« First « Previous Comments 53 - 92 of 430 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
Without future predictions compared to future empirical observations, there is no science.
Is Geology a science ?
According to you, if they can't take in to account all variables and a highly complex system coming up with perfect predictions, then we can't use the warming that has occurred as confirmation of their theory.
The best approach to pollution, resource depletion , and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is to limit population size in first world countries. A person in a first world country uses 100x the resources as a person in the third world.
I don't think this is true if you consider that 3rd world countries still burn forests to make land for cattle etc.
To continually burn forests means you have to let the forests grow back. Compare that to first world water use (showers, dishwashers, clothes washers, lawn, car wash), burning of hydrocarbons (gasoline, electrical generation, heating homes, air travel) and trash generation (unused food, paper, bottles, packaging) and you will see that indeed the ration is 100 to one. Keep in mind that we may not burn forests, but we sure clear a few to keep building homes, strip malls, factories and related sprawl that comes with increasing population.
The future (relative to when they predicted it) has shown them to be correct.
Now you're going to change your rules
According to you, if they can't take in to account all variables and a highly complex system coming up with perfect predictions, then we can't use the warming that has occurred as confirmation of their theory.
It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
No one is doubting that carbon dioxide is having an effect.
The question is HOW MUCH?
Co2 is essential for life. More co2 helps plant growth. Greenhouse farmers double the ambient co2 with no adverse effect to the growers and great effect to the plants.
The best approach to pollution, resource depletion , and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is to limit population size in first world countries.
The question about co2 is what kind of effect?
Co2 is a trace "greenhouse" gas that with all the other greenhouse gases stops some of the sun's heat from radiating back into space.
I don't really understand why the alarmists made CO2 public enemy number 1.
They hate cars.
uggesting multi-trillion dollar worldwide initiatives
When the consensus finally agreed that cigarette smoking causes cancer, were there people saying that if it doesn't cause cancer in everyone, or if you can't say exactly how many cigarettes someone has to smoke in order for them to have cancer, or even how many years they have to smoke to get this result, then it just isn't settled science ?
The global warming debate is specifically about the MODELING of the results. It's the model we question. No one is doubting that carbon dioxide is having an effect. The question is HOW MUCH? The decisions to fix the problem are all based ON HOW MUCH is man made vs natural fluctuations. It's not a yes or no question. It's a question of degree. (Literally and figuratively.)
last April happened to be the third-warmest April ever recorded globally, according to the NOAA report released Thursday. Carbon dioxide levels also hit another milestone by reaching the “highest level in recorded history at 410 parts per million” last month"
What is your backup plan if man made co2 is the problem and spirals out of control?
FEELINGS
These are qiestions the alarmists have no answer for. Instead they revert to calling the sceptics stupid as they have no answers themselves.
Can they really measure worldwide average temperature down to hundredths of a degree?
Onvacation saysIt just seems ridiculous to talk about a worldwide average temperature that can be measured down to hundredths of a degree.
Not sure why I'm explaining this
Please link to the calculations where thousands of thermometers are used to find the average year long temperature for the entire world with accuracy down to hundredths of a degree for the last century.
Even if you were averaging 100 numbers that were accurate to plus or minus on tenth of a degree, you would get an average that is accurate to one hundredth of a degree.
The fact that this is hard for you to grasp
calculations where thousands of thermometers are used to find the average year long temperature for the entire world with accuracy down to hundredths of a degree for the last century.
marcus saysThe fact that this is hard for you to grasp
Like I said, when the alarmist have no answers they go personal.
Even if you were averaging 100 numbers that were accurate to plus or minus on tenth of a degree, you would get an average that is accurate to one hundredth of a degree.
Like I said, when the alarmist have no answers they go personal.
Yes or no ?
calculations where thousands of thermometers are used to find the average year long temperature for the entire world with accuracy down to hundredths of a degree for the last century.
Aphroman says
What is the optimal temperature for humans.
I like 72 degrees Fahrenheit.
Necrophiliac?
« First « Previous Comments 53 - 92 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