Again, show me where he is published or trined on researching the development of viruses.

I know surgeons think they are one step below the All Mighty. However, I doubt most human surgeons would dare to consider themselves experts on viruses and virus creation.

On medical knowledge v legal knowledge, that was my point.

Joshua exhibits all the traits off the lawyers I have seen get hammered veterinary malpractice cases. They always “think” they have a handle on the science and the practice of medicine.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I doubt most human surgeons would dare to consider themselves experts on viruses and virus creation.

MDs are deviated out of general medical science and into focused learning way earlier than veterinarians.

I got into it because it is a communicable disease commonly found in equine athletes and causes performance inhibiting chronic respiratory tract lesions…but currently I am the lead researcher on a project looking at the possible genetic emergence of a distinct subtype of Streptococcus equi. The project involves identifying a unique subset of clinical disease, endoscopic collection of the organism, identification of the organism, sequencing its genome, and identifying a unique genetic profile from the organism causing a unique syndrome. The research team is made up of 5 experts from the USA and Europe.

This project is far from my surgery residency training but due to my broad general medical training, I identified the unique syndrome in the group of equine athletes I provide care to and put together the team and funding. My role is identification of syndrome specific diseased patients and endoscopic sample collection. I am not an expert on the genome of S. equi but again due to my broad and excellent general medical early training I understand the science of it well.

My hypothesis is that the project will distinguish a genetically distinct subtype of S. equi the last of which branched off ~10,000 years ago.

I don't recall ever seeing, on this forum, someone defend themselves as well as you, over several posts and time.

I'm beginning to think that you are one of the exceptions, unique, that I described before.

Not having a doctoral degree or being a scientist myself, I think I'll just take your word for what you say.

So, that's an example of trust earned.

But I will continue to disagree with you on climate science and other stuff.

Just an average July 3rd.

https://apple.news/A6LDMqlyoQ8OKyJ_xeWLh4g

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Just an average July 3rd.

https://apple.news/A6LDMqlyoQ8OKyJ_xeWLh4g

So what?

If you actually even think you can change the climate, you are brain dead!

How big is the earth in comparison to the universe?

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
As long as the science fits your preconceived political views, you are all for science Lane. As soon as it does not you start spouting conspiracy theories about the MSM all the while ignoring the bias in the media that prefer to consume.

A real scientist all right, one that rides for the brand.

Oh that's just grand coming from you.....or any on the left....you all aren't innocent of political bias in science!

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
As long as the science fits your preconceived political views, you are all for science Lane. As soon as it does not you start spouting conspiracy theories about the MSM all the while ignoring the bias in the media that prefer to consume.

A real scientist all right, one that rides for the brand.

Oh that's just grand coming from you.....or any on the left....you all aren't innocent of political bias in science!

All of you MAGGA adherents seem to struggle with the fact that someone can be left of you and still remain center or even right of center. I am happy to support middle of the road GOP candidates, the problem is that extremists such as yourself and Lane have taken over the party and pushed the moderates out. I will not support your culture war.

https://youtu.be/QJjclRiwXpo

ENVIRONMENTALLY RESIGNED - Parody | Don Caron

According to Dr. Easter just an average summer as the Earth sees the warmest June and warmest first days of July since 1940.

For all those that say, “ The Earth saw climate change during the dinosaurs.”

Well, that did not work out so well for the dinosaurs.

Again, I believe that man’s actions are contributing to global climate change. The result being more extreme weather.

I do question the “fixes” balanced against the harm to our standard of living. That is the debate to have. I see no reason I’m continuing the debate on whether such exists.

I said thus far just an average “Texas summer” — which it is.

Way hotter ones on record…like 1977.

quote:

Well, that did not work out so well for the dinosaurs.

So, a meteor colliding with the Earth is a climate event?

It is undisputed the that caused climate change.

It is also not seriously Disputed other species went extent before do you not being able to adapt to climate change.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is undisputed the that caused climate change.

It is also not seriously Disputed other species went extent before do you not being able to adapt to climate change.

More like were not as effective as other species adapting to environmental changes. Climate would be one example, but not exclusive.

The Australian extinctions post colonization had nothing to do with climate, and a lot todo with invasive species in the environment.

https://youtu.be/nfhqvWHpll8

A climate discovery in a Canadian lake

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://youtu.be/nfhqvWHpll8

A climate discovery in a Canadian lake

ME, what was your biggest takeaway from that news report?

