Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)

So some people should be allowed to to shoot into crowds, while only those who believe it's dangerous should abstain ? The demonstrated danger of man-made climate change is equally certain.

That is a pretty absurd comparison. And I'm pretty sure you know it. When you are SO emotionally invested making absurd analogies makes perfect sense. Because you are absolutely convinced it must be one way, and one way only.

A better example might be something like some people should be allowed to drive and some people should abstain. The demonstrated danger of people driving is equally certain.

I'm convinced, because all the scientific evidence supports it. The same as all the evidence supports 2+2=4.

Yet you show no hesitation in talking about "natural climate change" or Pleistocene ice age" or any other "theoretical" phenomena or conditions that overwhelming scientific consensus "validates" to bolster your own points. Anthropomorphic (meaning "caused by human activity"; isn't learning new facts or vocabulary a positive accomplishment?) global warming has as great a degree of scientific agreement as almost anything else that cannot be validated by repeated experiments yielding identical outcomes.

No. You have to be remarkably ignorant about the nature of science not even to understand that it is entirely about what is objectively true. The same for maths and the other mathematical sciences. That doesn't mean that what is true is always clear from the outset - the opposite is the reason entire field exists - to get to that goal of revealing objective truth.

I thought that Noob guy had gone away when I joked about blocking him because he had revealed he was Kim Jong-Un's son, but he seems to have vanished entirely. SIte mute or banning, I suppose.

Does all the scientific evidence support it, or do you BELIEVE all the scientific evidence supports it? There is a difference you know.

Think about it for a minute. Does anyone really dispute that 2+2=4? Probably not. But how many people dispute global warming is an "urgent problem requiring radical solution"? A LOT of people dispute that don't they? And they dispute it for scientific reasons.

Not long ago someone said that literally nothing could convince them that global warming wasn't an urgent problem. Which of course means that no new evidence (or existing evidence) would change their closed mind. Such fervent belief and unwillingness to listen to opposition is EXACTLY what religions are comprised of. Probably more applicable, cults actually.

Science is about exploring new ideas, new theories, new information. Absolute resistance to new ideas is what religion is about.

Yes. No. Maybe?

I like your approach much better. "great degree of scientific agreement". That is a much more reasonable way to look at it. Unlike others you don't adopt the all or nothing attitude. Even if there is generally agreement on something there is always room for disagreement. New information. I could be wrong but I think science should be about experimenting and studying things that go completely AGAINST what is generally accepted. Always learning.

I admit I do not understand the position of people like Senior that allow NO room for alternate ideas or information. That kind of rigidity seems very unscientific to me.

And this is why you seem to display a cultish like attitude towards topics like this. Really who says "remarkably ignorant"? You know I'm not ignorant. I know you are not ignorant. But when you are reduced to insults, you basically admit you can't defend your position on merits alone. You simply CANNOT resist the urge to insult people who disagree. It takes a LOT of emotional investment, belief, faith, whatever you want to call it to think that's a reasonable response.

The reason I say science is not about what is objectively true is because it isn't. Science is about learning what COULD be true. But people of faith do not look at it that way.

You are confirming that you don't understand that science is about what is true. You fail to recognise the existence of established scientific fact. You seem unfamiliar with the fact that scientists are constantly concerned about how much uncertainty in their results - it is often a requirement of publication that this is explicitly addressed.

I can't explain why, but I suspect it is the result of only ever being exposed to fragmentary third party views about science-related matters rather than to the science itself. The most relevant example of the latter would be the IPCC reports that summarise the state of knowledge about climate science (with explicit quantification of uncertainty throughout).

old

festers-siesta apparently 'made good on his threat' to leave.
Closed his account today. Probably will return very soon.
Noting: In the previous installment he returned as 'Billy-bingo' or something like that.
Further: people can read these forums while not being logged in or without being chess.com members.
And: Some persons will close their account to beat a mute or block or warning - whether from the chess.com staff or a club admin team or an opening poster.
Sometimes they return with the same name. 30 day mute?
They could try re-opening the account after 31 days.

How different people view what is. A lot of variation.
And unfortunately words like 'ontology' and 'epistemology' don't help.
Even though 'what science is' comes under the latter.
Very few people use those words and their association with 'philosophy' further isolates such words.
--------------------------
Regarding people who choose to not accept various aspects of climate science - 
would they be likely to be 'converted' by anybody knowledgeable or expert in that field?
Try ... No.
It would work in reverse.
What about science itself? Disagreements as to 'what it is'.
Again would people with less science knowledge be likely to have their minds about that changed by anybody with a lot of such knowledge?
Those who tend to accept science could also accept that it takes all kinds to make a world.
For example - there are controversies within science - between real scientists.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/science/articles/futuristic-yacht-makes-unprecedented-achievement-104554139.html

Here's 2 companies to stay away from. https://www.yahoo.com/news/mississippi-man-nearly-100-000-110000292.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9sb2dpbi55YWhvby5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANdCbEB1GSQcF9S6kXnJuMdBHoH1ltQoW32fdD_PiIsUzGyULm_S1IHNAV-FwiXmIeS55uGevwCNpljBEU9PMr2-Fg5mQ6K3eDs87QrLdYjxD-wXhXn_DOO3GNuLfgUo0U1d4ayp8Wpj4WL8bZnfNgD15urZRQ4i3f_tPfrxeOuK

I guess the Mormon's are gonna make some money.