Doomsday climate predictions no longer plausible!!

Solar Cycle 25 data suggests that those worried about high temperature are seriously mis informed .

They are babbling about what increasingly is looking like nonsense .

DYOR
No one in mainstream science is worried about heating from TSI.
 
Yes, the IPCC did note that TSI was falling. You think that's a hit on AGW?

How much has the fossil fuel industry spent trying to convince you to doubt mainstream science?
 
But it conforms with public statements made by the IPCC...yeah...so...fAiL.

Since you immerse yourself only in the bought science of the Climate Change Industry, you wouldn't know. :bye1:
So show us your history of satellite data.


Everything that disagrees with you is a conspiracy.
 
Climate change is a joke & they readily admit it is really about changing the economy.

It's a scam only the idiots & hopelessly indoctrinated still listen to

climate-commies.jpg
 
I learned to be skeptical of scientific claims when being taught, of all things, science. It was considered necessary. These days it must be "Go with whatever conclusion services your agenda" being taught.
 
I learned to be skeptical of scientific claims when being taught, of all things, science. It was considered necessary. These days it must be "Go with whatever conclusion services your agenda" being taught.
Why?

Global warming presents an existential threat to the fossil fuel industry. That has convinced them to do whatever they can to slow the acceptance of AGW science and the adoption of mitigation measures that might harm their sales. Investigations had already shown Exxon, Shell and Mobil having spent hundreds of millions of dollars to convince folks like you that climate science was highly suspect: scientifically (ie, that it was invalid) and ethically (ie, that it was biased). Apparently since Al Gore was the early face of AGW concern and environmentalism has always had more support from liberals than conservatives, the fossil fuel PR folks capitalized on that as an edge to work their way in with conservatives and have convinced you that liberals want to send us back to the stoneage by eliminating your supply of diesel to power the Cummins turbo V-10 you use to get to McDonalds and back. The accusations commonly made by AGW deniers fail basic sanity tests so it has always astounded me that folks putting out basic science arguments should run into such tremendous resistance. But they do. Go figger. Please.
 
Why?

Global warming presents an existential threat to the fossil fuel industry. That has convinced them to do whatever they can to slow the acceptance of AGW science and the adoption of mitigation measures that might harm their sales. Investigations had already shown Exxon, Shell and Mobil having spent hundreds of millions of dollars to convince folks like you that climate science was highly suspect: scientifically (ie, that it was invalid) and ethically (ie, that it was biased). Apparently since Al Gore was the early face of AGW concern and environmentalism has always had more support from liberals than conservatives, the fossil fuel PR folks capitalized on that as an edge to work their way in with conservatives and have convinced you that liberals want to send us back to the stoneage by eliminating your supply of diesel to power the Cummins turbo V-10 you use to get to McDonalds and back. The accusations commonly made by AGW deniers fail basic sanity tests so it has always astounded me that folks putting out basic science arguments should run into such tremendous resistance. But they do. Go figger. Please.

People used to think the earth was flat and was the center of the universe. That is why.
 
You asked why. I told you. Sorry if facts get in the way of your agenda, but at least you prove my original point quite nicely. Science changes. Science changes constantly. If you aren't a skeptic of the status quo "knowledge", you shouldn't be in science.
So, do you reject the heliocentric theory? The germ theory of disease? The existence of viruses? Special or General Relativity? Quantum field theory? Theory of evolution? The cell theory? Atomic theory? The kinetic theory of gases? Do you go through your day-to-day life acting as if any of these are actually true? I'm betting you do.
 
So, do you reject the heliocentric theory? The germ theory of disease? The existence of viruses? Special or General Relativity? Quantum field theory? Theory of evolution? The cell theory? Atomic theory? The kinetic theory of gases? Do you go through your day-to-day life acting as if any of these are actually true? I'm betting you do.

You are free to make any bets you want. You know they call them "theories" for a reason....
 
Yes, the IPCC did note that TSI was falling. You think that's a hit on AGW?

How much has the fossil fuel industry spent trying to convince you to doubt mainstream science?

CLIMATE CRISIS III 2022.gif
 
You are free to make any bets you want. You know they call them "theories" for a reason....
A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses. --https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-do-we-mean-theory-science

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. --https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory

scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]
  1. National Academy of Sciences (US) (1999). Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (2nd ed.). National Academies Press. p. 2. doi:10.17226/6024. ISBN 978-0-309-06406-4. PMID 25101403.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b Winther, Rasmus G. (2016). "The Structure of Scientific Theories". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b Schafersman, Steven D. "An Introduction to Science".

Anyone making comments akin to "it's just theory" or that theories are just guesses is simply admitting that they have no familiarity with basic science.
 

Forum List

Back
Top