Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So what's not being subject to the scientific method?Whether it is the theory of general relativity, or the theory of evolution, these things are subject to the scientific method, and folks are free to debate them, even the Wikipedia's talk pages have more deviation on subjects, that are centuries old, than this topic.
That reason being because the right wants to censor any discussion of science which is inconvenient to TheParty.Things are being censored, deleted, and influenced on this topic of debate and discussion for a reason.
Sadly you don't want to follow the money.There are many thousands of real, PhD, published, actively researching scientists that say it most certainly is.
So the fuck what?
I do not come here and argue because rich people want me to do so. I come here and argue because science tells me I have to. I have children and grandchildren and I wish a lot of people hereabouts would spend a little more time thinking about theirs.
All the corrupting bribe money flows to your side. That's why all of the fraud and corruption comes from your side. You adore that fraud and corruption, because TheParty commands you to adore it. That's why you're here excusing it.Sadly you don't want to follow the money.
We are. I'm going to have to go look see what the heck it actually is. Needs a better title.OK, we are getting very far a field from the OP here.
Ok. The last time CO2 was as high as it is now.Here are the absolute facts on this OP, OK?
I don't think Einstein was revising the universal laws of reality, whatever that's supposed to be. Special Relativity simply says that the speed of light is as fast as anythying can go and spells out what that means for space, mass and time (e=mc2). General Relativity says that gravity is caused by matter warping spacetime. But, yeah.When we talk about say, Newton's conception of Gravity, or Einstein's revision of the universal laws of reality, we still refer to them as Newtonian physics, or the theory of relativity.
The theory of evolution, Newtonian physics and Relativity are all taught as the best, current explanations for the matters on which they apply. They are effectively treated as facts. Classic and relativistic physics have their differing scopes endlessly discussed but without pushing their bounds, they are as accurate as accurate can get. Science classes are very careful that their students understand what a theory is and what the differences are between baseless supposition, guided speculation, informed hypotheses and widely accepted theory. It is not science that has convinced all the nincompoops around here that science needs to prove things before anyone should even consider the possibility that it might be an accurate description of the way things work. For that mindfuck you can thank the geneal scientific ignorance with which this nation is rife.And when we discuss Darwin, we still refer to it, as the "theory of evolution," and no, we don't try to jam it down folks throats, or make global investment in politics based on any of these topics, mandatory for global populations.
No one in science is making science into a religion.Making "science," into a religion, is preposterous, it always has been.
You can debate any topic you like. But if you expect to actually advance the general knowledge of a particular subject, you need to get knowledgeable with current understandings. No one is going to solve any of the many problems we face by applying 17th century misconceptions or pseudoscientific mysticism to them. And if you don't actually know some basic science, like physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, electricity & electronics, math at least through calculus... then you need to do some brushing up.Whether it is the theory of general relativity, or the theory of evolution, these things are subject to the scientific method, and folks are free to debate them, even the Wikipedia's talk pages have more deviation on subjects, that are centuries old, than this topic.
Before you get to the reason, please tell us who is censoring, deleting and influencing this topic?Things are being censored, deleted, and influenced on this topic of debate and discussion for a reason.
I don't know what censorship, deletion or influencing you're talking about. I think there are a lot of different entities pushing on this topic in different directions for different reasons. Some folks are trying to save the world. Some folks are trying to save their jobs. No one is doing it to gain power. That is just paranoid nonsense. If someone wants to gain power, their are far, far, far faster and more effective ways to do it than push AGW mitigation measures. Donald Trump got to be president despite having never held a single elected office and being a complete dunce, particularly in regards to Constitutional governance. He didn't do that by pushing global warming, did he.That you don't entirely get this?
I guess you reject the idea that someone could possibly disagree with your fundamentals.It is either a sign that you are part of this, or you lack intellectual curiosity, I can't say which.
That I'm still talking to you is farther than many of MY ilk think I should go. Your general beliefs about the world are not mainstream. You are definitely out on the fringes. But you keep talking and I owe you basic respect for that. I will pull back on the personal.I don't want to attack you with ad hom like you do me.
