Quote:That's a very inconvenient point for Fiorina backers, and you'll never get a serious reply to it.

 

One can deny certain aspects of science while embracing others. For instance, I would not dare to challenge Dr. Carson's knowledge of the human brain, but I will challenge him on geology any day of the week.

 

Honest question: have you ever seen actual, unfiltered meteorological data? It's a brutal, unforgiving spaghetti bowl of numbers. Climatological data is much more complex than looking at temperatures over time. The numbers are every bit as mercilessly confounding as the numbers for meteorological forecast data are.

 

By virtue of one of my chosen hobbies, I know a lot of meteorologists. Like, a couple dozen, some of whom are still wrapping up their degree, and some of whom have PhD's in atmospheric science and climatology. There is absolutely no debate amongst them that global warming is real, it is happening, and despite what politicians playing to a base say, humanity has absolutely had an impact on it. How big of an impact is up for debate, but none of them is dumb enough to go onstage in front of millions of Americans and argue that climate change is made up, or that we have no impact on it. I'm not getting my frame of reference from hack journalists who will cherry pick one sentence out of an entire 30-page academic paper and base their entire argument on that; I'm getting it from people whose job is to look at those hundreds of pages of numbers and make sense of them.

 

The point I'm trying to get at is that anyone can look at numbers and draw a conclusion, yes, but there's a big difference between interpreting data well enough to be presenting your position on national television and reading just enough to back the conclusion you arrived at the second someone told you what the party line was. Anyone who stands on that stage and says that climate change isn't happening or that we aren't responsible for it to some degree is just playing to their base. Spend ten minutes with someone who's spent the last 20 years studying climatology for a living, then try and convince yourself that it's not real. Dr. Carson, clearly, has not included any climatologists or meteorologists in the band of advisors that will tell him exactly what to do and when to do it.

 

lol...  this is so sad its funny.  "I know a guy..."  We're being lectured by people on interpreting vigorous scientific data based on the idea of...  "I know a guy..."  

 

No mathematical correlations, no longterm trends, no explanation for the fact that in the historical glacial records there is no direct correlation between an increase in CO2 and temperatures (sometimes increase in temperature pre-dates the increase in CO2 by centuries) no one stops to think that we have been collecting temp data directly for less than 1% of 1% of the estimated age of the earth...  

 

More importantly no one COMES UP WITH AN ECONOMICALLY SUSTAINABLE PLAN TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT... and we know a guy.  

 

I knew a bunch of climate scientists who went on a trip to Antarctica to prove the the loss of glacial ice and in the process there was so much more ice than they anticipated that it took two ice breaker tankers to go rescue them while they tried to calculate their carbon footprint for being rescued...  

 

I KNOW A GUY...  lol.  

---