Ubiquitor
Member
- Jan 12, 2015
- 75
- 15
- 21
Climate science is very much "real science." I've found that a lot people that say it isn't "real" or it's a religion are people that just don't understand science in general or climate science more specifically. I've often suggested they get an education, but I've come to realize that would be a waste of everyone's time and money.
I personally read the science for and the science against AGW. It overwhelmingly supports AGW. I side with science.
No its not. Using failed models and calling their outputs 'empirical evidence' is not only a lie its deceptive to boot.. You must have attended the Michale Mann school of climastrology..
I also noted that you cut off your graph when the earth was cooling and CO2 was rising naturally. How disingenuous can you get. The snippet view is the primary scare tactic of all climatastrologers.. So tell me, Actually, show me the empirical evidence, to include the math used, all data accessible, and the methods used to ascertain how CO2 is magically doing this to our atmosphere... which defies LOG function and Linear function diversion..
Of course it is. The models are part of the scientific method and most of them have proven to be quite accurate. They are constantly being modified as we learn more about climate, which makes them more and more accurate.
I didn't cut off any graph. That's how it came and the timeframe is sufficient. The Earth's warming and cooling, while important, do not disprove man's involvement in the current 130+ year warming trend. Study after study shows the primary forcing behind the current warming trend is CO2 being increased in the atmosphere due to man's activities. I've provided links to studies already. I could sit here and provide links to hundreds more, but it's clear that would be a waste of time as you've made up your mind. I find this a lot with people that have no formal education in science.
And thus proving you are a AGW hack and could care less about real science. The AGW religious dogma is what you believe without hesitation or question.
Next this cult member will be backing the Hockey stick!
You're citing Dr. Spencer? LMAO This is what's called confirmation bias. You found what you wanted and swallowed it whole.
Some models have been off by quite a bit though.
Some have been quite accurate:
Models have been tested against past climate and accurately reproduced it. However, attacking the models as if they are all there is to climate science is a common tactic of the science deniers.