I always ask them the chemical makeup of butane, you know how many carbon and hydrogen atoms?

Last edited Wed Feb 6, 2019, 02:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I work with a bunch of scientists. Worse, they read peer reviewed articles. There is work out there disputing stuff and they are written by PhD's. What I usually find is that they are often working well out of their discipline. The worst is that many of them are fighting against much of the "laymen's" understanding. For example, there is much argument about "global average temperature". It is a poorly defined number, and as such easily is the subject of debate about just how much it has increased.

My response is basically that "it doesn't matter". What I mean by that is this, and it is my primary argument and I actually stole this from someone off of DU. GAT is a number much like the Dow or the S&P. The issue isn't the exact value, it is the relative value. It was "X" 10 years ago, and now it's X+0.3. The rate of increase is accelerating. The same data that is used to calculate this number, is the number that is used in the complex models that have been predicting various events over the last couple of decades. Those models have been shown to be very prescient and if there is any criticism of them, it is that they have UNDER predicted various phenomenon. The reason they have under predicted is that we have discovered heretofore unknown phenomenon that actually ACCELERATE the effects being studied. (Greenhouse gas release from frozen tundra, melting glaciers, etc.)

Over the last couple of decades these models have continued to be refined and improved, but their overall conclusion hasn't changed. Furthermore, various alternate theories don't pan out nearly as well on the wide range of phenomenon being observed. Yes, you can find various models associated with sunspots, or solar flares, or magnetic pole shifts that can be alternate explanations for SOME phenomenon. But none of them have had the kind of multifaceted predictive power of the climate models being used in defense of global warming.

Look, science is always questioning, even things we believe we know to be true. We question Special Relativity all the time, and occasionally refine our understanding of EXACTLY how it works and what the effects are. But that doesn't negate the underlying theory. Global warming is happening and human activity is contributing. The only question is how much and how fast.

Your response is brilliant. Global warming is real, but even then it shouldn't matter if it isn't. Taking care of our environment should be the most important thing we do. Why ordinary folks who suffer the consequences of pollution decided this is a litmus test puzzles me. Believing it is a myth only helps corporations make more money that still never trickles down.

with all those wolf haters and anti-nature clowns for decades. It doesn't ever seem to get better with this crowd. It's like they breed and nurture ignorance with pride. Reminds me of Pol Pot who killed all the intellectuals because they were intelligent.