Poor kids. Too bad they don't teach common sense at the community college you attended
Yea, assuming all climate scientists write the same paper was a stroke of genius on your part.
Poor kids. Too bad they don't teach common sense at the community college you attended
Yea, assuming all climate scientists write the same paper was a stroke of genius on your part.
That is way too funny... The sheer audacity that these truthers can state that there have been no significant natural inputs, let alone cataclysmic events in the last 10,000 years is hilarious.
That still makes the AGW crowd 33%
Well its easy to get a consensus when your job depends on it.
1000 years ago you'd lose your job and/or be burned at the stake for claiming the world was not the centre of the universe, or revolved around the sun.. or wasn't flat. When a a political and philosophical orthodoxy descends on the institutional science of the day.. one dissents at his peril.
Even when the theory has collapsed into pure nonsense... even when all the predictions have been proven wrong and the scientific method has been abandoned as it has with AGW.. the rigid orthodoxy.. increasingly embattled, isolated and lashing out will remain, driven on by blind allegiance.
But basically everyone else in the World knows the AGW Emporer is not wearing any clothes..Many honest scientists have said so.. but you will face the WRATH of the AGW CULT.. and they are true fanatics.
no one has ever stated that there is absolutely no anthropogenic contribution... .
Now it's 'no one ever said AGW doesn't exist' lol
Deniers man.
What a gas.
I think most of us have always said climate does change. .
Let the revisionism begin.
I speak for myself and what I have already believed.
But you Zeolots love getting your panties in a knot. Think I will run my car an extra hour just for you tonight.
As I said, let the revisionism begin.
That's not what you said. You said "Most of us..."
You truthers crack me up.... Just 'cause every single, solitary model, theory and prediction you've come up with fails miserably is no reason to do the ole deflect-the-issue-2-step
That's even more hilarious..... Bear in mind, my truther friend, that it is inside the actual technical arguments that the truther position fails on an absolute basis.
Regardless of the info you've have referenced, the models still continue to fail. Clearly there is tremendous fault in those ideals (or don't come close to describing the overall mechanisms)
Personally, I think it absurd and completely ridiculous that anyone can state (with a straight face) that they are aware of, have identified all of and understand the inter-relationships and dynamics between all of the variables such that they can truthfully state they have a complete understanding.
Well its easy to get a consensus when your job depends on it.
1000 years ago you'd lose your job and/or be burned at the stake for claiming the world was not the centre of the universe, or revolved around the sun.. or wasn't flat. When a a political and philosophical orthodoxy descends on the institutional science of the day.. one dissents at his peril.
Even when the theory has collapsed into pure nonsense... even when all the predictions have been proven wrong and the scientific method has been abandoned as it has with AGW.. the rigid orthodoxy.. increasingly embattled, isolated and lashing out will remain, driven on by blind allegiance.
But basically everyone else in the World knows the AGW Emporer is not wearing any clothes..Many honest scientists have said so.. but you will face the WRATH of the AGW CULT.. and they are true fanatics.
As I said, the radiation model has done a pretty good job of predicting things to date.
yes that would be absurd, but that's not what models do. Physicists can't model to hydrogen molecules interacting. The math gets too crazy. And that's pretty much the simplest atomic level interaction that there is. Still, despite the fact that we don't have the "dynamics between all the variables" we still quite successfully use models to say, design buildings. because the model simplifies those complex quantum dynamics into macroscopic varibales "modulus of elasticity" and such.
I do believe that science has a strong understanding of those areas that have been identified and studied, however, it is foolish to think that there is anywhere close to understanding the overall system.
As it stands, the predictions have, to date, been very inaccurate and when making broad brush statements about 'what is', well put simply, it has been proven to not be the case
I get it and I do have a very healthy respect for science and the accomplishments made to date... That said, my above sentiment still applies.