Just like the alarmists calling for widsespread vaccinartions against prevetnable chiildhood diseases can't prove their vaccinations are safe, yet they want them distributed anyways.
New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Just like the alarmists calling for widsespread vaccinartions against prevetnable chiildhood diseases can't prove their vaccinations are safe, yet they want them distributed anyways.
Well that is a stretch. I can only see that comparison as an act of desperation. Small Pox, Polio, etc are real and proven diseases. Vaccinations have been proven to stem the tides of those epidemics and often eradicate them in countries that use them.
Bank transfers will not stop or control the climate. This is just a wealth distribution scam that is pushed by the UN and alarmists because they have a twisted ideology against oil and other major industries...all in western nations only. They want the cash. Envy drives this religion.
Bank transfers will not stop or control the climate. This is just a wealth distribution scam that is pushed by the UN and alarmists because they have a twisted ideology against oil and other major industries...all in western nations only. They want the cash. Envy drives this religion.
Vaccinations have not been proven safe. Indeed you can visit any one of dozens of sites that will go on, in great techical detail, about how they have not been proven safe. There are well-documented cases of vaccines causing harmful side effects.
The overall efficacy of vaccination programs is readily apparent but, as I stated earlier, a vaccine cannot be proven to be safe.
You seem to be conflating the existence of anthropogenic global warming wiht the proposed policy remedies for it.
It was a stretch to begin with. Apples and oranges.
Well that was/is an evolved tactic of the alarmists. Get the opposition to agree and then hit them with the policy.
Niiiiice.... The detailed disclaimer that is generally presented in very small print.
Congratulations, you have somehow transformed yourself 6 steps below this guy:
Bloody hilarious.. Start with 'I'm not trying to prove anything' and segue into calling alternate opinions 'ideologues'
I'm really busting a gut here
Apparently, the IPCC and the AGW truther sect are completely in line with your fundamental principle that there is no place in the scientific realm for proof.
Great... Really great
It's interesting to observe the complete and utter meltdown of the AGW truther position, eh?
They have gone from 99.8% degree of certainty to 'science isn't in the business to prove anything'... All wrapped up nicely in a cocoon of questioning their own data relative to the accuracy of the temperature recording technologies over the recent past.
.... Like you say; how many bank transfers will it take to stop global warming?
It's not that much of a stretch. If you ever debated positions wiht an anti-vaxxer, then you know how I feel debating global warming with deniers. Patently ridiculous claims, references to vague conspiracy theories, a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific method itself.
To be fair, scientific method requires falsifiable hypotheses and repeatable experiments. Do the warmists have either?
It's not my fault that you misread my original post.
I never said this either.
I think they do. It's not all just one big theory though; you have to break it down.
For instance:
Hypothesis: Carbon dioxide molecules absorb some photons in the infrared frquency range. Call that frequency range f. A multispectral beam shot at a CO2 mass will show attenuation in the absorbed frequency range at the other side.
Null Hypothesis: The CO2 has no effect.
Experiment: Fire photons at known mass and distribution of CO2 molecules. Measure spectral signal at the other end. If the dip in frequency range f is not as predicted then then you have good reason to reject the null hypothesis.
...and you just keep piling them on from there on in. You can't prove AGW this way, but you can put together a fairly likely case for it.
Of course, there you run into the unspoken (and sometimes spoken) rule of experimentation: "All else being equal."
Yes, you have an argument. And you have some evidence. But certainty? I think not. Heck, we don't even know what causes ice ages. But I'll bet the rent it has an effect on global warming.
What petros and captain morgan and others are trying to say is that your explanation is far too simplistic and one-dimensional to accurately model a system as vast and complex as the galaxy (and some hypotheses of ice ages call for galactic causes). I'm forced to agree with them. Your evidence, while sound, ain't nearly enough.
It's kinda like "How do we solve poverty?" The short, simple answer is "Give poor people money." Well, we did that, and guess what? We still got poverty. Turns out that simple solutions to complex problems aren't solutions.
Exactly. Science is inherently uncertain. Certainty only exists in the realm of faith. Which is what I was alluding to earlier.
No, that is not what they are trying to say. I think you should go back and read what they are saying. Because, apart from you and gerryh, I've never heard any of the so-called skeptcis say anything close to that. It's usually a mixture of ad hominems, references to some vague conspiracy theories and demands that I "prove" it.
Indeed the system is complex--not to mention chaotic. But is that complexity reducible? I'd say it is. That's pretty much the entire point of working science, really. Developing models that reduce complexity yet maintain predictive power. We suspect that aspirin works, even though we can't come even close to modelling the human body, or the galaxy within which it interacts.
My evidence was for that one experiment. The evidence for the entire case is orders of magnitude larger and can't be grasped by any one person, since it covers so many scientific disiplines. At some point, you have to take someone's word for it. I happen to be proficient at radiation physics and thermodynamics, and on that level, the theory makes sense to me, so I accept it.
OK, you're right. They are emotionally driven. They leap to the conclusion that global warming is BS, then look for facts or arguments to back up that emotional conclusion.
But of course the same is true of most global warming believers. They are of the "humans are bad, mmm-kay?" mindset, they don't understand the science, and they say stupid sh*t like "97% of climate scientists." Science ain't a democracy. There's one right answer and a whole bunch of wrong ones. And if one scientist has the right answer, and every other scientist in the world has the wrong answer, the right answer is no less right.
Makes sense to me, too. It just don't account for enough variables.
It is my conclusion that the jury is still out on global warming.
Now, here's my compromise. There are many tried-and-true pollution control measures that also reduce CO2 emissions. Why don't we go big on that, since they have immediate, tangible benefits, as well as the extra, added "If AGW theory proves out to be correct, we're also doing something about that."
Sound reasonable?
It is a big stretch. Those diseases are known killers.
Man made climate change... not proven and not a killer.
And driven by the promise of billions... even trillions of dollars if they just trust or believe.
Really?
Vaccinations have been proven to work for almost 300 years. George Washington was demanding his soldiers be vaccinated for Small pox before they entered Boston in 1775.
Climate models have been shown to be a freaking joke over the last 50 years. I'm old enough to remember the "coming Ice Age" back in the 70s.
Not even close.
Accurately recorded incident of George Washington requesting troops be vaccinated. Rumour has it General Greene and Howe were antivaxxers.
Really--even the ones that didn't work were "proven to work"? All vaccinations ever are proven 100% safe and effective. Wow. I didn't know that. Listen, you'll have to ring the alrm bells in the medical community, because we have all these so called "experts" with their PhDs and MDs telling me that the flu vaccine wasn't very effective this year.
Without getting side-tracked too much, the main point is that the right wing nutbags on this board are suffering from advanced Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, like the anti-vaxxers. You both think you know better than people who spend careers studying this stuff when in fact, you are so ignorant that you don't know how ignorant you are.
It's not that there's stupid people, Colpy. The great tragedy is that the stupid people don't know they're stupid.
And that endeth the lesson. I'
Rumour has it we live in a universe inside a jar. Yakko even sang about it
What was the magic point in the Roman/Greek climate deal of 79AD that had them go from leather skirts and togas to leather pants and furs?
That's the kinda climate deal we need.
What was the magic point in the Roman/Greek climate deal of 79AD that had them go from leather skirts and togas to leather pants and furs?
That's the kinda climate deal we need.