Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Focus group - 20 Gen Z republicans "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Democrats don't really debate issues. We just say "trust the experts." How can we debate climate change with a denier? They will say the climate change models haven't predicted accurately; we'll say how can you doubt the experts from good universities, they'll say the scientists are just grant-seeking, we'll say the models may have been wrong so far but they'll be right eventually if we just trust the experts. [/quote] Oh yea they are just grant seeking! As if climate scientists are living high on the hog making millions peddling bullshit. As for the models, they are indeed accurate and even looking at the majority of models from the 1970s to 1990s they correctly predicted: The overall amount of global warming Greater warming over land vs oceans Arctic amplification Stratospheric cooling alongside tropospheric warming (a key fingerprint of greenhouse gases) And those were before we had current satellite and cloud supercompute capabilities. Climate models today are dramatically better than early versions; they run at much higher resolution, assimilate real-world satellite and ocean data in near-real time, and are constantly validated against observed trends. That’s why projections made decades ago are lining up with what we’ve actually measured. In the last decade, event attribution has also matured: scientists now use large model ensembles, observational records, and physical constraints to quantify how much climate change altered the odds or intensity of specific events. It’s no longer speculative, it’s probabilistic risk analysis, the same kind used in medicine and engineering. The stuff that the right wing tosses around to sow doubt, like "they said we'd be under 30 feet of water by now" or "they said we would be going into an ice age" and whatever else is hugely distorted and cherrypicked and is not even remotely an accurate reflection of what climate science is saying.[/quote] What about when the inter governmental panel on climate change was caught manipulating their research outputs. What else are they hiding from us? [/quote] Oh no! It’s a conspiracy. :roll: [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics