*reads* *laughs* *reads again* *laughs even harder* You know, that can not even be taken seriously at all when a great many are screaming that anything not in keeping with their views is a "Right Wing Conspiracy" that is "financed by the oil companies":. And anything not in keeping with the "party line" is outright dismissed. And this is what I find particularly fascinating when it comes to looking at both sides of this issue. One side will automatically attack and resort to name calling and dismissing anything they do not like, and it really does not matter what is really being said. Kind of like what I have been asking for ages now. A hell of a lot scream at me I am a "denier", yet the funny thing is not a single one can actually say what my views are, or what exactly I am denying. And whenever all I get is political accusations and slander like that, it is no wonder I simply dismiss most of them because I realize they can not or will not actually discuss the issue. And a great many are so absolutely anti=science that it makes my head spin. Like the one that has been claiming the planet had been cooling for over 8,000 years, and that was the absolute highest point since the ice age started to end. An the funny thing is, anthropologists in addition to climatologists have identified several "Warm Periods". And when I pointed that out, he did the exact same thing. Those are lies, they never happened, it was all a fraud by the "Oil Industry" because everything has been getting colder for 8,000 years. Some forms of insanity simply can't be reasoned with. And one of those is the people that will dismiss absolutely everything simply because it does not conform to their beliefs. That is not science, that is religion.
No, and I am not going to. I have absolutely no interest in listening to a 50 minute podcast. Especially one that from your apparent description is condescending and is of no interest to me. No more than I would listen to a podcast for the other point of view, or just about anything. But I did notice a lot of evasion on your behalf once again, and completely ignoring anything you did not like. As I said, typical behavior, pot.
Ah! So of the two of us - who has an open mind? BTW you just came off the DBR list (Don’t bother reading) and may go back on if this is the level of debate
Hey, big news flash here. I am hearing impaired! My "listening" to a "podcast" is about a useful as telling a blind person to "watch this video". But here is a 20 minute video you can watch.
Why do you think I use actual and references sources? Posting just a video or podcast or something along those lines is absolutely lazy, because it becomes almost impossible to reference anything in them because sources are almost never given. Have you never noticed how much of the things I post are sourced? And how I tend to hold people in contempt that can't reference their claims? Like so many, you seem to think I have some kind of agenda. Trust me, I do not. I simply look to where the evidence points. I encourage people to question what they believe, to look up conflicting beliefs and to do their own research and not rely on "what everybody knows" or what others tell you do believe in. Which is very much the opposite of a great many in here. I actually encourage questioning and people making up their own minds, not simply "going with the flow", or trying to shut others up because they do not agree with your beliefs. That is what a dictator does, or a religious zealot. Both may have a time and place, but not when it comes to science. But want to know what I think about this thread? Just the title alone is offensive. Just replace "climate science denier" and replace it with many other things. Say "homosexual", "black person", "foreigner", and then tell me how it comes off. Offensive, condescending, and as if the person is trying to tell them how they should think, believe, and feel. It is not to encourage interaction and an exchange of ideas, it is to shut them up and make them do what you say.
Uh, they are also on chromosomes. The SRY specifically is on the Y chromosome so in humans it can only influence development of males. Of course it can malfunction due to mutations etc. but it’s still chromosomes determining sex. Here’s what most people miss when we move to gender. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/917990-overview?form=fpf#a2 This makes the argument that phenotypic deviation from genotype (hormonal abnormalities) and variations in genotype (genetic abnormalities) are causing dysphoria very weak. If very few individuals exhibiting dysphoria have genetic or hormonal abnormalities we have to look somewhere else for causality. Second, the overwhelming majority of individuals that have direct generic abnormalities or hormonal abnormalities are sterile either completely or functionally. For example, people with Klinefelter Syndrome must have sperm surgically collected from the testes. They can not naturally impregnate. Another example is Turner Syndrome. Using Artificial Reproductive Tech we can achieve pregnancy in about 40% of cases. But these pregnancies are plagued by stillbirths, miscarriage, etc. Also, risk of death to the mother during gestation is 100 times normal due to aortic rupture/dissection. The point is, we can not say from a scientific point of view these genetic abnormalities and hormonal abnormalities are advantageous from a species survival point of view. In fact, without modern medical interventions these cases have almost zero chance of reproducing. This matters because one of the main arguments used by folks with gender dysphoria I’ve discussed this with is that the condition is not only genetic, but advantageous to the individual and species in some way. So these abnormalities fail both major tests of positive selection in evolution. First, they are not advantageous to the individual or to reproduction (quite the opposite in fact). Second, these traits are not highly heritable. Heritability is so low as to be incalculable except in consanguineous (inbred) populations. Finally, for any trait to be advantageous to non male/female reproduction, some alternative to male/female reproduction would have to first exist. In humans parthenogenesis is excluded because of genetic imprinting and parthenogenesis wouldn’t require a disorder of sexual development anyway. Asexual reproduction isn’t part of human history nor are the requisite genes present even in recessive expression for it to be possible in the future. I see no possibility disorders of sexual development being advantageous. There’s no evidence for this idea. Of course everyone should have the right to refer to themselves in any manner they wish. But biology is pretty objective on the points I’ve made above.
