Global warming is real

[zantax]

@Borgia_dude_dude

@zantax

@Borgia_dude_dude

That’s cool! Perhaps there are limitations to E=mc^2.

Regardless, the majority of scientists accept it. You did too (perhaps up until that paper). Why did you accept it?

Looks like maybe its a good thing not everyone blindly accepted it huh? Einstein himself was one guy bucking the scientific consensus of his time, good thing he didn’t just agree with them too.

Nobody is saying that consensus means opposing theories shouldn’t be pursued. Pursue away.

Did you accept E=mc^2?

Never had any need to accept or not accept it. Nobody ever asked me to make any decision it had any bearing on. I was aware of it and had no particular reason to doubt it. Nobody wanted to base increasing my taxes on it.

[Borgia]

@zantax

@Borgia_dude_dude

@zantax

@Borgia_dude_dude

That’s cool! Perhaps there are limitations to E=mc^2.

Regardless, the majority of scientists accept it. You did too (perhaps up until that paper). Why did you accept it?

Looks like maybe its a good thing not everyone blindly accepted it huh? Einstein himself was one guy bucking the scientific consensus of his time, good thing he didn’t just agree with them too.

Nobody is saying that consensus means opposing theories shouldn’t be pursued. Pursue away.

Did you accept E=mc^2?

Never had any need to accept or not accept it. Nobody ever asked me to make any decision it had any bearing on. I was aware of it and had no particular reason to doubt it. Nobody wanted to base increasing my taxes on it.

Ok, you accept most science on faith. We all do.

Your point about the taxes…that had nothing to do with the science. That pertains to potential solutions. But instead of accepting the science and debating solutions, you choose to debate the science. You are letting your politics influence your science.

[zantax]

@Borgia_dude_dude

@zantax

@Borgia_dude_dude

@zantax

@Borgia_dude_dude

That’s cool! Perhaps there are limitations to E=mc^2.

Regardless, the majority of scientists accept it. You did too (perhaps up until that paper). Why did you accept it?

Looks like maybe its a good thing not everyone blindly accepted it huh? Einstein himself was one guy bucking the scientific consensus of his time, good thing he didn’t just agree with them too.

Nobody is saying that consensus means opposing theories shouldn’t be pursued. Pursue away.

Did you accept E=mc^2?

Never had any need to accept or not accept it. Nobody ever asked me to make any decision it had any bearing on. I was aware of it and had no particular reason to doubt it. Nobody wanted to base increasing my taxes on it.

Ok, you accept most science on faith. We all do.

Your point about the taxes…that had nothing to do with the science. That pertains to potential solutions. But instead of accepting the science and debating solutions, you choose to debate the science. You are letting your politics influence your science.

No, I haven’t debated the science, just the proposed solutions and the odds they could or would be done or successful. I don’t claim to have the slightest personal knowledge of whether catastrophic AGW is true or not. I just really hope it is not because I don’t for a minute think man kind will volunteer to lower their standard of living to address it. If it is, my contention is the only real hope of avoiding catastrophic AGW lie in technological advancement which may or may not happen in time to avoid it.

[PurpnGold]

What? So the majority conclude that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is accurate, so it must be politics?

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@zantax

No, I haven’t debated the science, just the proposed solutions and the odds they could or would be done or successful.

How can you do that without debating the science?

[zantax]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@zantax

No, I haven’t debated the science, just the proposed solutions and the odds they could or would be done or successful.

How can you do that without debating the science?

I am perfectly willing to stipulate AGW is real, I haven’t seen any solutions that I find likely to solve it. Many of them just make it worse by pushing manufacturing out of highly regulated countries to lower regulation countries.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@zantax

I am perfectly willing to stipulate AGW is real, I haven’t seen any solutions that I find likely to solve it. Many of them just make it worse by pushing manufacturing out of highly regulated countries to lower regulation countries.

That didnt quite answer the queestion. If you dont debate the science how can you know what will or will not solve the problem? That’s like saying you dont know anything about some disease then debating the medicine that doctors prescribe

[Borgia]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@zantax

I am perfectly willing to stipulate AGW is real, I haven’t seen any solutions that I find likely to solve it. Many of them just make it worse by pushing manufacturing out of highly regulated countries to lower regulation countries.

That didnt quite answer the queestion. If you dont debate the science how can you know what will or will not solve the problem? That’s like saying you dont know anything about some disease then debating the medicine that doctors prescribe

I’m not sure why you’re trying to force zantax to debate the science. If he accepts AGW but is just worried about the proposed solutions effecting him, I’d just be happy he accepts the science as compared to many other conservatives on this forum.

[zantax]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@zantax

I am perfectly willing to stipulate AGW is real, I haven’t seen any solutions that I find likely to solve it. Many of them just make it worse by pushing manufacturing out of highly regulated countries to lower regulation countries.

