Thanks to Global Warming and Man's impact Tornadoes set a record in the USA this year.

[Threegoofs]

I'm brand new here. I have no problem with admitting that I don't know everything. I'm far from being a know-it-all. But how about you? You "believe" without knowing for yourself? Hey, if all the world's scientists said something was true but it didn't sit right with me, I *still* wouldn't believe. That's like saying that if I lived in Iran, I'd believe in Allah. Guess what? I probably wouldn't.

You obviously cave under peer pressure. Otherwise, you'd be concerned that there were aspects of your Global Warming faith that don't add up.

Now, I know FOR A FACT that the scientific method requires predictions support a theory before it should be accepted. If all the world's scientists fail to do this, they are wrong. It's as simple as that.

BTW, nothing like "all the world's scientists" support Anthropogenic Global Warming. The oft-touted "97%" figure is a myth. It was derived by soliciting a group of self-proclaimed climate scientists, then throwing out all the responses that were "Unsure" about AGW. Nearly all the responses were "Unsure." Of those who said they WERE sure about AGW - and I think it was something like 50 people - 97% said AGW was real.

Read this and get back to us.

IPCC ? Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(Hint- click on the underlined text)

 

[Decomposed]

If you were a Scientologist and you just threw a copy of Dianetics at me instead of trying to explain your religion, I'd (1) think you were most likely UNABLE to explain your religion, and (2) would consider it to be pretty chicken $#!+ since it makes me, and not you, do all the work.

But I'm new and maybe that's how it's done here. I'll get started on your lengthy read. But fair is fair. Here is one for you as well. (Hint: Click on the linked articles.) That way we can both "get back to us" when we're done. https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/

 

[Decomposed]

And I have explained things rather well when I had the time to.

You are to be commended for that. I've explained things rather well too - when I had the time. But neither of us did our explaining in this thread, so bringing that up doesn't accomplish much.

If you can steer me to your relevant explanation(s), I'd be delighted.

 

[Steve Case]

Ha ha ha. That's funny. Do you have anything useful to say?

"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious" - George Orwell.​

In the world of choosing exactly how the "problem" of too many people on the planet is solved,
there are some obvious points to discuss. Picking and choosing who; is not going to be allowed
to have kids, be euthanized at age 65, sent to a re-education & work center, denied food & water,
sent on a forced march .... You get the picture.

 

[Quaestio]

*** PART 1 of 2 *****

I don't grab at low hanging fruit. I have questions pertaining to the theory that need to be addressed before I will be convinced. Nobody seems to want to do that. They just want me to believe, keep quiet and pay higher taxes. Unfortunately, I'm kind of stubborn that way. I came up with the following list years ago. Most of the questions still need to be answered.

