1-I think the point is not that individuals with windmills is bad, just that, being prohibitively expensive for most people, it's not an option at this point. Even if they weren't, the bigger windmills (not bigger farms) would be more efficient.
At the moment, virtually all the investment in wind is coming from existing power companies who, understandably, want to continue their current paradigm. If production of windmills gets ramped up, eventually the price will drop low enough that it will be feasible for individuals or small communities to create their own decentralized power grids.
If I had to guess, knowing our current capitalist paradigm? Subsidizing private industry research.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to be very honest about the whole climate change thing and admit I've always felt there is a lot of overreaction and statistic reductionism applied
With all due respect, Klaus, feeling is a poor way to judge scientific hypotheses.
Okay, let me start with the objections I have with methodology. When you make a system that is designed to predict the future, you always run into a problem. Given a certain set of data, it is supposed to predict the future from that point. If your system is perfect, that is. Since it is not, you get a choice to make. Either you reduce the supposed predictive power to make it fit historical data better, or you ignore the historical data and focus on the predictions. Now, the reason you can NEVER have both is that the system is NOT perfect.
This got me curious about the choices the climatologists made when designing the current climate model. The winters seemed to be getting colder and colder, and this was while they were still calling it global warming instead of climate change. There was snow in Baghdad a few years ago, there was snow in Ankara. The sea levels, famously predicted to be rising 70 meters within a few decades, seemed to stay dramatically put.
When I looked, I found things that told me there are quite a few things wrong with it. This was along with the Climategate scandal... and once the spotlight was on, there seemed to be no end to the muck.
The emails themselves were strange. One guy telling another that they needed to get enough people into the board of a journal that did not agree with AGW so they could control it, another suggesting just adding hand-picked numbers to the raw data they built the model on to have it produce a pretty curve, one saying that things had better start getting warmer soon or they could not keep the medial pressure up much longer.
Be that as it may. Private communication is often out of context. One of them, the famous "hide the decline" one, made me curious enough to look further. Turns out the idea was that the model, given that they wanted predictive power, lacked in representing historical data, and produced a severe cold-snap in the 60s (which did not happen). This was "the decline" that they did not want people to see, because it could make people question the veracity of the model. So instead of showing that segment of the model data, they cut that period out and replaced it with tree-ring data from the same years.
Another one was even more stunning: They had gotten a FOI request for the raw weather data they had built the model around, and this was a problem, because "it seems we destroyed that data when we moved last time". This was raw weather data that most of the nations of the world had provided, and as always, the nations saw it as military secrets. I do not find it surprising that they did not want to give them out... but add to this the nonchalance by which they add hand-picked numbers to the data set to get the curve they want, and I find it extremely worrisome. To put it bluntly, the data they made the model from is lost in a move, they have "cleaned data" (yes, they call it that) which apparently includes hand-picked numbers as the basis for their climate model they want to predict the future with.
The scandal lead to further baloney being uncovered. Turns out that all over the globe, temperature meters in the (colder) wilderness areas have been removed, while those in the (warmer) cities remain. Add to this that cities have grown, and thus previously wilderness ones now reside in cities instead. Finally, add five temperature meters WITH NO GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, and the picture seems a bit... off.
The scandal was investigated by the Royal Academy of Science, and ignored because "no proof of scientific indiscretions had been found". I have some experience working in scientific research, and I can tell you that if stuff like the above came out in a field not so thoroughly politicized, the scientists involved would be s$@$listed VERY quickly, never to be allowed to publish again. That was why getting control of the journals was important to them. The investigation was appealed, the next guy to get it was Lord Ox(something), a known AGW proponent, and a FOI request got his email correspondence with the accused party before the investigation: Don't worry about it.
This is not all, of course. A very conspicuous error in handling things is their resurrection of the Hockey stick graph. The main problem with it is that it blatantly ignores both the medieval temperature maximum (which some claim was the reason for a relatively stable society back then) and the well-documented frozen years in the late 1800s. The idea is of course to claim that the current CO2 rise is the ONLY one that ever was visible - so it has to be manmade. This was pointed out, and they retracted the graph... for a while. Soon enough, it was bandied about again, unmodified.
Another important question is: What is their quality control like? Some time ago, the IPCC published a report that included statements about how certain glaciers would be gone in thirty years... which glaciologists refuted clearly. Now, that data gets misreported happens. That was not all. This snippet was apparently taken from a non-scientific magazine and reported as truth. This means either that they lied, or that their quality control is sorely lacking. And if you find something not up to snuff in a quality control process, the only thing you know is that their quality control process is not good enough. Otherwise put: Every shred of data they publish is at MOST of that same quality, but we just don't see the other errors that exist.
And so on. To sum up: I do not believe their precious climate model is able to predict anything. I do not trust the data they shout about. I do not believe they are acting according to normal scientific rules, which in turn means the results they get are suspect at best.
This is my personal view on it, and the reason why I object to them on methodologic grounds. No, I will not provide links. Aggressive demands for links is another standard strategy I don't have the energy to play along with now. All of the above is (or should be) easily findable on the net, if you want to check what I said.
No, I will not provide links.
What more needs to be said?
David Mitchell had some interesting thoughts on the idea:
I'd highly recommend watching both but if you only have 3 minutes of spare time I'd recommend the second as it directly pertains to this discussion.
First one: A carbon tax would mean direct measurement of every human activity. Once that is in place, no politician worth the name would miss a chance to use that data for controlling the sheeple. That in and of itself makes it a horrible prospect.
Second one: He twice claims that the burden of proof is on those who do not believe something. Religious people always do. "Prove that God DOESN'T exist!" is a very ancient, and very irrelevant, demand. Nobody can prove a negative. That does not mean that every fact people claim exists is true. Pascal's wager is a famous example of this: If God exists, you will either go to Heaven or Hell depending on whether you live a christian life. If God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter. Thus, since you lose nothing from living a christian life, it is always rational to believe in God and act as if God does exist. The problem, of course, is that living a christian life is not without costs. And when the high-ups among the AGWers seriously claim sheer insanity like "we really need to suspend democracy while this problem is solved", the costs of the good AGW life become a bit more clear.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My synopsis of the climate change digression;
Someone I disagreed with was wrong once, therefore everyone I disagree with is wrong, always.
.
As for the original topic, about sustainability and civilization, we've hit what appears to be the tail end of several thousand years of being able to expand and exploit new territories, to sustain our ever increasing need for stuff.
Colonialism, imperialism, whatever, is not able to get the job done any longer, and sketchy attempts to destabilized smaller nations so that they continue to remain 'third world' and shackled into serving as producers for our consumer demands (instead of graduating and becoming consumers themselves, and leaving us all with no producers!) are proving less and less successful, over time.
No matter how we fight it, the global standard of living is rising, and the amount of resources available (and the 'permanant underclass' we need to cheaply produce it and package it for our convenience) is not expanding to keep pace as more and more nations that had previously been locked into a 'producer' role are modernizing and becoming consumers, and, therefore, graduating from 'perpetual servant' to 'inevitable competitor.'
And so our use of resources is forced to contract, as it already has, in fits and starts, for decades.
Through recycling and more efficient growth of crops (through GM and crop rotation and whatnot) and water rationing and higher mileage cars and alternative energy dabblings and exploiting ever less plentiful and accessible enrgy sources (such as extracting oil from tar sands, which was dismissed for ages as economically unfeasible) and various other steps, we get more consumption out of less resource, to the point where a child in what we used to call a 'banana republic' or a 'third world hellhole' is eating chicken, because they have chickens in the yard, while a child in our 'first world' superpower is eating processed pink slime, made from the connective tissues and 'waste' meat, creating the surreal situation where the brown-skinned third-worlder is eating a better quality of food than the educated urbane white first worlders can reliably provide for their own children, because it is, as it always has been, about resources.
By transitioning from a global consumer, utterly dependent upon others to produce the goods we need to live in the manner to which we've become accustomed, we've put ourselves at the mercy of all sorts of global situations that would, in a different world, be none of our damned business. Interdepedence is well and good, and might indeed lead to a better world, overall, but it is going to lead to a drastic reduction in the American standard of living, because it *has* to, unless the magic Resource Fairy shows up and waves her magic wand and makes unlimited sources of petroleum and protein and fresh water for us all.
And so we trundle along, hoping that *science!* can find more ways to increase gas mileage, or genetically engineer high-protein bacon-flavored rice, or make edible packaging materials out of chitosan, to allow us to continue demanding more and more resources from a world that's only got a finite supply to give. (Or, for those who don't like science, praying for the Rapture to hurry up and come along, and beam us up into a land of milk and honey.)
And the excuses to do nothing are just precious.
'China isn't going to do it, so why should we?' Is that even still an argument? One that adults use? 'Billy gets to stay up past 10... Waah! It's not fair!' Seriously? The argument is that you *want* to be the lowest common denominator of human being and wait until *everyone else* has done the right thing before you'll stop stamping your little feet and refusing to budge? Go away and let the grownups talk.
First one: A carbon tax would mean direct measurement of every human activity.Second one: He twice claims that the burden of proof is on those who do not believe something.
