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.
What you really mean is that when the data doesn't support your hocus-pocus theories, instead of tossing out the theories you just invent excuses as to why the data no longer correlates.
AGW isn't science. It's a con. Aztec priests were intimately familiar with the kind of reasoning employed by their modern counterparts in the field of "climate science."
So you're saying that new evidence can't change a theory? Ever? We should stay with the way Aristotle thought the world worked?
If you can't make predictions based on your theory, then your theory is wrong. Geologists used to have a theory that the continents were fixed and immovable. "new evidence" showed that the continents did in fact move over time. Geologists then tossed the old theory on the trash heap.
If you can't make predictions based on your theory, then your theory is wrong. Geologists used to have a theory that the continents were fixed and immovable. "new evidence" showed that the continents did in fact move over time. Geologists then tossed the old theory on the trash heap.
The ability of CO2 to absorb IR radiation isn't theory, however, it's scientific fact.
Spitting into the ocean will make sea level increase. That doesn't mean we have to move our life guard stations further up the beach as a result.
So you're saying that new evidence can't change a theory? Ever? We should stay with the way Aristotle thought the world worked?
If you can't make predictions based on your theory, then your theory is wrong. Geologists used to have a theory that the continents were fixed and immovable. "new evidence" showed that the continents did in fact move over time. Geologists then tossed the old theory on the trash heap.
We can't predict what viruses and bacteria will evolve into, but we know they evolve.
There is climate change, and it does impact storms and drought. How much and where, we don't know. How much is caused by CO2, is something we don't know either.
30 years ago, Geologists thought we'd be out of oil. We aren't. But oil is not a renewable fuel.
The ability of CO2 to absorb IR radiation isn't theory, however, it's scientific fact.
Spitting into the ocean will make sea level increase. That doesn't mean we have to move our life guard stations further up the beach as a result.
Built on sinking ground, Norfolk tries to hold back tide amid sea-level rise - Washington Post
Spitting into the ocean will make sea level increase. That doesn't mean we have to move our life guard stations further up the beach as a result.
Built on sinking ground, Norfolk tries to hold back tide amid sea-level rise - Washington Post
Your article admits that the land the city is built on is sinking. Sea level increases are not affecting any other coastal city in America that I'm aware of.
Spitting into the ocean will make sea level increase. That doesn't mean we have to move our life guard stations further up the beach as a result.
Built on sinking ground, Norfolk tries to hold back tide amid sea-level rise - Washington Post
Your article admits that the land the city is built on is sinking. Sea level increases are not affecting any other coastal city in America that I'm aware of.
Your article admits that the land the city is built on is sinking. Sea level increases are not affecting any other coastal city in America that I'm aware of.
(yawn)
New Orleans
Your article admits that the land the city is built on is sinking. Sea level increases are not affecting any other coastal city in America that I'm aware of.
Exactly, which as the article pointed out is why Fla and other coastal loccalities are studying it. Sea levels should not effect our cities for 30 years even on present models.
But your premise was that w/o predictions, theories are not theories. That's wrong. Evolution occurs in bacteria, but we can't predict what the change will be. Similarly, climate change is a fact. It may continue, it may abate. But if you think multi natioals and insuracnce aren't trying to factor in what the range of possibilies are, you are not paying attention.
Your article admits that the land the city is built on is sinking. Sea level increases are not affecting any other coastal city in America that I'm aware of.
Exactly, which as the article pointed out is why Fla and other coastal loccalities are studying it. Sea levels should not effect our cities for 30 years even on present models.
But your premise was that w/o predictions, theories are not theories. That's wrong. Evolution occurs in bacteria, but we can't predict what the change will be. Similarly, climate change is a fact. It may continue, it may abate. But if you think multi natioals and insuracnce aren't trying to factor in what the range of possibilies are, you are not paying attention.
You're actually wrong about bacteria. We actually can predict how they will evolve to some extent. If we expose them to antibiotics without kill them all off, then they will develop an immunity to antibiotics. This effect is as predictable as the sunrise.
Whatever multinationals and insurance companies are doing is beside the point. Scientific truths are not determined by what corporate executives think about them.
Exactly, which as the article pointed out is why Fla and other coastal loccalities are studying it. Sea levels should not effect our cities for 30 years even on present models.
But your premise was that w/o predictions, theories are not theories. That's wrong. Evolution occurs in bacteria, but we can't predict what the change will be. Similarly, climate change is a fact. It may continue, it may abate. But if you think multi natioals and insuracnce aren't trying to factor in what the range of possibilies are, you are not paying attention.
You're actually wrong about bacteria. We actually can predict how they will evolve to some extent. If we expose them to antibiotics without kill them all off, then they will develop an immunity to antibiotics. This effect is as predictable as the sunrise.
Whatever multinationals and insurance companies are doing is beside the point. Scientific truths are not determined by what corporate executives think about them.