1) Is the Earth's temperature actually rising?
2) How do we know?
3) ASSUMING THE ANSWER IS YES, by how much?
4) Will it continue to do this, or will forces, natural or unnatural, halt or reverse the process? (As has happened countless times in the past.)
5) What will a warmer Earth be like?
6) How do we know that?
7) Is that bad or good?
8 ) How do we know that?
9) What should be done about the rising temperature?
10) How much will doing this cost?
11) Who should foot the bill?
12) Does the world have that much money?
13) What will spending this much money do to our quality of life? In other words, what will our lives be like?
14) Does it make any sense to make the recommended changes when far larger polluters such as China aren't doing so?
15) Could doing this make the problem WORSE instead of better? (Letting a starving man stuff himself will KILL him.)
16) Could Global Warming just be a political tool, not a real threat?
17) Why are politicians on ONE SIDE using Global Warming to enhance their careers and fortunes?
18 ) Why are scientists who disagree about Global Warming being "taken out"?
19) Why are civilians who disagree about Global Warming taunted?
20) Why isn't it a HUGE story that, per #18, scientists are pressured to behave in a very unscientific manner... namely, to treat Global Warming as
fact? (Oregon’s chief meteorologist was fired by the governor because he “denied” Global Warming. NASA’s chief denied it, created a firestorm, then
abruptly backed off of the claim. I could go on.) There’s less pressure these days on deniers of RELATIVITY.
21) Since Global Warming is supposed to cause climate change, why are stories about heat, dryness and fire getting all the publicity, instead of stories of
cold, rain and blizzard?
22) Why is the New York Times printing articles about Virginia oceanside towns that are going underwater… and attributing it to Global Warming...
when we all know that the ocean rise has been insignificant. Besides, if the oceans had risen,
all such towns would be going underwater equally. So, why is the NYT printing such things?
23) Why are Global Warming stories that have since been proven false not commonly known? (The polar bear population is actually INCREASING, etc.)
24) Why is Global Warming so focused on the North Pole, where ice is decreasing, and not on the South Pole, where most of the world's ice is located?
25) Why is ice at the South Pole INCREASING?
26) Could the Sun actually be the cause of Global Warming?
27) How much of Global Warming could be due to the increased sunspot activity (which affects cloud formation)
28 ) Why is Global Warming Occurring?
29) Is Man responsible?
30) How do we know that?
31) Why are the ice caps on Mars decreasing?
32) Why is a WEAK greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, getting the blame? Water vapor is a far better greenhouse gas. Methane is vastly better still.

Take some responsibility for your own education. If you don't want to spend years getting degrees and researching in a lot of different fields of science, then at least read some textbooks, then read some of the freely available major reports.

 

[Quaestio]

***** PART 2 of 2 *****

33) Based on studies of Antarctic ice, CO2 levels are today 94 ppm higher than they were 650,000 years ago. That means there is less than one
additional CO2 molecule for every TEN THOUSAND other molecules of air. The information comes from here – a global warming
site: Carbon Dioxide – Think Global Green . I've studied chemistry. There are NO significant systemic changes that occur with chemical
introductions at those levels. Any comments?
34) Why isn’t Al Gore being crucified by scientists (and, actually, by everyone else) for his claim three years ago that oceans would rise TWO HUNDRED AND
TWENTY FEET (67 metres) between 2014 and 2019?
35) Has he lost his credibility because of this, in your view?
36) Are there any concerns by the left that Al Gore's exaggerations and fear-mongering have made him one of the Uber-wealthy that they claim to despise?
37) MIGHT, just MIGHT, that have been Al's real motive?
38 ) Where is the liberal outrage of the ENORMOUS carbon footprints generated by some of the Global Warming proponents best known politicians? (Al
Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards, to name just a few.)
39) Ray Kurzweil, one of the world's visionary geniuses (he's the premier authority on voice recognition, among many, many other things), sides with you that
the Earth IS warming. However, he is certain that it is an utter waste of time and money to do anything about it today since, within 30 years, nanotechnology will
have advanced to the point that carbon-eating nanobots will be readily available to deal with "the problem" for practically no cost. And today, we don't have
the technology to deal with the problem at all. WHY ISN'T THIS BEING DISCUSSED?
40) Why has the left zeroed in on Global Warming, and not the Earth’s other huge environmental problems –some of which we all acknowledge to
be real. What makes Global Warming more important than:
• The expanded ozone hole
• Depletion of the rain forests
• Pollution of the oceans
• Population growth
• Insufficient food production
• The water crisis
• The energy crisis
• Proliferation of nuclear weapons.
41) If Global Warming is such an open and shut phenomenon, why are there so many world class (and Nobel prize winning) physicists, chemists and
meteorologists who have stuck their necks out to denounce the weakness of the evidence, the contradictory evidence, and the theory's many flaws?

And maybe the most important:
42) Why do its advocates treating Global Warming like a religion, to be accepted with faith, to not be challenged?

Proceeding to tackle Global Warming without satisfactory answers to nearly all of these questions... and so many others... is sheer stupidity since it will mean that we won’t know what we’re doing … or why ... but are spending the money and possibly doing harm in the process.