I would hold that up as a perfect example of the “f*ckery” that the media engages in when presenting “science” to the masses.

The clip promised to show how core samples from the lake prove that man made global warming is taking place. But then instead of showing the rate of temperature increase over different intervals, they rambled on about how the core sample shows the advent of nuclear testing(plutonium found in the sediment). But no hard figures were given on the rate of temp increase.

Then with one minute left the reporter asks how this “proves” man made global warming and the woman explaining the core sample says “well, it shows that temperatures are higher than they have ever been during the Holocene….”

Here is my problem with that: the Holocene began 10,000 years ago at the end of the most recent ice age, so doesn’t it stand to reason that it would be warmer now then it was at the tail end of the last ice age?

So, how can we trust science when the “science” that the media feeds us seems to only be delivered in a way that advances the narrative that they are trying to advance?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
It is undisputed the that caused climate change.

It is also not seriously Disputed other species went extent before do you not being able to adapt to climate change.

More like were not as effective as other species adapting to environmental changes. Climate would be one example, but not exclusive.

The Australian extinctions post colonization had nothing to do with climate, and a lot todo with invasive species in the environment.

When I said other species, I meant other species of dinosaur that went extent long before the meteorite collision. There are what 5 eras/periods of dinosaurs?

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://youtu.be/nfhqvWHpll8

A climate discovery in a Canadian lake

ME, what was your biggest takeaway from that news report?

I would hold that up as a perfect example of the “f*ckery” that the media engages in when presenting “science” to the masses.

The clip promised to show how core samples from the lake prove that man made global warming is taking place. But then instead of showing the rate of temperature increase over different intervals, they rambled on about how the core sample shows the advent of nuclear testing(plutonium found in the sediment). But no hard figures were given on the rate of temp increase.

Then with one minute left the reporter asks how this “proves” man made global warming and the woman explaining the core sample says “well, it shows that temperatures are higher than they have ever been during the Holocene….”

Here is my problem with that: the Holocene began 10,000 years ago at the end of the most recent ice age, so doesn’t it stand to reason that it would be warmer now then it was at the tail end of the last ice age?

So, how can we trust science when the “science” that the media feeds us seems to only be delivered in a way that advances the narrative that they are trying to advance?

I watched the video again and didn't see any media trickery.

Maybe they were preaching to the choir.

The part where they get into about 1950 > is where you have a problem.

Presenting science to the masses IS tricky business, in that layman expressions (non-scientific or scope deficient), sentence structure and terms are used - fodder for predisposed denialism.

IMO, what you have demonstrated is not just doubter but distrust. It's tainted your ability to see through your own cloud. You say you are not a denier, but what you demonstrate is denial M.O.

Trust in science would enable you to study further some of the things she said, corroborate or not, drill down, confirm or not, through further research.

But you don't do that. You just distrust, doubt, and stop there.

Here's an example:
Quote:
"Here is my problem with that: the Holocene began 10,000 years ago at the end of the most recent ice age, so doesn’t it stand to reason that it would be warmer now then it was at the tail end of the last ice age?"

With just a little trust in science you would find the probable answers, and find no need to ask such question, or at least word it differently. The way you structure the question shows predisposition, or at very least uninformed on stuff that's answerable.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/site...NAL%20OCT%202021.pdf

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

We are in the current "Holocene" interglacial, which began
about 11,500 years ago. As mentioned elsewhere, the middle
of the Holocene was warmer than today, at least during
summer in the Northern Hemisphere, due to changes in
Earth's orbit changing the distribution of solar radiation
received on Earth.

Penultimate Interglacial Period – About 125,000 Years Ago

For similar reasons, the penultimate
interglacial (also commonly called the "Eemian") also had a
climate different from today. In contrast to the Holocene, we
have far fewer records from the Eemian interglacial because it
took place about 125,000 years ago. It appears, based on proxy
evidence, that global mean annual surface temperatures were
warmer than preindustrial by about 1° to 2°C and that high
latitude surface temperature was at least 2°C warmer than
present, but for reasons that are well known—the changes
in Earth's orbit. Additionally, and similar to the mid-Holocene,
warming was not uniform across the globe.

================================================

I have read before that technically we are in a cooling period, except that man-made climate change, warming, is defeating that.

I didn't post a source for that but will if you need it.

