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.
According to scientists, there is. By definition, empirical is evidence based on observation. The theory on climate change is based on observations made by scientists. You choosing to ignore their findings doesn't make those findings any less valid.There is zero empirical evidence to support your claim.
None.
So it is just climatology where everyone in any field is an expert. What about psychology? Aer you an expert in that as well?For a human you seen unable to think critically. Like I said. I am qualified to teach any climatogy class. Graduate level included.
A climatologist would be lost in a graduate level geology class.
Hell, I think the vast majority would be in serious trouble with optical crystalography which is a 2nd year class.
That's where we had lots of geology majors suddenly change to geography.....which you will see a lot of climatologists have as their undergrad degree.
The problem is that we have found out that the scientists lie.According to scientists, there is. By definition, empirical is evidence based on observation. The theory on climate change is based on observations made by scientists. You choosing to ignore their findings doesn't make those findings any less valid.
So it is just climatology where everyone in any field is an expert. What about psychology? Aer you an expert in that as well?
This is the same bullshit tactic that young earth creationists use to 'prove' that the earth is 6000 years old. They pull out a physicist to explain why DNA proves common decent is impossible. Then they pull in a biologist to explain flood geology.
It is a bullshit and dishonest tactic, period. All you have is bullshit insults and claims that you are an expert in everything because you have a degree. Whatever, that you are unable to understand expertise whatsoever just shows you are an idiot no matter what piece of sheepskin you have on your wall.
According to scientists, there is. By definition, empirical is evidence based on observation. The theory on climate change is based on observations made by scientists. You choosing to ignore their findings doesn't make those findings any less valid.
The majority of CO2 comes from the oceans. Should we get rid of those?We know CO2 absorbs energy
We know CO2 has been increasing
Therefore, if it doesn’t stop, temps will go up
If the CO2 isn’t because of human activity, where is it coming from? The deniers seem to have all the answers, except that one. If you can’t answer it, then you’re the one that isn’t being scientific.
He didn't say volcanos, Simp.Humans produce more CO2 in less than a week than all the volcanoes on earth do in an average year.
CO2 emissions: Human vs volcanoes
"Theory".According to scientists, there is. By definition, empirical is evidence based on observation. The theory on climate change is based on observations made by scientists. You choosing to ignore their findings doesn't make those findings any less valid.
You got a cite for that? Sounds like typical ‘let’s pull something out of the air’ denialist BS.The majority of CO2 comes from the oceans. Should we get rid of those?
Yes, theory and no, it doesn’t mean a guess."Theory".
Measurable results? You mean like measuring the mean temperature of the globe?Nope. Other than IO psychology, which actually produces measurable output, psychology is based on OPINION.
OPINION is SUBJECTIVE. I don't deal in subjective science...which is soft, I deal in OBJECTIVE science, which is measurable. In other words, hard, or exact.
Let us use a sport analogy, climatology is akin to ice dancing. The winners are based on the subjective opinion of judges. In other words a consensus of opinion.
Geology and the other hard sciences, on the other hand, are track and field. The winners are based on who crosses the finish line first.
No judgement. No consensus.
MEASURABLE results are all that matter.
Show me anything that is measurable in climatology.
Measurable results? You mean like measuring the mean temperature of the globe?
Climate Change: Global Temperature
Earth's surface temperature has risen about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the NOAA record in 1850. It may seem like a small change, but it's a tremendous increase in stored heat.www.climate.gov
Oh wait. As a geologist you must know that those measurements are fake right? Because you are an expert in the field after all....
So is that a retraction from the last lie you told or are you sticking with the claim they do not measure anything?Yeah. Now look at how climatologists take the raw data, but then run it through a climate model to obtain their final number.
Why do you think they do that?
There is so much about what they do that is fraudulent, that you don't know, that when you figure it out, if you are honest, you will be furious.
Do yourself a favor and leave the echo chamber you live in.
So is that a retraction from the last lie you told or are you sticking with the claim they do not measure anything?
What is funny is that you seem to not realize Astrophysics also deals in models.
and then:Dude. Stop acting like an asshole. I use my language very carefully. You should do likewise.
why do you think I am being an asshole? Why do you not try your own advice.Do you not understand anything about the real world?
The so-called "climate scientists" can't isolate the output variable, temperature, to a single input variable, CO2 concentration. Furthermore, they can't even accurately measure the output variable.According to scientists, there is. By definition, empirical is evidence based on observation. The theory on climate change is based on observations made by scientists. You choosing to ignore their findings doesn't make those findings any less valid.
