Climate Change

Ah, Kuhn. Good book, faulty generality on your part. While an outsider can sometimes bring fresh insight into a field that is stuck in a dominant paradigm, scientists accept the paradigm until anomalies are thrown up. That may be why Clauser finds it so hard to accept a point of view that is different from the one he grew up with in the 50s. But Kuhn did not say that evidentiary based claims should be discarded on the basis of some outsider's weakly supported opinions. What are the anomalies?

 

For the third time, listen to “experts” and then learn how to draw your own conclusions with your own thinking.

 

What are the anomalies? Lol how about that a large portion of “climate science” is based on computer models being generated and created by an underlying belief about climate change in the people who are creating them?? I would say that’s a pretty glaring insight to shine a light on.

 

“This type of framing, with the influence of climate change unrealistically considered in isolation, is the norm for high-profile research papers. For example, in another recent influential Nature paper, scientists calculated that the two largest climate change impacts on society are deaths related to extreme heat and damage to agriculture. However, the authors never mention that climate change is not the dominant driver for either one of these impacts: heat-related deaths have been declining, and crop yields have been increasing for decades despite climate change. To acknowledge this would imply that the world has succeeded in some areas despite climate change—which, the thinking goes, would undermine the motivation for emissions reductions.”

I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published

 

Which is pretty much what I do. I find the majority of climate scientists convincing.

 

P.T. Brown again. Writes an article with a half dozen co-authors, ignores peer reviewers recommendations, publishes it anyhow, and then rushes to discredit it anyhow by complaining that his self-censorship indicates some responsibility on the editors' part. Serious lack of professionalism and ethics there. I wouldn't trust him with the time of day.

 

Think what you want about him. I’m specifically referencing the stats on heat-related deaths, crop yields, and have already made my point on a whopping 80%+ of wildfires and how they’re started…

Notice how I’m not appealing to authority either. I made these points before I even saw his article. His article merely validated what I had already come to my own conclusion about.

 

A large part of climate science on global warming has now been tested and confirmed.
The Evidence For Global Warming | Earth.Org
Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
What evidence exists that Earth is warming and that humans are the main cause?

 

Yeah, your report ignores necessary tinderbox) conditions and reports immediate causes--leaving out non-human ones, and also your information sources. And it's not just wildfires; melting ice caps and sea-level rise causing flooding in some coastal areas.

 

“The Science is settled” yeah I got it lol…I know your views.

 

Why is that? Flipping Scientific paradigms goes hand in hand with debating Scientific paradigms…

 

Well that’s all Subjective isn’t it?

 

Paradigms are flipped via debate

 

Your point that I quoted

 

Seems pretty objective to me. I don't think it makes sense to continue a discussion with you, since you've obviously made up your mind and are simply recycling your arguments.

 

According to Al Gore all the ice caps should be gone by yesteryear