The joke is on those who blindly accept old earth assumptions they can never prove while lacking the motivation to look at scientific evidences which contradict those old earth theories. Take dinosaur bones with soft tissues, for example. How old are they? Tens of millions of years? Hardly. Science has known for decades that soft tissues cannot last that long. How about testing them for age? No, secular humanists opposed to young earth evidences claim you cannot test the bones for age because they are so old. Wrong. Dinosaur bones have been tested for age and they are nowhere near as old as secular humanists keep claiming.
More biased nonsense on your ridiculous idea that the IPCC influences our entire decision making on global warming. European countries have their own scientific institutions on which we make our decision, not on the IPCC influence. We are making decisions on actual treaties, the Kyoto protocol, the Paris accord and not on the IPCC reports/opinions.
That you are too stubborn to realize that is your issue, as is your inability to make a cogent position without the need for petty insults about me personally is another reason you will never make a convincing position. You clearly overstate the influence of the IPCC to the level of ridiculousness. No sane person would claim a scientific report about ideas that could make countries achieve their own chosen climate goals as fascist. Your entire premise was flawed for the first post you wrote and that remains the case throughout the discussion.
There is a reason that the normal doomsayers say "The End is Near!", if they said the world will end on a specific date,Wrong. My premise is correct. The European science agencies all bow down to whatever the IPCC tells them without even as much as a review. The truth will eventually come out when this whole apocalyptic prediction is proven wrong, as it always has been.
There is a reason that the normal doomsayers say "The End is Near!", if they said the world will end on a specific date,
it would mean a timer was running on their prediction.
Y2K was great for the IT business, but it had an expiration date!
Arbitrary doom dates, are always somewhere in the future.
We do have weather going on! We always will have!Effects are happening now.
Impacts on Society | GlobalChange.gov
But you don’t know that, because you’re too busy working on your fake calculations that ‘prove’ none of this stuff is happening.
This is like asking “what if electricity isn’t real?” It breaks everything we know about geology, biology, evolution, etc.I get what you are saying. You are starting from the faith that none of these bones could be under 100,000 years old. What if the consensus is wrong?
I did not come up with this as an idea. I didn’t put forth a hypothesis about tainted fossils. This is a real situation that actually happened.Now I don't believe these bones are only 35,000 to 40,000 years old either. Your idea of them being tinted has potential to be correct.
Uh huh.I just am not a denier of science like you are. I want to see more research before shutting the door on such a possibility.
Wrong. My premise is correct. The European science agencies all bow down to whatever the IPCC tells them without even as much as a review. The truth will eventually come out when this whole apocalyptic prediction is proven wrong, as it always has been.
We do have weather going on! We always will have!
How is the weather different than it would have been had no Humans ever been on earth, and how do you know it would be different?
Scientists are nerds who love being right. Even more than being right, they love being right when their peers are wrong.
This wild accusation of yours is stupid, baseless, and flies in the face of how the scientific community really works.
The track to tenure runs through AGW orthodoxy.
Scientists are nerds who love being right. Even more than being right, they love being right when their peers are wrong.
This wild accusation of yours is stupid, baseless, and flies in the face of how the scientific community really works.
And if the data is pretty much inconclusive and could go either way... yeah, they love their grant money the most.
Some magic bullet that overturns the prevailing understanding of climate science would be worth an awful lot of funding.
And it would open up enormous avenues of research.
But sure, we can’t trust scientists because they get paid. So tell me, which of the climate “skeptic” scientists that you put so much faith in is not funded by anyone?
Freeman Dyson is one of the most revered scientific researchers in history and he's a skeptic about this coming global catastrophe that many climatologists keep harping about (yet their predictions fail each time). I'll trust his word over theirs because he doesnt get paid grant money by the Deep State.
It’s also not his field.
Would you go show him the bump on your ass and ask him if it looked like cancer? And then follow his advice when he tells you it isn’t?
And remember- Dyson said this:
"I like to express heretical opinions," Dyson said, with an impish gleam in his eye. "They might even happen to be true."
Freeman Dyson is one of the most revered scientific researchers in history and he's a skeptic about this coming global catastrophe that many climatologists keep harping about (yet their predictions fail each time). I'll trust his word over theirs because he doesnt get paid grant money by the Deep State.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Darwin wasnt a scientist when he came up with evolution.
And Dyson is a physicist, just like your idol Michael E Mann is. So its hypocrisy too.
Wrong. My premise is correct. The European science agencies all bow down to whatever the IPCC tells them without even as much as a review. The truth will eventually come out when this whole apocalyptic prediction is proven wrong, as it always has been.
This is like asking “what if electricity isn’t real?” It breaks everything we know about geology, biology, evolution, etc.
I am not “starting from the faith.” There is an absurd amount of data putting these fossils as far older than 100,000 years.
I think plenty is taken for granted, but a list is worthwhile.Except you are not. Everything is reviewed, nothing is taken for granted. And you are wrong about climate change but we will indeed in time see how uninformed your opinion about global warming was.
All of your personal favorites have tenure, don’t they?
That is why they are able to speak out. Steve McIntyre once posted about graduate students seeking advice about how to express their climate skepticism amid faculty committed to AGW orthodoxy. McIntyre's advice: Protect yourself while you are vulnerable; assert yourself when you are secure.
Steve Mcintyre- a guy with no academic qualifications, and a career primarily spent in looking at validating mining deals for his employer.
Given that some 48% of the total CO2 emissions are what we exhale and the animals that feed us are what is claimed to drive climate change are you prepared to put your head on the block in order to 'save' the planet ? ..... Thought not :wink:
LOL Typical denialist foolishness. The amount of exhaled CO2 that is warming the planet is 0%. Food animals produce methane which is a potent greenhouse gas as well as driving deforestation in many countries. The only CO2 that contributes to warming is from burning fossilized carbon that was deposited millions of years ago in coal, oil and natural gas. Trillions of tons of this carbon was removed from the atmosphere by plants over eons of time and now is being released back into our air in a few 100 years. How anyone can believe it will not change the planet is explained by your stupid comment.
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?