Fake Science

Yup its still inaccurate

 

1. Its not "just a theory". There are a number of scientific laws, countless replicated experiments, historical archeological records, etc etc, etc. That process is not in dispute. The real dispute is to what extent does anthropogenic pollution effect global climate.

2. As to whether its would be bad for us if global temperatures rose and the ice caps melted. That doesn't take any imagination at all to see exactly how bad that would be for our civilization.

3.

 

Yeah, but he could go on and on. YAWN

 

Its only theory there is no law of AGW
It doesnt take much to see how its good

 

You don't seem to know the difference between "weather" and "climate."

 

Climate models can't predict anything.

 

Climate is the general weather of a given region over a long period of time, typically thirty or more years.

Is it going to rain in Honolulu June 10th? Who knows. But will it snow on June 10th? Nope, because we know Hawaii's climate well enough to know that it won't snow in Honolulu this summer.

 

Now you are mistaking weather for climate.

 

Poppycock.

 

Actually no....it just seems that your understanding of language is as limited as your education on climate.

 

Brilliant reply

 

Yet you reference weather, what is one to think?

 

I did not do so....However weather is an aspect of climate.

See.....if it rains it is weather.
If it rains every year at certain times it is a weather trend.
If it rains every day at a certain time of year for a decade it is climate.

 

How deranged can you be? Most of these have nothing whatsoever to do with science, fake or otherwise.

 

Thank you.

 

There is no end to your long and concise rebuttals

 

You coulda stopped right there. That's the big kahuna.

I'm hoping Pruitt starts to drain the IPCC swamp.

 

nice complete deflection or miscomprehension. either way, I guess you aren't aware of scientific laws like those of Thermodynamics.

Nothing like touting whatever short term bennies there may be in the climate getting warmer, when the medium to long term effects are catastrophic. No worries you and yours will belong dead.

 

Catastrophic? You mean like when the earth was even more lush during times warmer than now?

 

Yeah I only majored in Science in College. Im clueless

- - - Updated - - -

You mean like when huge dinosaurs roamed the earth and there was lush and vast vegetation ? Could not of happened

 

.

Yep, not your posts. I took some time to re-read posts from about page seven onward.

Somehow I conflated Hoosier8's comments with yours. My comments, as above, should have directed to Hoosier8, not to you.

My sincere apologies.

 

You, obviously, do not have the knowledge to understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet you believe you have enough knowledge to intelligently discuss AGW.

 

IMO, God created evolution as a way for fauna and flora to survive and thrive. Call it what you will.

 

You keep going back to weather. I am talking about climate models.

 

Which you also do not understand beyond looking at pretty charts.