From 6-7 posts ago:86_regal wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:30 pmYou respond with my query of the existence of this "evidence" with "ignorance is NOT a valid argument against evidence???GRTfast wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:47 pmIgnorance isn't a valid argument against the evidence, processes, or conclusions. You are talking about thousands upon thousands of people's professions. It's not like you've gone out there, educated yourself to a high level, observed everything, and shown how it's all BS. You're basically saying "I'm not up to speed with the evidence, methods, and results, so I don't believe it". In order to do that, you have to rationalize the idea that the world's best and brightest, most rigorous and disciplined minds are all lying for cash.86_regal wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:30 pm
Evidence of what? What IS the evidence (information that is irrefutable to ALL, without the need of a Phd in Climatology, meteorology, geology etc.) that undisputably PROVES the existence of climate change? You can't SEE IT or FEEL or utilize any of the other senses to CONFIRM its existence. The ONLY "evidence" available is what OTHERS have TOLD us. The fact there are other, albeit far less prominent, counterarguments of climate change is "evidence" enough that this "science" is NOT settled.
I am likely not as "well versed" as you. I do understand the bullet point assertions. My question is, how could you possibly KNOW the models, processes AND any of the collected data used is/are accurate?
The scientists by and large are not "in the political sphere". People don't become scientists (or engineers) to get rich. If you think they do, you are grossly misinformed.86_regal wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:30 pmAs I've stated previously, a more than 90% of those in the science "community" are funded by the Federal Government. I cannot and will not speak to the motives of those in that "community". It would take an act of willful ignorance NOT to see the motives of those in the political sphere. On that basis along with the policy proposals which will have a MORE PROFOUND impact on our ALL of our lives than the "potential impact" if we do nothing, IT IS prudent to remain skeptical AND not only ask more questions, but ALSO to receive "answers" from OTHER sources...
Tell me Mr "not very well versed", how do you know what the severity will be if we do nothing? How do you weigh the impact of doing nothing vs the impact of doing something sensible when you admittedly don't understand the details of the topic?
If you built an engine for someone, and they came to you with it making some kind of noise, and you told them they need to tear it apart and do a full rebuild before they catastrophically fail a bunch of large expensive components, would they be justified in continuing to operate because they don't understand what is going on inside and engine, and they can't afford to pull it down at that moment? Would that be a smart decision on their part in the long run?
I'm ASKING YOU for PROOF of the veracity of the evidence!!! How am I being ignorant of it???
Even IF I were being IGNORANT, Asserting that position as such isn't evidence EITHER. It ONLY serves to disparage my position whilst dodging YOUR responsibility to ANSWER the question!
Also, thousands and thousands of people's lives work isn't EVIDENCE either. AND why exactly is it that I AM REQUIRED to do my own research to PERSONALLY DEBUNK this "evidence"?
Because I don't want to see people murdered, is it MY responsibility to stop ALL MURDER???
Stop continuing to mischaracterize my position by suggesting I'm ascribing nefarious motives to scientists!!! ~40~50 years ago a majority in the science community, EVERY ONE of which may have been as honest as nuns were asserting the "real" concerns
of "global cooling". Should we have been deferential to those in the science community then?
Certainly, science and technology has made exponential advancements since then. That's NOT a reason to BLINDLY accept the "evidence" of change.
Im sure Scientists and Engineers aren't trying to get rich, are you? I'm not... I'm sure interested in retaining employment..
I'm also sure they're not interested in doing WHAT they're doing for free...
How do I know what the severity will be if we do nothing? I don't. Asking ME obfuscates the fact that YOU DONT EITHER!!!
I am NOT a DENIER, I am skeptical and simply ASKING MORE QUESTIONS. I am interested in CORROBORATION from other NON-government funded entities. THATS IT, nothing more & nothing less...
If I built this engine you speak of that a customer is complaining is now making some kind of noise. I would attempt to remedy the problem by identifying it using the EASIEST and simplest solutions possible. I wouldn't just rip the engine out of the car and scatter the parts across my garage. AND I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T make pay my customer pay for doing so without EMPERICAL JUSTIFICATION for it...
Start there. Let me know what problems you have with those.
Here are a few more:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... 745rXtKipo
https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-k ... ate-change
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical- ... arming.htm