Not deity, just a tool used by human that can be verified through observation. Diety can't be. There is no nonsense Science. There is Science that evolve with newer understanding. You see that's why science has been the most reliable method (so far) to understanding how this world click. It isn't based on faith or some personal beliefs (e.g. the earth is the center of the universe) that can't be verified through more faith or more personal beliefs. Science has its limit but is the best tool we have today. When you state nonsense, what you are talking about is newer understanding from Science improving or replacing old understanding. It's self correcting and self improving.
the position your article holds is that the minuscule amount of carbon that humans are responsible for, is significant in drastically altering the temperature of the earth. The article then throws up some stat that doesn't prove that claim at all and even goes as so far as to claim that its science's stance that their position is correct. That's totally irresponsible garbage.
Ridiculous rhetoric. The laughable and moronic implication is that you have to agree with every single theory put out by every single scientist or you are a "science denier", what about when theories contradict or disagree? Do you then have to believe both to avoid the label of "science denier"? Would scientists on both sides then be "science deniers" for studying theories that contradict other theories? I suppose by your definition there was a time that Pythagoras and Plato were "science deniers" for breaking with the scientific consensus that the earth was flat and suggesting it was spherical instead.
Obviously you can believe or disbelieve whatever you would like. In this case scientists are almost unanimous on the issue, so if you place yourself in the camp against the overwhelming majority and consensus of scientists then you would end up being a science denier. The great thing about science is that as more evidence becomes available theories can be confirmed, changed, or abandoned all together. Because you currently believe in the scientific data that more than 90% of scientists believe doesn't mean it won't change based on reliable and measurable data.
Which is how they have enforced the consensus. Agree with the masses or be labeled a heretic "science denier". Anyway I've spent enough time arguing with the religion of global warming for now.
Again, the "myth" is not actually a myth. It reads more like a gotcha statement (i.e., That's true, but..."). The idea that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are upsetting the "balance" in atmospheric green house gases is nonsense. Look at this graph (TS.4) from the IPCC and you can see and read that not all carbon dioxide emitted by humans remains in the atmosphere. Further look into the long-term carbon cycle shows that CO2 did not remain constant until the anthropogenic emissions of the industrial revolution. It changed quite a bit prior to human civilization. Here is an example of a myth being busted. Myth: Superstorm Sandy was a hurricane when it made landfall in New Jersey. Truth: NOAA called it a tropical cyclone. Hence why people in the US refer to it as Superstorm Sandy and not Hurricane Sandy.
The science has stated that human contribution of CO2 is causing GW. The "myth" is that b/c human contribution is so small, it simply can't be. Science of today disagree. Yes, that link explains that some amount of human CO2 is absorbed by natural sink and some are not, implying that it becomes unbalanced. I don't know where the term superstorm sandy comes from (media creation?) I don't know who think it's a hurricane because it was clear it was not (here in the south, we know clearly when a storm reaches hurricane strength). My assumption was the name was given due to how much damages it did and how usual it was for that area.
Yet again, nobody reads minds. I looked further at some of the site's "myths". They are not myths. It's still more "gotcha" type commentary. That's not science, it's trolling.
Who is this global organization enforcing a consensus of science and data? You don't have to argue with anything you don't want to. But when you try to deny the science involved, then yes you are a science denier. I'm sorry that bothers you.
Yea ok. We are not going anywhere when you think it's trolling when in fact they laid out detailed explanation, have a comment and debate section with some great back and forth serious questioning and answers. Have a good day.
The only people this delusion will affect are these "scientists" who won't get funded if it doesn't exist. Global warming to global cooling, to climate change. sounds legit. we need to go ahead and pay Al Gore to make it all go away.
Ahh! the fallacy of doing it for money once again. I'll repeat it once more. The scientists aren't doing it for funding. If they were doing it for funding they would side with the big business and billionaire oil companies who pay much more handsomely to do research that would favor them. The idea that you could get so many of scientists to manipulate their findings and data is one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories I've ever heard. If that were the case, all it would take is one scientist to do real research using legitimate data and produce their findings. That person would be able to write their own ticket win Nobel prizes etc. It literally makes no sense that all of these scientists are doing for money for funding.
You say that, but it's funny how the number of months the world has been higher than average temperature is almost identical to the number of months climate science funding has been higher than the average. The fear mongering has made climate science relevant when it wasn't before and has granted them levels of funding they would have never dreamed of 30 years ago. If they put out reports saying that global warming isn't man made and isn't going to kill everyone, then their funding evaporates overnight.....that's how you get a consensus in a community that rarely comes to a consensus about anything at all.
What you are saying now is not proof of anything. That isn't evidence. If scientists put out reports that said there was no danger from climate change, or climate change at all, they would get far more funding from big business and oil companies. It wouldn't evaporate, it would grow.
LOL, if climate scientists were looking for $$$, they'd go over to the denialism side. Who do you think is a better benefactor? NOAA or ExxonMobil?
No, it's not evidence, I just believe that climatologists are rational actors, thus they will do what is in their rational self interest. If they came out and said there was no danger from man made climate change why would they get funding from anyone at all? What incentive would "big business" have in giving them funding? Without the fear mongering of man made global warming they would be irrelevant again, as they were 3 decades ago so there wouldn't be any reason to pay attention to them at all and they'd go back to barely getting funding at all. The climate does change, it always has, and they do a lot of really good work with the funding they get, why would they want to muck that up by saying anything contrary to what keeps them relevant and funded? In fact, they have to come out with more and more doom and gloom scenarios every now and again to ensure they keep their funding.
