Page 4 of 6 [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,625
Location: Twin Peaks

21 Feb 2019, 1:02 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Regardless, you specified the necessity of a deree in climate science, when none of the consensus climate change scientists have one. You said having a degree in physics doesn't count, when there are climate change scientists who have a degree in physics.

And how do you know what Piers Corbyn has studied? Did you know he began recording weather and climate patterns 66 years ago at the age of five?

You have this attitude that science has to be compartmentalized, and no scientist who doesn't call themselves a "climate change scientist" can talk about climate science.

It's like Jehovah Witnesses refusing to even consider anything outside of Jehovah's Witnessism.

You have that backwards. Unlike climate change proselytizers, I don't a have strategy or agenda to convince people of things by parroting the same few scripted phrases over and over again.


First of all, can you provide a source for the list you gave so we can see what criteria they used to decide who are the leading experts? Because my guess is that they are considered experts because they've studied climate science for a while (because climate science includes fields like geology and meteorology and some of the other fields in which the people you listed have degrees in, if your list is accurate) and they have done studies on the subject whose findings have been published in peer reviewed journals and whose findings have been repeated by other studies and therefore are further supported by more evidence of their findings being an accurate description of reality. That other guy hasn't published whatever he may have studied or researched in climate science in a journal so his peers can review and repeat his results, so I have no reason to listen to anything he might say on climate science.

And yet here you are, parroting the same few phrases of your unsupported opinion about climate "proselytizers" over and over again while simultaneously claiming that's not what you're doing in the same breath. :lol:

I never used the phrase "climate change scientist", so you putting that in quotes as if you are quoting me saying that is disingenuous argument and a misrepresentation of what I was arguing (which you seem fond of).

But go on, keep repeating yourself. It's entertaining. :wink:


Why would climate change science journals let someone publish something that doesn't fit in with their narrative? Can you point out any scientist who's been allowed to do so? And why do you need me to cite a source? Is it that you rely on what climate change scientists say without even knowing who they are?

Parroting is copying what others are saying, therefore one can not be parroting when they are giving their own personal opinion.

No I am not quoting you when I write "climate change scientist" unless you're saying you coined the term.



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

21 Feb 2019, 1:46 am

EzraS wrote:
Why would climate change science journals let someone publish something that doesn't fit in with their narrative?


I don't know why you're asking that question because nothing I said in my last comment suggested that.

EzraS wrote:
Can you point out any scientist who's been allowed to do so?


Again, I never suggested that so I don't know why you are asking this question.

EzraS wrote:
And why do you need me to cite a source?


I am curious to know where you got that list of experts because I want to know what their criteria was for choosing those particular people as the leading experts.

EzraS wrote:
Is it that you rely on what climate change scientists say without even knowing who they are?


What? This seems like a non-sequitur. I want to know if the people you listed have published studies on climate science in peer reviewed journals so I know whether they really are experts or not, so I know whether to give what they say about climate change credibility or not.

EzraS wrote:
Parroting is copying what others are saying, therefore one can not be parroting when they are giving their own personal opinion.


One can parrot oneself by repeating oneself, as parrots do constantly.

EzraS wrote:
No I am not quoting you when I write "climate change scientist" unless you're saying you coined the term.


This question also makes no sense. I said you were giving the impression by putting that phrase in quotation marks that it was something I said in one of my comments when I never used that term and suggesting I did is disingenuous argumentation. I don't know what who "coined the term" has to do with this except it makes me wonder whether you understand what I meant by quotation marks indicating that you are quoting someone, hence the name "quotation marks".



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,458

21 Feb 2019, 3:03 am

EzraS wrote:
Parroting is copying what others are saying, therefore one can not be parroting when they are giving their own personal opinion.


I don't think the scientists are parroting each other though or giving their personal opinions?

Their conclusions are based on hard data. The only questions is the impact of the consequence of global warming. It extends from major upheaval and significant worldwide deaths to (on the other extreme) complete extinction. Take your pick...



