NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

Believe me, I did.

The equations were already in place in the 70ies, scientists were already aware of the problem back then, long before the effects became apparent, as they are now. In the 90ies scientific awareness of the problem became acute. What has followed since then is all about politics, hence the IPCC committed an error in handling the poor science they refused during the 'email-scandal', because when issues are a political hot potatoe, you have to act accordingly. However, eventually it's good practice to refuse bad science.

But this is exactly the problem, people get the political battle, anyone gets the controversy of two groups yelling at each other, journalists understand this too, and interest groups certainly do. But the controversy veils the fact that climatologists basically all agree what's going on, and they understand that you cannot pump massive amounts of energy into a closed system, and not expect something to happen. It's basic physics, much more basic than the complicated equations seem to suggest.

It seems to me that you fell for the controversy and neglected to look at the science, perhaps you need to think for yourself?

<blockquote data-quote="Jimi H." data-source="post: 171862" data-attributes="member: 6066">Believe me, I did.The equations were already in place in the 70ies, scientists were already aware of the problem back then, long before the effects became apparent, as they are now. In the 90ies scientific awareness of the problem became acute. What has followed since then is all about politics, hence the IPCC committed an error in handling the poor science they refused during the &#039;email-scandal&#039;, because when issues are a political hot potatoe, you have to act accordingly. However, eventually it&#039;s good practice to refuse bad science.But this is exactly the problem, people get the political battle, anyone gets the controversy of two groups yelling at each other, journalists understand this too, and interest groups certainly do. But the controversy veils the fact that climatologists basically all agree what&#039;s going on, and they understand that you cannot pump massive amounts of energy into a closed system, and not expect something to happen. It&#039;s basic physics, much more basic than the complicated equations seem to suggest.It seems to me that you fell for the controversy and neglected to look at the science, perhaps you need to think for yourself?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jimi H., post: 171862, member: 6066"] Believe me, I did. The equations were already in place in the 70ies, scientists were already aware of the problem back then, long before the effects became apparent, as they are now. In the 90ies scientific awareness of the problem became acute. What has followed since then is all about politics, hence the IPCC committed an error in handling the poor science they refused during the 'email-scandal', because when issues are a political hot potatoe, you have to act accordingly. However, eventually it's good practice to refuse bad science. But this is exactly the problem, people get the political battle, anyone gets the controversy of two groups yelling at each other, journalists understand this too, and interest groups certainly do. But the controversy veils the fact that climatologists basically all agree what's going on, and they understand that you cannot pump massive amounts of energy into a closed system, and [I]not[/I] expect something to happen. It's basic physics, much more basic than the complicated equations seem to suggest. It seems to me that you fell for the controversy and neglected to look at the science, perhaps [I]you[/I] need to think for yourself? [/QUOTE]

Verification