Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I understand that and agree.That this isn't like the last couple thousand years is what is going to fuck US up.
They aren't my models and they are much better than the denier literature has insisted. And getting better with each iteration. I don't expect a daily weather report for the year 2100, but if they say the planet will be more than 2C warmer by then, I firmly believe we have reason to be worried and to act.
Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.You are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.Gravity ==> Real
Gravity ==> Proven
AGW ==> Fairy Tale
Can you explain why your opinion is at such variance with the scientists of the world?
The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...
Bwhahahahahaha!!!
What YOU are showing is strong evidence of a POLITICAL behavior, since consensus and authority doesn't advance science research at all, it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters.
Meanwhile you and another warmists are ignoring the utter failures of the IPPC prediction/projection that have been made since day one in 1990.
SSDD is correct there have been HUNDREDS of new science papers THIS YEAR, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture. Many hundreds last year and the year before that means that over 2,000 papers have been published against the AGW conjecture, in the last few years.
Consensus doesn't publish papers, that is why your argument is dead on arrival.
I personally think it may be too late. Considering how much action humans are likely to actually take, it was probably too late 20 years ago.
How many failed predictions does it take? Even if it is a bit "warmer", so what?!
It's over 3 DECADES now of failed predictions: ice free Arctic, snow a thing of the past, etc. we're not convinced
Every post I've made on this thread contributes to the fact that you are full of shit. That's what I'm convinced of.So you post what convinced you....as sad as that is...
.
Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory.
An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis.
Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the Scientific Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.
So you see, acceptance of new ideas and theories is always about getting a consensus, yet no theory is every written in stone. It will always be a theory subject to change.
That people in voids with "man"I don't understand what gets your wheels turning: that man is responsible for the warming?
Regardless of what branch of science we might discuss, consensus is the cornerstone for acceptance of scientific theory. An accepted scientific theory follows the ScientiYou are saying 95% of all national academies of science, most every national science foundation, 97% of all climate scientists, the vast majority scientists from all disciplines, and ever major scientific organization in the world that studies climate are a cult.Can you explain why your opinion is at such variance with the scientists of the world?
The number of scientists towing the AGW line is growing smaller all the time...more than 500 papers questioning the consensus line last year alone..surely more this year and more the next...you picked pseudoscience over science and sooner or later, you will find that you, and the rest of your cult buddies will have to leave the board because of the peals of laughter over how easily you were duped...
Bwhahahahahaha!!!
What YOU are showing is strong evidence of a POLITICAL behavior, since consensus and authority doesn't advance science research at all, it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters.
Meanwhile you and another warmists are ignoring the utter failures of the IPPC prediction/projection that have been made since day one in 1990.
SSDD is correct there have been HUNDREDS of new science papers THIS YEAR, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture. Many hundreds last year and the year before that means that over 2,000 papers have been published against the AGW conjecture, in the last few years.
Consensus doesn't publish papers, that is why your argument is dead on arrival.fic Method which begins with a question or an unexplained phenomenon. Observations, data collection, and experiments are conducted to gain more insight into the phenomenon. Ideas we call hypothesis's begin to develop spurring more research. Papers are written showing scientific evidence in support or undermining a hypothesis. As the hypothesis gains support the hypotheses are restated as a new theory with supporting evidence. It moves up through more prestigious scientific groups spurring more research. As acceptance grows, the new theory makes it's way into the academies of science, organizations like NASA, the American Society of Physics, American Medical Association, etc. As the New Theory is endorsed by these groups it becomes a tool used to investigate other areas of Science. People may then accept it as fact but the door is always open to competing ideas. To put it in common terms, scientists run their ideas with supporting research up the flagpole to see who salutes.
So you see, acceptance of new ideas and theories is always about getting a consensus, yet no theory is every written in stone. It will always be a theory subject to change.
What YOU are showing is strong evidence of a POLITICAL behavior, since consensus and authority doesn't advance science research at all, it is REPRODUCIBLE research that matters.
Meanwhile you and another warmists are ignoring the utter failures of the IPPC prediction/projection that have been made since day one in 1990.
SSDD is correct there have been HUNDREDS of new science papers THIS YEAR, that doesn't support the AGW conjecture. Many hundreds last year and the year before that means that over 2,000 papers have been published against the AGW conjecture, in the last few years.
Consensus doesn't publish papers, that is why your argument is dead on arrival.
That people in voids with "man"I don't understand what gets your wheels turning: that man is responsible for the warming?
Crazy weather happens and it is mans fault.That people in voids with "man"I don't understand what gets your wheels turning: that man is responsible for the warming?
I still don't understand what you're trying to say. I assume you meant "That people fill in the voids with "man". What voids? Where?
Pretty ironic that the ones arguing are called 'conservatives', when they couldn't care less about conservation. When they hear the word green the only thing that comes to mind is money.The world is getting warmer due to human GHG emissions. Humans burned fossil fuel for over a century before this was widely known, though a few scientists predicted it in the late 1800s. We created an enormous infrastructure powered almost entirely by fossil fuels before finding out that we were doing more than making smog in LA. But now we do know. We know the effects of this warming will be costly. We have to act. It will not be easy or cheap or pleasant, but no one is trying to destroy the economy or take us back to the stone age. We are trying to avoid centuries of human misery and trillions upon trillions of cost. Claiming that this is all a hoax driven by misanthropy among liberals (who apparently include every one of the world's 60,000+ climate scientists) is just simply unsupportable. The process is real, the threat is real, action is required.
The world is getting warmer due to human GHG emissions. Humans burned fossil fuel for over a century before this was widely known, though a few scientists predicted it in the late 1800s. We created an enormous infrastructure powered almost entirely by fossil fuels before finding out that we were doing more than making smog in LA. But now we do know. We know the effects of this warming will be costly. We have to act. It will not be easy or cheap or pleasant, but no one is trying to destroy the economy or take us back to the stone age. We are trying to avoid centuries of human misery and trillions upon trillions of cost. Claiming that this is all a hoax driven by misanthropy among liberals (who apparently include every one of the world's 60,000+ climate scientists) is just simply unsupportable. The process is real, the threat is real, action is required.
. For the past 20 years with all the bomb throwing going on about global warming, the world has done close to dick in terms of climate action......the evidence is profound.
Your lot seemed to have forked over your wallet so the upper 1% could live life without taxation. How much "reasoned level of thinking" did that involve?
As you've been told multiple times, doing nothing will cost far, far more than doing something. That's a very general rule with problems of all sort. Ignoring them and putting them off is NEVER the best solution. It's the stupid solution or the cowardly solution. How can you not see that?
I get upset with you fools for several reasons, but the biggest are my children, whose lives you seem determined to fuck up.
And skooerashole, NO ONE CARES THAT YOU THINK NO ONE CARES.