Science deniers are identified by their unwillingness to discuss science. Typically they posit a fallacious argument and then when science is presented that conflicts with their unsubstantiated opinions the discussion is over. Or it simply devolves into more fallacy—usually appeal to authority, ad hominem, appeal to the stone, appeal to emotion, or a cocktail of the preceding.
There is no such thing as "climate science" or a "climatologist". Those are just buzzwords from the Church of Global Warming who completely and utterly reject science (specifically thermodynamics and stefan boltzmann) in favor of their wacky religion that believes that the temperature of something can just spontaneously increase without any additional energy, that thermal energy can flow from cold to hot, that Earth's radiance can decrease while Earth's temperature simultaneously increases, all while completely ignoring the fact that the daytime side of the Earth (with an atmosphere containing evil "greenhouse gases") is actually MUCH COLDER THAN the daytime side of the moon (which lacks any appreciable atmosphere containing evil "greenhouse gases"). Why any rational adult would believe that Earth's temperature is increasing, especially "catastrophically" to the "point of no return", is completely beyond me...........
If you'd stop right here, then I'd completely agree with you. The label is simply an attempt to pressure/shame people into going along with irrational BS. Oh noooo, I'd suuuuure hate to be a **gasp** "denier!" Those who only disagree with the severity and timing of said warming are still members of the Church of Global Warming... just a different sect of it. The "catastrophic" sect doesn't like the "it's not a big deal" sect... I belong to neither sect. I reject the religion outright.
Hell, I damned near go in the exact opposite direction. I actually am pretty much predicting that the "warming" will get so much worse than any of them dare predict. In fact, this is how I predict things will be if this is simply another interglacial, and in around ten (or tens) thousand years or so this is how the East and Gulf coasts will look. And if somehow we had just completed the last glacial cycle (which I do not believe), this is how things will eventually look: Of course, then the timeframe becomes even longer. And yes, I very clearly outright reject the claim of the most hysterical screamers that Antarctica could melt in a few decades to a couple of centuries. But the top image? I actually believe 100% that is what the earth is going to look like in around 10 ky before we start to slip back into yet another glacial cycle. And that these cycles will continue until possibly 60 million years from now. By that time South America will have moved north, until the gap between it and Antarctica is roughly the same as between Africa and Antarctica, and who knows how that will affect global climate. But if that is not enough to melt the South Pole, then it will almost certainly happen by around 100 million years from now. Because at that time, Antarctica will start "running" to the north, until roughly 150 million years in the future when it will wedge itself in between Madagascar and the new combined Indonesia-Australian continent. At which point the chunk of the "western" continent would have actually been left behind as many believe that the Trans-Antarctic Mountains is possibly a plate boundary itself (because such mountain ranges simply do not occur in the middle of plates as that one does), and when most of the continent makes its run to the north, that much smaller chunk will be left behind. But only for about 25 million years, at which point it also will follow the rest of the continent and slam into Australia. But no matter what the ultimate outcome, at sometimes in the near future (geologically speaking), most of Florida will once again be underwater. And eventually most of the Eastern US in addition the Brazil and South Africa will be pretty much unlivable. And I know this because...
You know - that is what Dr Mann said - it has happened before, only not as quickly and the last time it happened this severely was a time we call the PETM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
The thing is, not only do we not know that for a fact. That is only conjecture of the thinnest kind as our actual knowledge of such events is so slender and broad that we can never know how long it took based on what evidence we have. Hell, even geologists can not confirm how long it even happened, with estimates ranging from as little as 20,000 years to over 50,000 years. When the estimate of the duration itself varies so widely, how accurate do you think any estimates of how fast things changed are going to be? And while many are trying to point to vulcanism as the cause, the warming appears to have predated the increased vulcanism and carbon output by thousands of years. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.450.1218S/abstract So how long it happened and how fast it occurred is still being debated by actual geologists. Just as it is still debated how long it takes between glacial cycles to reach a full interglacial, and how long exactly it takes for the planet to enter a new ice age once the interglacial starts to end. There in reality is no "real answer", the evidence is so old and thin that we will likely never have an actual answer until it happens again during a time of recorded history. Especially as the average global temperature at the time was already at around 26c, rose to around 27c at the start of the PETM, and continued to rise until around 34c. To give an idea how that compares to now, our average temperature is currently 15c. So things have to get a hell of a lot hotter before we can even reach the benchmark that the PETM occurred in. Especially as that is the hottest our planet has been since the Cretaceous over 250 million years ago. Those are simple facts, I do not care what climatologist Dr. Michael Mann says. His specialty is climatology in the past thousand years. He is not a geologist who is trained in and studies the climate 55.5 mya. Anybody that is even trying to claim that we are now warming faster than an event over 55 million years ago is in essence lying or simply making things up. And you are doing your usual tactic. Completely ignoring anything I said and trying to divert things to something completely different. Nothing unusual, as that is your normal response to anything you do not like and can not explain. Divert and deflect and hope that nobody notices you dodging things you wish to avoid.
