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.
Read the link. Warmers are desperate to prove that the wild weather is caused by AGW. So they are developing a computer model to crap out results faster to prove their allegations.
Problem is, even with the new method, the results will be the same unless the computers are programmed to get the results desired.
Currently, AGW is not causing the wild weather.
Hence the warmers angst.
I think I get your strategy for winning this argument.
1. Post a link to an article.
2. Ignore the content of the article.
3. Wait for someone else to talk about the content of the article.
4. Realize you should have read the article first, and try to avoid admitting you didn't read it.
5. Make up ridiculous fantasies about things you don't understand.
6. Talk about sinister plot to manipulate people.
7. Repeat the same thing over and over to prove that you are right.
8. Talk about how 'warmers' must feel terrible now that you've exposed them as frauds.
You've devised the perfect strategy for winning an argument without ever leaving the comfort of your own imagination. Well done!
Its pretty much proven about gravity through hundreds of years of study.
The study of AGW is what 20 years old?
Doesn't compare.
Your argument has no validity.
My point was that it's a THEORY, not that it's an OLD theory. You said you would only accept facts, and that relying only on THEORY was bad science.
Were you wrong?
(the answer is yes)
Are you the science expert you claim to be, while also making mistakes that a fifth grader would be tested on?
(the answer is no)
And AGW theory is almost 100 years old, and in the same way gravity explains why things fall down and not up, AGW explains why the planet is heating when every other condition suggests it should be cooling.
My point was that it's a THEORY, not that it's an OLD theory. You said you would only accept facts, and that relying only on THEORY was bad science.
Were you wrong?
(the answer is yes)
Are you the science expert you claim to be, while also making mistakes that a fifth grader would be tested on?
(the answer is no)
And AGW theory is almost 100 years old, and in the same way gravity explains why things fall down and not up, AGW explains why the planet is heating when every other condition suggests it should be cooling.
Its pretty much proven about gravity through hundreds of years of study.
The study of AGW is what 20 years old?
Doesn't compare.
Your argument has no validity.
It is your argument that is lacking.....Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.
It is your argument that is lacking.....Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.
They are developing a new scientific model that will shrink to as little as three days the time it takes to establish or rule out a link to climate change, in large part by using highly accurate estimates of sea surface temperatures rather than waiting for the actual readings to be published – a process that can often take months.
Using estimates in place of actual data serves no scientific purpose - their aims are purely political.
This was amusing but now it is just a waste of time. Have a good day.
It is your argument that is lacking.....Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.
So science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists? That means that it is complete folly for your side to keep claiming that the "science is settled", the "debate is over" and there is this 97% consensus of scientists all reaching the same conclusions.
Our understanding of nature and of our climate is changing and evolving all of the time. Once we insert DOGMA into the process of attempting to understand such a dynamic system, we handicap ourselves because then we are only really interested in evidence that points to a particular conclusion.
Frankly it is YOUR side of this debate, who seek to define this issue as something as obvious or intractable as 1 + 1 = 2.
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.
