- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Somehow you aren't getting that I did provide evidence.
Yes. The scientific community is in agreement that we are getting warmer and have been for decades.
So as usual - Sceptics - nothing, nada, zilch empty rhetorrhic, meaningless cliche's
See this is the whole crux of the issue - there is no alternative explanation other than a wild conspiracy theory
Yes, because the Climate Changing throughout history is a wild conspiracy theory.
So explain to me please how so many scientists throughout the world have managed to co-ordinate this conspiracy?
I note how you ignore the many scientist that do NOT subscribe to the AGW theory.
So as usual - Sceptics - nothing, nada, zilch empty rhetorrhic, meaningless cliche's
See this is the whole crux of the issue - there is no alternative explanation other than a wild conspiracy theory
Perhaps it is because you seem to have some sort of superiority complex...
That seems to be the case with liberals in general and AGWers in particular. They are the experts in every topic and if you disagree with them you are either ignorant, uninformed or biased. If you don't believe it...just ask them. :shrug:
So as usual - Sceptics - nothing, nada, zilch empty rhetorrhic, meaningless cliche's
See this is the whole crux of the issue - there is no alternative explanation other than a wild conspiracy theory
You: OMG CLIMATE CHANGES!!! IT MUST BE OUR FAULT!!!
And this is where science has failed to show how far reaching it's research on this has actually been.I don't think it's a conspiracy.
But I do think it's incomplete analysis - we haven't been analyzing and keeping up with solid records long to actually monitor the wider-spanned natural patterns.
Sure, we know seasons - shorter spans which repeat over the decades and so on. But centuries? We're just not quite there, yet.
One good example of this long-term climate change: some scientists have discovered evidence that the Sahara Desert turns green every 20,000 years or so - the monsoons and everything shifts north due to the earth's natural warble in rotation and tilt and brings all the Southern-African rains north.
Evidence for this is that deep in the Sahara they've found remains of villages and so forth - where, traditionally, people would not be able to live.
So - if this theory is true, how would that affect everyone and everything else? Truly the entire world would alter it's state of existence - in good and bad ways. And it would last long enough to allow people to relocate to previous un-livable lands and settle.
But for scientists to disagree on evidence of modern-day climate change/shift isn't surprising. Scientists come from different schools of thought, philosophy and interpretation - not all of them come to the same agreement on anything, ever.
Everything from ideal cures for illnesses to the proper approach to stabilizing a faltering economy - all the experts *never* agree on the same course of action or cause.
You know, I'm beginning to feel really insulted here. I have provided evidence and reasoning in several threads to show an alternative cause, despite the fact I do not have to provide a new theory to challenge the present theory, and yet you two keep insisting that I have done no such thing.
The problem is you think the scientific community is generally immune to corruption with the bad apples generally all arguing against global warming. Most researchers and scientists are guided by a combination of political and economic motives that inherently cloud their judgment. You should look at who sits on the boards of various universities. When the people paying for your research are looking for a specific conclusion you will look for anything that can support such a conclusion to the exclusion of alternative explanations. Also, when that conclusion would be a boon to some political objective you strongly hope will be achieved it also makes you less receptive to alternative explanations that might damage said objective.
And this happens all over the world and in institutions other than universities?
Why did 187 governments sign Kyoto?
Science has been politicized from the beginning of human inquiry. Naturally it continues to be abused and corrupted to this day around the world.
Why do you put out that number like it makes the science authoritative. Now, I am not going to look up every single country's situation, but it would be fair to say the vast majority are dependent on foreign studies. Never mind a large portion of those countries already have high levels of corruption and governmental abuse of power.
why did 187 governments sign kyoto?
So... we still going with the easily-disproven "Sun" theory or what?
I was kindof hoping somebody would show me some, you know, evidence or whatever.
why? you'd simply ignore it or call the source a shill for big oil. :shrug:
No, I'll respond to it scientifically.
since when? I know I haven't been here that long but that does seem to be your MO whenever anyone produces evidence. Instead of actually addressing the content of the evidence you attack the credibility of the source. just sayin' :shrug:
Pot, kettle, etc. Call my bluff if you don't believe me.
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?