5 ms·

> all the different strands of evidence agree Are you referring to evidence that suggests climate is always changing (in which case I also agree!), or evidence

> all the different strands of evidence agree Are you referring to evidence that suggests climate is always changing (in which case I also agree!), or evidence of AGW? If it's the latter, I'm afraid you'd be ignoring an incredibly strong body of evidence on the contrary.

CuriousSkeptic 9y ago
I'm afraid you've been mislead. The jury is in on this, AGW is not in dispute in the scientific community. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (The link goes to a page with further references and papers)
- GlobalChange 9y ago
  Consensus is a political instrument, not a scientific one. In science it takes only one right idea. As Einstein said: "a thousand experiments couldn't prove me right; a single one can prove me wrong." That NASA site is pathetic. All the data is right; all the conclusions, wrong. Any high school kid should be able to tell. Honestly, no one should be allowed to leave high school if they cannot state how bogus all this is. This is all a disgrace to science. As for the article in discussion. Kudos for the amazing graphs, photos, and videos, a superb view on a fascinating and not easily accessible location on this planet. Really stunning imagery and data and information on that. Once we drop all the brain watch human induced warming of the text, it's quite good. In order not to make this a useless discussion (really you all want to waste your time and throw all your money in a useless "control" of CO2, that even if achieved will do absolutely nothing to climate whatsoever, be my guest. I, particularly, think we should be investing time and money preparing for the unavoidable changes, because they are all natural and expected, but...). Anyway, could anyone please, just clarify to me this: "About 120,000 years ago, before the last ice age, the planet went through a natural warm period, with temperatures similar to those expected in coming decades. The sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than it is today, implying that the ice sheets in both Greenland and Antarctica must have partly disintegrated, a warning of what could occur in the relatively near future if the heating of the planet continues unchecked." Also before it talks about Noah and Vishnu, etc. In the past, when everything happened similarly was all natural and the "gods"; now we have "replaced the 'gods' - though the memo hasn't reached most of the world because we're still pretty much killing each other about it - we are the cause, by the cheer magic of "smoke" (quite literally). And before? if that is not cherry picking, I don't know what is.
- GlobalChange 9y ago
  And by the way, talking about jury, the sentence has always been out (manmade global warming), the "weapon" (CO2), the guilt (humans). As you stated, the sentence was given. The consequence is a warmer world. The cause is "increased greenhouse effect" (something that does;t exist, but anyway). All that it is lacking are evidences, proof. Whenever one appears that is against the verdict, it's dismissed, even if we have to tear down physics and subvert science. Over 100 billion dollars was wasted trying "to stop the sun in the middle of the sky" and nothing came out of it (obviously). Except some "computer-games". Using computer models as evidence would be the same as giving diver's licence to those good at playing Need for Speed or similar car racing games.

CuriousSkeptic 9y ago

I'm afraid you've been mislead. The jury is in on this, AGW is not in dispute in the scientific community. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ (The link goes to a page with further references and papers)

GlobalChange 9y ago
Consensus is a political instrument, not a scientific one. In science it takes only one right idea. As Einstein said: "a thousand experiments couldn't prove me right; a single one can prove me wrong." That NASA site is pathetic. All the data is right; all the conclusions, wrong. Any high school kid should be able to tell. Honestly, no one should be allowed to leave high school if they cannot state how bogus all this is. This is all a disgrace to science. As for the article in discussion. Kudos for the amazing graphs, photos, and videos, a superb view on a fascinating and not easily accessible location on this planet. Really stunning imagery and data and information on that. Once we drop all the brain watch human induced warming of the text, it's quite good. In order not to make this a useless discussion (really you all want to waste your time and throw all your money in a useless "control" of CO2, that even if achieved will do absolutely nothing to climate whatsoever, be my guest. I, particularly, think we should be investing time and money preparing for the unavoidable changes, because they are all natural and expected, but...). Anyway, could anyone please, just clarify to me this: "About 120,000 years ago, before the last ice age, the planet went through a natural warm period, with temperatures similar to those expected in coming decades. The sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than it is today, implying that the ice sheets in both Greenland and Antarctica must have partly disintegrated, a warning of what could occur in the relatively near future if the heating of the planet continues unchecked." Also before it talks about Noah and Vishnu, etc. In the past, when everything happened similarly was all natural and the "gods"; now we have "replaced the 'gods' - though the memo hasn't reached most of the world because we're still pretty much killing each other about it - we are the cause, by the cheer magic of "smoke" (quite literally). And before? if that is not cherry picking, I don't know what is.
GlobalChange 9y ago
And by the way, talking about jury, the sentence has always been out (manmade global warming), the "weapon" (CO2), the guilt (humans). As you stated, the sentence was given. The consequence is a warmer world. The cause is "increased greenhouse effect" (something that does;t exist, but anyway). All that it is lacking are evidences, proof. Whenever one appears that is against the verdict, it's dismissed, even if we have to tear down physics and subvert science. Over 100 billion dollars was wasted trying "to stop the sun in the middle of the sky" and nothing came out of it (obviously). Except some "computer-games". Using computer models as evidence would be the same as giving diver's licence to those good at playing Need for Speed or similar car racing games.