It happened? What is “it”? Are we expecting an 8°C drop in sea surface temps (SST) and then a 33°C increase in SST? Are we experiencing 23°C global terrestrial temps and explosive and sustained volcanic activity? If it’s speed of climate change that kills, how can folks move from Minnesota to Florida and survival? If the PETM resulted in mass extinction, but it wasn’t the rapidity of change that caused the extinction, why aren’t we seeing mass extinction now when change is supposedly 100 times faster than the PETM? Mann’s argument concerning PETM not only excludes pertinent facts, it’s not at all logical.
I’ve seen some estimates of the actual warming period of PETM being only 6,000 years and the rest of the period being slow cooling. And we don’t even know how much temperature rise there was. Anywhere from 5°C to 10°C. I agree we just don’t know and trying to compare something we don’t know details about to today is bizarre.
The first thing I will a climate change denier is that during my life I have noticed hotter summers and milder winters. The second thing I will tell a climate change denier is that on any complex and controversial topic the informed consensus is more likely to be correct than mistaken. The informed consensus is that human caused climate change is happening, and that it is a serious problem. The third thing I will tell a climate change denier is that I understand the science. During the age of the dinosaurs the climate on earth was much warmer. Sea levels were much higher. Much of what is now the United States was under water. Tropical plants lived closer to the north pole and the south pole than do now. Over time plants took carbon out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis. This carbon became coal, petroleum, and natural gas. By consuming fossil fuels we are reversing a process that took hundreds of millions years in a few centuries.
Interestingly, as I had already stated previously the best "indicator" we have for such events is mud cores brought up form the ocean. And even in those, it is sketchy for various reasons. To begin with, one has to use mud cores that are at least 1,700 miles or more from the mid-oceanic ridge. And the reason should be quite obvious, that is where new crust is made. And with an average spreading of around 2" per years (5 cm), one has to find seabed crust that will be older than 55.5 million years. And with the geological processes there is not a hell of a lot of that to be found. And the only way they can really deduct the temperature is by examining the diatoms and extrapolating the temperature based on which ones they find in what they hope is the appropriate layer. And that involves a hell of a lot of other things, like just trying to extrapolate what the ocean currents were like in that time period as they are not the same currents we have today. For example, welcome to Eocene Earth, 55 mya. As should be obvious, the currents at that time period are nothing like they are today. As North and South America are still over 50 million years from meeting and there was a current running through what is now Central America. And there is no "Middle East", so there is a current running through where the Mediterranean is today and not a basin. And obviously the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is nothing like we know now, the gap between it and Australia is not only new but very constricted, so most of it likely turned north towards the equator. So if somebody is trying to use contemporary currents as the model for the Eocene, that is a complete and utter failure. And will provide data and extrapolations that are complete garbage. But the long and short of it is, we can only make some guesstimates and extrapolations according to how we think everything was at that time period. And if there was a wrong extrapolation for the ocean currents, then every other extrapolation made will be complete garbage. Not to mention that a hell of a lot of the diatoms we are using for those extrapolations do not exist anymore. We are extrapolating those as well, as a great many would have died off when the PETM ended and things cooled again. This is why I laugh when anybody tries to "authoritatively" state things like that 55.5 mya. Not even geologists can agree how long those events happened, how fast they started, and how fast they ended. Most can not even say why they happened or ended. For the PETM, the main cause for decades was believed to be vulcanism. However, that was thrown into question as there is now evidence that things were warming thousands of years before the vulcanism started. And I can even bring up many other thing in our geological past that likely had huge impacts on the climate of the planet and most are likely not even aware of. Like the Messinian Salinity Crisis. There is no "magic bullet" with simple answer to things like the climate that far back in geological time. Hell, at that time period even Antarctica was a semi-tropical continent. With lots of marsupials trapped there as it had not all that long ago broken up with South America where they came from, and Australia where many went. A huge number of species that we will likely never know about as they evolved separately from those in South America and Australia, then became extinct when the continent froze.
