8 years ago
5
Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong
“As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, ‘Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.’” By Michael Shermer.
Continue Reading
http://www.scientificamerican.com
Additional Contributions:
-
+4Submitted 8 years ago by Appaloosa
-
0Submitted 8 years ago by MAGISTERLUDI
Join the Discussion
"the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—"
Nope, the rate of temperature rise is the same or as previous warming periods. I supplied one source, article/graphs here however all show the same fluctuations. To state temperatures are reaching record highs is not supported by any historic data other than that of just the last hundred years, a VERY small snippet of historic climate change
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
And why have we heard nothing of NASA's findings re: increased ice mass in the Antarctic? This is contrary to all its previous publications and those of others. Not newsworthy?
http://www.ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495
Did you read the article, or did your confirmation bias tell you all you needed to know?
Around historic temperature data, if you found out there were complementary, overlapping streams of data reaching back hundreds, thousands, and hundreds of thousands of years, that the rate of warming was unprecedented in human history, and that the trend is sore concerning, would that make one whit of difference what you choose to believe? Or would you still base your faith on the curious business cycle prophecies of Raymond Wheeler, instead?
As for Antarctic ice, I wonder whether your interest is more technical or political or pragmatic. It couldn’t be that you’re in any kind of denial, could it?
Raymond Wheeler? Is this your "straw man argument" ?
I'm sure one could find a historic climate chart/graph that may well support popular climate theses, but that would not be the "consensus". LOL
As to the NASA findings, I interjected that to display a top level climate study agency that promoted an erroneous narrative for decades. After their finding, they launch a version of why the contrary facts support the same narrative. ..This has been done by Climatologists many a time. They can "have it both ways".
Let me get this straight: you don’t even read your own sources either?
It’s inquiry, which you seem to’ve confused with heresy.
State your rebut with substance, to my initial offerings if you can. ... Focus. ......Your opinions/bias are known.
By "substance" I guess I need to explain in your case,= an ingredient of fact
To be specific, rebut my statement: (1) the rate of temperature rise is the same as previous warming periods
(2) When claims/facts of popular climatology are debunked, do you not question climatologist's credibility?
Please try to focus.