Again: Take some responsibility for your own education. If you don't want to spend years getting degrees and researching in a lot of different fields of science, then at least read some textbooks, then the freely available major reports.

And try to stay away from the pseudoscience conspiracy blogs and online tabloid media.

 

[Quaestio]

I'm brand new here. I have no problem with admitting that I don't know everything. I'm far from being a know-it-all. But how about you? You "believe" without knowing for yourself? Hey, if all the world's scientists said something was true but it didn't sit right with me, I *still* wouldn't believe. That's like saying that if I lived in Iran, I'd believe in Allah. Guess what? I probably wouldn't.

You obviously cave under peer pressure. Otherwise, you'd be concerned that there were aspects of your Global Warming faith that don't add up.

Now, I know FOR A FACT that the scientific method requires predictions support a theory before it should be accepted. If all the world's scientists fail to do this, they are wrong. It's as simple as that.

BTW, nothing like "all the world's scientists" support Anthropogenic Global Warming. The oft-touted "97%" figure is a myth. It was derived by soliciting a group of self-proclaimed climate scientists, then throwing out all the responses that were "Unsure" about AGW. Nearly all the responses were "Unsure." Of those who said they WERE sure about AGW - and I think it was something like 50 people - 97% said AGW was real.

The vast majority of the worlds scientists agree that gravity is real. If you don't accept that from them and need to 'know for yourself", then I suggest you try jumping off the top of a 20 story building without a parachute to test it for yourself.

 

[Quaestio]

With regard to the oft-quoted "97% of all Climate Scientists agree with AGW" claim - here are some of the criticisms from participants in the Cook survey - which is one of the sources thought to have originated the claim. ( And it's fascinating that "97%" is constantly repeated but NOBODY is positive where that number originated! They can only speculate. But why bother challenging something that's supporting your position, eh?)

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

*snore*. He thinks he's the first one to copy and paste quote mines from the PopTech pseudoscience conspiracy blog.

 

[Quaestio]

I'm not a "denier." I'm a skeptic.

Both "deniers" and "believers" claim to have the answers. They should be able to prove their point but, so far, cannot. Only skeptics remain open-minded.

No, you're a science denier. To be a true sceptic you have to actually understand all the science before you criticize it.

You're also a climate truther because you swallow silly conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

 

[Threegoofs]

If you were a Scientologist and you just threw a copy of Dianetics at me instead of trying to explain your religion, I'd (1) think you were most likely UNABLE to explain your religion, and (2) would consider it to be pretty chicken $#!+ since it makes me, and not you, do all the work.

But I'm new and maybe that's how it's done here. I'll get started on your lengthy read. But fair is fair. Here is one for you as well. (Hint: Click on the linked articles.) That way we can both "get back to us" when we're done. https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/

Yeah, well.. you pretty clearly need to do some work.

And reading Reddit won’t qualify.

 

[Decomposed]

Take some responsibility for your own education. If you don't want to spend years getting degrees and researching in a lot of different fields of science, then at least read some textbooks, then read some of the freely available major reports.

That I do, Quaestio. In fact, I now have the answers to some of the questions I posted (which originated 7 years ago.) Sadly, most of the questions are still NOT answered - and I think they're pretty important questions. You'll notice that the Global Warming advocates here just pawned me off on AGW websites that, I would wager, THEY haven't themselves read instead of trying to field my questions. They don't have the answers to most of them. Nobody does.

After reading a LOT about AGW for two decades, Here is what I'm quite certain is going on:

AGW is, first and foremost, a political device wielded by liberals in order to whip voters into a frenzy over something that they know full well the conservatives cannot fix. It scares people, and scared people are usually not very rational. These scared people DO know that Democrats are most likely to solve the problem so they vote that way. Thus, it is an IDEAL tool for the Left. If successfully used, this device will allow Democrats to route vast sums of money into projects they control, run by their political friends. And that is what AGW is all about.

