Look I admit its a theory be happy with that. I know the difference and that a theory has more backing. I addressed it in your favor
Did you even read the article? If you read the article you would see that she provides no sources for her comments. Here is an example, she writes: But she does not give a link to the article. I could write: It is equally meaningless. Did you even read the article? If you did, why didn't you copy and post some relevant portions for us to read? Did you find there was nothing in the article to support your assertion and hoped no one would notice?
Do you believe that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is a greenhouse gas, or in other words, does CO[SUB]2[/SUB] trap heat?
No, our point is that humans, like any other organism on Earth, have an affect on our planet. We go to an island and start killing the native flightless bird on it, and it becomes extinct. We burn coal and let the sulfur dioxide go into the air and the rain changes acidity and kills forests in Canada. We let chlorofluorocarbons leak out of our refrigerators and they cause a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. We burn fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate, and we are starting to warm up our planet.
Thats exactly the point Im making and its not only organisms that have an effect but you guys say its proven its all our fault and that we can control the earths temperature . Whats a good temp for the earth. Inquiring minds want to know
I suppose there is a populist notion that climate change is to be wholly blamed on human activity. I don't know any scientist that even remotely suggests that. What there is a scientific consensus on is that human activity and the industrial production of greenhouse gasses is accelerating the rate of change. I am also unaware of any scientist that has claimed we can control the earth's temperature. At this point all we can do is mitigate our own actions since there is an historic correlation between atmospheric content and global temperature. We aren't the cause of climate change we are merely providing the catalyst to speed up the process.
Thats the theory. But again even of you are right there also no proof it will be bad for us. Im sure people in Canada would love a little more global warming as well as in Siberia . Why is it most people live near the equator ?
Those living on Islands and in Florida most certainly do. http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswi...efugees-evacuate-their-island-homes-for-good/ https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07...o-us-towns-how-theyre-responding-matter-faith
How about people living in Canada or other cold regions? Heck we are losing Fire Island ere but its because of erosion. Islands come and Islands go. Heck if it werent for the last Ice age the island I live on, Long Island would not even be here.
You can attempt sideline all you want, cite ancient geology, call scientists frauds and say it's all a conspiracy....it does not change the accuracy of my statement.
Florida is only a recent formation uncovered when sea levels dropped. It is made up of sedimentary rock in an ocean. At one point it was 3 times it's current size due to ocean levels. Now people are upset because sea level always changes and no one took that into account. Seas around Florida have been rising at the same rate for the short time man has been recording it, about 100 years according to tide guages, the only measurements used for local planning. The land itself rises and falls. In many places sea levels are dropping due to land rebounding from the glaciers that used to cover them 1 or 2 miles thick.
If you have an alternate theory that fits all the facts, then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal and let it speak for itself. You guys don't have that, though, so you rely on attacking scientists and name-calling.
Oh, I thoughtnit meantba larger percentage of the funding. Thanks for clarifying. So we now know that the anti AGW group is corruped by a larger percentage of their total budget coming from the fossil fuel lobby while the green guys are Uncorrupted. Thanks .
It seems you only want to illustrate the OP. 1. There are no 'facts' to support the claim. There is contrived, manipulated data from agenda driven ideologues. The actual evidence is very sketchy, incomplete, & can be interpreted in various ways. 2. I am not calling anyone names. I (and many others) are exposing fraudulent claims, with no scientific evidence. 3. The phony narratives of 'you hate scientists!', & 'science deniers!' only exposes you as a deluded dupe of the Fake Science Indoctrination, or a deliberate propagandist for it. 4. The scientific method is an effective tool for discovery. You do not own this tool, or have any power to dictate it's use. Anyone with a functional mind can discern, via this method, whether the claims fit the evidence. 5. Arguments of authority and bandwagon are fallacies, not evidence, and only illustrate the OP and the prevalence of Fake Science in this medium. 6. There is not enough information for 'alternate theories'. The actual data is either incomplete, suspect, or contrived. You cannot base any theory on such a basis. 7. Conclusions based on faulty assumptions are flawed from the start. The assumptions have to be established, first. You cannot mandate evidence. It must have a conclusive, empirical basis. 8. Critics of the methodology and evidence for this theory have been roundly condemned and vilified by the True Believers of AGW. Bully tactics, not scientific methodology are the tools of these frauds. 9. ALL of the AGW predictions have been false, and the agenda of this coalition is clearly political, not scientific. 10. When actual science is hijacked by agenda driven ideologues, the result is Fake Science. That is the premise of the OP, and the evidence for this is plain to see, not only in this thread, but many others, and the constant indoctrination of this Fake Science in almost all of our public institutions.
You don't even know the difference between "fact" and "evidence." A fact is a true statement. Evidence is when you use one or more facts to support a theory. The facts about our climate are undeniable. What scientists do is take these facts and then develop a theory that fits them. And guess what? The most convincing theories are those that manage to accurately predict something. Galileo became mightily convincing when his heliocentric theory predicted the movements of the heavenly bodies. Einstein's relativity theory continually makes predictions. Ditto on AGW.
So you think that models that cannot predict one week in advance much less 100 years is proof they are correct?
Failure to predict short term does not invalidate truth of long term prediction. Take the coin flip probability. Long term the coin will be heads half the time and tails the other half. And yet those probabilities tell you nothing about the actual results of a single flip or even a small series of flips. Same with global warming. The fact that average long term temp is getting warmer means absolutly nothing about whether or not tomorrow will be warmer than average.
This should provide all the facts necessary to prove the world is getting warmer. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170118112554.htm Notice the 95% confidence level mentioned in the article.
