Our cooling world

[eanassir]

You lie. You don't know you're lying, but you lie nonetheless. I suppose I could be generous and just say you err, but you've had the scientific realities explained to you so many times by so many people and just denied them because they're not consistent with your silly book, that I think lying is the appropriate label for what you're offering.

In fact you lie to yourself when you don't want to consider; stop for a while and think about the matter: I am not lying: you say the Quran is not scientific which is not correct: it agrees with the true science, but not with everything they say: it may be their claims are at the moment not correct: like asserting no water and no life on Mars and the planets; while they are wrong.

And so many times, I told you consider consider: it is for you advantage in the afterlife at least and you obstinantly refuse: so what shall I do to you? and then you turn the matter upside down (knowingly) and accuse me that I lie; and you don't lie when you say the Quran is fallacious? So why do you agree with any word said about the Quran in any website? On the contrary, if you are fair, you should ask me (in case you don't know Arabic) before asserting your claims? And say to me: What is the indication of this aya or that aya? and you referred to some translations and based your opinion (and you will be questioned but will not be judged about that - if you keep up to your anti-God and anti-Quran attitude); that is because you tell people lies in addition to lying to yourself.

Prove to me that Mercury and Venus and the moon do not rotate, explain why the observational evidence that they do is wrong, without reference to the Quran or al-Hilly's fatuous and ignorant interpretation of it. Give me evidence, not revelation.

First of all the Quran and al-Hilly's interpretations are not fatuous nor ignorant.

And we discussed this many times before, and I gave many evidences and they admitted such objects are at least slow and unusual (at least; while to me I said the thing that they did not consider: such Moon, Mercury and Venus do not spin around themselves.)

That line about the immiscible nature of salt and fresh water stands alone, it's a complete non-sequitur, there's no context at all in any of the statements around it, which is true of much of the Quran. I read it and find about every fourth or fifth sentence is absurdly unrelated to anything around it.

No one can deny the salty water can be mixed with the sweet water and the resulting mixture will be a less salty solution. Even the child knows this.

But I told you and you ignore it. The aya speaks about a barrier on land that prevents the mixing of the river sweet water with the sea salty water, and this is a blessing of God: because if no such barrier and partition is there, the sweet and the salty water of rivers and lakes on one hand will mix with the salty water of the seas.

And many times I said to you, the translations available are not precise and the translators are defective in their understanding; so how will they transmit the idea to others if they themselves do not understand it precisely?

So people should not be proud over listening to the inspired interpreter and be like their stubborn fathers who denied the apostles of God and now they suffer in the afterlife because of their stubborn denial.

www.quran-ayat.com

 

[Tonington]

Do you see yourself as the leading authority on every possible topic?

No, but I do read the documents produced by leading authorities, rather than editorials in newspapers.

That's the major difference between you and I.

 

[captain morgan]

No, but I do read the documents produced by leading authorities, rather than editorials in newspapers.

That's the major difference between you and I.

Wrong... Again...

The biggest difference between you and I is that I have a reasonable idea of knowing what I don't know whereas that sentiment never crosses your mind.

 

[Tonington]

And many times I said to you, the translations available are not precise and the translators are defective in their understanding; so how will they transmit the idea to others if they themselves do not understand it precisely?http://www.quran-ayat.com

A barrier between two bodies of water. They either can mix or they will not. Salmon making their run to the ocean for the first time encounter increasing salinity as they approach the estuaries, where the fresh water from the river, and the salt water from the ocean mix. It's called brackish water.

It's foolish to say they don't mix. The salts are dissolved...the concentration of those salts drops when you add water with less salt dissolved.

Wrong... Again...

So which documents have you read?

 

[captain morgan]

Most recently, The Royal Society's paper

 

[Avro]

Why are you so choked up?

How am I choked up?

This is about GW being driven (highly impacted) by humanity or not. While I'll agree with you on the politicization of the issue by leadership/high profile people, the main thrust of the controversy is pretty black and white.

You'll agree it has been politicized by lefties only.

It's black and white to you, that's the problem.

That said, there isn't much of an in between.

So you know it's not man induced?

That's funny considering the mud you sling at Tonn about what he knows.

If not, make an argument for AGW.