Not to be outdone, conservatives have their own political tool: It is called 'The War on Terror.' The device is wielded by conservatives in order to whip voters into a frenzy over something that they know full well the liberals cannot win. It scares people, and scared people are usually not very rational. These scared people DO know that Republicans are most likely to win the war so they vote that way. Thus, it is an IDEAL tool for the Right. If succssfully used, this device will allow Republicans to route vast sums of money into projects they control, run by their political friends. And that is what The War on Terror is all about.

One difference is that The War on Terror at least has *some* substance to it. 9-11 and other terror events *do* occasionally occur. Therefore, it could be pressed by the Left and is not as good of a political device as Global Warming - which is only propaganda. How can conservatives combat propaganda? It's really hard. They'd have to create some fictional solutions for Global Warming of their own, but getting their own voters to back what is, essentially, a tree-hugging cause would be almost impossible.

I don't "DENY" Global Warming. It might be happening. If it is, humans might be the cause. But I am skeptical since there are so many things that are suspicious about the theory and the way it has been embraced by one side of the political spectrum. I await some undeniable evidence. If the Northern ice cap had melted, that would have done it. But, guess what? The ice cap is only down from its average by a few percent, and it is on the increase. We are well within the realm of "This year it's a little below average; next year it will probably be above average." The Antarctic ice, meanwhile, continues defy expectations. In October 2014, it set a record maximum. Loss of ice in the west is being more than offset by thickening glaciers in the eastern interior, growing at a rate of 100 billion tons per year. Three years ago, NASA announced that because of the factors causing the ice to accrue, it will "take at least three decades before we got to a point of beginning to see net losses." And the Antarctic is, by far, the biggest source of ice on the planet. It has 90 percent of the Earth's fresh water. And it is growing. And will be for another 30 years.

Within 30 years, nanotechnology will likely yield nanobots capable of reproducing (for a limited number of generations, one would hope) and "eating" atmospheric carbon. This will solve the global warming problem at very little cost. It would be insane to drastically and, for many people, FATALLY, alter our lifestyles in order to fight a battle today that isn't even going to manifest itself for another 30 years when cheaper solutions will be at hand.

IMVHO.

 

[Threegoofs]

That I do, Quaestio. In fact, I now have the answers to some of the questions I posted (which originated 7 years ago.) Sadly, most of the questions are still NOT answered - and I think they're pretty important questions. You'll notice that the Global Warming advocates here just pawned me off on AGW websites that, I would wager, THEY haven't themselves read instead of trying to field my questions. They don't have the answers to most of them. Nobody does.

After reading a LOT about AGW for two decades, Here is what I'm quite certain is going on:

AGW is, first and foremost, a political device wielded by liberals in order to whip voters into a frenzy over something that they know full well the conservatives cannot fix. It scares people, and scared people are usually not very rational. These scared people DO know that Democrats are most likely to solve the problem so they vote that way. Thus, it is an IDEAL tool for the Left. If successfully used, this device will allow Democrats to route vast sums of money into projects they control, run by their political friends. And that is what AGW is all about.

Not to be outdone, conservatives have their own political tool: It is called 'The War on Terror.' The device is wielded by conservatives in order to whip voters into a frenzy over something that they know full well the liberals cannot win. It scares people, and scared people are usually not very rational. These scared people DO know that Republicans are most likely to win the war so they vote that way. Thus, it is an IDEAL tool for the Right. If succssfully used, this device will allow Republicans to route vast sums of money into projects they control, run by their political friends. And that is what The War on Terror is all about.

One difference is that The War on Terror at least has *some* substance to it. 9-11 and other terror events *do* occasionally occur. Therefore, it could be pressed by the Left and is not as good of a political device as Global Warming - which is only propaganda. How can conservatives combat propaganda? It's really hard. They'd have to create some fictional solutions for Global Warming of their own, but getting their own voters to back what is, essentially, a tree-hugging cause would be almost impossible.

