MisterVeritis (12-15-2018)
Alarmist climate change is just a redistribution scheme.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
MisterVeritis (12-15-2018),Peter1469 (12-14-2018),Tahuyaman (12-14-2018)
But I did, you failed extra hard at logic there.
When people are paid to lie, that's a bribe.
Your side is paid to lie. Ours isn't.
Try sticking with the topic. Your side takes bribes, our doesn't.Try reading Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on how ideas in science get stuck because of funding.
Each time you can't respond to me intelligently, you call me a troll as a way of evading. What, you thought it's not obvious? It's how you admit defeat. At least I take it that way. Better luck next time.Your side? You don't have a side, you're just trolling.
Alarmist climate change is just a redistribution scheme.
As one of my ongoing points is that deniers are just conspiracy cultists who care nothing about the actual science, I thank you for helping me prove it. You deny the science because your political/religious cult tells you to, period. If they told you to reverse positions, you'd do so instantly, and then you'd declare you'd always been at war with EastAsia.
Last edited by mamooth; 12-14-2018 at 10:43 PM.
What would you like? For example, Hansen's 1988 models were very good. The model ensemble cited by the IPCC was very good.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-observations/
There was no pause, just a slight slowdown in the rate of warming.Are you referring to "the models" that failed to predict the recent pause in global warming?
Flat-earthers may sincerely believe their stories as well, but it doesn't affect reality.Or are you referring to models like Michael Mann's "hockey stick", which was shown to be a total fraud?
Since those theories are contradicted by the observed data, they're wrong.You don't "prove" a hypothesis in science. And there have been many explanations offered involving natural cycles.
Well, since we can't prove the hypothesis of gravity, I guess there's no point in ever launching another rocket. See the problem with your standard there? At a certain point, the preponderance of evidence is good enough to act, regardless of whether absolute proof has been obtained.Fact: You don't "prove" hypotheses, so your claim that the "human origin of current global warming" was proved is scientifically baseless.
Good thing then that all the direct evidence points to the human origin of global warming. Like I said, the success of the models is just icing on the cake.Fact: Models can be useful, but they are not evidence. And a model is only as good as its inputs. Otherwise, garbage in, garbage out.
So which ones explain the cooling stratosphere, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse absorption bands?Fact: Many scientists have offered up explanations involving natural cycles.
Which ones have made successful predictions? You know, like AGW theory has done for 40 years running now. That's why AGW theory has scientific credibility, because it's been making testable predictions that have come true. You know, science.
If you want credibility, your side has to come up with a better theory., one that isn't contradicted by the observed data. They haven't done so. That's your problem.
Say something intelligent and I'll respond in kind. For example, I keep saying in these threads I think climate change is accelerated and amplified by man and that something needs to be done but ask what should be the focus, prevention or adaptation, and who should lead th way, politicians or business. You keep calling me a denier. That's not only illogical but plain stupid.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Peter1469 (12-15-2018)