Search results

And a good thing too. Mother nature is cruel and merciless and the more we are able to defeat her the better our lives.

That's because the environmental activists didn't have much influence then. :laughing8: Oh please!

And there's no scientific consensus on global warming either.

with only beneficial effect. 15% increased plant growth, for example. I recall reading somewhere that CO2 becomes toxic at 6000 PPM, but if we were to burn all fossil fuel on earth in one month we wouldn't reach anywhere near that level. I've also read that at one time CO2 was at 8000 PPM but...

My argument hasn't been made yet. The dispute over modeling doesn't come into it. Now, unless you can convince me otherwise I'll stick to what was explained to me by real people. But if you're so sure, surely you can explain it. I'm not asking for detailed scientific data, just write down...

NO, that's what the evidence supports. If it didn't, why do the alarmists have to use fraud to get the results they want? Do you really think they would do that if they didn't have to? I asked why the infestation hadn't occured in the south long ago, since the bug already is there and if it...

Nah, we got under -40 quite often here. The winter of the first gulf war is memorable to me because that's the one where we reached -46C (50 below) right in downtown Prince George. Not at all pleasant.

Not quite true. I've heard you need 2 - 3 weeks of -40, but there's other factors that come into consideration. First it depends on the depth of snow. The beetles descend to the roots for the winter and if the snow is too deep, the cold will never reach them, even over 6 weeks (which, as you...

There you have the answer to your question. They're tools for predicting. And there you have it again. They are based on evidence. They use data that is entered into them. They are not themselves evidence. And if the modler is corrupt, so will be the results of the model.

Nope. A model is a tool for projecting, forecasting, predicting etc. based on data entered into it. In itself it can never become evidence. The prediction it makes isn't evidence either, because it is basically, an educated guess. It's accuracy can never be 100% and depending on the bias of...

So then why do we have pine trees in the south where the winters never get that cold? They should have been wiped out centuries ago if that's the case. OK, here's some education for you. Beetles attack pines by boring into the inner layer of bark (where the sap flows) laying eggs, hatching...

:lol: Just means they know a cash cow when they see one.

Oh yes we can and do pollute the air. How high a concentration are you talking about? If you go high enough, anything can harm, even oxygen can be toxic. But the little bit of CO2 that's currently in the atmosphere? Not to worry. I'm old enough to remember the 60s. We weren't near that bad.

But we can influence climate. Minimally that is. That's what the evidence supports. Every species has its habitat. That was the subject under discussion. Eventually there will be a replacement for oil as a fuel, but that is a long time coming. As yet we can't do it, and there isn't even a...

:laughing7: I look forward to it!

Models are great tools. They are not evidence.

Well then you should have no trouble explaining it to the rest of us. Come now, no more excuses. Uh, no. I would explain why you shouldn't.

It's rather sad really, that you can't think of anything else to say on the subject but accuse people of not believing in climate change (is there even one person on this forum who doesn't? Anyone???) and that "hero Bush" nonsense. How many times have you repeated these now, 20? 30? So...

I didn't think you could. After all, no-one else has ever done it.

Hah! Nice try. I asked you first. Since you've seen it in person you shouldn't even have to ask them, you could do it yourself. So go ahead.