. It is entirely consistent with fossil fuel usage. This has really been established without any doubt by ice core analyses and other empirical evidence.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

Which this is impossible to quantify. It can only be based on the past analysis but the earths cycles aren't exactly the same every period of warming and cooling. The best we can do is be good stewards of the environment and work on ways to deal with the warming instead of wasting billions trying to slow or stop the inevitable force of mother nature.

I agree we should absolutely take care of our planet and I do not agree with Trump's stance on global warming.

BUT, what you said in the beginning of your post is exactly right and it's why it bothers me when scrum answers in absolutes.

[Bouncer]

The current rate of temperature rise is abnormal and inconsistent with historical cyclical trends. It is entirely consistent with fossil fuel usage. This has really been established without any doubt by ice core analyses and other empirical evidence.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

You do realize that the ice core analysis of which you speak does not go back to the origin of when ice was first formed on this planet? That ice has melted and refrozen many times in the history of this planet.

You cannot even accept that there is even a remote possibility that you could be wrong with your "absolutes".

[Bouncer]

By the way scrum. Even Einstein was wrong when he spoke in absolutes. He absolutely knew that Bohr was wrong about quantum mechanics....

I love science, I embrace science. Part of what makes science great is that we don't have to pretend to know everything like "the almighty lord". Science is not an absolute all the time. When you pretend you know exact percentages of something before you can prove it 100% you do science a disservice.

This is why we keep returning to this argument. We agree on global warming. We agree that people play a role. But we absolutely cannot agree when you pretend to have an answer you do not have. This debate is a whole lot more complicated than 2+2=4 yet you pretend it's that simple and we have all the answers. We do not.

[jack tors]

Scrum. Id like you to research and find a single scientist who isnt Federaly Funded who thinks global warming is man made or can be stopped by man..

stfu

[Scrumhalf]

Scrum. Id like you to research and find a single scientist who isnt Federaly Funded who thinks global warming is man made or can be stopped by man..

Virtually every climate scientist in Europe believes so.

[Scrumhalf]

By the way scrum. Even Einstein was wrong when he spoke in absolutes. He absolutely knew that Bohr was wrong about quantum mechanics....

I happen to do science for a living, so I am not saying that there are absolutes. But as Stephen Jay Gould, one of my favorite scientists said, "Fact" does not mean "absolute certainty.".... In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

Confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

What a beautiful way to put it.

Yes, anthropogenic climate change is a fact. It does not mean that it is absolute truth, but it is confirmed to such an extent that no rational human being (i.e. nobody who isn't eschewing truth for an agenda) can give provisional assent to it.

[Bouncer]

I happen to do science for a living, so I am not saying that there are absolutes. But as Stephen Jay Gould, one of my favorite scientists said, "Fact" does not mean "absolute certainty.".... In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

Confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

What a beautiful way to put it.

Yes, anthropogenic climate change is a fact. It does not mean that it is absolute truth, but it is confirmed to such an extent that no rational human being (i.e. nobody who isn't eschewing truth for an agenda) can give provisional assent to it.

My whole argument with you on this is about the degree to which humans have played a role. We both agree they have. We disagree in that we don't know exactly how much we've played a role. You are coming across to me like you know exactly or (absolutely) how much. We don't. Scientist disagree. There is a pretty big window to which they disagree.

And yes I know you are an engineer/scientist and I don't doubt your knowledge or IQ for one minute. I just disagree with how you view this particular subject.

[Scrumhalf]

I'm not sure scientists disagree a lot about how much. Maybe a few years ago, everyone agreed that anthropogenic climate change is real, but weren't sure how much, but now, most scientists are converging on a common viewpoint that most if not all of the current abnormal warming trend is entirely anthropogenic.

[Bouncer]

Have we contributed 30%, 50%, 75%, 95%? What's the latest scientific consensus?

[Bouncer]

Scrum. Id like you to research and find a single scientist who isnt Federaly Funded who thinks global warming is man made or can be stopped by man..

Bro if he found 50 scientist that weren't federally funded and didn't have any agenda whatsoever you'd scream "fake news" and disregard it.

Let me be clear, I agree with scrum on this more than I agree with you. If you think releasing 500 billion tons of C02 since the start of the industrial revolution has had zero effect on our world you are a mental midget.