===============================================

So, what the young woman scientist was saying is accurate, but she leaves out a lot in where she's coming from knowledge.

Deniers won't get it of course because they are about denying instead of trust. The difference is like comparing a cloud of dust to clarity.

===============================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weat...ace55b3ac4e331&ei=56

Climate denialism has burnt to a crisp
Story by Philip Bump • 2h ago

=============================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...f63335bc7b95b0&ei=22

First Thing: ‘Climate change is out of control’, UN says
Story by Vivian Ho • 5h ago

Yes, and that’s a Darwinian argument being changed to climate change by you.

That far back, the various eras were defined by types of dinosaurs. Was it ongoing evolution or climate change? Show me the definitive evidence of why the change.

Personally, I’m not sold that man made CO2 is the cause of what we are measuring.

The earth is a giant buffering system. Lots of things both intrinsic and extrinsic are involved, and I doubt we even have a handle on what they all are, let alone what is causing what.

I think our ocean pollution is more likely to be the cause of changes than smokestacks and cow farts, because the weather is a conglomeration of water vapor and using the latent heat of change of phase soaks up a lot of energy.

As to the CO2, I’d tend to buy that the scientific community thought it was a severe problem if they were stating that we need to build nuclear power infrastructure immediately to replace our dependence on fossil fuels as that’s the only known and proven way to produce large amounts of power at need that doesn’t produce CO2. All the other “renewables” are depending on polluting use of rare earths and potential technological advancement that is unknown. Given the massive silence on nukes from the “scientific consensus” crowd, they seem to not be concerned there. Advocating for a lesser lifestyle, while philosophically admirable is flat out impossibly incompatible with human behavior. In other words, it’s “anti science”.

My view is that they haven’t proven man made global warming at all, but that anything we can do within reason that decreases the human footprint on the planet is a logical good, even if it’s not a provable item due to our very limited understanding of natural forces.

Apparently, there are lots of people which science can't prove somethings to them contrary to that which they are determined to believe despite the evidence.

This is not a science problem. It's a psychological problem.

It just proves that belief has more sway than science, in some people.

I hate to tell you this, ME, but many of the folks you call deniers are much more scientific than you.

Your statement is believe these guys… they know more than you.

If you really knew science, a scientist is a professional skeptic.

I never claimed to be a scientist or know science, other than to trust what scientists say.

I wasn't there during the ice age, for example, but scientists say there was more than one, etc.

If "scientists" herein are deniers, then they are the worse of the lot. They ought to know better. In effect they are saying that their peers are liars.

I'm not a professional skeptic, but skeptic anyway. There's a difference in a legit skeptic and a denier. It's really not a fine line if one is objective enough to analyze it.

My skepticism is easily satisfied with adequate answers. A denier's skepticism can't be satisfied with the notion that the shadow of doubt on this climate science is really small.

They make up doubt, embellish it, cherish it, - and believe irrational doubt spewed by others, especially the denial machine.- why? That's not science nor the way a real scientist thinks.

I don't need to be a scientist to know that.

How quickly you forget what you just read on scientific news.org.
The scientist themselves say they are often wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

I watched the video again and didn't see any media trickery.

Maybe they were preaching to the choir.

The part where they get into about 1950 > is where you have a problem.

Presenting science to the masses IS tricky business, in that layman expressions (non-scientific or scope deficient), sentence structure and terms are used - fodder for predisposed denialism.

IMO, what you have demonstrated is not just doubter but distrust. It's tainted your ability to see through your own cloud. You say you are not a denier, but what you demonstrate is denial M.O.

Trust in science would enable you to study further some of the things she said, corroborate or not, drill down, confirm or not, through further research.

But you don't do that. You just distrust, doubt, and stop there.

Here's an example:
Quote:
"Here is my problem with that: the Holocene began 10,000 years ago at the end of the most recent ice age, so doesn’t it stand to reason that it would be warmer now then it was at the tail end of the last ice age?"

With just a little trust in science you would find the probable answers, and find no need to ask such question, or at least word it differently. The way you structure the question shows predisposition, or at very least uninformed on stuff that's answerable.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/site...NAL%20OCT%202021.pdf

Mid-Holocene Warm Period – About 6,000 Years Ago

We are in the current "Holocene" interglacial, which began
about 11,500 years ago. As mentioned elsewhere, the middle
of the Holocene was warmer than today, at least during
summer in the Northern Hemisphere, due to changes in
Earth's orbit changing the distribution of solar radiation
received on Earth.

