And Shorton said, " Nothing."He's still trying to come to terms with what a shirt front actually is.
I recognize the thinking behind this comment. It's called invincible ignorance. I'll give the writer the benefit of the doubt - perhaps he knows nothing about science. It certainly seems so.
Donald; when were you brainwashed? As I said, it is blindingly obvious that you have no knowledge of science whatsoever. You didn't used the term "climate change". Why not? That's what you said has very little science to it. Why can't you stick to the subject?
Why are the goalposts moved all the time? Because science postulates theories to explain observable fact, and theories change as more evidence is adduced. It is so ironic that you say, "Evolve... ". The Theory of Evolution has been changing ever since Darwin put it forward. Science, my dear fellow, is alive. It must change. Please go and do some proper scientific reading, get someone knowledgeable to explain it to you, and then comment.
The term goalpost is wrong - that implies the end result.
Yes, science postulates theories to explain facts, yet when facts change, ie the globe has not warmed as predicted, the theory of global warming only changes it's name to climate change.
Where are the other theories on what caused the increase in global temps a few years ago, and any theory on why it has slowed down?
Those on the gravytrain don't want to get off.
There are huge holes in the 'climate science' community's modelings. Many of the closest modellings to what's observed have been out by orders of magnitude. When I was properly training in chemistry and physics that was nothing to be proud of... The fact is you can peer review all you like, but until you have a model that can explain the past and closely predict the future your model is wrong.
I don't believe there are "huge holes', but, as has been said repeatedly, the science is ongoing. There will be errors, they will be recognized, and additional evidence will correct them. Nobody with any brains expects instant, deadly accurate answers. Climate change has been going on for decades; the recognition of this phenomenon is relatively new.
There are huge holes in the 'climate science' community's modelings. Many of the closest modellings to what's observed have been out by orders of magnitude. When I was properly training in chemistry and physics that was nothing to be proud of... The fact is you can peer review all you like, but until you have a model that can explain the past and closely predict the future your model is wrong.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see." (John Heywood )
I'm happy to talk science with those who understand it.
No further comment for Donald - it would be totally wasted.
For those who want to stop climate change, I have wondered what climate they actually want.
A little cooler - 1970's style? A bit windier? A bit warmer - medieval times? (Probably not!) Or 1993? Or 10,000 BC?
The climate has always and will always change and man has very little influence on what happens. The sun has more say over the change than man ever will.
I don't believe there are "huge holes'
but, as has been said repeatedly, the science is ongoing.
There will be errors, they will be recognized, and additional evidence will correct them. Nobody with any brains expects instant, deadly accurate answers.
Climate change has been going on for decades; the recognition of this phenomenon is relatively new.
Climate change is real, and it is a continuous change. This world Does warm and Does cool, History shows us it has.
What man does with his environment will effect that environment and our climate.
Now for some strange reason, maybe because many see the debate as Black and White, some people expect to see change overnight and because it doesn't change overnight, then it does not exist!
The climate has never changed overnight, it's always been a very slow progression, climate change takes centuries NOT hours.
It is not relatively new, that's an absurd statement. The climate has been changing, conservatively speaking, for decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, that's six orders of magnitude longer, and even that is likely four orders short of the actual time we're talking about.
Aaron, for God's sake read what's written before blowing your mouth off.
I repeat what I said, and what you ignored, "Climate change has been going on for decades; the recognition of this phenomenon is relatively new." This is true unless you want to tell me that we've had satellite weather observations, computer modelling et al for all of your "decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, of decades".
Read, son; read! Read what's written; not what you think might have been written.
Subscribers: bevans, Big J, CraigW, Draffa, Greensleeves, JoppaJunction, kenify, Pressman, RTT_Rules, wurx
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.