Life isn't in a vacuum. This is just one more piece of evidence piled onto the evidence that 99% of the scientific community already agree on. Feel free to actually look up the plenty of other evidence.
Life isn't in a vacuum. This is just one more piece of evidence piled onto the evidence that 99% of the scientific community already agree on. Feel free to actually look up the plenty of other evidence.
For those who think there is no man made global warming what is the cause of the temperature rise?
The "99% of scientific community agrees" is a myth, just like "it's proven" is a myth.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,691
- 15,939
- 146
What I disagree is how you jump from point A to point B to point C when there's no evidence that A is causing B which is causing C.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/...ng-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD
97%. Close enough.
A majority certainly believe it. You cannot refute that.
Why, because CNN says so? In the early Middle Ages, 99% of the scientists agreed that the Earth was flat and the Sun orbited the earth. And they were all wrong.
CNN didn't say so. 3500 scientists polled said so. You obviously didn't even bother looking at the article and just kneejerked.
Comparing what tools scientists have now with the ones in the middle ages is simply a poor and uneducated deflection.
Last edited:
There were *few* scientists in the middle ages, what you listed were religious beliefs and actually an excellent example of how far we've come by relying on the scientific process.
Comparing god-driven ideology to the collective work of thousands of scientists, using advanced satellites, data processing, and model prediction............. yeap you can apply for social security disability if your job requires any sort of intelligence.
If the 97% of these scientists knew what the hell they were talking about, they could clobber together a cohesive, comprehensive theory on how exactly humans are directly responsible for the observed climate change, how it will lead to disastrous consequences, and have empirical data directly supporting that theory. Until that actually happens, I have no reason to take their claims seriously.
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
I am saying your full of shit. You went on about how for 11 thousand years since last Ice AGE that things been warming . Sure thats true . are you dening the miny ice age. Cause and effect. You people want to put it all on man , Thats not the case at all You really needed to find out what happened in egypt at the time of Moses. Forget the JEWISH version their the biggest liars thieves and deceivers as a race than all others combined . If God made these people a promise it was to CAIN. God made the Jews no promise of the promised land . They lie . God gave Adam a promise to restore him to eden in 5,500 year Adam was 500years old at the time . TIME is almost up befor adam is restored meaning you won't be here . A good thing. A Gave ya that link and you all blindly ignor I suppose none of this is real LOL loseres
Funny you should mention religion, because the religion of "global warming" expects people to believe unproven statements just like every other religion. Does that concept stress your superior intelligence too much?
That doesn't even make sense.
If those scientists REALLY knew gravity, they could use it to form their own wormhole!
"Funny you mention religion. I will ignore its context and how it made my previous statement look ridiculous. I will now segue into a talking point about how believing in "science" makes you like religions!"
Munky, people in the middle ages believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe because they were God's chosen people. It was taught by priests who did not engage in any logical thought or scientific reasoning and did not make use of a single collected data point.
You can't actually be smart enough to use a computer and post on the internet and compare that god-driven ideology with a theory that has been worked on by thousands of scientists, using millions of data points, thoroughly vetted with hundreds of publications.
You are trolling so I don't think I'm stressing my superior intelligence over you, just my superior ability not to engage in retarded lines of thought.
Really? You have nothing then?
He made an absolutely fool of you and you tried to pretend like it never happened. You didn't even try to defend your ludicrous statement.
I asked first. For the record, do you think scientists really know how gravity operates on the sub-atomic level, and where it comes from. Think long and hard about that one....
Incorrect. He made a fool of himself trying to compare ancient scientists to religious fanatics, without realizing how modern "global warmers" employ the same tactics as religious fanatics. And you're owning yourself in the same manner.
Last edited:
Scientists know gravity well enough to launch a probe on a 267 million mile mission to a comet traveling 64,000 mph and to launch a projectile into the comet and capture data from the event.
Scientists know thermodynamics, radiative/convective/conductive heat transfer, and other processes well enough to model the climate while incorporating the million of data points. True processing power isn't advanced enough to develop a complete model but what they have is quite impressive and gets better every year.
You don't need to answer all the questions in the universe to make use of vetted scientific theories. Your attempts at deflection are growing tiresome.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,691
- 15,939
- 146
The first points are observations. Satellites we put into orbit show a net energy gain for the planet. If you don't believe this then you must have issues with how the data is being gathered/interpreted. Otherwise this is first year thermodynamics. When energy in is greater than energy out temperature rises until equilibrium is reached.
If there were more energy coming from the sun that would explain the observation. It's not, we can measure the output.
So the Earth is retaining more of the energy that reaches it.
From there it's looking at the various hypothesis as to why more energy is being retained. C02 is a prime candidate as it causes a retention of energy.
This has been tested in labs to prove that CO2 traps heat more so that other gases released into the atmosphere.
We can measure the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We know roughly how many barrels of oil and tons of coal are burned in a year. We know that the CO2 released from these activities has not been present in the atmosphere for millions of years.
There are similar issues with methane and water vapor.
I didn't compare ancient scientists to religious fanatics. Ancient (Greek) scientists thought the earth was round and the sun was the center, but they got drowned out in the middle ages by religious fanatics.
The scientific process wasn't re-established until the renaissance era, you can't claim any kind of scientific basis to medieval beliefs
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter