Democrats say that the βscience is settledβ regarding man made climate change. Is such a saying unscientific in itself, because it assumes that no new ideas or knowledge will be discovered?
The only point of that phrase is to shut up the idiots who think they know more than the VAST majority of the world’s scientists. Not just climate scientists. It’s really not a debate at this point. Like, you are free to argue against Newton’s laws, but they are accepted as facts just like the facts concerning climate change. Saying the “science is settled” is basically saying the experts are debating very much, which they aren’t.
“The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way. But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”
You mean like years ago scientists recognized that certain man-made organic aerosols were adversely reacting with the Earth’s ozone layer and despite any lingering scientific studies and findings, politicians recognized the danger of inaction and governments worked together to limit the use and release of those substances? ...lucky no one was able to use a juvenile semantic argument to stop what needed to be done.
He might have said that, but I still don't think most Democrats think this way. Yes, most Democrats believe in man influenced climate change. But, I believe that most Democrats are open to new scientific research regarding the topic.
I hope so. They seem to get angry when questioned. I’m only basing that statement on the last SOH poll regarding climate change, so it’s really directed towards SOH members - I can’t back it up when it comes to everyday people (although I do believe it to be true).
Not settled forever, settled until new data suggests otherwise. But it isn’t a scientific statement, it is a political one. The science on the subject is ongoing, and the evidence is becoming increasingly clear.
I guess so, the same way saying the science of gravity is settled. There's still some questions about it, but you can be pretty certain what will happen if you jump out of a plane.
Newton’s law of gravity states that gravity is a force. This is a good approximation for what happens on earth, but Einstein’s theory of general relativity produces more accurate results. The math is much more complicated doing it the Einstein way, so Newton’s law is still taught, just with a disclaimer now.
Can measure with it? Can predict with it? I can easily predict that masses with higher density than the surrounding atmosphere will fall. That has nothing to do with gravity.
However, gravity is supposedly strong enough to keep water stuck to the earth's surface yet smoke rises. Have you ever observed water clinging to a wet, spinning ball? That's a real experiment you can do.
Nothing is settled regarding climate change. Many Democrats and liberals get very pissy if you even question their beliefs. It is like some extreme religion with some of these folks. Crazy.
Emily Brewster, lexicographer and associate editor at Merriam-Webster, found what she believes is the earliest use of snowflake as an epithet: Early 1860s in Missouri, as the Civil War began and citizens battled over whether or not slavery should continue within the state. “A snowflake was a person who was opposed to the abolition of slavery,” Brewster said. “They were called snowflakes because it said they valued white people over black people.”
Not only that but they are actually arrogant enough to redefine terms, science for instance, to fit their own contorted beliefs. There is at least one person on this app who claims that science is never wrong!
Sure, but still. Another basic tenant of science is you have to assume what you now think to be true, is true. We can't just go on with our lives ignoring global warming now that it is a scientific consensus.
Many on the left say things like that or call others science deniers because they think it silences and ridicules people. If you can keep people with different opinions from speaking up, you don’t have to debate them. It’s a similar strategy to when they call others racist, it’s meant to end the conversation, not advance it.
Here’s the thing, science doesn’t give two shits about your opinion. Science is based on facts. Calling for idiots who want to give their uninformed opinions to be silenced is productive on the whole.
Now, what the science deniers need to get through their thick skulls is the fact that their opinions don’t matter. At all. If you come to some amazing scientific revelation, tell the experts. Until then, just stfu.
If your doctor and everyone in the hospital said you have cancer, would you find the one person who’s gonna tell you you don’t have it just to make yourself feel better? That’s what climate change denial is.
SD .. thanks for presenting your fascist views for all to see. You hilariously suggest that science is an entity that has feeling so as to care or not care about an individual’s opinion.
The fact is that science isn’t a thing that would care. That’s just a figment of the leftist imagination.
Science is the inquisition of all ideas. Fascism is the exclusion or outlawing of the “wrong” ideas.
Maybe on the 8th, when you’re helplessly screaming at the sky in outrage, you can scream for an extra 30 seconds...because we all care about your opinion obviously. Or, you can stfu and silently fret that we pulled out of the Paris Agreement. Either way.
Think, I’d recommend you pick up literally any science textbook and read the first chapter on the scientific method. Also, I know you’re not so dumb as to not understand my personification of “science”.
I’ll say it again in case the kids in the back didn’t hear -SCIENCE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINIONS.
SD ... I’ve spent 30 years as a scientist. I learned the scientific method in the fall of 1975, and am well aware of its application.
I say again, that much to the chagrin of snowflake leftists, science does not have feelings — either for or against any ideology. Science is ever evolving and dependent on the constant questioning of ideas. The one thing that is certain to stifle science is the fascist notion of leftists that only some ideas can be mentioned out loud.
But please, continue your clueless presentation of your silly non-scientific notions as it helps the confused to clearly identify you as an anti-science loon.
Think, I said you’re free to challenge Newton’s laws or climate science. I never implied that certain things must not be said.
But please, continue with this facade that you’re such a smart and educated person- who can’t wrap their head around the 4th grade concept of personification. You know the Bearenstein bears wasn’t trying to convince you that bears can talk, right?
I’ve never seen a group of adults get triggered over the weather until I met liberals. Then in the same breath they talk about feelings. “Eek it’s raining out! Eek it’s cold, no it’s hot...blame Russia!”
Thank you Think for being scientific about this. Maybe when Sd grows up, he too can view the world more maturely.
Calling for idiots who want to give their uninformed opinions to be silenced IS productive on the whole. I don’t need your uneducated ass talking over the doctor giving my prognosis.
Actually, I like making you idiotic science deniers keep talking. I’m fairly confident any objective reader who finds this thread will see the idiocy of your comments.
SD ... distract if you must. I have no problem with Sir Newton’s work. Unlike modern leftists who squeeze scientists out of organizations like NASA and replace them with political hacks who now even admit to manipulating the temperature data to support their faulty computer models.
I’d welcome Sir Newton’s empirical approach to climate science! Unfortunately, he’d be cast out by folks like you as a heretic for speaking the truth that doesn’t support your models.
sd, you need to learn what the scientific method is. What would you use as a control to determine if the sun was actually causing global warming and cooling? I have an answer, you need to use your brain.
xxx, although I concur with your comment that sd was butt hurt when Trump won, the official win didn't occur until November 09th! LOL
I’m not here to prove my qualifications, only to make you seem like babbling idiots who don’t trust 99% of the world’s scientists. What qualifies someone to shut the hell up and defer to experts?
But I’m a mechanical engineering student, and as I pointed out, the first chapter of literally every science textbook outlines how the scientific method is based on facts, not opinions.
Ok, Think, I cant wait to read your exposé on how NOAA is fudging day. Are you going to finish that right after you publish your paper on how NASA faked the moon landings? Get real.
We aren’t even having a scientific debate here, you are just talking out of your ass saying that the vast majority of scientists in the world are committing a fraud. And I’m telling you that no one cares unless you’re an expert. Which you’re not. So leave it to the experts.
SD ... you’re really quite predictable. You see, I never said NOAA. I said NASA. So you clearly went off to your leftist search engine and did a quick search on a subject for which you were totally clueless ... that’s because you live in a leftist bubble.
You surely think you’ve got me in your little leftist fact checking cross hairs. Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you with the facts, but you’re wrong. And your leftist fact checkers are non-scientists posing (like you) as experts.
Here, start with this. And pay special attention when it says that “... climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers ...”
Do you think Sir Issac Newton felt the need to put his finger on the scale of the gravity scale to “adjust” for the facts to fit his computer models?
SD ... I believe that we landed on the moon. I also believe that even though LBJ was a corrupt Democrat and a member of the KKK that he still didn’t have the philandering Mr Kennedy killed. Likewise, even though MrO, a non-scientist pushed for us to sign the rotten Paris accord, I agree with the climate realists that it was a pathetic waste of American money, and would have had no impact on the worlds worst polluters.
Think, we’ve been down the NOAA rabbit hole before, sorry if you have some memory problems. At least you found an article from this year this time. You seem to be having trouble with some elementary school concepts as well, so hopefully you are doing ok. Your one article is from Tucker Carlson’s website. Trump pays Carlson, so I’m not sure why you think that’s a good source to use.
SD ... keep shifting from NASA to NOAA in hopes that nobody will notice so that you can use your leftist fact check sites. Whatever you do, don’t admit what everyone else knows.
SD ... please listen carefully, and the please, oh please, come back and tell us that MrO isn’t a politician or that MrO didn’t say that the science is settled.
I can’t hardly contain myself waiting on your “insightful” reply ...
I’ve really never seen anyone use “closed-minded,” though it’s logically more accurate. But it’s synonymous with what everyone means by “close-minded,” as long as they’re pronouncing it “klΕz” and not “klΕs.”
Great sleuthing, though!
Really, Tom? I’ve always thought it was CLOSED minded. His mind is closed off, after all, right? I can’t get either close minded, close-minded, closed minded, or closed-minded to pull up in my online dictionary, though. Can you please explain?
Close, to me, means nearby.
Closed means not open to other ideas.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment