2015 Hottest year in modern instrument record.

[satimy]

I've yet to see you provide any sort of facts or links other than spewing spittle and "Global warming is a hoax!!! No trust me, 99% of science (because science is an entity of course) agrees with me!!).

So as far as defending your position, you're the one doing badly.

Or you're just trolling. Which will probably get me infracted for saying, but oh well.

I'm reiterating what you do. Make unsubstantiated claims

[thatmikeguy]

You don't have to be a scientist to know you don't want to be around when those happen though.

True, but they are happening. All the countries drilling the cores know this, but they can't agree when it happens. Some German, Russian, and French scientist have said as few as 900, 500, and 250 years. It's a cascade effect overall that has been going on in cycles for however long the poles have been there, but at one point there was no poles, we know this because of the melt layers.

[Belize]

I'm reiterating what you do. Make unsubstantiated claims

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/emp...al-warming.htm
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Your move.

[schwarzkopf]

No, not even close.

Sorry, my language was sloppy.

Is "that man is contributing to climate change." a better choice?

- - - Updated - - -

all we have to do is fix DNA degradation to make it happen.

Nope - ain't going to happen. Immortal cells are called cancer cells ... but that's another topic for another day

[Tijuana]

If you can prove a study is shit, go ahead. I work with people who have actively tried to demonstrate it so, fail to do so, and continue their work in adding to the piles of data to demonstrate the effects, rates of CO2 emission, potential sinks in Peat Bogs and Soils... This is the point. We argue over it until a consensus is reached because no one can come up with anything to disprove it. Long ago we reached a point that climate was changing, globally warming on average, and that the main contributor to those rates was anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Now we're just collating all the possible opportunities to do something about it. We finished long ago trying to prove it, at this point it's about fine tuning the models.

Nobody in over 30 years - and there have been hundreds, if not thousands who've tried from all over the world - has countered that or come up with alternative explanations.

Just because it's not an unquestionable religion, doesn't make it automatically wrong because you don't like the outcome. It doesn't care what you think.

I just mean in general. There is complete crap science pushed out there in any number of fields on a daily basis. The notion that a human can't be wrong when engaging in a study is just ridiculous, yet it's a commonly held belief by quite a few people. It's like they know they are stupid, and assume the scientist is smart, therefore he must always be right. It's akin to cult worship for some people.

[satimy]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/emp...al-warming.htm
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Your move.

Google.com

[schwarzkopf]

Google.com

Took me straight to Wilbur Lincoln Scoville, who determined the measure for hotness of chilli peppers - a scale of HOTNESS you see.

Further proof of global warming.

[Tijuana]

Took me straight to Wilbur Lincoln Scoville, who determined the measure for hotness of chilli peppers - a scale of HOTNESS you see.

Further proof of global warming.

Global spicing is a big issue.

[Pterodactylus]

If two scientists disagree, how do you know which one isn't a real scientist?

Data, yo. /10

- - - Updated - - -

But they tell us they are never wrong. If we think a study is shit, we are called "science deniers". There are shit studies all the damn time. I kind of can't believe people got paid for some of them, when reading them.

Data, yo. /10

[Tijuana]

Data, yo. /10

The obvious answer is they are both scientists, but one of them is wrong. They are not infallible.

[Pterodactylus]

Man made climate change is real, but it's such a low number compared to what the earth does itself in cycles anyways that any change by man will save almost zero time for what happens anyway.

Rate of change is important.

Who knows what happens "when" the poles reverse?

Your compass points south instead of north.

[schwarzkopf]

The obvious answer is they are both scientists, but one of them is wrong. They are not infallible.

Exactly - being wrong is the most common position of scientists at the start of a particular area of study.

It is like 10000 chickens fighting for the seed stash .... they all start of wanting to be the one to find it, and are all finally happy that a few of them did.

[Pterodactylus]

The obvious answer is they are both scientists, but one of them is wrong. They are not infallible.

The obvious answer is within the data. Science is just a method of investigation and the body of knowledge gained from following that strict methodology. So Data rules the day in the realm of science.

[Belize]

Google.com

Oh oh! Good one! I guess "Make unsubstantiated claims" is ALL you can do. Oh well.

[Tijuana]

The obvious answer is within the data. Science is just a method of investigation and the body of knowledge gained from following that strict methodology. So Data rules the day in the realm of science.

It's like humor and nuance don't exist...

[thatmikeguy]

I believe it's political, but because most leaders believe we are approaching a scientific unknown event because of the unnatural and natural warming. I see some things pushed that are relatively easy and cheap, and that would be smart if they truly believe something can or will happen soon as far as each nations economy goes. I'm all for change that works in all ways, but not self destructive change in the face of an unknown certainty.

[Pterodactylus]

It's like humor and nuance don't exist...

Oh? You were trying to be humorous? Sorry I missed it.

[Jessicka]

I just mean in general. There is complete crap science pushed out there in any number of fields on a daily basis. The notion that a human can't be wrong when engaging in a study is just ridiculous, yet it's a commonly held belief by quite a few people. It's like they know they are stupid, and assume the scientist is smart, therefore he must always be right. It's akin to cult worship for some people.

That's why we build consensus using multiple studies and cross checking data. This isn't about 1 guy who said it's so, its about thousands coming to similar conclusions from individual studies.

[Tijuana]

That's why we build consensus using multiple studies and cross checking data. This isn't about 1 guy who said it's so, its about thousands coming to similar conclusions from individual studies.

Yeah, no. There are not thousands of people piping in on every study. You keep trying to pin my statements about science in general to climate change, even though I have stated repeatedly that's not what I am getting at. (I recognize that it's confusing give the thread topic though)

[schwarzkopf]

Yeah, no. There are not thousands of people piping in on every study

That's not what Jessicka wrote (well - not the words I read).

There are thousands of studies coming to consensus. Not thousands of studies each with thousands of people involved in all of them.