Phoenix.Amandarius said:
»Phoenix.Amandarius said:
»You're a little late for supper on this one Amand, the only debate currently happening is between a group of about 10 either retired or discredited broad study scientists, most of whom haven't put any of their findings up for peer review or appealed to the IPCC as opposing human contribution or just opposing (which is the fingers in ears basis). The other 986 peer reviewed studies on Global Climate Change all say its real and most say we're the cause.
Did it not strike you as odd that there were 2 "scientific" bodies that said cigarettes were harmless and had some kind of pseudo-science to back it up? Maybe the fact that they seemed to have unlimited funding or a group of very prominent DC lobbyists arguing their case? Where are all those scientists who opposed the harmful effects of cigarettes now? They lost, just like the lobbyists fighting carbon taxes lost.
You still haven't cited a single source on your opposition to climate change... Do you work for Exxon Mobil?
I'll try to do that right after I try to convince a religious zealot that there is no God. There is no convincing people that believe in something irrational and unobservable. Any source provided you would just mock anyway. You have already mocked every single contrary position in you post, summed every single one up in your first sentence having never read or named one. You will obviously ignore and belittle anything to the contrary of your religious belief. There is no point in arguing with zealots.
Science isn't that everything is true until proven to be false. Science is the exact opposite. Science is the ability to predict the future; for example they should be able to tell us how much the temperature of the earth would drop when our carbon emissions dropped to a certain level. They can't because this is not science.
No science is the practice of the scientific method, it has nothing to do with predicting the future other than it's ability to produce predicable models. That doesn't mean Miss Cleo makes a prediction, it's a reasonable assumption based on previous outcomes. That also means that those predictions are within a closed loop. You can't claim something if it can't be proven, and global climate change continues to be proven over and over in every single metric we have a way of testing.
As usual, you demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of things you have a very strong and wrong opinion on. You still have yet to provide a single source for your claim.
There is no way to apply scientific method to this theory of global warming through controlled experiments especially now that the radical left has politicized it so much. I'm not talking about predictions out of thin air. You are intentionally misunderstanding what I said. For instance, I will make this really simple for you to understand what I was saying, if someone put water outside in the winter you can predict that the water will turn to ice when the temperature reaches 0 Celsius. It is a proven scientific fact which makes that outcome always predictable. You twisted what I said into some HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE Miss Cleo analogy.
Uh, no, the cup of water will freeze following much more complex variables than temperature. 100% pure water will freeze at a known rate at the equatorial sea level at a known temperature.
So since you brought water into it, there are actually very predictable and testable components of the Global Climate Change.
The Earths global Albedo can be measured with current orbital probes and has multiple times, it's going down as ice melts. That means more heat is staying on the planet.
Ice melt lowers the albedo, lowers the salinity of the oceans, increases sea level, and further reduces albedo. Changes in salinity and depth of the water lead to larger tides and changes in global currents, which changes weather patterns. All of these things are directly linked through decades of independent research, proven through thousands of peer reviewed studies, and reaffirmed through years of predictions that came true.
You use some scientific words and concepts to lend credibility to the pseudo-science you are subscribing to, but you are just as misinformed and clueless as every other climate change denier.
And still have not cited a single source.