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,625
Location: Twin Peaks

21 Feb 2019, 3:24 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Why would climate change science journals let someone publish something that doesn't fit in with their narrative?


I don't know why you're asking that question because nothing I said in my last comment suggested that.

EzraS wrote:
Can you point out any scientist who's been allowed to do so?


Again, I never suggested that so I don't know why you are asking this question.

EzraS wrote:
And why do you need me to cite a source?


I am curious to know where you got that list of experts because I want to know what their criteria was for choosing those particular people as the leading experts.

EzraS wrote:
Is it that you rely on what climate change scientists say without even knowing who they are?


What? This seems like a non-sequitur. I want to know if the people you listed have published studies on climate science in peer reviewed journals so I know whether they really are experts or not, so I know whether to give what they say about climate change credibility or not.

EzraS wrote:
Parroting is copying what others are saying, therefore one can not be parroting when they are giving their own personal opinion.


One can parrot oneself by repeating oneself, as parrots do constantly.

EzraS wrote:
No I am not quoting you when I write "climate change scientist" unless you're saying you coined the term.


This question also makes no sense. I said you were giving the impression by putting that phrase in quotation marks that it was something I said in one of my comments when I never used that term and suggesting I did is disingenuous argumentation. I don't know what who "coined the term" has to do with this except it makes me wonder whether you understand what I meant by quotation marks indicating that you are quoting someone, hence the name "quotation marks".


Perhaps I misunderstood you.

I'm wondering why you don't know who they are or if the leading experts are other people from the ones I listed. You seem to rely on what climate scientists say, so I would think you would be familiar with who they are.

Usually the term parroting refers to copying what others have said since a parrot can't actually form words or phrases on its own. It can only copy what it hears from others.

I was putting quotation marks around a term to indicate it's a term used by others rather than a term I would necessarily choose to use myself.



Last edited by EzraS on 21 Feb 2019, 3:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,625
Location: Twin Peaks

21 Feb 2019, 3:27 am

cyberdad wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Parroting is copying what others are saying, therefore one can not be parroting when they are giving their own personal opinion.


I don't think the scientists are parroting each other though or giving their personal opinions?

Their conclusions are based on hard data. The only questions is the impact of the consequence of global warming. It extends from major upheaval and significant worldwide deaths to (on the other extreme) complete extinction. Take your pick...


That's not what karathraceandherspecialdestiny and I were talking about.



magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,945
Location: Poland

21 Feb 2019, 3:32 am

cyberdad wrote:
It extends from major upheaval and significant worldwide deaths to (on the other extreme) complete extinction. Take your pick...

Can you please give me a link to an actual peer-reviewed journal article claiming this?
Most of the time I do trust scientists but I definitely distrust journalists claiming what scientists say.


_________________
Keep calm and choose your battles carefully.


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

21 Feb 2019, 5:19 am

EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Why would climate change science journals let someone publish something that doesn't fit in with their narrative?


I don't know why you're asking that question because nothing I said in my last comment suggested that.

EzraS wrote:
Can you point out any scientist who's been allowed to do so?


Again, I never suggested that so I don't know why you are asking this question.

EzraS wrote:
And why do you need me to cite a source?


I am curious to know where you got that list of experts because I want to know what their criteria was for choosing those particular people as the leading experts.

EzraS wrote:
Is it that you rely on what climate change scientists say without even knowing who they are?


What? This seems like a non-sequitur. I want to know if the people you listed have published studies on climate science in peer reviewed journals so I know whether they really are experts or not, so I know whether to give what they say about climate change credibility or not.

EzraS wrote:
Parroting is copying what others are saying, therefore one can not be parroting when they are giving their own personal opinion.


One can parrot oneself by repeating oneself, as parrots do constantly.

EzraS wrote:
No I am not quoting you when I write "climate change scientist" unless you're saying you coined the term.