Penultimate Interglacial Period – About 125,000 Years Ago

For similar reasons, the penultimate
interglacial (also commonly called the "Eemian") also had a
climate different from today. In contrast to the Holocene, we
have far fewer records from the Eemian interglacial because it
took place about 125,000 years ago. It appears, based on proxy
evidence, that global mean annual surface temperatures were
warmer than preindustrial by about 1° to 2°C and that high
latitude surface temperature was at least 2°C warmer than
present, but for reasons that are well known—the changes
in Earth's orbit. Additionally, and similar to the mid-Holocene,
warming was not uniform across the globe.

================================================

I have read before that technically we are in a cooling period, except that man-made climate change, warming, is defeating that.

I didn't post a source for that but will if you need it.

===============================================

So, what the young woman scientist was saying is accurate, but she leaves out a lot in where she's coming from knowledge.

Deniers won't get it of course because they are about denying instead of trust. The difference is like comparing a cloud of dust to clarity.

===============================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weat...ace55b3ac4e331&ei=56

Climate denialism has burnt to a crisp
Story by Philip Bump • 2h ago

=============================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...f63335bc7b95b0&ei=22

First Thing: ‘Climate change is out of control’, UN says
Story by Vivian Ho • 5h ago

ME,

To clarify, the “trickery” I referenced was the fact that the story in no way supported the sensationalized headline. They literally spent 4 minutes talking about the lake, sediment, core samples, etc. without a talking about climate change, except to mention that it is happening. And even in the last minute when they finally get around to global warming, not a single mention of the specific data that the core sample revealed.

And the “young woman scientist” was not a scientist as you claim. She is a reporter. I’m sure that you can see why that is an important distinction, and why I am pointing out that it is a distinction that you failed to make.

I have often wondered if you guys are giving the talking heads on TV more credibility than they deserve. I guess you have answered my question. Are you really sure that you are “skeptical” as you like to believe that you are?

As much as you want to claim that I am not being rigorous in my research, I will point out that you are so quick to believe any “scientist” who reinforces your narrative that you jumped to the conclusion that this reporter is a scientist, and you didn’t catch your mistake after watching it a second time??? Is that proof of your own bias?

I do believe in climate change and I am nearly certain that man made climate change is real. What I can’t understand is the lack of global response by the concerned parties, the media stories that promise to show “proof” but instead discuss the narrative itself instead of the scientific data that is supposed to support it. And I also can’t understand why people like you get triggered when someone point out these inconsistencies, to the point that you have to resort to name calling.

Calling someone a racist, fascist, denier, etc. distracts from the topic being discussed and muddles the discussion. I can’t see a reason to do that if your position holds up to scrutiny.

Why don't you just forget the phucking article I linked with the reporter from WaPo, and focus on what NOAA says instead?

My mistake - I didn't listen well enough to the video, and thought she was a scientist. But she is: Sarah Kaplan, climate reporter at the Washington Post. She is reporting on a real scientific study.

I hate it when I make a gift to the opposition in an argument. Damn.

Sometimes I forget that everything can and will be used against you on internet forum. I presume good faith too freely.

Maybe I can redeem myself. Probably not, as already explained.

Here's a more thorough article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...-time-crawford-lake/

NOAA throws cold water on media hysteria over 3 hottest days on record. By Nick Pope
still dont cut and paste, have to type it in.

And another thing or two:

She's qualified to decipher and report:

Sarah Kaplan
Washington, D.C.
Climate and science reporter
Education: Georgetown University, B.S. in International Culture and Politics

Sarah Kaplan is a climate reporter covering humanity's response to a warming world. She previously reported on Earth science and the universe.
Honors and Awards: 2019 Walter Sullivan Award for Excellence in Science Journalism–Features
Professional Affiliations: National Science Writers Association, Society of Environmental Journalists


Often I look for brevity, hence the video.

The reason is that people are lazy here and don't read, myself included sometimes.

A long article like the one above is often just not read. I speed read it and miss stuff sometimes, like I did with the video.

