Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

Nope.

 

So now you're contradicting yourself. Do you think a man can actually transition into a woman?

 

Your OP says you stopped debating. This shows your dishonesty in creating this thread. You continue to debate by trying to prove your agenda. It's why I don't read a thing after that.

 

Yep, its just not magic.

 

Did Sagan really assume that? May I ask how do you know?

That comment would surprise me given it was logical that, due to industrialization, CO2 output rate would increase for at least a few decades before decreasing. I would have thought that Sagan at least had a basic grip on logic.

 

I’m going off what he testified to the US Senate.

The IPCC issues predictions based on varied assumptions. Low, medium, high emissions scenarios to keep it simple. It’s a little more complicated than that. Sagan picked a low emissions scenario. I can’t read a dead man’s mind so can’t say for sure why he did.

I’m just guessing because he’s dead, but the idea was likely to present a low emissions scenario with dire consequences as an appeal to emotion argument. It sounds serious to say even if we keep emissions at current levels we will see a several degree C increase in temps.

If you read IPCC reports (I’m an odd bird that actually does) their early reports made the same errors as Sagan. We just didn’t have as much data and understanding in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s as today to work with. The IPCC has admitted their early predictions were inaccurate based on incorrect assumptions about emissions. I believe Sagan did later as well.

 

Biology chromosomes and just common sense say that that is not possible.

At the end of the day you can call it a woman as long as you know that it's still a dude with a penis

 

Here is the quote from the transcript of his testimony to the Senate. Others have been accusing me of making it up but I can assure you I’m not.

The real error was in not knowing exactly how much warming certain atmospheric CO2 levels cause.

 

Dogmatic denial of science, whether in climatology, medicine, or some other discipline, is not amenable to data.

Inevitably, it is ideologically based, and not amenable to evidence, no matter how blatant and overwhelming.

Stephen Jay Gould regretted wasting time in the futile act of "debating" biblical literalists concerning biological evolution. He had better things to do.

 

Why do you believe? Because you completely understand the science? Because of the scientific consensus (which does not exist)? Because you believe that is what you should believe?

Be honest now.

 

Clearly some sheeple do. Science/climate propaganda salesman make pretty good money these days! Some make so much they can afford beach front property

 

Some of us are capable of actually actively improving our environment (decreasing erosion, sequestering carbon, locally decreasing summer high temperatures, etc.) while still educating folks like you on the facts.

Perhaps folks in your examples can’t chew gum and walk, but many of us can.

At this very moment I’m engaged in producing my own food in a carbon neutral manner while educating folks like the OP on the actual math involved in Sagan’s predictions and the IPCC predictions and why they differ. I’m presenting actual data, taking concrete actions to improve the environment, and pointing out fallacies of folks like yourself and the OP.

 

I recognize that an overwhelming concurrence of scientists in any discipline or medical field is far more apt to reflect objective reality than the opinion of a layman with an ideological predisposition, particularly a politician or media entertainer with no expertise, especially when the evidence apparent to me concurs with the scientific predictions.

 

And sheeple blindly following science preachers is hardly any different. Both have had there sharlatens for centuries. The sad fact is, the herders have become much smarter and their flocks much dumber.

 

I am disposed to respect the overwhelming concurrence of scientific bodies, while encouraging constant, rigorous, critical analysis of continually-accumulating data, whether it concerns anthropogenic climate change, biological evolution, or the shape of the earth.

Scientific Consensus - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

​

 

Cool. You believe the global temp is rising. So do I. Nice strawman you have there. Care to address the content of my post?

 

Whether respecting scientific expertise or blindly following a media entertainer's ideological dogma, we must always be open to data-based revisions.

 

The OP is not open to revision. He claims Sagan predictions from 1985 are correct and current predictions from the IPCC are incorrect.

 

As I noted, I don't presume to expatiate in contravention of the overwhelming consensus of the most qualified in any scientific discipline.

Scientific Consensus - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
​

If I have a heart problem, I consult a cardiologist, and am ready to seek second or third opinions from other cardiologists. I don't take seriously someone with no qualifications who is antagonistic to cardiologists.
​

 

Yes. That’s why EVERYTHING I post on matters of science, be it health focused biology or climate science is based on the best available evidence produced through application of the scientific method. It’s why I choose the projections of the IPCC over the unsubstantiated opinions of the OP.

 

Show me a single study where they actually asked the scientists about their beliefs in AGW and got anything approaching a 97% consensus.

 

Except it is, you seem to forget that half a mans DNA comes from the female.

 

Don’t waste your time arguing with climate change deniers, antivaxxers and trump’s big lie proponents. You know what they say about arguing with idiots.

 

OCTOBER 20, 2021

New research shows scientific agreement on anthropogenic nature of climate change strengthened since 2009

... 100 percent of the most actively publishing climate experts—those who had published 20 or more climate papers each between 2015 and 2019—accept that global warming is human-caused.

"The findings show that consensus has increased across the board. The findings also reaffirm that consensus increases with the level of expertise—the more you know about climate science, the more likely you are to understand that humans are responsible for climate change. Near 100 percent of scientists in our most expert group who identify as climatologists and actively publish in the peer-reviewed literature are in complete agreement that climate change is real and caused by humans," says Peter Doran.

[https://phys.org/news/2021-10-scientific-agreement-anthropogenic-nature-climate.html]​

 

Ok, got it. Not quite the same as assuming that the rate of fossil fuel burning will remain the same, imo.

It is also not inconceivable that 'present rate' could also be a verbal shorthand for 'present rate of change' (of fossil fuel burning).

This is why we have written stuff as well - it is more precise and less open to interpretation than verbal testimonies.