This question also makes no sense. I said you were giving the impression by putting that phrase in quotation marks that it was something I said in one of my comments when I never used that term and suggesting I did is disingenuous argumentation. I don't know what who "coined the term" has to do with this except it makes me wonder whether you understand what I meant by quotation marks indicating that you are quoting someone, hence the name "quotation marks".


Perhaps I misunderstood you.

I'm wondering why you don't know who they are or if the leading experts are other people from the ones I listed. You seem to rely on what climate scientists say, so I would think you would be familiar with who they are.

Usually the term parroting refers to copying what others have said since a parrot can't actually form words or phrases on its own. It can only copy what it hears from others.

I was putting quotation marks around a term to indicate it's a term used by others rather than a term I would necessarily choose to use myself.


I could search for the names of the people you listed, but since you provided the names it's fair to ask you where you got those names from, so I can check your source and see what their criteria were for choosing those people as representative climate experts. I don't know how to explain that any more simply than I already have.

Parrots can learn words and phrases and then repeat themselves as often as they like, and frequently do. It's what they are known for. You're being unnecessarily pedantic just to argue and split hairs while avoiding my questions and not providing the source I asked for of the names you listed earlier, and it's tiresome. Up your debate game or I'll lose interest.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,625
Location: Twin Peaks

21 Feb 2019, 5:42 am

You are displaying being very much in the dark as to who the climate change scientists are. Even if the list I provided is inaccurate, you should still have some comprehensive knowledge of who does and doesn't belong on a list of the top climate scientists.

https://thebestschools.org/features/top ... scientists.

Nonetheless parroting usually means copying and repeating what others say.



oscarinthewild
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 16 Feb 2019
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 183

21 Feb 2019, 10:17 am

hopefully not only the climate science but all sciences .. scientists all over the world should come together..


_________________
“I say that no human being will ever understand me, because I will never…my inner—Cemil—will never be open to anybody. No human will ever understand me. I always play. This is the truth."


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,945
Location: Poland

21 Feb 2019, 10:40 am

oscarinthewild wrote:
scientists all over the world should come together..

They do.
It's called conferences.


_________________
Keep calm and choose your battles carefully.


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,276
Location: Palestine

21 Feb 2019, 12:00 pm

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
The evidence wasn't just put up and then the consensus said "ok you got me". Took a lifetime.



This guy has no degree in climate science. His degrees are in physics and astrophysics, he never studied weather or climate science at school but subjects like superconductivity. Also his opinions on climate change have never been published in any scientific journals. So he's not any kind of climate scientist or expert on climate change.

His opinion does not impact the consensus of climate scientists because he is not among climate scientists to impact the consensus.


'Climate science' is a complete sham itself. Piers Corbyn gets his predictions right pretty much all of the time where as 'climate scientists' get pretty much everything wrong.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,276
Location: Palestine

21 Feb 2019, 12:06 pm

It's very convenient for governments to blame any of their negligence on 'climate change' or 'extreme weather' and tax the hell out of people.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,625
Location: Twin Peaks

21 Feb 2019, 1:04 pm

That's really what it probably comes down to. A democrat government will say it needs to tax the hell out of everyone to prevent the end of the world in a few years. And then when the world doesn't of course end, they'll say "by golly it worked. But now it has to be maintained...".



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 63,922
Location: Queens, NYC

21 Feb 2019, 1:14 pm

I believe there is "climate change." I don't believe "climate scientists," for the most part, are doomsdayers. What they're doing, frequently, is presenting "worst case scenarios," rather than what they believe will definitely happen.

Frequently, they are presenting potential cause-and-effect sorts of situations. Like: This COULD happen if THIS occurs. They are not presenting it as something that will, inevitably, happen. But as something that COULD happen, unless we do "this or that."

I believe, at times, that "climate change" is overly politicized. Politics shouldn't enter into it.

But I also believe that Trump wants to exploit our natural resources too much, and provide less protection to lands set aside as worthy of preservation.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,625
Location: Twin Peaks

21 Feb 2019, 1:34 pm

I don't have much to say against climate scientists at this point in time. It's the laypeople going around proclaiming we're all going to die in a few years.