ME,

You gave me a good laugh. You posted an article that not only fails to support your position, but in fact supports mine, and exposes your own bias, and you want me to forget the “plucking” article? Hahah, I bet you do…

I say this with smile: you are surprised that “anything you say can be used against you on the internet…” Really, you can say that with a straight face after trying to straw man my argument to “the article is invalid because it mentions plutonium and 1950.”

I asked you what your biggest takeaway was from the video you posted. Or to ask another way: [B]What specifically did that video show/say that supported the narrative that global warming is man made, is bad, and is getting worse?[b]

I ask because I couldn’t find a single piece of hard evidence to hang my hat on. I was looking for something like “the core samples showed that temperature over the past several decades have increased significantly faster than any time in the past 1,300 years”. I use this example because that is what the story seemed to promise.

The TV reporter begins the segment with a statement to the effect: scientists say a core sample from a lake in Canada is further proof that human activity has caused a significant increase in global climate change. The report never gives any evidence to support this claim.

At the 4 minute mark the news lady asks the newspaper reporter a question to the effect: “science say that we(humans) have changed things(presumably the climate?). How does this sample prove that to be true?”

The news reporter then tosses a word salad. Maybe she missed the question, but she failed to answer the question in a meaningful way.

The sediment does show a recent increase in human activity, and in pollution caused by humans, but how does any of that prove that humans have changed the climate?

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
NOAA throws cold water on media hysteria over 3 hottest days on record. By Nick Pope
still dont cut and paste, have to type it in.

I saw that but haven't read it yet. I'll get back to you. Now I'm still editing a post in response to JBrown.

OK, edited:

I read the article from Daily Caller:

https://dailycaller.com/2023/0...test-days-on-record/

NOAA Throws Cold Water On Media Hysteria Over Earth’s ‘Three Hottest Days On Record’
US-WEATHER-CLIMATE-ENVIRONMENT

NICK POPE CONTRIBUTOR
July 07, 2023, 7:56 PM ET

Note that NOAA did not respond to their claimed request for comment.

So, NOAA didn't throw cold water. The authors of the article used the words as click bait for rightists.

================================================

Here's the entire search results:

https://www.google.com/search?...nt=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1

There are some "conservative" media who latched onto the Cold Water article.

=================================================

I don't want to take the time to read them all, but here's where my "skeptic" kicks in.

First, the doubter/denier rightist media latches onto the article. That's a clue. The article may be denier BS.

Second, it's the highest global average temperature, not the hottest days on record at some specific location.

two full disclosure, truth, no click-bait articles not rightist denier crap:

https://www.wfaa.com/article/n...68-b739-3dadcbd3f2dd

Planet records unofficial new hottest day on record, climate scientists say
The global record is still preliminary, but it is an indication that climate change is reaching into uncharted territory.

(excerpt)

The daily but preliminary and unofficial heat record comes after months of “truly unreal meteorology and climate stats for the year," such as off-the-chart record warmth in the North Atlantic, record low sea ice in Antarctica and a rapidly strengthening El Nino, said University of Oklahoma meteorology professor Jason Furtado.

This global record is not quite the type regularly used by gold-standard climate measurement entities like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. But it is an indication that climate change is reaching into uncharted territory. It legitimately captures global-scale heating and NOAA will take these figures into consideration when it does its official record calculations, said Deke Arndt, director of the National Center for Environmental Information, a division of NOAA.

World records hottest day for third time in a week
Published
16 hours ago

The world's average temperature has reached a new high for the third time in a week, unofficial records show.

Data analysed by a group of US scientists shows the global average temperature on Thursday was 17.23C.

It breaks the 17.01C record set on Monday, surpassed just a day later when the average temperature reached 17.18C.

The temperatures are being driven by human-induced climate change and the naturally-occurring weather pattern known as El Niño, scientists say.

(excerpt)

The temperature readings come from a tool called Climate Reanalyzer. Scientists at the University of Maine use a combination of readings from surface, air balloon and satellite observations as well as computer modelling to assess average global temperatures.

The readings are not an official government record, but they are closely watched as an indicator of how temperatures are fluctuating.

On Thursday the US weather service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it could not confirm records that come partly from computer simulations, according to Associated Press.

"But we recognize that we are in a warm period due to climate change," NOAA said.

Scientists warn that it is uncommonly hot and it is likely the records will continue to be broken this summer.

