OK, first off you're saying that I don't have any clue what background people have here,
You don't! I could be a 12 year old girl for all you know.
and yet a moment ago you were confidently predicting that teh backtground of anyone here who supprots AGW is "employed by those who benefit from teh AGW scare."
I have no idea of anyone's background here. Well that isn't quite true because I do know some on here reasonably well. What I said was I see a trend that the scientists who are proponents of AGW are much more likely to directly benefit from it and those who are against the theory will not benefit regardless of it being true or not. That says nothing about anybody on this forum in particular, it speaks to the authors of various reports on the topic and their opinions.
Actually, I do. When I read Cobalt and Tonington and others I can tell that they know what they are talking about.
Oh, so if someone agrees with you they know what they are talking about, the rest of us are clueless. :roll:
They, for example, know what a scientific theory is,
So do I...it is a guess about how something works or a prediction of the results of a specific set of circumstances.
what uncertainty means in a quantitative sense.
I understand some guesses are more educated and realistic than others. I am well aware of how probablities work.
They understand the basic physical processes involved, they don't confuse single events with statistical trends.
Like the historical statistical trend of 30-50 year cycles of warming & cooling. Like statistically we are actually still in the cooler part of the cycle that has been apparent over the last 10,000 years.
That would be a better question is it were true.
Answers are true or false, not questions. :roll:
tehre's plenty of people who, conversely, benefit from scaring people about teh AGW scare.
HUH? You want to try that again so it can be understood.
I mean if AGW scinetists are lying so thaty can get another $100K in research funds next year, wouldn't oil exectuives be lying to reap another few billion more in profits next year
.
I never said the oil execs weren't lying. I actually believe they lie all the time for profit. So do scientists and the UN.
Your argument just doesn't make any sense.
I make perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is your belief that nobody but you can really understand the subject. What doesn't make sense is how every time I poke a big hole in your explanation you suddenly change your tune and rebut with a different explanation until I (or someone else on here that isn't a 'scientist') poke a hole in that theory then you change it again. What doesn't make sense is you believing something radiated in a spherical pattern will hit another sphere with 50% of the radiation. If that were true we would experience 50% of the earth in full sunlight at all times.
I'm a scientist Beaver. I understand numbers.
I'm not sure you do.
You have to demonstrate why such a theory is superior to the existing (greenhouse effect) one.
You can't actually prove your theory is true and there is 10,000 years of empirical evidence to suggest you are full of sh*t.
that should count for something in my opinion.
Do I have to repeat the awful truth about opinions.
Just a footnote....Do you think it's time you got some help for your dyslexia or complete lack of proofreading, whichever your problem is.