Eh wot?:lol:

Don't fool yourself on this, the IPCC is not very far behind Gore and Suzuki.

The IPCC isn't perfect.....I'm so shocked. The imperfections of the IPCC were found in the independant reports that exaunerated them of any fraud but found flaws in info sharing and communication skills.

You have no idea whether or not I read the original report

-

Yes I do.

I suppose that's why you continue to concentrate on that.

Yes I will.

Regardless, my focus was on a portion of the op/ed piece that was derived directly from the actual report.

I know that.

There is no mistaking the message and there is no room for alternate interpretation.

Sure there is when it's taken out of context. Sort of like the the quote cherry picked from Phil Jones about no "statistically significant" warming since 1995.

The Academy reached a conclusion that was in direct opposition to the notion that humanity is, definitively, a main component of GW.

You continue to ignore the conclusions of the document which you clearly haven't read.

Just because the Royal Academy doesn't parallel your individual beliefs does not matter

That's a good joke Mr. Pot.

, BUT, there is no amount of diversion or 2-stepping that will change the conclusions that were published.

No need to change the conclusion, it dosen't deny a thing and clearly supports the science you have been ignoring since you got here.

I've often thought the very same of you.

I know that, because you know the truth behind the conspiracy and we are all just plebs along for the ride induced by a cabal of socialist world government perpitrators and scientists clearly controled by aliens backed by that guy who smokes a lot on X-files.

You can apply as much smoke-screen as you like. It won't change their conclusions one iota.

Like I said, the conclusions support AGW....read the report.

Psst....you can find conclusions at the end of reports....not in the middle.

 

[captain morgan]

Avro,

If you're not chocked up about it, perhaps we ought to just drop it entirely.

i never suggested the politicization of the issue was exclusive to the left. I made a broadbrush statement directed at all.

As far as the issue of AGW is concerned, it is black and white
(important caveat - I have made it exceedingly clear that my position is that anthro sources are not enough to singularly alter the system... That is an important distinction).

As far as Tonnington is concerned, he establishes his position and then shops for a convenient science to fit it.. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.. that in itself is one thing, but to claim mastery in science and conclusiveness on the issue is naive and without any merit whatsoever.

With the above in mind, there is not a lot of grey area in this issue.

You ain't just whistling dixie in saying that the IPCC isn't perfect, but to absolve them from responsibility based on the glaring mistakes of other groups as well as their lack of research efforts in vetting-out the obvious inaccuracies is inexcusable. The IPCC has made a big production about "fact", "peer review" and "concensus of the scientific community" - they have failed in all three areas.

Considering that they have assumed a prominent role is attempting to develop and implement global policy based on the aforementioned, the aforementioned failings eliminate them from being taken on any level.

I have read the doc Avro and despite the myriad of excuses and affirmations that AGW exists, they still made their statements based on the 2007 IPCC doc... That is a condemnation in and of itself.

BTW - I love the conspiracy reference... I can always tell when you have nothing of substance to offer when you make such a baseless and unrelated accusation. The only reason you do this is for diversionary purposes.

 

[petros]

BTW - I love the conspiracy reference... I can always tell when you have nothing of substance to offer when you make such a baseless and unrelated accusation. The only reason you do this is for diversionary purposes.

Her brings up JFK alot. I wonder if he's ever heard of Watergate, Iran Contra, Whitewater IRAQ or any of the other "conspiracies' in recent history. If it weren't for conspiracy theories the justice system would fall to pieces.

 

[Avro]

Avro,

If you're not chocked up about it, perhaps we ought to just drop it entirely.

why should I be choked up about it?

i never suggested the politicization of the issue was exclusive to the left. I made a broadbrush statement directed at all.

Clarify please.

As far as the issue of AGW is concerned, it is black and white
(important caveat - I have made it exceedingly clear that my position is that anthro sources are not enough to singularly alter the system... That is an important distinction).

So what is?

As far as Tonnington is concerned, he establishes his position and then shops for a convenient science to fit it.. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.. that in itself is one thing, but to claim mastery in science and conclusiveness on the issue is naive and without any merit whatsoever.

You don't shop for convieniance?

That's rich.

Tonn uses more than op-eds Captain.

