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.
The only thing you have demonstrated is your ignorance of the topic and the definitions you use. While it is humorous to see such arrogance in the use of ignorance, it is also quite sad. I pity you.
Since you've been pretty well stuffed on all your arguments I suppose all you have left are personal attacks.
This globe were on has been changing for millions of years. I noticed the tree-huggers don't call it global warming anymore.
How much do you hackers really know?
Take the test....and read the answers: The Global Warming Test
You're wordsmithing to uphold your beliefs. Everyone knows the word "consensus" is not meant in a political sense regarding the most popular view, but in a sense that a majority of scientists agree that there is evidence for a particular hypothesis. Evolution, for example, has a general consensus among scientists based on the existing evidence.
And yet again, consensus does not prove or disprove a hypothesis.
I think you need a refresher on definitions.
Quote:
con⋅sen⋅sus
–noun, plural -sus⋅es.
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
What does that mean when scientists form a consensus? Well, it means they form a "majority of opinion", a "general agreement" on their topic.
Now do you see anywhere in there that proves or disproves the topic they may have an opinion on?
How does it provide evidence to support their agreement? Where does their consensus prove that AGW is true?
Science is not a process of establishing a majority of opinion. It is a process of testing and validation. If the testing fails, it doesn't matter how many experts you get to agree that it is valid, it does not all of a sudden make the testing results different.
Consensus is not applicable in scientific processes which must be quantified to establish validation. To claim otherwise is to be obtuse.
Since you've been pretty well stuffed on all your arguments I suppose all you have left are personal attacks.
That is all you started with, why should I waste my time with anything different? You only deal in fallacies and personal attacks, so as they say... When in Rome!
Since humans are most seemingly
responsible for the changes so far, it is
clear to the IPCC that climate change
will continue and probably accelerate.
Faster changes will be certain if we
continue to emit greenhouse gases. But
even if we stop burning fossil fuels
today, global warming and sea level
rise will continue for several centuries –
bringing further increases in extreme
weather events as heatwaves, heavy
rain and snowfall. Also, the regions
affected by drought will become larger
and future tropical cyclones will
intensify, with higher peak wind speeds
and more heavy rainfall.
Then what? I know we should tax people to death now and make them pay and their children pay for the next 300 years even if it'll make absolutely no difference. Scam artist is what you folks are. I bet if any of you had the balls to say it your jobs are probably dependent on this fear mongering so you'll receive funds to do what? To tell us we can't change it now or in the next 200, 300 or 1,000 years. F off...
That is all you started with, why should I waste my time with anything different? You only deal in fallacies and personal attacks, so as they say... When in Rome!
I'm still waiting for you to come up with a reputable scientific professional organization that thinks global warming is not happening.
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.