I am addressing the topic which is bullsh-t. Quit posting bullsh-t if you don't want it to be called out as bullsh-t.
You haven't proven anything to be bull**** except your misrepresentation of the science.
I am addressing the topic which is bullsh-t. Quit posting bullsh-t if you don't want it to be called out as bullsh-t.
You should Study the Rules of Capitalisation in the English Language.
You haven't proven anything to be bull**** except your misrepresentation of the science.
This issue has no substance, so I don't see how I could address it.Adn 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 style.
It's not my fault you interpret the conclusions of these reports to mean certain doom.
This issue has no substance, so I don't see how I could address it. I do not suffer fools gladly
.
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.goOd gRieF.. TB.. you aRe a mOroN. iNcaPable of aDdressinG a sUbstantive iSsuE.
I would like to see the hard evidence to your view.New survey reconfirms overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW
It's a consensus!!!
Climate "scientists" agree that they have to keep the story scary so that grant money keeps flowing.....................
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.
We have a definition of proof in the Scientific Method and it is stipulated in the premis of a theory.
AGW has abandoned the Scientfic Method, the core of Western technology, as it has stated a premis and refused to define a proof. In fact it has increasingly claimed that ANY outcome proves the hypothesis as its predictions have gone through innumerable revisions as they have gone unrealized. The evidence is now chosen selectively, or interpreted after the fact, or ingored all together depending on whether it can be used in program of fear mongering and obfuscation.
AGW is not even a natural philosophy, which relies Logic and stated assumptions. AGW has now deemed itself a Religion.. which must be accepted on Faith and requires no material or empirical proof. Hence it is a Cult. It has a political agenda as its goal.. but it based on a deeply pessimistic and anti-human belief system.
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.
In conclusion, the explanation of glacial-interglacial CO2 variations remains a difficult attribution problem. It appears likely that a range of mechanisms have acted in concert (e.g., Köhler et al., 2005). The future challenge is not only to explain the amplitude of glacial-interglacial CO2 variations, but the complex temporal evolution of atmospheric CO2 and climate consistency.
6.4 Glacial-Interglacial Variability and Dynamics - AR4 WGI Chapter 6: Palaeoclimate
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 .
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.
What's wrong with GMO's?
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.