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.
What would any of that have to do specifically with AGW? Are you somehow unaware that the Earth has been cooling and warming in naturally recurring cycles for millions of years? And, in fact, both CO2 and temperatures have been MUCH higher in the past, LONG before man ever walked the Earth. Plus, the two don't even necessarily track.
All of these questions and the reasoning behind our understanding that we are one of the prime driving factors in this current round of climate change have already been answered in this thread.
Even if you decide to reject it as conspiratorial data manipulation, there would be no purpose posting the same things that have already been said so that you can just call it a conspiracy again.
I have no desire to chase my own tail on that circular logic train.
All of these questions and the reasoning behind our understanding that we are one of the prime driving factors in this current round of climate change have already been answered in this thread.
In other words: No, we AGW cultists haven't proved a thing. Just made insinuations.
Quote:
I have no desire to chase my own tail on that circular logic train.
All of these questions and the reasoning behind our understanding that we are one of the prime driving factors in this current round of climate change have already been answered in this thread.
There is no such "understanding." There's an asserted hypothesis that's backed by falsified, skewed, and/or manipulated data, but it's not even a theory. There's insufficient evidence that rules out other causes.
In other words: No, we AGW cultists haven't proved a thing. Just made insinuations.
Exactly. AGWers have a hypothesis, only. There isn't even enough valid evidence to categorize their hypothesis as a theory. So much for the scientific method.
If a chemist were to tell you that he has a fluid that will extinguish a fire, and it fails to extinguish a fire, his science isn't settled in my mind.
Wow, zzsnorlax said the word "false" five times in a row.
So I guess we have to accept his ideas as proven.
Right?
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.
