« First « Previous Comments 185 - 224 of 430 Next » Last » Search these comments
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...
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 the existence of gravity isn't "settled science" because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.
Is there a law of co2 planet heating?
Is it a coincidence that many alarmists are atheists that badly need to believe in something?
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.
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.
The fact that one considers something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that they neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit their ignorance.
better?
The fact is that earth is not warming uncontrollably, the arctic is not melting faster than ever, and the ocean level is not rising to flood Manhattan and Florida. Anyone that tells you it is, is ignorant or trying to scam you
I'm not sure about the melting rate at the arctic,
he melting between decades is much less than the melting between seasons. Unless you mistake the seasonal variations as an iwogian asymptote to hell!
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
#3-- The ice in Antarctica is melting faster than modeled.
Then why is Florida still above sea level?
Onvacation saysThen why is Florida still above sea level?
Can you show me the model that predicted Florida would be under water in 2018?
« First « Previous Comments 185 - 224 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