You haven't proven anything to be bull**** except your misrepresentation of the science.
New survey reconfirms overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
You haven't proven anything to be bull**** except your misrepresentation of the science.
And your mother should taught you that criticicizing spelling and grammar on forums in very poor Netiquette.
But you've never struck me as anything but a rather rude person, TB (hence poorly brought up).. who has trouble addressing the substance of an issue.. and therefor relies only on issues of style.
Last edited:
Explain in full how corals are doomed and explain in full why they are still around after every possible doomsday scenario has came and went several times over.
This issue has no substance, so I don't see how I could address it.
As to the rest, I do not suffer fools gladly. Sorry, that's the way it goes. If you'd like to talk to my mom, I can direct you to the grave.
That's the way they are written. Is anyone writing about or funding the benefits of the Holocene Optimum or just pitching doomsday scenario after doomsday scenario?
goOd gRieF.. TB.. you aRe a mOroN. iNcaPable of aDdressinG a sUbstantive iSsuE.
This thread has no substantive issue. "Consensus" in science is utterly worthless. In science there is right and wrong, and if 99.99999% of everybody agrees with wrong, right is still right.
The whole issue of global warming or climate change or whatever you want to call it has become mere politics, or religion as you put it. No science in any of the discussions.
I would like to see the hard evidence to your view.
This is where conspiracy theories become the reason people like you give their money and keep it flowing to the Harperism campaign of death to civilized thought .
Colpy you magnificent bastard, you make so much so clear to the informed.
The determination of cause is entirely based on science, but the scope of any resulting damage is what has become politicized.
The consensus is simply to acknowledge that the predominant driving force right now is human activity.
I think you're confusing logic/mathematics and science. Science, at its essence, develops models that attempt to approach the natural world. We measure the success of those models by their ability to predict. Some aspects of global warming are pretty successful in that regard. For example, we can measure the electromgnetic spectrum of incoming and outgoing radiation, and we can develop models, based on our knowledge of the chemcial composition of the atmosphere and the spectral properties of molecules that are fairly predictive.
Logic and mathematics have axioms and theorems and proofs.
I'm not denying the political/philosophical bent of AGW propoenetns (and deniers, for that matter), and I'm not denying that the field is rampant with advocacy science, but the idea that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a wamring of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere is quite well borne out through many lines of evidence.
There is a lot of evidence that:
CO2 is increasing, and a significant portion of that increase is due to anthrpogenic emissions and anthropogenic land use.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that captures spacebound infrared photons and and then re-emits them in a random direction, resulting in near-surface warming.
The temperature of the planet has increased around 0.7 deg on average in the last 100 years or so.
As for anti-human, some would say that ignoring the impact that global warming will have on future generations is anti-human too.
No it's not. There is no AGW consensus. The only real consensus is that nobody knows for sure what the hell is going on. You will not find a single statement from IPCC that blames man or indicates they know the driver behind ANY interglacial including the Holocene.
Truth. That's because the political discussion about whether or not something is happening/stopped/manmade is dumber and easier than say, how much water vapour feedback is there, and what is the magnitude and sign of the cloud forcing. Science has moved past many of the questions in the political debate, and the state of the science is focusing on mostly different questions.
I wouldn't even say that this is the most charged political-science theater. Human health issues like GMOs and vaccines I would say are worse.
Depends who you ask. Ask a far left liberal and they'll be as out of touch as the climate deniers. The only difference I would say is that the liberal opinion leaders don't seem to be pandering to the anti-science position like the conservative opinion leaders have on the issue of climate change.
True, this is the politics of the issue, not the science.
As far as I can tell their is no consensus on GMO's and the potential for them can solve future problems in agricultural needs.
The left are massive hypocrites on this matter but so are conservatives regarding AGW.
It's why I don't like douche bags like Al Gore.
That's a Cape Breton refrigerator. My dad (who grew up in northern Cape Breton) said they'd make an underground little igloo, pile more snow on top and then cover in straw and sometimes it would last through the summer. Always into July at least.