07 May 17
9 edits
Originally posted by EladarSo one false prediction out of some correct predictions by people who rely on scientific methods and global warming must be one vast global conspiracy?
ten years after 2005 Kilaminjaro would have no snow.
The local climate of Kilaminjaro doesn't represent the whole of the Earth's climate because, obviously, Kilaminjaro isn't the whole of the Earth's surface.
Using your same 'logic', a single example of a glacier melting and shrinking would prove global warming; obviously it doesn't.
The only way to see if there is global warming is to look at the GLOBAL climate, not a single local climate because, obviously, a single local climate may, and often does, change differently from that of the overall global climate.
The prediction that there will be an increase in the total heat energy in the whole of the biosphere (ocean, land surface and troposphere) will go up as a result of CO2 has been proven correct i.e. its already happened and has been measured thus the scientific evidence is obviously clearly in favor of global warming.
Try again.
08 May 17
10 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf my memory serves me correctly, a scientist did predict it (don't know what that calculation was based on). It turned out to be wrong. Obviously, that local climate failing to mirror that of the wider global climate does nothing to prove there is no global warming and any anyone claiming it does prove no global warming is being stupid because a local climate doesn't equate with the global climate.
Who predicted that and based on what calculation?
If cherry picking a local climate failing to warm 'proves' there is NO global warming then, by the same flawed 'logic', you can cherry pick any local climate that has warmed and say that 'proves' there IS global warming. The global warming deniers must be getting really desperate here to resort to such obviously completely idiotic 'arguments'.
08 May 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure, but Al Gore made the claim in his movie an inconvenient truth. If Al Gore said it in that movie, it must have been correct based on the Global Warming movement of the time.
Who predicted that and based on what calculation?
08 May 17
Originally posted by humyOne false claim?
So one false prediction out of some correct predictions by people who rely on scientific methods and global warming must be one vast global conspiracy?
The local climate of Kilaminjaro doesn't represent the whole of the Earth's climate because, obviously, Kilaminjaro isn't the whole of the Earth's surface.
Using your same 'logic', a single example of a glacie ...[text shortened]... asured thus the scientific evidence is obviously clearly in favor of global warming.
Try again.
There have been many false claims.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/26/jan-26-2016-is-al-gores-global-warming-doomsday/
08 May 17
Originally posted by EladarYou put far too much faith in Al Gore.
I'm not sure, but Al Gore made the claim in his movie an inconvenient truth. If Al Gore said it in that movie, it must have been correct based on the Global Warming movement of the time.
And what do you mean by 'based on the Global Warming movement of the time.?
You're not making sense.
Are we talking about science here or US politics? If the latter, please take it to debates.
08 May 17
Originally posted by humyYes, but I wanted Eladar to look it up. He seems to lap up the statements of US politicians then get upset when they are wrong.
If my memory serves me correctly, a scientist did predict it (don't know what that calculation was based on).
The reality is a scientist did say it, but was wrong. The scientist didn't write a science paper proving it.
One must learn to recognise that not everything scientists say is true. Not even everything that is in peer reviewed science journals is true. Not even close.
But one should never make the error of taking one wild speculation by a scientist and finding it to be wrong then concluding that all science is wrong so we should listen to Trump instead. That's just plain stupid.
08 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarPoint me to almost any science news article or science documentary and I will almost certainly be able to point out an exaggeration, wild speculation or flat out falsehood. But that doesn't make all science wrong.
One false claim?
There have been many false claims.
Global warming is real and you know it.
The real question is why you wish to portray it as if it isn't. What is your real concern? Is there a perceived cost? Are you being payed to be negative about it? Is it a political agenda?
09 May 17
Originally posted by EladarAnd what about you? You see the same reports as us, glaciers disappearing, big icebergs, I mean icebergs as big as Delaware calving off in Antarctica, giant new cracks in the Antarctica ice hundreds of miles long, underground rivers of meltwater under the Antarctica Ice.
So the answer is no for you two true believers. No amount of false predictions will sway your belief.
Just how much of THAT kind of thing do you have to see, for instance, the acidification of the ocean, killing the great reefs which are refuge for thousands of species of fish, the corals die, so do the fish.
Just how much of that kind of thing do you see and maybe some kind of crack appears in your stance, like maybe just maybe, I, Eladar, MIGHT be wrong?
09 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseYou mean that global temps fluctuate? Weather fluctuates? The number of hurricanes and the severity of those hurricanes fluctuate?
And what about you? You see the same reports as us, glaciers disappearing, big icebergs, I mean icebergs as big as Delaware calving off in Antarctica, giant new cracks in the Antarctica ice hundreds of miles long, underground rivers of meltwater under the Antarctica Ice.
Just how much of THAT kind of thing do you have to see, for instance, the acidifica ...[text shortened]... ybe some kind of crack appears in your stance, like maybe just maybe, I, Eladar, MIGHT be wrong?
During the 90's there was a great hysteria about global warming and the end of the world.
It has been proven wrong. How was it proven? The models and predictions of the 90's never came to pass.
Did you say Icebergs are floating in the ocean? That is certainly news.
Next thing you'll be telling me is that it can get really hot during the summer.
09 May 17
Originally posted by EladarYou really don't get it. When the Arctic warms up, it actually releases more CO2 than it absorbs and that is happening as we speak. I am not talking about a cataclysm happening in ten years I am talking about the next 100 years and we are not doing our grandkids any favors, in fact they will most likely vilify us as stupid in the face of actual climate changing beyond our ability to fix. We are close to the tipping point, the point of no return where no amount of carbon tax or other measures will suffice. We will be dead and gone when the fit hits the shan, it is THAT time I am talking about and people like you will indeed be vilivied for obstructing what has to happen to prevent civilization itself from hitting rock bottom and back to the 400's after the Roman Empire died.
You mean that global temps fluctuate? Weather fluctuates? The number of hurricanes and the severity of those hurricanes fluctuate?
During the 90's there was a great hysteria about global warming and the end of the world.
It has been proven wrong. How was it proven? The models and predictions of the 90's never came to pass.
Did you say Icebergs a ...[text shortened]... tainly news.
Next thing you'll be telling me is that it can get really hot during the summer.