You haven't seen my posting yet. I have posted this before and always get flack. Right now I am having trouble with the Seattle Times link. I can get it but don;t think it will be retrievable for others. I have copied it in word and can include the article but it might be too long for most to read. I have an ad blocker and the paper wants me to remove it to get access.

@JackPedigo I have ad blocker also. It does present a challenge sometimes.

Thank you for you support!

@JackPedigo gracias

Open the site and read the information. It is a science based organization. Naturalistic as opposed to super naturlistic.

@JackPedigo I drew a breath when I saw the word movement and stopped when I saw the word funding.

@Geoffrey51 I don't see how that can effect one's point of view.

@JackPedigo movement means we've got an idea that you need to know about and funding means give us some money so we can tell you what it is,

@Geoffrey51 That is only one interpretation. Another is that people start seeing connections (like agnostic.com) and participate. Funding means realizing nothing is free and worthy things often needs money for research or infrastructure.

@RoadGoddess There are various opinions about the quantum gravity loop theory of quantum physics. Is loop theory then not science?

@RoadGoddess Apply critical analysis and you learn that the 97% figure is suspect. A closer number might be 52%.

[journals.ametsoc.org]

No matter what the figure is, scientists are not unanimous about the cause of the current warming trend, whether the trend will continue, or whether drastic, immediate, and expensive action is justified.

In 1900 most physicists believed in the aether theory, but today very few do. Taking a vote is not the way to determine truth.

I do not see enough evidence for man-made climate change to make me believe that drastic action is needed, or that such action would even be effective. I will defer judgment.

@WilliamFleming Much as the debate in the 60’s and 70’s over the association with smoking and lung cancer, the evidence for the impacts of human activity on climate continues to mount. The question isn’t so much as to the facts, but rather, what to do about them. We each have a right to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.

@pnfullifidian Whew! I was expecting a verbal drubbing but you have made a reasonable and polite response, one that I agree with.

Almost everyone knows that temperatures have been rising and that human burning of fossil fuels is at least partly responsible. Dr. Roy Spencer pegs the rise at 0.13C/decade,(lower atmosphere from satellite measurements) and he is not very concerned. I am not very concerned at this point but that could change in the future.

@WilliamFleming Reasonable people deserve reasoned replies ... peace.

One can know the truth and often using critical thinking is the only way to get there. Critical thinking is about knowledge the individual seeks and, as the article mentioned, one has to be able to put aside others opinions.
As far as Climate Change goes, most climatologists agree on the problem. Also, one doesn't have to be a scientist to see and often feel the on going change in climate. Even here, on this island there has been changes in our climate. It is obvious to all but the most dull witted.

@RoadGoddess Apparently I know more about Dr Spencer than you do. If you are googling just to find support for your own opinions it is easy to find whatever you want. I doubt if you’ll even look at this, but be advised that Dr. Spencer himself developed the NASA technology for measuring the earth’s temperature with satellites. He is a highly acclaimed scientist and it is not becoming to sling insults.

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

You didn’t even read what I wrote. I said that ALMOST everyone knows that temperatures have been rising and that humans are causing at least part of the rise. As far as I can determine, that is Dr. Spencer’s position and yours also. Where do you get condescension out of that? You are not making sense—it is you who need to do more research.

@RoadGoddess, @JackPedigo My opinion is that you can not determine climate trends for the entire globe from your local weather conditions. The system that Dr. Spencer developed for NASA, for measuring worldwide lower atmospheric temperature seems to me a good method. Since inception of the technique the earth’s temperature has risen at a rate of 0.13C/decade. That is not very much, and it is not certain if that rise will continue. Therefore I am not very concerned at this time.

@RoadGoddess They certainly are in fields like sociology and history

@RoadGoddess, @JackPedigo To use critical thinking effectively you need to cite the sources that your hypothesis is built upon otherwise it is no more than opinion.

@WilliamFleming interesting to find a debate on climate change science here, I had thought this issue settled some time ago. The dissenting voices seem to be mostly paid shills in the scientific community. If you look at the models which have been most accurate to date, they seem to indicate a large man-made shift in climate this century.

@Geoffrey51 I disagree. Critical thinking is not about others but oneself. True one needs information but that information can come from a variety of sources over time. Often one source is not enough. Again, it is about oneself not others.

Who cares if others disagree!! People disagree with me all the time and will continue to do so. I am not running for office. All I care about is learning what is going on. It should be about oneself not others or what others think. Also, it is about questioning our own beliefs and challenging ourselves to look deeper and to be willing to accept uncomfortable ideas.
About knowing the answers the simple fact is that there are answers and many we can and do know. If you get cut you will bleed, we all will die, the planet has finite resources, we (humans) are not the center of the universe and on and on.

@JackPedigo if you are truly going to engage in critical thinking it is necessary to obtain reliable, substantiated information. You can critically think yourself into anything that agrees with your preferred outcome. This is how conspiracy theories and Evangelicl Christianity are so popular. Critical thinking is about engaging not self-pondering. Maybe give it another name.

@JackPedigo if you are truly going to engage in critical thinking it is necessary to obtain reliable, substantiated information. You can critically think yourself into anything that agrees with your preferred outcome. This is how conspiracy theories and Evangelicl Christianity are so popular. Critical thinking is about engaging not self-pondering. Maybe give it another name.

@JackPedigo, @RoadGoddess Wikipedia is nothing to do with me but pass on your sources please so that I can improve my knowledge

@Geoffrey51 This second comment is just a rehash of a previous one. The word "critical" means not being concerned with what is comfortable. Critical is not comfortable; 2 different concepts.

@RoadGoddess It’s not new age, it’s new thought, and there is a difference. I am not making any claims. All I said was that at this point I’m not very concerned about climate change. Your being a woman has nothing to do with anything. Women challenge me all the time. Sounds like you don’t like being challenged by a cheeky man.

It’ll always be the other side that isn’t thinking critically. From my perspective, my thinking will always be impeccable. Claiming to be a critical thinker adds nothing to a debate.

Aside from all that, I am sorry to have run afoul of a fellow bicycle enthusiast. I rode from Anchorage to LaGrange GA when I was 65.

I hope you are having a nice day.

I am going to let this sink in and then post it, maybe tomorrow. There will be a bit of attached levity. I have been called out about this before so I know what is coming.

Feel free to tag me when you post. I'm cooking, so I'll look at the link here in a bit ?