The problem for you is that you are presenting decidedly subjective and logically weak evidence in an attempt to dissuade me of the validity of mountains of exceedingly well-evidenced, extremely well-investigated science. It wouldn't matter, for instance, if Edenhofer WERE trying to get wealth redistributed. That has no bearing on the science which he is not producing, with which he has no influence. Edenhofer is an economist and is dealing with the IPCC's work on what economic harm this will cause and what the costs may be to remedy our situation. There is no conspiracy within the IPCC. It is a huge gaggle of some of the best scientists on the planet and they have done an incredible job increasing our knowledge about this issue, its ramifications and possible solutions. If you really don't think an unbiased, objective and sincere investigation has been conducted, I can only conclude that you cannot have opened any of the IPCC's reports. They are enormously thorough, detailed and unbiased assessments of the state of the science in this field. That they have modified their assessments as knowledge has grown goes a long way to demonstrating that they have no hidden agenda (other than what their charter calls on them to do).You very well, might be well-intentioned, but, it seems to me, all the evidence in the world, will not dissuade you that there is not an open, honest, unbiased, objective and sincere investigation on this topic.
So you don't want to debate with anyone who doesn't believe as do you? I think we should keep talking.If you are so obtuse, that you can't figure the agenda of all this out, by now, that this topic, has more to do with politics, power and money, than, "science?" Than I can't have a conversation on this with you.
Please fill me in. Where do you see money going?Sadly you don't want to follow the money.
We'll see when we've followed the money.That's boohoo for you, Crick.
I don't recall having ever asked you to.I can't fix your kind of stupid.
From 2017 when Trump was just starting to roll:Please fill me in. Where do you see money going?
We'll see when we've followed the money.
I don't recall having ever asked you to.
www.globalwitness.org
www.smithsonianmag.com
So what's not being subject to the scientific method?
nypost.com
cei.org
So, exactly like AGW theory.What is the difference between a hypothesis, and a theory? A hypothesis makes some predictions, a theory, has had several of its predictions come to pass.
Pretty much everything. The predictions have been remarkably good. That's why climate science it has such credibility, because it's earned it by being right with its predictions.Tell me, what has AGW gotten right?
There is absolutely no evidence that this isn't all the result of us being at the tail end of an inter glacial.A short list:
Rising CO2 levels
The amount of termperature rise
The amount of sea level rise
The amount of ocean warming
Polar amplification
Stratospheric cooling
The decline of sea ice, glaciers and ice caps.
Stronger hurricanes
The backradiation increase
The tropospheric hot spot
Ocean acidification
Precipitation changes
Glacial cycles go through a fast warmup, then a slow cooldown. The fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. We've been in the cooldown phase ever since. Or at least we were, until human CO2 changed the slow cooldown into fast warming.There is absolutely no evidence that this isn't all the result of us being at the tail end of an inter glacial.
Glacial cycles go through a fast warmup, then a slow cooldown. The fast warmup ended 8000 years ago. We've been in the cooldown phase ever since. Or at least we were, until human CO2 changed the slow cooldown into fast warming.
So, we know this isn't a natural thing, becuase the natural thing was slow cooling. Plus, the stratospheric cooling and the increase in backradiation have no natural explanation. They are smoking guns for the human cause of global warming.
Here AGAIN/Every time, ToddsterPoofette is a DISHONEST ONE-LINE HARASSMENT TROLL.Since when?
And the planet recovered! We have a much better chance of recovering from CO2 than we have of recovering from democrats.So man caused the global warming of 3 million years ago, too?
LOL
I'm not denying that global civilization, my be contributing to the cycle of climate change, to some degree.They are smoking guns for the human cause of global warming.
You don't see it but you know it's there?I'm not denying that global civilization, may be contributing to the cycle of climate change, to some degree.
The question, is the single bullet, and over-all cause. When I do research, I am flabbergasted, how the net is now completely censored and manipulated now. Very little disagreement or research is allowed to be shown, and those results are pushed down, or entirely blocked. But I know they are out there.
The largest CO2 emitter is energy generation and transportation is a very close second. Between them they make up over half of all CO2 emissions. I have no idea what you mean by "CO2 is caused by the smart grid".When I look at the folks running the world, I am overwhelmed by the hypocrisy. Most of the CO2 is caused by the smart grid, yet they continue to push it out, and build it.
The Smart Grid is certainly not being produced by "just in time manufacturing". ALL of industry aside from energy and transport produces 23% of CO2 emissions.This problem, is caused by the corporate production, and the large concentration of production, just in time manurfacturing.
It was a global pandemic. It killed friends of mine. It likely killed friends of yours.When the so-called, "global pandemic," came
I appreciate your support of mom & pop businesses. I do as well. But there are products and services that such businesses can supply and products and services that they cannot. People using local supplies would reduce transportation yet without transportation you cut yourself off from an enormous portion of the goods and services we all consume on a regular basis. And, in many cases of course, it will increase your costs.they had these hypocritical rules, where folks could get food and critical supplies from global corporations, but not mom and pop stores.
