« First « Previous Comments 14 - 53 of 430 Next » Last » Search these comments
Instead, the religious global warming left continues to explain away those things that challenge their predetermined model.
The NASA data does not support the headline from Newsmax
the far right crowd.
Define far right
Do denialists even know basic thermal physics?
Nor is average SURFACE AIR temperature indicative of the average stored thermal energy of ALL air, land, water and ice on the globe.
CBOEtrader says
Define far right
Ran out of time to play this morning.
that average SURFACE AIR temperature is NOT equal to the average temperature of ALL air, land, water and ice on the globe?
Ran out of time to play this morning.
2015 was the second warmest year EVER according to manipulated NASA data. 2016 was 4/100 of one degree hotter, THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER! according to the alarmists.
Since then it has been getting colder.
The horror, the horror.
I see almost the complete opposite. There are different models that all the science people and most of the intelligent folks understand are only models based on educated guesses (not predictions). It was always about hypotheses, trends, scientific facts, evidence and RISK ..
IT was never about anyone claiming to have absolute certainty about what's happening. But it's the denier right wingers, that use the argument that without absolute certainty 9 different ways from Sunday, it's foolhardy to avoid risk simply by expediting the use of alternative and more environmentally friendly energy sources. Which is something that probably would have other long term geopolitical benefits anyway.
It's only those that massively profit from maximizing the use of fossil fuels that stand in the way of good common sense energy policy and investment.
This is such an about face that I consider it an admission that the science is not settled and welcome you to the skeptic side, since you are no longer asserting that there is any foreseeable danger from global warming, I mean climate change.
I still see a danger and a risk. I don't have to have absolute certainty about the exact magnitude of the danger in order to believe policies are justified.
This is called backpedaling.
You act as if what's happened is so incredibly for from the projections of models.
Al Gore who said something to the effect that one scientist says POSSBLY the ice caps would be completely gone in the summer by 2014 (or whatever year it was).
will alarmists ever admit they were wrong about CAGW.
Nobody ever said with absolute certainty they were able to predict exactly how it will unfold.
Here are graphs of a bunch of models. We know that so far is that several of these models are relatively accurate.. But they are just models. Nobody ever said with absolute certainty they were able to predict exactly how it will unfold
How can there possibly be consensus and settled science then?
Oh yeah. Did the scientist predict the current cooling?
Because all of the graphs are of exponential increase in land and ocean temperatures. Thats the part that there is nearly total agreement on.
I know that you guys are all about black and white, absolute certainty versus "I can ignore this,"
absolute certainty versus "I can ignore this,"
No-one said this. I would like to see intellectually honest discussion rather than weak attempts to slander skepticism, which is the backbone of scientific process. Anyone who used the phrase "science denier" has no business discussing this topic.
The climate change debate has been conducted in a terribly unscientific manner.
Except, that it didn't happen
WHAT is the hypothesis and WHAT future empirical evidence determines support for your hypothesis vs disproving your hypothesis?
Science can be done using only past data and observations.
And that can't be proven by a method you are referring to
can't be proven by a method you are referring to in a time frame that would save us from ruin
Greenhouse Effect impliesjustme says
agree with the aboveScience doesnt "agree" with implications. Scientific process determines known facts and associated odds of known facts, as well as odds of predictable modeling. Even with known facts, without predictable modeling there is little we can do to effect the outcome. Theories "imply" empirical results. What are the predicted empirical results? What would prove vs disprove your theories?
Perhaps in a totally fucked world 2 centuries from now, the trust fund inheritors of fossil fuel fortunes will still be arguing that we just don't know what caused the earths great catastrophic global warming.
marcus sayscan't be proven by a method you are referring to in a time frame that would save us from ruin
The same can be said for giving yourself to Jesus Christ and thus not going to Hell. It cant be empirically proven until its too late.
Climate change = religion.
The same can be said for giving yourself to Jesus Christ and thus not going to Hell. It cant be empirically proven until its too late.
Climate change = religion.
« First « Previous Comments 14 - 53 of 430 Next » Last » Search these comments
The average global temperature dropped by more than half a degree Celsius from February 2016 to February 2018, according to recent NASA data.
Read Newsmax: NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18