I have met three Climate scientists one quite well known they seem convinced.

With the above in mind, there is not a lot of grey area in this issue.

Yes there is some grey area but not what you think it is.

You ain't just whistling dixie in saying that the IPCC isn't perfect, but to absolve them from responsibility based on the glaring mistakes of other groups as well as their lack of research efforts in vetting-out the obvious inaccuracies is inexcusable. The IPCC has made a big production about "fact", "peer review" and "concensus of the scientific community" - they have failed in all three areas.

You have failed repeatedly to prove any of that Captain. The mistakes that the IPCC did make don't affect the core of the science.

Considering that they have assumed a prominent role is attempting to develop and implement global policy based on the aforementioned, the aforementioned failings eliminate them from being taken on any level.

You don't have to worry about policy....nothing serious will ever be done about AGW.

I have read the doc Avro and despite the myriad of excuses and affirmations that AGW exists, they still made their statements based on the 2007 IPCC doc... That is a condemnation in and of itself.

Wow, they are dishonest and honest at the same time.

BTW - I love the conspiracy reference... I can always tell when you have nothing of substance to offer when you make such a baseless and unrelated accusation. The only reason you do this is for diversionary purposes

It was a joke.

Her brings up JFK alot. I wonder if he's ever heard of Watergate, Iran Contra, Whitewater IRAQ or any of the other "conspiracies' in recent history. If it weren't for conspiracy theories the justice system would fall to pieces.

I didn't forget those...they all had whistle blowers.

Waiting for the ones on AGW, 9/11, JFK, election rigging by Bush etc etc etc.

Perhaps you have some proof they are real.

Love to hear them.

 

[YukonJack]

we, here in Winnipeg are having a beautiful, warm Indigenous, Original, Aboriginal Native American Summer.

 

[captain morgan]

why should I be choked up about it?

You tell me, unless there is some secret conspiracy that demands your silence

You don't shop for convieniance?

Unlike your buddy (and yourself at times), I don't claim or insinuate mastery of every discipline and pretend that I am an expert in any/all fields of study

That's rich.

Tonn uses more than op-eds Captain.

I have met three Climate scientists one quite well known they seem convinced.

Buddy does whatever he wants, I really could care less... But I notice that his (and your) only rebuttal to any alternate science/explanation, etc is to dismiss it as junk science. You guys are your own little Spanish Inquisition.

What I find especially interesting on your perpetual focus on non-Avro-approved sources (most recently the Op/Ed) is that you deflect attention from the base info that was/is provided by your IPCC masters and therefore are able to convince yourselves that any opinion other than your own exists.

Yes there is some grey area but not what you think it is.

.. You'll dictate to the world what it is?

Thanks.. When will Dear Leader give you Truthers the facts?

You have failed repeatedly to prove any of that Captain. The mistakes that the IPCC did make don't affect the core of the science.

There is no proof that AGW is real, is there?

How can I prove a negative?

That's how absurd the ecotard logic is.

You don't have to worry about policy....nothing serious will ever be done about AGW.

Thanfully

Wow, they are dishonest and honest at the same time.

In other words, they are useful idiots.

I didn't forget those...they all had whistle blowers.

Waiting for the ones on AGW, 9/11, JFK, election rigging by Bush etc etc etc.

Perhaps you have some proof they are real.

Love to hear them.

How many of you are in this club?.. I might just invest in tin foil

 

[Avro]

You tell me, unless there is some secret conspiracy that demands your silence

It's your claim not mine.

Tell me, why am I choked up?

Unlike your buddy (and yourself at times), I don't claim or insinuate mastery of every discipline and pretend that I am an expert in any/all fields of study

Yet you cling to the deniers.

If not, tell me your doubts.

Buddy does whatever he wants, I really could care less... But I notice that his (and your) only rebuttal to any alternate science/explanation, etc is to dismiss it as junk science. You guys are your own little Spanish Inquisition.

Most of what I have seen posted by you is junk science or outright lies.

What I find especially interesting on your perpetual focus on non-Avro-approved sources (most recently the Op/Ed) is that you deflect attention from the base info that was/is provided by your IPCC masters and therefore are able to convince yourselves that any opinion other than your own exists.

