- Joined
- Mar 5, 2018
- Messages
- 8,009
- Reaction score
- 1,428
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
[Squawk!] fallacy! fallacy! fallacy! fallacy! fallacy! fallacy! fallacy! [/Squawk!]
You could always stop making fallacies.
Given the extremely short duration of such datasets they are essentially a worthless curiosity to be used as a political football by the greedy for the gullible. There really is nothing unprecedented going on at either pole if one looks at ice core data from recent millenia as I've illustrated many times here
Yeah, I suppose the NOAA is lying in their original article, and you know better.
The annual report released Tuesday says rapid warming over the past three decades has led to a 95 percent decline of the Arctic's oldest and thickest ice.
Yeah, I suppose the NOAA is lying in their original article, and you know better.
The annual report released Tuesday says rapid warming over the past three decades has led to a 95 percent decline of the Arctic's oldest and thickest ice.
Yet the Arctic today is still well within the natural temperature variation of the last 4000 years. Funny that :wink:
View attachment 67247917
Graph taken from peer reviewed paper Kobayashi 2011 before you ask
I wasn't around then. We don't know the cause and effect. Today, we know cause and effect.
No .... we actually don't its all just non empirically based assertion and thats the major problem with the AGW hypothesis . All the rest is just politics sadly
No it's not. It is science - science by thousands of Climatologists from around the world. All the major scientific organizations endorse it. There are peer reviewed publications. It is way beyond a "hypothesis". "Sadly", it is the oil industry that has turned it into "politics".
Yes. Because before that, the German tribes had no technology to cross the Rhine.
That’s just common sense.
I couldnt care less about the oil industry. What I care about is what is scientifically and empirically verifiable and the AGW hypothesis most certainly isn't
It has been verified now, year after year, for about 30 years. The science is solid. It is NOT a hypothesis any more than electron theory and electrical currents, which is proven in practice and acceptance.
You fail to grasp very inportant concepts. Electron theory for example we have quantified to something like five significant digits or more. None of us are saying AGE isn't real. We are saying the quantification is poor, not even to one significant digit.
It has been verified now, year after year, for about 30 years. The science is solid. It is NOT a hypothesis any more than electron theory and electrical currents, which is proven in practice and acceptance.
Please provide your electron theory reference. There is much about electron theory that we don't know. Math is based on suppositions, not actual electron flow.
It has been verified now, year after year, for about 30 years. The science is solid. It is NOT a hypothesis any more than electron theory and electrical currents, which is proven in practice and acceptance.
It has been verified now, year after year, for about 30 years. The science is solid. It is NOT a hypothesis any more than electron theory and electrical currents, which is proven in practice and acceptance.
What *exactly* has been verified?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?