I don't "DENY" Global Warming. It might be happening. If it is, humans might be the cause. But I am skeptical since there are so many things that are suspicious about the theory and the way it has been embraced by one side of the political spectrum. I await some undeniable evidence. If the Northern ice cap had melted, that would have done it. But, guess what? The ice cap is only down from its average by a few percent, and it is on the increase. We are well within the realm of "This year it's a little below average; next year it will probably be above average." The Antarctic ice, meanwhile, continues defy expectations. In October 2014, it set a record maximum. Loss of ice in the west is being more than offset by thickening glaciers in the eastern interior, growing at a rate of 100 billion tons per year. Three years ago, NASA announced that because of the factors causing the ice to accrue, it will "take at least three decades before we got to a point of beginning to see net losses." And the Antarctic is, by far, the biggest source of ice on the planet. It has 90 percent of the Earth's fresh water. And it is growing. And will be for another 30 years.

Within 30 years, nanotechnology will likely yield nanobots capable of reproducing (for a limited number of generations, one would hope) and "eating" atmospheric carbon. This will solve the global warming problem at very little cost. It would be insane to drastically and, for many people, FATALLY, alter our lifestyles in order to fight a battle today that isn't even going to manifest itself for another 30 years when cheaper solutions will be at hand.

IMVHO.

Summary.

Nobody knows the answers to my questions, mostly because I dont bother to look them up. Ive been reading about this stuff for years, and you just cant believe the volume of time I’ve devoted to learning it on Reddit.

It’s all political and all fake, and besides, all the stuff is made up, so its a conspiracy, and its no big deal even if its happening, and if it is happening, we will be able to magically fix it by nanotechnology because nanotechnology is magic.

That’s pretty close.

 

[Quaestio]

Summary.

Nobody knows the answers to my questions, mostly because I dont bother to look them up. Ive been reading about this stuff for years, and you just cant believe the volume of time I’ve devoted to learning it on Reddit.

It’s all political and all fake, and besides, all the stuff is made up, so its a conspiracy, and its no big deal even if its happening, and if it is happening, we will be able to magically fix it by nanotechnology because nanotechnology is magic.

That’s pretty close.

Yeah I'm not even going to bother wasting my time with that last post of his.

 

[Decomposed]

No, you're a science denier. To be a true sceptic you have to actually understand all the science before you criticize it.

You're also a climate truther because you swallow silly conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

Now you're just being silly. Nobody on this earth understands "all the science."

I'm a skeptic because I don't know whether global warming is caused by man, or even if global warming is happening at all. I don't say it is not happening. Maybe it is. There's not much evidence that that's the case, though, and I notice that neither you nor anybody else on this forum is speaking of supportive predictions made years ago that turned out to be right. Not because such predictions weren't made - they were - but because they were pretty much all WRONG. Once again: The scientific method says that when a theory is tested and fails, the theory must be revised and tested again until the tests support the theory.

Hasn't happened.

 

[Quaestio]

Now you're just being silly. Nobody on this earth understands "all the science."

I'm a skeptic because I don't know whether global warming is caused by man, or even if global warming is happening at all. I don't say it is not happening. Maybe it is. There's not much evidence that that's the case, though, and I notice that neither you nor anybody else on this forum is speaking of supportive predictions made years ago that turned out to be right. Not because such predictions weren't made - they were - but because they were pretty much all WRONG. Once again: The scientific method says that when a theory is tested and fails, the theory must be revised and tested again until the tests support the theory.

Hasn't happened.

You just keep confirming you're a science denier who is denying science you clearly don't even understand or even know about. That's not a real science sceptic. Maybe you're a 'doubter' because you just don't know enough, but you're not a sceptic. You are definitely a climate truther who unsceptically believes in conspiracy theories and swallows pseudoscience.

 

[Decomposed]

Yeah I'm not even going to bother wasting my time with that last post of his.

