Anthropogenic Climate Change has started recently. No one here denies that the climate varies on its own over time, I am fairly confident 100% would agree with your statement.

This is true; if I ignore that, you dismiss it as "some" when it is between 80% and 90% of accredited scientists that agree with anthropogenic climate change theory.

I can only assume that statement is in jest or intended to simply insult people. Attack Attack ATTACK works in politics, not in science.

Since you admit you are not a climate scientist and you do not have a degree in climatology, I will assume this statement is also in jest or intended to insult simply.

The information is readily available at credible sources, and you instead rant about what "people say" online. That says a lot about your intelligence and not theirs.

Come on, Stu! What fun is a debate without a little "sauce" to spice it up?
😄😄

I have enjoyed the debate and better chance it is allowed to continue if the "sauce" as you call it is at a minimum,

NASA ASSOCIATE climate scientist Kate Marvel

BA from UC Berkeley, Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge
Double majored in physics and astronomy, Ph.D. in theoretical physics

Note she does not have a degree in anything associated with Climatology. Her resume provides NO credentials that she has worked in the field or on the models.

Instead:

"I love my job because I get to study the best place in the universe. I use satellite observations of the climate system, reconstructions of past climate change, and the output of computer models of the climate to understand what is climate change actually like, and is it happening now?

It’s great because I get to work with so much data!"

What has been your biggest challenge, professional or personal, and how did you overcome it?

I would say switching into a totally new field. I didn’t have a background in Earth science at all, but I had the raw tools of physics and math

So, she is an associate (apprentice in other fields) with no background or formal training in the field. NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL. Her own words.

Yes, let's take her word over the 80% to 90% of the scientists that have extensive training and have spent their lives working in the field

Ahem...

This reminds me of the Vets and Podiatrists and Nurses giving recommendations and predictions on virology and the pandemic, I guess some people look for anything to support their preconceived notions and jump for joy when they find an exception that agrees.

This thread gets repeated OVER AND OVER. It feels a lot like a game of wacka-mole.

Same post over and over. Attack Attack Attack. "STUPID" "MORONS" "FANTASY" on one side.

Maybe. Maybe not. Only time will tell. On that point, I AM CORRECT. ☺

True, there are scientists with experience and training that do not agree with the climate change theory. Absolutely true.

About 5% disagree completely, about 5 percent challenge some of the parts and predictions and about 5% disagree with the predicted time frame. The other 80% to 90% agree it s the best we have - not nonsense.

So, I assume you would ask 100 people if it would be dangerous to do something and if 90 of them said yes, but 10 said no, and you wanted to do it, you would do it anyway.

Say, something like eating sushi at a restaurant that frequently fails its health inspection, I mean, people eat there all the time - and you like the looks of the place right?

Okay, I will ignore the attacks and insults which seem to dominate your side of the argument.

You consider the opinion of 20% (maximum, many say less) of trained scientists more valid than the opinion of 80% to 90%.

I assume you base your choice of logical evidence on the vast background you have in climatology and a degree you got in that field - at which university was that? I missed it.

In other words, your definition of logical is to accept the advice of the minority and ignore the advice of the majority.

Please educate us on how that works.

Actually my intent was to point out that any time someone takes something as dogma, it is impossible for them to see humor in anything related to it.

Huh??? :1rotfl:

Who is taking anything as dogma? What is your definition of dogma?

I have repeatedly stated that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a THEORY. PERIOD. It is not the bible it was not handed down from on high written on stones.

It is purely a good theory because it predicts changes that are happening, as confirmed by a decades-long study by scientists around the world.

Yes, it makes wrong predictions; yes, it changes its predictions over time - that is why it is called a theory, not a fact.

As far as humor goes, tread lightly on humor. I am willing to bet MOST of the posts here are not intended to be humous and, in fact, reflect people's beliefs and affect how they vote.

How people vote on this issue affects the lives of our children and our grandchildren if the theory is correct.

If it is wrong, it affects YOUR and MINE pocketbooks and leaves a cleaner, healthier world for our descendants.

So, yeah, unless stated as humor, I take this issue very seriously, deadly seriously. The world will not end, as many of the deniers like to claim we say, and we don't. But, life as we know it very well might. Literally, billions of lives are at stake. In a situation with lives at risk, I prefer to err on the side of caution and not on the side of personal beliefs.

Read the annual Defense Department assessment of Climate Change in the annual security report to the president. Climate Change has, for over a decade, been listed among the highest threats to our national security

But, then, who listens to the defense department? They are just stupid leftist, crazy fantasy believers.

"Bogus!" Perhaps both?, The huge amount of data that the experts have has to be weighed, how to determine what is a greater influence? more and more data is always coming in to be factored in . There are some experts who are certain of dire consequences, some being very vocal, assertive in their projections , activists if you will. They will ,being the loudest voices get more attention, right or wrong. I have trouble getting beyond my memory of being told , by experts who HAD the DATA that at this point I should be starving and freezing in the dark, maybe I should just flip a coin?

Some folks seem to think that anyone that does not agree with them is "insulting" being sarcastic or attacking. Does being defensive actually work in a discussion?

Demeaning is a form of verbal/written attack. Attacking a post saying someone who posts something must also believe in the tooth fairy, with nothing posted to refute what is being discussed, is demeaning.

Your post does nothing to advance the discussion; it simply addresses my failure to accept the attacks. A one-liner drive-by with nothing about Climate Change.

Yeah, silly me.

I would LOVE to have a discussion, but very few here want to. Instead, they throw out talking points, also known as dog whistles, in some circles.

Should I be defensive? Of course not; I shouldn't have to be. But, I am tired of the drive-by insults cloaked as discussion. And I plan to address them when they occur until I am given yet another vacation.

In fact, according to the rules, posts are supposed to address the topic and not be directed at other posters - wouldn't that be refreshing posts about the topic? Unlike this one.

ahem...