That didnt quite answer the queestion. If you dont debate the science how can you know what will or will not solve the problem? That’s like saying you dont know anything about some disease then debating the medicine that doctors prescribe

Why do I need to debate the science if I am willing to stipulate the scientific consensus on AGW is correct again? Not following.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@Borgia_dude_dude

I’m not sure why you’re trying to force zantax to debate the science. If he accepts AGW but is just worried about the proposed solutions effecting him, I’d just be happy he accepts the science as compared to many other conservatives on this forum.

I’m not trying to force him to do anything. I’m simply saying, you kind of have to know the science to look at the studies of what we can do, how and why it will impact the environment at a particular threshold

[zantax]

@Borgia_dude_dude

@ImRightYoureWrong

@zantax

I am perfectly willing to stipulate AGW is real, I haven’t seen any solutions that I find likely to solve it. Many of them just make it worse by pushing manufacturing out of highly regulated countries to lower regulation countries.

That didnt quite answer the queestion. If you dont debate the science how can you know what will or will not solve the problem? That’s like saying you dont know anything about some disease then debating the medicine that doctors prescribe

I’m not sure why you’re trying to force zantax to debate the science. If he accepts AGW but is just worried about the proposed solutions effecting him, I’d just be happy he accepts the science as compared to many other conservatives on this forum.

No, I am not worried about it effecting me, I can well afford increased energy costs. I do worry about those who can’t and don’t believe they would put up with it in a democratic society. And I don’t believe the lip service places like China give to being committed to solving it unless they see a net economic positive in it for themselves.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@zantax

Why do I need to debate the science if I am willing to stipulate the scientific consensus on AGW is correct again? Not following.

You are making judgements on proposed solutions without having studied the science. How can you determine the impact of the solutions and their efficacy without understanding the scientific reasoning behind said solutions?

[zantax]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@Borgia_dude_dude

I’m not sure why you’re trying to force zantax to debate the science. If he accepts AGW but is just worried about the proposed solutions effecting him, I’d just be happy he accepts the science as compared to many other conservatives on this forum.

I’m not trying to force him to do anything. I’m simply saying, you kind of have to know the science to look at the studies of what we can do, how and why it will impact the environment at a particular threshold

That would be debating the science of the solutions not the cause.

[ImRightYoureWrong]

@zantax

That would be debating the science of the solutions not the cause.

The solution is directly related to the cause. You need to understand the cause to determine a solution l, or if a solution is effective, is all I’m saying

[zantax]

And I haven’t seen any proposed solution that does anything more then slow the warming and limit it’s peak and my objection isn’t to the science of those solution but rather my belief that nobody would be willing to do them outside a few of the richer countries, until it negatively impacted enough people that the people implementing them were replaced with people who would rescind them.

[zantax]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@zantax

That would be debating the science of the solutions not the cause.

The solution is directly related to the cause. You need to understand the cause to determine a solution l, or if a solution is effective, is all I’m saying

No, I am not a climate scientist, I have neither the expertise or the inclination to prove to myself that their work is correct. I’ll take them at their word. I understand what their findings are and I believe those are the findings of a good faith effort by the large majority of experts in the field.

[Samm]

@Borgia_dude_dude

@Samm

@Borgia_dude_dude

Yes, but my group is larger than your group.

There you go with the politics again.

No politics. I’m going with the larger group having taken some look at the science and with the assumption that the majority speaks to that science.

I’m sure you could find a few scientists that don’t subscribe to E=mc^2. Am I being political by dismissing them and joining those who support that theory? No. I’m being consistent in my methodology. You, not do much as you allow your politics to effect your position.

So the scientists in the minority group are what … deniers or liars?

[Samm]

@Borgia_dude_dude

@Samm

Anytime it comes down to majority rules, it’s politics, not science.

All science is consensus. Every single formula is an abstraction of what we observe in the world and scientists “vote” by adopting it or not.

All science is open minded consensus. The consensus changes over time as more knowledge is gained. But science is never a democracy, except by those whose egos are too large to admit that perhaps they don’t hold the market on knowledge.

[Samm]

@Borgia_dude_dude

That’s cool! Perhaps there are limitations to E=mc^2.

Regardless, the majority of scientists accept it. You did too (perhaps up until that paper). Why did you accept it?

Because there was no evidence that caused anyone to question it and that it appeared to work for practical purposes. Now there is evidence to question it. Now, if the CERN data proves to be correct, a whole host of scientific findings may have to be re-evaluated. Who knows what doors to knowledge it might open.

In the context of the thread, there never has been an E=MC^2 of CO2 causing climate change. That theory has always had holes in it.

[Samm]

@PurpnGold

What? So the majority conclude that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is accurate, so it must be politics?

Nobody ever tried to severely negativity impact the world economy and standard of living by buying into Relatively.

That you think there is an equivalencey between the Theory of Relativity (capital T) and CO2 greenhouse theory (small t) proves how little you know about science.