Global Warming is over.

[marshallnoise]

Noted, you still don't get it. I just wanted to clarify this.

Glad to see you can't argue the science so you chalk them all off as corrupt. Easier to sweep under the rug than address the mess anyways.


Take it easy.

Says the fella attempting to defend "sound" science by not using science.

[MR E30 325is]

If there is science involved, then yes, you can compare rates of change over millions of years. If you did though, it would blow up the outcome you so desperately want.

If there is science involved??

Last time I checked (I have a bachelors in mathematics btw) rate of change is not a function of 'is science involved?'

I agree with Cale. You have little to no idea about what is going on.

[marshallnoise]

If there is science involved??

Last time I checked (I have a bachelors in mathematics btw) rate of change is not a function of 'is science involved?'

I agree with Cale. You have little to no idea about what is going on.

You are telling me that the rate of climate change from one era to another era can be compared outside of the scientific field?

By Jove! I think we have figured out how the hockey stick graph was created and legitimized! You don't need science to draw scientific conclusions!

[MR E30 325is]

You are telling me that the rate of climate change from one era to another era can be compared outside of the scientific field?

By Jove! I think we have figured out how the hockey stick graph was created and legitimized! You don't need science to draw scientific conclusions!

No, no, no, no.

Sigh.

*shakes head

*Tells himself "Never post in P&R. Never post in P&R!"

[Schnitzer318is]

I always feel like the Benny Hill music should be playing when I am reading GWB's and marshall's views on climate.

Go watch Merchants of Doubt, which granted, is not gospel. But it will give you an idea of where that 3% of "science and research" is coming from.

Climate change subscribers do not deny that there is a natural global warming phenomena... just that we are contributing, and accelerating it. Climate change is cyclical barring cataclysmic events involving mass extinctions and the like. But again, we are not talking normal cyclical climate change here.

[parkerbink]

100% proof of global warming:

https://flic.kr/p/VAzw1w

/thead

[marshallnoise]

Hahahahahaha!

[z31maniac]

I have said it once and I will say it again; all the world's scientists once believed the world was flat and that letting out your blood would cure you of all your ailments.

The experts are largely full of shit.

See that's the thing about science (except the educated minds have known for centuries the world wasn't flat), it doesn't hold on to dogmatic views when the evidence changes.

At this point, I can't tell if you're trolling or willfully ignorant for the sake of being contrarian.

[parkerbink]

Willfully contrarian?

Also, the world isn't flat?????

[cale]

See that's the thing about science (except the educated minds have known for centuries the world wasn't flat), it doesn't hold on to dogmatic views when the evidence changes.

At this point, I can't tell if you're trolling or willfully ignorant for the sake of being contrarian.

Millennia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

The irony of AGW deniers referencing flat earth theory as a failure of science is too fuckin rich. Go back hundreds of years and you have the ultra-conservative Catholic zealots condemning any and everything who didn't fall in line with the church's strict views and beliefs on science, this included the flat earth theory as it's often referenced today. We're in another day when there is a direct connection that can be drawn between conservatism, preponderance of theists and a staggering amount of scientific illiteracy considering the sheer amount of knowledge accessible to everyone this day and age. Global warming and evolution, two topics regularly dismissed by a large number of conservatives as garbage science.

The regression is strong.

[parkerbink]

Millennia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes


The irony of AGW deniers referencing flat earth theory as a failure of science is too fuckin rich. Go back hundreds of years and you have the ultra-conservative Catholic zealots condemning any and everything who didn't fall in line with the church's strict views and beliefs on science, this included the flat earth theory as it's often referenced today. We're in another day when there is a direct connection that can be drawn between conservatism, preponderance of theists and a staggering amount of scientific illiteracy considering the sheer amount of knowledge accessible to everyone this day and age.


The regression is strong.

Hence my referance to the world being 6,000 years old. (man & dinosaurs coexisting)

[Hooffenstein HD]

Willfully contrarian?

Also, the world isn't flat?????

No. The world is bowl shaped, that's how the water stays in.

[Hooffenstein HD]

As below, you distinctly remember incorrectly.

I'm well aware of the science behind how it was caused but it was a dramatic climate change. That's the point, these things can and do happen without human involvement at all.

So essentially you don't accept the methods science uses to determine conditions and compositions of past climates? What specifically do you not accept?

Absolutely not what I was saying but I see how it seems that way. I was merely saying, as much as the scientists agree that it is happening(which I don't deny), we do not have a 100% definitive answer to those questions.

[parkerbink]

I'm well aware of the science behind how it was caused but it was a dramatic climate change. That's the point, these things can and do happen without human involvement at all.



Absolutely not what I was saying but I see how it seems that way. I was merely saying, as much as the scientists agree that it is happening(which I don't deny), we do not have a 100% definitive answer to those questions.

Calling the K/T extinction climate change is akin to calling death due to being shot lead poisoning.

Due to a 100% outside influence (gigantic meteor causing nuclear winter), The Earth was sheathed in an impenetrable cloud that stopped all normal function.

Hence most life died.

[cale]

What you said was we haven't been recording the data long enough. While this is true, we have methods to determine past conditions with a degree of precision that is accurate enough to gain a level of understanding to make the conclusions we presently have.

Science never has 100% answers, that's why the answer evolves as our level of understanding grows, even laws are relative simplistic accumulations of theories with known outcomes. We do not need a 100% answer to come to the reasonable conclusion that the climate is changing as a result of mans influence. If you're holding out for that 100%, you're going to be waiting quite literally forever.