Whatever you say Mr. Pot.

.. You'll dictate to the world what it is?

Thanks.. When will Dear Leader give you Truthers the facts?

The science dosen't dictate a thing. If the world wants to ignore it that's fine.

There is no proof that AGW is real, is there?

Yes there is.

How can I prove a negative?

Strawman.

That's how absurd the ecotard logic is.

Name calling.

Thanfully

To you and your industry.




In other words, they are useful idiots.








How many of you are in this club?.. I might just invest in tin foil

How many of you are in this club?.. I might just invest in tin foil

Seems your pal petros is involved.

 

[captain morgan]

It's your claim not mine.

Tell me, why am I choked up?

I'm not your therapist, but if want me to guess, you're all chocked-up because the Royal Society published a paper, based on the IPCC report that was not supportive of your greenie position.

Now, remember, that's a guess, but than again, you asked.

If not, tell me your doubts.

My doubts?... I doubt that either of you 2 can claim mastery in any scientific discipline.

Most of what I have seen posted by you is junk science or outright lies.

Lies?
Like what?
Can you priove anything or is it just so much hot air and propaganda?

Whatever you say Mr. Pot.

Nope... That's just another deflection.. A comment without any foundation or basis.. That said, it still stands;

The science dosen't dictate a thing. If the world wants to ignore it that's fine.

The world is ignoring it because the IPCC science has proven itself baseless and without merit. Don't blame the public for the failings of your lobby group

Yes there is.

Great.. Present it to the world.

Strawman.

Ahhh, your buddies favorite deflection technique... Anything that you don't like forwarded or you can't answer qualifies as a strawman.

Gotcha

Name calling.

If the tin foil hat fits... Wear it

To you and your industry.

.... And anyone that is not delusional.

How's the car running these days?.. The furnace, etc?

In other words, they are useful idiots.

Congrats... You finally see the light

Seems your pal petros is involved.

I understand that he is well versed in the mining sector.. In my experience, those guys have a good grounding on the investment side as well.

 

[Tonington]

Most recently, The Royal Society's paper

And you thought it was a good review? I'm surprised, because I thought it was a decent review, not very thorough, but decent. Past experience with you leads me to believe that you can't have read the same document I did, not with your stated views.

For instance, in the past you quibbled over how we know the carbon dioxide that is increasing in our atmosphere originates from human industry. I explained to you that there are multiple observations in the literature of climate science that allow us to attribute the rise to human activity, including the isotopic ratio in the atmosphere, the historical accounting of fuel consumption, and even the change in the oxygen content in our atmosphere.

You disagreed then, but now you think this report somehow weakens the case, yet here they are with almost precisely the same conclusions in their review:

Global-average CO2 concentrations have been observed to increase from levels of around 280 parts per million (ppm) in the mid-19th century to around 388 ppm by the end of 2009. CO2 concentrations can be measured in “ancient air” trapped in bubbles in ice, deep below the surface in Antarctica and Greenland; these show that present-day concentrations are higher than any that have been observed in the past 800,000 years, when CO2 varied between about 180 and 300 ppm. Various lines of evidence point strongly to human activity being the main reason for the recent increase, mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) with smaller contributions from land-use changes and cement manufacture. The evidence includes the consistency between calculations of the emitted CO2 and that expected to have accumulated in the atmosphere, the analysis of the proportions of different CO2 isotopes, and the amount of oxygen in the air.
​

I really don't believe you when you say you've read this report.

Under developments in climate science, they state:

One indication of these advances is the increasing degree of confidence in the attribution of climate change to human activity, as expressed in the key conclusions of IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) in its assessments.
​

Not something I thought you agreed with, but maybe you've considered the vast amount of evidence now.

Under concluding remarks:

There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.
​

I have to conclude that you haven't actually read it, if you think this contradicts the "greenie" position. It is in fact consistent.

 

[captain morgan]

I really don't believe you when you say you've read this report.

Under developments in climate science, they state:

One indication of these advances is the increasing degree of confidence in the attribution of climate change to human activity, as expressed in the key conclusions of IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) in its assessments.
​

Not something I thought you agreed with, but maybe you've considered the vast amount of evidence now.

Under concluding remarks:

There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.
​

I have to conclude that you haven't actually read it, if you think this contradicts the "greenie" position. It is in fact consistent.

To start, whether you believe if I read the report or not is irrelevant, you have a perfect track record of fitting the science to your pre-determined position, it comes as no surprise that you've pre-determined my position.. the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy.

In terms of your diatribe on CO2, etc.. I notice that you conveniently forgot to detail the little conflict that it is physically impossible for the temp of the oceans to increase and affect the pH as you believed. Sure, you offered a thin and entirely baseless retort about atm pressures, but it was a Hail Mary at best. Yep, you were dancing faster and more jittery than a polka party on crack when you were informed of that physical impossibility.

As far as the document from the Royal Society that I didn't read, did you notice that the doc was quick to point to stats to prove the anthro component but those same stats were sadly absent on analyzing most if not all of the natural components?

Doesn't seem to scientific, does it? It almost makes you wonder about the quality and depth of the IPCC peer review process.

 

[Tonington]

The evidence speaks for itself. You think the report contradicts the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and it plainly reaffirms it, it even reaffirms conclusions made by the IPCC.

So either you're lying, or you still have problems with reading comprehension.

I notice that you conveniently forgot to detail the little conflict that it is physically impossible for the temp of the oceans to increase and affect the pH as you believed. Sure, you offered a thin and entirely baseless retort about atm pressures, but it was a Hail Mary at best.

See, this is just more delusion. I showed you the math, the temperature change is orders of magnitude smaller than the change in partial pressure. So do you know what happens? The amount of carbon dioxide that dissolves in the sea water is less than it would be if the temperature had remained the same. But there is no doubt about the physics. It is entirely consistent for the ocean to warm, and accumulate dissolved gas, when the magnitude of change is far larger for the partial pressure.

If you came to my workplace I could show you the exact same thing with the life support systems for our fish.

If you knew any physics you could put two and two together...

 

[Dexter Sinister]

First of all the Quran and al-Hilly's interpretations are not fatuous nor ignorant.

Saying so over and over again doesn't make it so.

And we discussed this many times before, and I gave many evidences and they admitted such objects are at least slow and unusual (at least; while to me I said the thing that they did not consider: such Moon, Mercury and Venus do not spin around themselves.)

Why consider things we know to be not true? You've provided no evidence, you have only the logically invalid arguments from the authority of the Quran and al-Hilly, which are demonstrably wrong, the Moon, Mercury, and Venus do rotate, their sidereal periods are: Moon, 27.5 days; Mercury 58.65 days; Venus 243.02 days. You can look it up in hundreds of places. If you do you'll also come across references to their synodic periods (="day" length), which for Mercury and Venus are very different from their sidereal periods. That will no doubt confuse your scientifically illiterate mind. The sidereal period is the time it takes the stars to make one complete apparent rotation around the sky, the synodic period is the time it takes the sun to do so.

 

[captain morgan]

The evidence speaks for itself. You think the report contradicts the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and it plainly reaffirms it, it even reaffirms conclusions made by the IPCC.

No. I suggested that the Royal Society's report did not gleefully support the IPCC's stance and the standard greenie belief's.. No mention of contradiction, those are your words.

So either you're lying, or you still have problems with reading comprehension.

... What was that you were mentioning about reading comprehension?

See, this is just more delusion. I showed you the math, the temperature change is orders of magnitude smaller than the change in partial pressure. So do you know what happens? The amount of carbon dioxide that dissolves in the sea water is less than it would be if the temperature had remained the same.

Nope.. again.. You were the leader of the polka party.

And btw - you never offered any caveat about "it would less than it would be".... Your statement was that the temps were increasing and the pH was becoming more acidic, nothing about theoritical scenarios or what might be.

It was not until this impossibility in your position was brought forward that you even realized that it existed... But keep 2-stepping, it's fun to watch.

If you came to my workplace I could show you the exact same thing with the life support systems for our fish.

You can tell me how the monkey bars work at your favorite playground for all I care, but we aren't talking about that either.

If you knew any physics you could put two and two together...

What a hollow comment coming from someone that was incapable of identifying a simple and well understood physical principle to start.

You'll forgive me if I'm not terribly insulted.

 

[Tonington]

No. I suggested that the Royal Society's report did not gleefully support the IPCC's stance and the standard greenie belief's..

But it does support the IPCC conclusions, it even uses IPCC conclusions in the report...

And btw - you never offered any caveat about "it would less than it would be"....

I assumed you were intelligent enough to make that conclusion on your own.

It was not until this impossibility in your position was brought forward that you even realized that it existed... But keep 2-stepping, it's fun to watch.

It's not impossible...I don't know how you can't grasp this...the solubility of a gas in a solution depends on many factors. The temperature of the solution, the partial pressure of the gas, the pH of the solution, the presence of other substances. It's dynamic.

Consider a simple example. A closed container which has a one-way valve which can allow gas to be added to the container. The container is in equilibrium with standard atmosphere. Heat the container, and nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, argon, and all the other gases will leave the solution in proportion to the change in temperature. So there is a new equilibrium now, under these new conditions. Now add a gas through the one way valve. The atmosphere inside the container will now have a higher partial pressure of that gas. Because of this change in partial pressure, some of those gas molecules will dissolve into the liquid, proportionally to the change in partial pressure. A new equilibrium is reached again. The liquid now holds more gas in solution than it otherwise would have, at the same temperature, because of the increased partial pressure.

I don't know why you refuse to accept reality here. This is standard and simple physics. The partial pressure change in our atmosphere is orders of magnitude larger than the change in temperature. The result is that more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the ocean. As that happens, ocean chemistry changes. Unless you've disproved the gas laws, what you call impossible is actually introductory physics lessons...

You can tell me how the monkey bars work at your favorite playground for all I care, but we aren't talking about that either.

Fish breath oxygen dissolved in water...the principles are precisely those you seem to think are impossible. Yet we do it all the time. Heat the water to speed fish metabolism, and then inject oxygen to replace the oxygen lost by heating the water. We can even supersaturate the water with oxygen...

 

[captain morgan]

But it does support the IPCC conclusions, it even uses IPCC conclusions in the report...

A question for you... How long ago, approximately, was it that the IPCC and the affiliated greenie groups were stating - as fact - that the warming trend was driven solely/primarily by anthro sources?

The answer is that it was not that long ago, a few years maybe. At that time, the IPCC was soooo convinced that this was the case that they lobbied to instill global policies to be (in theory) applied to all member nations.

Now, only a few short years later, the Royal Society reviews the 2007 IPCC doc and gives it their support.. Well, kinda.. Sorta.. Maybe.

Yeah, their conclusions are supportive of the IPCC doctrine, but they report is so riddled and rife with disclaimers, caveats and statements identifying uncertainity that they can not definitively determine anthro causation, that their position may as well be retracted.

Pretend all you like, but the writing is on the wall.

I assumed you were intelligent enough to make that conclusion on your own.

Spare me, please.. You had no clue about it until it was brought to your attention. face facts Tonnington, you of all people love any opportunity to lord over others in terms of science-speak. There is no way that you would have ignored this principle conflict in the physics of your position had you known.

Put simply, you had no idea.

It's not impossible...I don't know how you can't grasp this...the solubility of a gas in a solution depends on many factors. The temperature of the solution, the partial pressure of the gas, the pH of the solution, the presence of other substances. It's dynamic.

Nothing is impossible in theory... Too bad that the world is reality-based.

You'd do well to remember that.

I don't know why you refuse to accept reality here. This is standard and simple physics. The partial pressure change in our atmosphere is orders of magnitude larger than the change in temperature. The result is that more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the ocean. As that happens, ocean chemistry changes. Unless you've disproved the gas laws, what you call impossible is actually introductory physics lessons...

I have accepted reality on the pH and oceans issue... You are reluctant to accept the fact that you missed the relationship and will not accept this fact. You can come up with as many theoretical scenarios or closed, controlled experiments (that do not come anywhere close to representing the dynamism of our Earth's system BTW), but the fact is, your theoretical perspective does not represent the actual experiences on the planet.

There is a reason that all of the honest climate change models have failed and the only ones that have "succeeded" are those that were (admitted) frauds.

Think about it for just a minute.