He's making fun of me, Quaestio. I'm fine with that. Threegoofs doesn't know what else to say because I'm bringing up points he likely hasn't seen addressed by whoever it is that he follows.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Now you're just being silly. Nobody on this earth understands "all the science."

I'm a skeptic because I don't know whether global warming is caused by man, or even if global warming is happening at all. I don't say it is not happening. Maybe it is. There's not much evidence that that's the case, though, and I notice that neither you nor anybody else on this forum is speaking of supportive predictions made years ago that turned out to be right. Not because such predictions weren't made - they were - but because they were pretty much all WRONG. Once again: The scientific method says that when a theory is tested and fails, the theory must be revised and tested again until the tests support the theory.

Hasn't happened.

I agree we need a lot more information to be certain. Global warming is real the same as ice ages are real. We have enough proof to say that it is happening and has been happening for 100's of millions of years. What we don't have is all the information on all the causes of the swings of temperature. The factors today are not anything like they were during the previous ice ages. Continents have drifted, ocean currents have changed course, the moon is further away, volcanic activity is different, the earths wobble has the earth in a different orientation to the sun, the Pacific Ocean is getting smaller and the Atlantic is getting larger and clearly what was in the past cannot be compared to what is today. Man is clearly a factor but only 1 factor among millions. Once the know it all's know more than they don't know we may be able to accurately predict climate change. Until then we are fumbling about in the dark.

 

[Decomposed]

You just keep confirming you're a science denier who is denying science you clearly don't even understand or even know about. That's not a real science sceptic. Maybe you're a 'doubter' because you just don't know enough, but you're not a sceptic. You are definitely a climate truther who unsceptically believes in conspiracy theories and swallows pseudoscience.

I'm okay with being a "doubter."

But I'm wondering why you've said that I deny science, that I'm a climate truther, and why I believe pseudoscience. Can you show examples where I've done that? I see why you say I believe conspiracy theories. I have, after all, said that AGW is a political tool being used by the Left. Seems pretty obviously true to me. The Right sure doesn't use it to get legislation passed, while the Left (at its fringe, at least) is doing its best to bankrupt the world with a fight against CO2.

In the short time that I've been here, I'm aware that I have:
o Asked a whole lot of questions about AGW.
o Pointed out that nobody is answering them.
o Stated that AGW might be real but is more likely just a political device.
o Explained what the Scientific Method is and why the "scientists" being referenced by Alarmists aren't practicing science at all. You folks disagree but haven't provided anything concrete to show that I'm wrong.

So, why the attemtps to affix me with labels? Just a debate technique? It is pretty well known that an intellectually lazy way to debate a person is to pin a label on the opponent and then debate it instead of the person.

I'm far less interested in winning a debate with people I don't even know than I am in learning and teaching. I'll do my best not to call you names or assign a label to you. I'm find with being called a "doubter," though. I agree with it. Just don't call me a denier unless you want to terminate the conversation. I've said several times here that it isn't so and I think I know my position better than you do.

 

[Threegoofs]

He's making fun of me, Quaestio. I'm fine with that. Threegoofs doesn't know what else to say because I'm bringing up points he likely hasn't seen addressed by whoever it is that he follows.

LOL.

Yeah.

You’ve got such original points.

 

[Threegoofs]

I agree we need a lot more information to be certain. Global warming is real the same as ice ages are real. We have enough proof to say that it is happening and has been happening for 100's of millions of years. What we don't have is all the information on all the causes of the swings of temperature. The factors today are not anything like they were during the previous ice ages. Continents have drifted, ocean currents have changed course, the moon is further away, volcanic activity is different, the earths wobble has the earth in a different orientation to the sun, the Pacific Ocean is getting smaller and the Atlantic is getting larger and clearly what was in the past cannot be compared to what is today. Man is clearly a factor but only 1 factor among millions. Once the know it all's know more than they don't know we may be able to accurately predict climate change. Until then we are fumbling about in the dark.

