« First « Previous Comments 35 - 74 of 430 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
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"
« First « Previous Comments 35 - 74 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