sakinago
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- 5,320
- 1,632
- 280
If it's as true as you say, it should not require an appeal to ignorance. Which is what you've once again offered. I've been looking for the past 5 (probably more) years to reason why we cannot use satellite weather data as opposed to the current weather data. The only thing I've read is from the NOAA, in a power point, that cited the atmosphere as a source of inaccuracy. Which makes sense at face value. But not to the planet as a whole, if there's a warming trend, it should be showing up on satellite data, whether satellite data is + or - what the actual value is, there should be a warming trend. It's much easier to cherry pick certain areas of warming on a local scale than an entire planetary system. How do you manipulate data on a planetary scale? Does he atmosphere just automatically manipulate the scale in favor of the sceptic?Again -- please pay attention -- I am not going to litigate the truth of accepted scientific theories with internet hacks. Sorry. I am perfectly content in ridiculing you for your insignificance and for the absurd implications of your claims as they relate to the global scientific community. If you are pining for that debate, then go perform mountains of scientific research and present your results for review by the major journals and scientific societies of the world.I did not say they were the same, but rather gave an illustration of how models can be refined as more data is collected. And no, implying a vast conspiracy is not a "simpler explanation". Saying so is dishonest and bizarre to the point of you losing any credibility you showed up with.A. How much is the current model going to be off as the hurricane approaches closer and closer...is it going to get further and further, it did make a pretty drastic change in only 10 years? And 50 years is the most aggressive model." How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?"And knowing what we "know" now...that doesn't seem like a scare tactic to you? How is it we have such a different model predicting this same event at soonest 50 years away...only 10 years later?
Simple... by gathering more data, given the benefit of time. Just as the part of a model of a hurricane's path over a location in the middle of the model becomes more narrow and accurate, as the hurricane approaches. How can you not puzzle this out for yourself?
B. Predicting Hurricanes are not at all the same as predicting climate change...not even close. With the data we've been compiling and have compiled over the past we'll say even 50 years. If it was similar to predicting a hurricanes path, certainly with 50 years of data we should've had a vastly better idea of the "path" of climate change.
C. A simpler explanation is that it was a scare tactic, which seems to work well in a world with such a short term memory, and a constant imminent "threat" from terror, tragedy, war, and violence.
You sound a lot like an excuse maker, more than someone whose honestly curious. If that wasn't a scare tactic, I don't know what is.
Simplest explanation? You don't have a clue what you are talking about, have no education or experience in any of these fields, know less than nothing about this topic, and are trying to employ rhetorical tricks to misinform.
you would dare sit there and expect another person to bleieve or even consider that a) you have outsmarted the global scientific community, who is b) all lying or all incompetent... and then blame the other person for walking away from you? You're just the guy on the corner with a sandwich sign and a bullhorn. Get back to me when you have published your mountains of research papers, crazyman
Ok what I'm seeing now is a huge appeal to ignorance. And you shouldn't have to resort to logical fallacies as proof when it comes to science. And there's never been a 95% consensus of scientist that agree with AGW. That was one paper from one grad student, that was completely false...but cited and accepted as truth since then.
Is some form of global warming formed by human activities, sure, sure as in its possible. But the leading cause to carbon emissions (according to the UN) is livestock...as in aerobic life that's exhaling co2. More so than energy or transportation (and that's only taking in account actual commercially used livestock)...should we have not seen a greater rise in warming in much greater release of carbon emissions from when we were using it more heavily and not as clean as we have been doing it since? There were plenty of times in history that should've shown us this correlation. We haven't seen much change since drastic change in both these factors. We have however seen a change (increase) in greenery (+13% 10 years ago, over a 30 year measure) across the globe, which does make sense since plants "breath" co2, and "exhale" oxygen.
Anyway ninety some percent of global warming models have been wrong thus far. The ones that are on par (barely), suggest that cataclysmic change won't be seen for hundreds or thousands of years. Obviously I reject the ones completely off (ninety some percent), and the ones sort of on par don't suggest that global warming is either strictly human caused or actually bad, honestly global warming is largely beneficial to life itself as a whole on the planet.
Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board. I'll entertain absolutely, but not on board. And when you HAVE to resort to appeal to ignorance and non sequiturs, the less on board I am. It was indeed Socrates who said "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing." Which is a paraphrase but the principle remains the same. You expect me to just completely ignore the fact the ninety some percent of global warming models have been false, and the ones that aren't don't suggest that much of a crisis...again I'll entertain, don't come at me with appeals to ignorance and no. Sequiturs.
No, you have not presented any real challenge to any accepted theory by squawking on the internet.
"Until I hear something more than an appeal to ignorance, or non sequitur...I'm not on board."
I promise you that nobody cares.
Again I'm open. Don't present me an appeal to ignorance.