I'm not a business guy but there are small shops in my town that that have been successful and have endured. We have two different independent ice cream stores that have been in business under the same management for over 30 years that I know of. Saturday green markets are very popular in Florida and several near me are very successful, but that wouldn't work so well in northern states in Winter. Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will work to reduce the transport and energy consumption now included in our supply chains. From the References section of the Working Group III report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: "Mitigation of Climate Change":Destroying local economies, in favor of global supply chains? This is the exact reverse of what needs to happen.
I think that among other things, the folks trying to reduce emissions are also working against the global oligarchs and corporations. The central effort though, is going after energy and transportation. Attempting to reduce emissions from industry or retail is an enormously broad challenge and one entity isn't going to solve all of that.None of this paradigm makes any sense, you are living in a fantasy world, if you expect me to accept, "humans are the main drivers of climate change," while at the same time, expect me to watch what the global oligarchs and the corporations they own, are doing to the planet . . . none of it makes a lick of sense.
I think the folks working on this have a very good idea of how the CO2 gets produced. That's been studied for decades now.IOW? It is all a lie, and only folks with low IQs, who don't understand economics, or how the CO2 gets produced in the first place, will believe all this propaganda.
But people want them and will buy them if someone offers them. So they get grown in the tropics and shipped to you. This is not something created or protected by the IPCC. It was how the world's commerce developed over the last 5,000 years.
If this is really as a severe problem as they say it is. . . why can I still buy bananas in my local super market, year around?
Nope, till that shit ends, I am done with the silly propaganda from you folks. Bananas should not be available in my area, and the places where bananas grow, should not have the apples, that are grown in my area.
The greedy ruling classes and the owners and operators of corporations are also all people. Almost everyone wants more money, power and control. You cannot divide the world into the good and the bad; humanity is a fine-grained spectrumThe problem sir, is not the people, it is the greedy ruling classes, and the corporations that want more power, and more money, and more control.
No, they are not. We all have cars. We all use electricity. We all buy manufactured goods and retail products. A person in the US or France or Shanghai who lives in a large house, drives a large car, eats well, travels - iow lives a modern, comfortable western lifestyle, has a large carbon footprint. Someone in the jungles of South America or Africa or the slums of New Delhi or the undeveloped islands of Micronesia who lives in a tiny hut, walks, eats poorly, goes no where - iow lives the classic third world substandard lifestyle, has a very small carbon footprint. This is simply due to the fact that modern civilization developed on the assumption that we were free to consume as much petroleum as we liked, both for energy, power and as a raw material. We made a mistake and have a great deal to unravel and rework.These are the folks that are responsible for the majority of global civilizations CO2.
That there are wealthy people does not show that AGW is a hoax.The global ruling classes don't really give a shit about any of that, this is just a big snake oil scam, which you are either part of, or have to little deductive powers to see right through.
Someone in the jungles of South America or Africa or the slums of New Delhi or the undeveloped islands of Micronesia who lives in a tiny hut, walks, eats poorly, goes no where - iow lives the classic third world substandard lifestyle, has a very small carbon footprint.
Another one of your Giant TROLLING JPG posts. (I deleted the JPGs for readability).Most of the time, the public is gas-lit into believing that AGW is a fact.
Not a theory, not a hypothesis, but a fact.
What is the difference between a hypothesis, and a theory? A hypothesis makes some predictions, a theory, has had several of its predictions come to pass. Tell me, what has AGW gotten right?
Moving energy production to non-emitting technology is the biggest step we can take and the poor and middle class will do nothing but reap the benefits
Says the guy who publishes books on almost every post!!!Another one of your Giant TROLLING JPG posts. (I deleted the JPGs for readability).
Bury em with Volume if not facts. Juvenile and your usual.
First some Science basics.
Theories can be, and most are facts as well.
Science does not deal in "proof," only math does.
Scientific Consensus grows over time due to continuing consistent evidence.
We've seen AGW grow to app 98%, which is a high as many/any other theories.
I've posted the numbers and surveys many times. These are far and wide ranging/in the thousands of scientists/climate scientists not just a 1976 prediction in some daily.
It's pathetic to see you using those old Newspaper clippings - like so many other Schmukks - to try to discredit AGW and wide ranging studies/current consensus.
Consensus has grown because CO2/Temp have grown with it.
People care about AGW Not because it's a religion, but because it does effect people now and will effect more every yr/decade.
Evolution, true or not, will not drown Florida and is not currently flooding Miami. (and so much More in the way of CC)
Post like an adult please. A mod no less.
`
