« First « Previous Comments 166 - 205 of 430 Next » Last » Search these comments
Onvacation saysI am pretty sure you won't answer out of ignorance or obfuscation, but can you tell the audience how much the temperature and sea level has risen over the last century? You can use the alarmists adjusted numbers if you want.
It's been posted on here dozens of times. What's the point of doing it again? You'll just ignore it as usual, or claim the data is manipulated.
My post isn't appearing. what's up?
Obfuscation it is
The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?
2. The mechanism in which CO2 causes warming is well understood and proven.
But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?
once it's well understood show us the model. CO2 goes up by X amount equals Y rise in temp? Please solve for X and Y.
Then show us the empirical evidence to support this model.
This is where global apocalypse believers get wacky. Even if we were to believe your apocalyptic fear mongering, do you really think the Paris accord or any other political agreement is going to end the burning of fossil fuels? If the apocalyptic future is a possibility, the only chance we have is technology innovation to replace cars w something that doesn't burn fossil fuels.
At least once. Probably more.
LeonDurham says
I said the mechanism is well understood.
Obviously it's difficult to model the Earth's ecosystem
I posted no such apocalyptic fear mongering.
the consequences of global warming are potentially dire,
You can't have it both ways
If the models are correct, ...
No, if the models are correct, then the consequences WILL BE dire. I said they are potentially dire because we don't know if the models are correct
I thought the science was settled.
Just preserving this, too...
Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere.
The models are obviously just that--models.
Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven. Unless you’re going to submit models for proof.
LeonDurham saysThe models are obviously just that--models.
Whoops.
Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.
you're wrong that any other effects are theories. That is factually incorrect.
Just preserving this, too...
Since I can’t seem to find such proof in any of the literature I’ve consumed on the subject, I’ll go on considering the climate change thing a theory and NOT settled science. The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance
Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven.
he fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.
Rebutting my argument with a mere statement
LeonDurham saysModels aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.
Just preserving this, too...
Malcolm says
I thought the science was settled.
I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.
Models may be inaccurate to some degree, and they may deal in probabilities. Neither of those make them unscientific.
You sound like a science denier.
Questioning that we must tax gasoline across the planet to pay an unelected international billionaires club to save us from dire consequences = you are a slothful mouth breather.
Yes, this one is a real beaut.
Malcolm saysYes, this one is a real beaut.
Troll #2 makes an appearance as well.
It's funny. If one simply quotes and responds to a post, it is duly saved. To quote and not respond is really the height of trollishness.
There's not much I can add to some of your insights, so I just read with my mouth agape, as I am sure many others are, including some who are on your side of the topic. In over ten years of my participation on this site, yours are by far the most surreal strings of logic that I have ever read. It is literally like watching someone being told that there is no Easter bunny despite the compelling physical evidence of chocolate eggs that can only be explained by the existence of the Easter bunny.
lol--with no examples, of course. No thoughtful response pointing out the error in my logic or even where you disagree with my opinions.
our logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.
Your logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.
You are basically saying that gravity doesn't exist because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.
A bit of a stretch, but yes, even in this example, if you can't correctly predict the outcome, you don't have a full understanding of the subject.
You obviously haven't read anything I've written. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I've been saying
f you don't actually believe the science is settled relating to human caused climate change, then it is you who are trolling by asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it.
Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.
Sorry, but you have just precisely rephrased my point. You are just wanting to alarm for no actual reason. That is precisely what an alarmist is.
I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.
Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.
asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it. The problem there is that the rest of it is the point of the discussion. The atmosphere obviously holds in heat like a blanket. The effect of CO2 is not understood, ergo bad model result, and more likely it is the amount of water vapor and clouds that determines how much heat is trapped.
Could you please point out where I'm alarming? Pointing out the existence of the greenhouse effect discovered in the 1820s is alarming?
LeonDurham saysThe only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?
Just preserving this...
« First « Previous Comments 166 - 205 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