quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

And yet, now the science is showing CO2 has a much smaller effect and only now are the sun and oceans being considered. How arrogant to assume it's just the same as a round earth...which isn't really round.

Well that's not true. I was taught about the huge effect of the sun and the absorption of the oceans years ago.

Oh and yes I do know that the Earth is not round but flattened. It's still not flat, and there is still significant human global warming once those factors have been excluded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

When was it getting warmer? Not for a couple of decades.

You really are struggling with the concept of variation aren't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But, in science, you don't make your own model to disprove another scientists model.

Uh, theory of relativity. Newtons gravity laws, and so on. you make your own model.
Einstein disproved Newton, at the edges, obsoleting the theory.

Emission theory of vision, disproven.


More often than not, theories are made obsolete by more accurate understanding.

Yes, absolutely. Thanks for making my point. Not one of your points was a superior "computer model" supplanting and inferior "computer model" that never actually worked. And here, this whole thread started with science regarding the sun and ocean that all leftists immediately dismissed because it didn't meet their kool aid non-functioning political crap science of computer models that demonstratatively don't work.

Good for you undertail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

First of all, while getting a graduate degree in science I did a lot of calculating electrons so I'm wondering why your being all scientificy and not understanding science all at the same time. For instance when you design transistors you actually bleed electrons through points at specific rates, and of course the rates change based on materials used. That stuff is calculated and predicted all of the time.

Second, over the last couple of decades we've very much discovered that our climate models do not approximate reality at all. You'll have to deal with those ideas in order to actually make a scientificy point.

Then you understand that all of chemistry is based on an approximation of how electrons actually behave, especially at a quantum level. In other words it is based on a model of clouds and shells that we know now is deficient but it is perfectly good enough to allow for calculations and replicate results. The point is that the model is not accurate but it is fit for purpose.

If you are suggesting that climate models are not accurate enough to predict actual temperature rises in each decade then you are correct because of the inherent variability of the system. The climate models you refer to are designed to explain longer term trends for which they have proved to be a good fit for the available scientific data and are therefore fit for purpose.

I am disagreeing with your contentions on climate change, rather than questioning your education.

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
The internet is not always your friend.

right, all those links I posted of scientists and journalists studying, reporting on climate science & refuting the idea of "consensus" are what, a collection of people who have been themselves duped and just haven't gotten the news yet? or that I cannot tell legitimate content from the fallacious? or everyone at my citations are all clearly mistaken despite their expertise and credentials?

I can find pages on the internet that support creationism, assert the power of crystals, tell me that giant lizard-men rule the Earth, explain why dinosaur skeletons are hoaxes, say the moon landings were faked, say that global warming is a conspiracy, argue that the 9/11 was organised by shady forces in the US government and state that the British secret service spied on its own prime minister.

Oops sorry, the last one was true.

I just don't agree with you and my experts are bigger than your experts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bondageerone

you moron obviously you cannot formulate your own thoughts just use media crap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The carbon cycle is self regulating, too much co2, generates more clouds reflects more sun and cools the earth back down, and vice versa.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The carbon cycle is self regulating, too much co2, generates more clouds reflects more sun and cools the earth back down, and vice versa.

Wrong. Increased co2 reduces plant respiration of water into the air and results in fewer clouds: https://www.mpg.de/6337430/carbon_dioxide-climate-change_clouds

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
Interesting...so you're a proponent of scientific validity being a voting endeavor. Poor Copernicus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The carbon cycle is self regulating, too much co2, generates more clouds reflects more sun and cools the earth back down, and vice versa.

Wrong. Increased co2 reduces plant respiration of water into the air and results in fewer clouds: https://www.mpg.de/6337430/carbon_dioxide-climate-change_clouds

Not proof. Most clouds are caused by the evaporation of large bodies of water.

Germany must really be going downhill if they publish shit like that.

One of the most important things is proof. I have to use it when I work.

Does this REALLY prove that ?
Does this REALLY disprove that ?