 

[Quaestio]

He's making fun of me, Quaestio. I'm fine with that. Threegoofs doesn't know what else to say because I'm bringing up points he likely hasn't seen addressed by whoever it is that he follows.

LOL! Threegoofs has been around for a long time making fun of climate truthers and science deniers. And I have too on other forums for about 14 years. Nothing you say would be 'new' to either of us. You guys all seem to say pretty much the same old parroted pseudoscience conspiracy rubbish and yet you all seem to think you're 'free thinkers' and oh so 'original'. It really gets tedious sometimes.

You've made a uh... 'spectacular' entrance to the forum. I suppose I should say 'welcome', but mainly my response was *sigh*- not another one. You're certainly free to post whatever nonsense you like and make a fool of yourself though. Lot's of people do that here so you won't be alone.

 

[Quaestio]

I agree we need a lot more information to be certain. Global warming is real the same as ice ages are real. We have enough proof to say that it is happening and has been happening for 100's of millions of years. What we don't have is all the information on all the causes of the swings of temperature. The factors today are not anything like they were during the previous ice ages. Continents have drifted, ocean currents have changed course, the moon is further away, volcanic activity is different, the earths wobble has the earth in a different orientation to the sun, the Pacific Ocean is getting smaller and the Atlantic is getting larger and clearly what was in the past cannot be compared to what is today. Man is clearly a factor but only 1 factor among millions. Once the know it all's know more than they don't know we may be able to accurately predict climate change. Until then we are fumbling about in the dark.

Yes I agree that you are "fumbling about in the dark". Not sure why you are using the royal "we", because you clearly aren't a scientist or know very much about climate science. But hey! Luckily scientists do know a heck of lot more than you do! Perhaps you should listen to them without your fingers in your ears?

 

[Quaestio]

LOL.

Yeah.

You’ve got such original points.

*sigh* I'm getting a bit over it again on this sub-forum. Heard it all before from these climate truthers for too many years. And Jack's endless spamming of pseudoscience conspiracy blog posts seems to be ramping up even more lately and getting even more annoying. I've been having more fun on the Beliefs and Skepticism forum. There are some very bizarre characters there, but they are outweighed by lot's of smart people with a good sense of humour.

 

[Threegoofs]

*sigh* I'm getting a bit over it again on this sub-forum. Heard it all before from these climate truthers for too many years. And Jack's endless spamming of pseudoscience conspiracy blog posts seems to be ramping up even more lately and getting even more annoying. I've been having more fun on the Beliefs and Skepticism forum. There are some very bizarre characters there, but they are outweighed by lot's of smart people with a good sense of humour.

Well, the nuts in the religion forum have the same type of mindset as the nuts in the climate forum, but the important difference is here nobody really tries to end the argument by saying their info is coming from an imaginary friend in the sky.

 

[Decomposed]

The vast majority of the worlds scientists agree that gravity is real. If you don't accept that from them and need to 'know for yourself", then I suggest you try jumping off the top of a 20 story building without a parachute to test it for yourself.

No, the reason I accept gravity has nothing to do with what others agree upon. I accept it because it tells me where to aim my telescope. And it tells me when high tides will come. It predicts dropped apple behavior, and thrown stone behavior, and the arrival of Spring. And there are NO gravity-based predictions in the relativistic universe that fail when tested. Perhaps there are in the subatomic world - I'm not sure.

Surely you can see why comparisons between gravitational theory and AGW theory are problematic! AGW theory fails EVERY important test!

But if that behavior didn't hold up, then no. I wouldn't believe in gravity just because a bunch of witch doctors who didn't employ the scientific method told me I had to. But it's okay if that's how you operate. Most people are like that. Just look to the Middle East - where practically EVERYONE believes in Allah. If you were there, you would too. After all, you'd have been told to by all of your peers and superiors . . . and I can see that you're a man who knows his place. People who don't question are essential to society, Quaestio. I'm glad you're here.