It's funny arguing with these people, because the more clarity you request on their predictions, the more they avoid giving a specific answer and instead attack you for ignorance.
They don't know anything except what the official talking points tell them to believe. Even scientists who study this stuff aren't in agreement on things, so a lot of it is simply guesswork. I gotta go with those who are honest enough to admit that we don't know enough about climate cycles to make accurate predictions yet. After all, it wasn't so long ago that we were told we would all be freezing to death because their models that showed global cooling. Whatever is in charge of the universe must either laugh at our ignorance, or feel pity that we are egotistical enough to believe we can change anything that was set in motion hundreds of millions of years ago! :scared:
There's a difference between questioning the "orthodoxy", as you call it, and denying the science itself. If you don't deny the science then you, like me, are a real Skeptic and not the "skeptic" that true Deniers - the one's that do deny the science - use for themselves. I'm not saying the models are correct, obviously they're not. But as you've just noted, the response to that is not to throw out the models but do more research to make the models better. The Deniers would have us throw out the models completely, which is absurd.
No, you make them better. Would you throw out Newton's gravity? It was "wrong", too - still is.When the real data disproves the models you throw out the models.
No, you make them better. Would you throw out Newton's gravity? It was "wrong", too - still is.
Tearing up our economies? :lamoThe difference is though we are not being told to tear up our economies over gravity
Tearing up our economies? :lamo
We'd be better off tossing all the Bankers in jail and throwing their models out the window!!!
A true ostrich! :lamo :lamo :lamoThe 'bankers' worry me a lot less than the wretched long term future the eco nuts would have us indulge should we allow them to impose thier warped worldview upon us. They are the true enemy of humanity
A true ostrich! :lamo :lamo :lamo
Apparently not ...Sorry but I like humans and want the species to survive
Apparently not ...
Spoken like a true preacher! LOL!Sorry but I do not think that putting artificial green impediments in the way of human progress will somehow 'save' either us or the impossibly 'precious' planet and no verifiable evidence has been shown to date that would validate such a position. This ongoing demonization of CO 2 a benign beneficial and naturally occurring gas is just such an impediment
There are two major problems with this research:Why is it a mystery? It seems to me there are plenty of factors to look at. I believe solar changes are the drivers of changes. The only way to make it be a mystery is to be dead set that CO2 is the major climatic driver, and ignore those that make sense.
NASA link: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
Spoken like a true preacher! LOL!
People said the same kind of things in the 70's when the EPA was formed. It's truly amazing how much of a parallel there is between your output and the rhetoric of the people who were against the EPA at that time
Of course you are. Your Denial often goes far beyond real skepticism and your Conspiracy Theory deserves it's own special thread in the proper section.I'm not the one with the faith to defend
I never said it was. Try again. :lamoHeads up. CO 2 is not pollution. Indeed the ideal growing level for plants is around three times that of today. Alarmists just love to conflate the two as suits thier particular political motivations :roll:
Of course you are. Your Denial often goes far beyond real skepticism and your Conspiracy Theory deserves it's own special thread in the proper section.
I never said it was. Try again.
You don't understand real science, or if you do you do a damn good job of playing stupid. You constantly quote political blogs instead of actually looking at the studies and critiquing them. You've made the issue into some political Conspiracy instead of keeping it to the science. In your world science is a nasty word not used in polite company - unless, of course, it happens to back up your opinion, then it's OK. :roll:Feel free to start one if my viewpoint so irritates you. I'll knock you dead on every point by using real science to do it ,however many strawmen smokescreens you create for yourself. :lol:
There are a few, who use their position at NASA for their own agenda, and should be fired. That doesn't mean all the information should be ignored.There are two major problems with this research:
1. It uses climate models, which we all know are pure crap, and
2. NOAA/NASA participated in the research and we know they're part of the Big Climate Conspiracy.
With two big marks like that against it, this HAS to be on the Denier Black List and should be ignored as total crap! LOL!
Of course I did. I love NASA's reporting - and not just the climate stuff! I've been reading NASA's reports since they started sharing on their website.There are a few, who use their position at NASA for their own agenda, and should be fired. That doesn't mean all the information should be ignored.
Did you even read the article? I'll bet by your remarks you didn't.
You don't understand real science, or if you do you do a damn good job of playing stupid. You constantly quote political blogs instead of actually looking at the studies and critiquing them. You've made the issue into some political Conspiracy instead of keeping it to the science. In your world science is a nasty word not used in polite company - unless, of course, it happens to back up your opinion, then it's OK. :roll:
If you linked to actual studies instead of Denier blogs I probably would read them. Sorry, but you lost all credibility with me when the first three links of yours I opened lead straight to political crap instead of the science you claimed. Having a Denial blogger tell me what's in a study is NOT linking to the study. Like I said, no clue what science is ...I dont have any burden of proof to defend yet despite that I've probably cited or linked more actual studies in support of my position than almost anyone else here as far as that goes. Perhaps if you had actually opened some of the links rather than dismissing everything you dont want to see out of hand you would have discovered that already. :roll:
If you linked to actual studies instead of Denier blogs I probably would read them. Sorry, but you lost all credibility with me when the first three links of yours I opened lead straight to political crap instead of the science you claimed. Having a Denial blogger tell me what's in a study is NOT linking to the study. Like I said, no clue what science is ...
I dont think you understand how Global Warming actually works, or at least the very basics...
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?