"El Niño hasn't peaked yet and summer is still in full swing in the Northern Hemisphere, so it wouldn't be surprising if the daily temperature record is broken again and again in 2023," Dr Paulo Ceppi, lecturer in climate science at Imperial College London, said.

quote:

but how does any of that prove that humans have changed the climate?

I'm going to deflect, and don't care if you don't approve.

What difference does it make whether the video or article offers proof?

All you are doing is making me wrong. I do that myself sometimes and recognize when it flips.

The point is that there is plenty of evidence that much warming (CO2 and emissions) is man-made. If there wasn't evidence the scientist would be claiming the warming was attributable to something else 100%.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
And another thing or two:

She's qualified to decipher and report:

Sarah Kaplan
Washington, D.C.
Climate and science reporter
Education: Georgetown University, B.S. in International Culture and Politics

Sarah Kaplan is a climate reporter covering humanity's response to a warming world. She previously reported on Earth science and the universe.
Honors and Awards: 2019 Walter Sullivan Award for Excellence in Science Journalism–Features
Professional Affiliations: National Science Writers Association, Society of Environmental Journalists


Often I look for brevity, hence the video.

The reason is that people are lazy here and don't read, myself included sometimes.

A long article like the one above is often just not read. I speed read it and miss stuff sometimes, like I did with the video.

Dear God man, have you gone mad?!

Seriously ME, I am laughing as I type this, and I feel like a jerk for bustin your balls, but are you actually trying to say that a reporter is “qualified to decipher and report(on science)” and then you hold up her credentials showing that the entirety of her education is a B.S. in International Culture and Politics?

Not a doctorate in one of the sciences

Not a masters in some field of science

Not a B.S. in science

she has a degree in politics

And this somehow minimizes the fact that you were fooled into thinking that she was a scientist?

You claim that I only look at evidence that supports my position. I would agree to some extent because I am 98% sure that man made global warming is real, and I am trying real hard to erase that lingering 2% of doubt. I’m finding that hard to do because most articles don’t support their sensational headlines.

But it seems that you don’t even need to watch a video to believe that it contains science that supports the global warming narrative. And the video showed nothing to support the global warming narrative. Just think about that: are you really as skeptical as you claim?

quote:

I am 98% sure that man made global warming is real, and I am trying real hard to erase that lingering 2% of doubt.

If you estimate 2% doubt and that's accurate, then where is the problem? I would estimate my doubt about the same. Go figure.

I just tend to focus on the 98% rather than the 2%. That's the small shadow of doubt thing I mentioned. See the response to TB40 above for an example of how that works.


So, please - I want to have a reasonable discussion with you.

Be satisfied that you busted me enough.

I have been nice.

So, you leave me no choice but to resort to not addressing your ball busting directly.

I'll go back to trying to stay on topic and posting as legit sources as I can.

Rant on as you wish.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

but how does any of that prove that humans have changed the climate?

I'm going to deflect, and don't care if you don't approve.

What difference does it make whether the video or article offers proof?

All you are doing is making me wrong. I do that myself sometimes and recognize when it flips.

The point is that there is plenty of evidence that much warming (CO2 and emissions) is man-made. If there wasn't evidence the scientist would be claiming the warming was attributable to something else 100%.

“What difference does it make whether the video or article offers proof?”

The reason that is important is because that article and that video are two shining examples of the “preponderance of evidence” that climate change advocates love to hold up as their “proof”.

And far too often that “proof” doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

So they say “well, there is a lot of other proof… so forget that “plucking” article”. Does that show solid critical thinking?

My position could be summed up as “I am 98% sure that man is causing climate change, and this could be the beginning of the end.” Yet because I disagree with the way that it is reported, I am skeptical of those who are getting rich from it, and I am confused by the “response” from those who claim to want to fix the climate, you brand me as an extremist? That is what a denier is right, and extremist?

Who is more of an extremist, the one who doubts his position and tries to disprove it, and attempts to prove the opposite, or the believer who believes all evidence to the point that he doesn’t even need to see the evidence, he only need to read the headline that promises the evidence?

I am trying to learn to disagree with grace. As you can see, I have a long way to go!

ME, I appreciate that you challenge my thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

I am 98% sure that man made global warming is real, and I am trying real hard to erase that lingering 2% of doubt.

If you estimate 2% doubt and that's accurate, then where is the problem? I would estimate my doubt about the same. Go figure.

I just tend to focus on the 98% rather than the 2%. That's the small shadow of doubt thing I mentioned.

