Science Returns

Post Reply New Topic

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

They do.
It's called conferences.

'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.

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.

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...".

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.

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.

You act as if I’m the first human to figure out how to treat what ails him. I suppose I should be flattered.

There is no reason I would know off-hand who the top climate scientists are in the world without looking that up. I'm not a climate scientist so there is no reason for me to know that. I trust scientists that when they say 97% of them agree on something they are telling me the truth, because why would they lie about a consensus on the information they have gathered and analyzed? Your idea that anyone who knows anything about anything also would know off-hand the names of all the top scientists in any field they know even the remotest facts about is ridiculous and unreasonable, but you know that already and that's why you are arguing it.

I see that the list you provided came from a source where they explain in detail how the person has studied climate science for years, what aspects of it they specialize in, and that they have been extensively published in peer-reviewed journals, so now I can trust that this list is a good representative list of climate scientists. This is how you check sources, which everyone should do on the information they take in. So now I can trust that these 10 scientists are a good informed source about climate change, and of course they agree with the consensus that climate change is anthropogenic and a serious problem the world needs to address. All that squirming you did so I could be confirmed in my belief in climate change and that informed specialists believe in it too because of the extensive evidence they have studied.

What I'm saying is that if one is going to argue a scientific theory, they're not going to have much credibility when they're arguing it with someone who appears to know more about it than they do. I think if someone is going to talk about what climate change scientists say, they should at least know who some of the most well known climate scientists are. If they don't, it seems pretty obvious that they haven't actually read or listened to anything they have to say. It seems more likely they've just skimmed a few magazine articles written by non-scientist journalists.

Then there's the part where you seemed to discredit a scientist because he had a degree in physics rather than climate science, when it turns out some of those recognized as the top climate scientists also have a degree in physics and other non climate science related fields. It all points to, you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to climate science.

In addition to going a little extra step in learning a little bit about who some of the most well known consensus climate change scientists are, you should also be a little bit familiar with who the some of the most well known skeptical climate change scientists are, so that you can have at least a basic understanding of the spectrum of that science. Those scientists are also on that list.

And that list isn't exclusive to that source I linked. It's actually pretty common knowledge to those who actually know something about climate science. Just like the names of the most well know political figures are known to those who discuss politics. Can you imagine someone arguing politics without even knowing the names of any politicians?

You flatter yourself by claiming that you discovered the cause of autism and discovered the ultimate treatment for autism.