This is what people miss. Look up "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"We know gravity curves space-time, and we simply can prove that by swinging a bucket of water around our center. "

That proves nothing of the sort.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
The internet is not always your friend.

right, all those links I posted of scientists and journalists studying, reporting on climate science & refuting the idea of "consensus" are what, a collection of people who have been themselves duped and just haven't gotten the news yet? or that I cannot tell legitimate content from the fallacious? or everyone at my citations are all clearly mistaken despite their expertise and credentials?

I can find pages on the internet that support creationism, assert the power of crystals, tell me that giant lizard-men rule the Earth, explain why dinosaur skeletons are hoaxes, say the moon landings were faked, say that global warming is a conspiracy, argue that the 9/11 was organised by shady forces in the US government and state that the British secret service spied on its own prime minister.

Oops sorry, the last one was true.

I just don't agree with you and my experts are bigger than your experts.

Interesting...so you're a proponent of scientific validity being a voting endeavor. Poor Copernicus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
The internet is not always your friend.

right, all those links I posted of scientists and journalists studying, reporting on climate science & refuting the idea of "consensus" are what, a collection of people who have been themselves duped and just haven't gotten the news yet? or that I cannot tell legitimate content from the fallacious? or everyone at my citations are all clearly mistaken despite their expertise and credentials?

I can find pages on the internet that support creationism, assert the power of crystals, tell me that giant lizard-men rule the Earth, explain why dinosaur skeletons are hoaxes, say the moon landings were faked, say that global warming is a conspiracy, argue that the 9/11 was organised by shady forces in the US government and state that the British secret service spied on its own prime minister.

Oops sorry, the last one was true.

I just don't agree with you and my experts are bigger than your experts.

Interesting...so you're a proponent of scientific validity being a voting endeavor. Poor Copernicus.

No. I was just pointing out that you can find anything on the internet.

The last bit was a joke.

Sorry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
The internet is not always your friend.

right, all those links I posted of scientists and journalists studying, reporting on climate science & refuting the idea of "consensus" are what, a collection of people who have been themselves duped and just haven't gotten the news yet? or that I cannot tell legitimate content from the fallacious? or everyone at my citations are all clearly mistaken despite their expertise and credentials?

I can find pages on the internet that support creationism, assert the power of crystals, tell me that giant lizard-men rule the Earth, explain why dinosaur skeletons are hoaxes, say the moon landings were faked, say that global warming is a conspiracy, argue that the 9/11 was organised by shady forces in the US government and state that the British secret service spied on its own prime minister.

Oops sorry, the last one was true.

I just don't agree with you and my experts are bigger than your experts...

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
The internet is not always your friend.

right, all those links I posted of scientists and journalists studying, reporting on climate science & refuting the idea of "consensus" are what, a collection of people who have been themselves duped and just haven't gotten the news yet? or that I cannot tell legitimate content from the fallacious? or everyone at my citations are all clearly mistaken despite their expertise and credentials?

I can find pages on the internet that support creationism, assert the power of crystals, tell me that giant lizard-men rule the Earth, explain why dinosaur skeletons are hoaxes, say the moon landings were faked, say that global warming is a conspiracy, argue that the 9/11 was organised by shady forces in the US government and state that the British secret service spied on its own prime minister.

Oops sorry, the last one was true.

I just don't agree with you and my experts are bigger than your experts...

not only did you not really address what I just posted, you also obviously did not look at each one of the links I posted prior and actually critique their content to judge its credibility and veracity. you have absolutely no legitimate standing to compare people who interpret their research differently than what you might like, to faked moon landings or the power of crystals. I like to think you see that; if you don't, further conversation is hopeless.

really? which experts are on your "side" compared to the other "side?" who are they actually? what are their names?

as you list them, please explain exactly how it is they are "bigger?" what, all the doctorates, published authors and careers spent in the field exist only on one side right? a side by side table with all the "bigger" scientists and their credentials on one side, and all the "lesser" scientists and their credentials on the other would do the trick nicely.

edited to say: I see you posted to nnanji that "that last bit was a joke"---great, now youre just back to having to critique the content for all the links I posted, or believing what you want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.