JFC, do you have any idea what you just posted? We can affect the environ to alter the effects of scientific happenings. LOL. And yeah, effective biz to alter their practices to fit with scientific knowledge. LOL
And no, the problem is this. We know that antibiotics will cause bateria to evolve so that the antibiotic is ineffective, but unfortunately we cannot predict exactly what the evolution is. If we could, then we'd have modified the antibiotic.
"Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change"
WHY the skepticism by scientists now???
"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.
Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.
"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.
Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown | Reuters
See how far ahead of the curve conservatives are?
I mean you "progressives" are still in the 1970s memes.. global warming,etc...
While we conservatives were trying to get you hysterical glaciers will all melt hyperbole idiots to look at the facts and not the generalities!
For example NOT one of you "global warming" evangelicals have yet answered why a simple data gathering technique .. temperature reading stations and
the base point for the "global warming" data excluded 12.5% of the land mass? By discounting this 12.5% of the total land mass the average temperature
reading stations were skewed towards higher average!
That's just one of the many reasons common sense people are very skeptical of the Chicken Little.. "waterworld advocates"!
Discounting land mass doesn't necessarily skew readings. It's the distribution that's important, not whether you have every square inch of the globe covered. Besides, with satellite technology we should be getting better data from space than from hard to reach land based stations that can only be visited, serviced and re-calibrated at irregular intervals.
So you're saying that new evidence can't change a theory? Ever? We should stay with the way Aristotle thought the world worked?
If you can't make predictions based on your theory, then your theory is wrong. Geologists used to have a theory that the continents were fixed and immovable. "new evidence" showed that the continents did in fact move over time. Geologists then tossed the old theory on the trash heap.
We can't predict what viruses and bacteria will evolve into, but we know they evolve.
There is climate change, and it does impact storms and drought. How much and where, we don't know. How much is caused by CO2, is something we don't know either.
30 years ago, Geologists thought we'd be out of oil. We aren't. But oil is not a renewable fuel.
Climate has always been changing, that's why we've had several ice ages on Earth.Um. It's not "global warming". It's climate change. Global warming implies that the world slowly continues to heat up.
The truth is closer to having more extreme weather, hot or cold, rain or dry.
I mean, the East Coast was battered with snow. In March.
It was also 70 degrees here... in January. It hasn't truly felt like Spring except for the past few days.
These things occurring aren't unique, but they are occurring with more frequency.
I don't claim that scientists know all the answers (that's why most things are Theories, not Laws, because all science is subject to change with new data), but I do believe that the Earth's climate is growing wonky.
(BTW, not to add fuel to the fire, but the reduction of greenhouse gases to prevent climate change has led to the ozone layer patching itself back up.)
We've also has several warming periods.
It's cyclical.....not Man induced.
That's only half the story. You're totally ignoring the time component. Ice Ages involved tens to hundreds of thousands of years. We're talking about the last 200+.
The Saharas green era, known as the African Humid Period, likely lasted from 11,000 to 5,000 years ago, and is thought to have ended abruptly, with the region drying back into desert within a span of one to two centuries.
See how far ahead of the curve conservatives are?
Um. It's not "global warming". It's climate change. Global warming implies that the world slowly continues to heat up.
The truth is closer to having more extreme weather, hot or cold, rain or dry.
I mean, the East Coast was battered with snow. In March.
It was also 70 degrees here... in January. It hasn't truly felt like Spring except for the past few days.
These things occurring aren't unique, but they are occurring with more frequency.
I don't claim that scientists know all the answers (that's why most things are Theories, not Laws, because all science is subject to change with new data), but I do believe that the Earth's climate is growing wonky.
(BTW, not to add fuel to the fire, but the reduction of greenhouse gases to prevent climate change has led to the ozone layer patching itself back up.)
Um. It's not "global warming". It's climate change. Global warming implies that the world slowly continues to heat up.
The truth is closer to having more extreme weather, hot or cold, rain or dry.
I mean, the East Coast was battered with snow. In March.
It was also 70 degrees here... in January. It hasn't truly felt like Spring except for the past few days.
These things occurring aren't unique, but they are occurring with more frequency.
I don't claim that scientists know all the answers (that's why most things are Theories, not Laws, because all science is subject to change with new data), but I do believe that the Earth's climate is growing wonky.
(BTW, not to add fuel to the fire, but the reduction of greenhouse gases to prevent climate change has led to the ozone layer patching itself back up.)
See how far ahead of the curve conservatives are?
....Even though they have a tendency to go a "little" spastic when they recognize they've gone "all in" on a dying-market, like for-profit health-care, right??
Climate has always been changing, that's why we've had several ice ages on Earth.
We've also has several warming periods.
It's cyclical.....not Man induced.
That's only half the story. You're totally ignoring the time component. Ice Ages involved tens to hundreds of thousands of years. We're talking about the last 200+.
please explain this......
A ?green? Sahara was far less dusty than today - MIT News Office
The Saharas green era, known as the African Humid Period, likely lasted from 11,000 to 5,000 years ago, and is thought to have ended abruptly, with the region drying back into desert within a span of one to two centuries.
