Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is true that widely accepted theories have been gradually displaced and disproven even in the hard sciences (i.e. ether, flat earth, the concept of a static universe, etc). The kicker is that in each of these instances, mountains of hard, incontrovertible evidence has been provided in favor of the new theory. So OP needs to put up and provide such evidence or simply shut the f**k up and stop wasting everybody's time.
When science is fouled, you only need to expose the foul play to reject it.
I'm surprised that the Catholics didn't rig Galileo's telescope, and then take a second, official, look at the solar system.
When science is fouled, you only need to expose the foul play to reject it.
I'm surprised that the Catholics didn't rig Galileo's telescope, and then take a second, official, look at the solar system.
The Pope has always been infallible, no?
Sigh..... The scientific world does not work that way. Because there are holes or unresolved aspects about a theory does not automatically discredit it. Hard evidence which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the theory is wrong must be provided.
Try harder. Ball's in your court. Provide convincing scientific evidence that would disprove AGW or go back to a remedial science class.
The rate of increase in CO2 is not unprecedented. That is just full-on make-believe.
And temperatures have not even increased at all over the last 17 years. LOL. Or if you prefer, they have actually decreased since the medieval warming period.
Sigh..... The scientific world does not work that way. Because there are holes or unresolved aspects about a theory does not automatically discredit it. Hard evidence which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the theory is wrong must be provided.
Try harder. Ball's in your court. Provide convincing scientific evidence that would disprove AGW or go back to a remedial science class.
I have engaged with plenty of AGW deniers,etc. on this forum, and I think their arguments are completely bogus. The science behind greenhouse gases and their effects is 100 years old and self-evident.
What is more surprising in my observation is how we came to the view the if we don't screw up the climate, it will be stable. All of the earth's history suggests a tremendous amount of fluctuation. So, while I think it is asinine to thoughtlessly spew greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, I wonder why we have not been thinking about climate contingency planning. Given that the Holocene was an interglacial in a Pleistocene pattern where 90% of the time is much colder, it would seem the risk of a deep freeze is real too. But more generally, why assume the Holocene will continue? It might get colder and it might get warmer, and the precipitation patterns could change, and we should openly discuss all these options, without the political stupidity that surrounds the AGW debate. The balance of nature just does not exist, or to quote the engineers, stationarity is dead.
It is a hugely important topic and the only options I seem to hear are: 1) We are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and that it bad (true), 2) that is a hoax and we should drill baby drill. It is constantly changing. The truth seems be that we cannot count on any form of climate stability long-term, and so we should be building in contingency plans globally for massive changes. For example megadroughts, an Ice Age, an exceptionally hot period, etc. I could be behind on my science here, but how do we know any of these options is not around the corner?
in the end you are right, man would be better suited to get ready for climate changes rather than to try and stop said climate change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Similarly, natural warming happens at a much more gradual pace than AGW... it occurs more quickly than glaciation or cooling, but still takes thousands of years.
really? sop according to the geological record, a 10 degree increase in temperatures in 15 years is gradual, yet somehow a 2 degree increase in temperature in 150 years is rapid? the difference of course being that you ascribe the former as being natural since it was coming out of a period of glaciation, and the latter being that you ascribe to being caused by human activity.
Be smart. Don't just take their word for it. Dig into this subject and think about it for yourself. They are misleading us again. It is not too late and the debate is not over.
Sigh..... The scientific world does not work that way. Because there are holes or unresolved aspects about a theory does not automatically discredit it. Hard evidence which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the theory is wrong must be provided.
Try harder. Ball's in your court. Provide convincing scientific evidence that would disprove AGW or go back to a remedial science class.
Instruments for reasonable measure of correlative effect and change do not exist.
Instruments for reasonable measure of the devastating effects of the Fukishima meltdown or the Corexited Gulf of Mexico do exist, but investigations are not funded.
Nuclear energy is a larger threat to the planet than coal fired global warming ever will be.
The larger part of politics is economic in nature.
NASA is not talking about opinions, they are recording actual temperatures....They are not in dispute.
There is no consensus on how to masseur the temperature in the Halcion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