———————-

Rant on as you wish.

That small shadow of a doubt doesn’t bother me. What is/might be hiding in those shadows is what bothers me.

You’ve actually helped me clarify something that gave me reservations about my own position. Thank you for that.

Instead of ranting on, I think that I’ll start a new thread.

I might have discovered the cure for our climate disaster. Stay tuned…

quote:

Does that show solid critical thinking?

IMO, it does, when you point out my error (one BTW), and I admit it, and correct myself accordingly - yes that's all part of critical thinking.

As I said, in my haste and attempt to be brief, which is usually a good thing, I selected a video presented by non-scientists talking about a real science study. And they made claims they didn't fulfill on in their presentation. I presented a follow-up article that does a better job. You didn't mention that.

Let's not talk about extremists. I know of no 2 percenters who are extremists.

It's not just disagreement that I'm trying to get a handle on.
What's hiding in the shadows - indeed?

It's the methodology of the 2%, the embellishments, the sources, etc. I think 2% doubt or skepticism is a sorta ridiculous number. If every denier who claims he's just a 2% skeptic, and really believes it and it really is true, then we wouldn't be having this massive division on the climate science. There wouldn't be a Rightist denial and disinformation machine. There wouldn't be applause for trashing the Paris Accord, like Trump did. There probably wouldn't even be a Trump-like politician.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

It's the methodology of the 2%, the embellishments, the sources, etc. I think 2% doubt or skepticism is a sorta ridiculous number. If every denier who claims he's just a 2% skeptic, and really believes it and it really is true, then we wouldn't be having this massive division on the climate science. There wouldn't be a Rightist denial and disinformation machine. There wouldn't be applause for trashing the Paris Accord, like Trump did. There probably wouldn't even be a Trump-like politician.

It is those lacking doubt who concern me most. Especially when they dismiss critical thinking for expediency’s sake. Trump was often guilty of that.

Kabob
you missed my point in the article. NOAA said they dont agree because it was made by modeling, not actual data. Scientists disagree is the point.
I'm 100% with J there is man made warming. It is not all from fossil fuels though. For some reason the host of other things we should be doing is overlooked. I suspect the green energy money is pushing that agenda.

I didn't miss your point. The article was click bait for deniers. And I addressed your point in my previous reply.

Here's the article you referenced:

https://dailycaller.com/2023/0...test-days-on-record/

Any time they use words like hysteria and metaphors like NOAA throws cold water you know that's to appeal to a certain audience.

The article shows this as their reference source:

https://apnews.com/article/glo...f5cd6368bda60ed2bf31

For the third time this week, Earth sets an unofficial heat record. What’s behind those big numbers?

https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/

climate reanalyzer

You said:

quote:

NOAA said they dont agree because it was made by modeling, not actual data.

The non-rightist/denier article said:

quote:

It legitimately captures global-scale heating and NOAA will take these figures into consideration when it does its official record calculations, said Deke Arndt, director of the National Center for Environmental Information, a division of NOAA.

Define modeling?

It must include legit temp collections (satellite data collection is legit) and sort the stats to come up with a global average. These guys don't make the calculations the old fashioned way, spreadsheet, etc. They use a computer program, which may have modeling aspects too.

They don't make this shit up. That's the point.

The article you read isn't legit in several ways.

Here's an article that explains it well, and it ain't hysterical:

https://time.com/6292103/world...-preliminary-record/

The World May Have Just Experienced the Hottest Day Ever Recorded

Some scientists believe the Canadian wildfires are contributing to the elevated temperatures and path of the Jet Stream but other scientists disagree.
Do you parse out these data points as climactic events or hold them up as your proof of climate change?

Scientists at the EPA and most in Europe believe that burning "biomass" (thats burning wood to you and me) to produce electricity is carbon neutral but other scientists think that is ridiculous asserting that leaving forests alone to push carbon into the ground is the only carbon neutral option.

Which scientists are right?

So, if you "trust the science", what do you believe?
Probably largely what you want to believe.

So now you dont believe NOAA?
Their problem was, they used chosen temps for their modeling. Not weeks and years worth of temps to form an average.
that is why scientist disagree, you can make science say what you want to, by manipulating data. That was NOAA's issue.
I dont care what group right/left or anything else, printed it, the caption means nothing. I was going by NOAA claims they are correct, as other scientist say, "no, we are"