1) That's nonsensical, seeing as anthropogenic carbon emissions are overwhelmingly not of individual human origin, but of fossil fuel emissions.
2) He does not say that at all. He says the ONUS is on those to disbelieve to show that it isn't worth cutting emissions. Even if you don't believe the case for anthropogenic cause to global warming has been proved, being a reasonable person you must concede it COULD be true. Considering the level of consensus in the scientific community, even to the most ardent (but rational) doubter, the chance of it being true is a nontrivial percentage, a chance that oughtn't be ignored. Since the outcome of it being true and not doing anything about it are disastrous, and the outcome of being wrong and doing something about it are still a net gain (sustainable energy infrastructure), his argument is that you'd have to present an exceedingly strong case for doing nothing.
China isn't going to do it, so why should we?' Is that even still an argument? One that adults use? 'Billy gets to stay up past 10... Waah! It's not fair!' Seriously? The argument is that you *want* to be the lowest common denominator of human being and wait until *everyone else* has done the right thing before you'll stop stamping your little feet and refusing to budge? Go away and let the grownups talk.
Arguments don't actually get any more mature as people get older, they just get a better veneer.
Try seeing international relations as a bunch of sociopathic 8 year olds and it starts to make a lot more sense: its a real sanity saver.
What I am saying is that the very s&%&ty tactics the climate hysterics resort to means they can't be trusted with peeling potatoes, much less be given leave to "suspend democracy". In the worst nightmare publications of the hysterics, they claim that pretty pedestrian sums will be needed to fix the problems in 40 years. Given expanding snowy winters for quite a while now, I feel quite confident in claiming that at the very least, the buildup of CO2 doesn't match any temperature rise right now. The climate model doesn't account for cloud cover, which is one of the prime suspected mechanisms of temperature feedback, but hey, why bother with that, eh? It's complicated and takes time.
A TV program I saw once showed the story pretty succinctly. It was a Discovery show about geoengineering projects. They made a big deal about how the Earth would become uninhabitable in 50 years. So a guy suggests that lenses were put into place between the Earth and the Sun to limit the light that hits the Earth. So, with the projected data from what the lenses would bring, they ran the simulation again, and lo, fifty years from now, the world would still be about as it was now, climate-wise.
So the climatologist looks at the green and blue screen and says: "Yes, this is brilliant. Of course, we still need to move to a low-energy, zero-growth economy even so."
First one: A carbon tax would mean direct measurement of every human activity.Second one: He twice claims that the burden of proof is on those who do not believe something.
1) That's nonsensical, seeing as anthropogenic carbon emissions are overwhelmingly not of individual human origin, but of fossil fuel emissions.
2) He does not say that at all. He says the ONUS is on those to disbelieve to show that it isn't worth cutting emissions. Even if you don't believe the case for anthropogenic cause to global warming has been proved, being a reasonable person you must concede it COULD be true. Considering the level of consensus in the scientific community, even to the most ardent (but rational) doubter, the chance of it being true is a nontrivial percentage, a chance that oughtn't be ignored. Since the outcome of it being true and not doing anything about it are disastrous, and the outcome of being wrong and doing something about it are still a net gain (sustainable energy infrastructure), his argument is that you'd have to present an exceedingly strong case for doing nothing.
Not debating with you, skull, until you provide me with proof that demanding links is not aggressive.
Given expanding snowy winters for quite a while now, I feel quite confident in claiming that at the very least, the buildup of CO2 doesn't match any temperature rise right now.
You heard it here, folks. The world can't be getting warmer, since it's a bit colder where Sissyl lives.
Guess we can put this whole thing to rest now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please refrain from ad hominems and telling people where they may or may not post. Keep it civil. Thanks!
...which was even claimed by the climate hysterics only two years ago to be untrue. They were very clear on this: There is NO increased frequency of storms over the last decades, rather a bit fewer ones.
Then a few big storms with media coverage happen, and suddenly each one of them is direct, incontrovertible proof of the AGW hypothesis.
Give them enough time and they will probably start claiming that the massive increase in earthquakes is proof of AGW.
If places like Baghdad and Ankara get winter snow, which they most certainly did not in the 90s, then no, it's not just a matter of snowiness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate going into these arguments, because I am pretty sure it is equivalent to talking to a wall, but:
Climate models are used because complex systems are often difficult to study. Turns out scientists can't make another earth and vary atmospheric components. It's funny that models used for climate are bad, but modeling is apparently awesome when applied to physics, engineering, biomedical research, etc.
I also get the sense that Sissyl thinks there is only one climate model? there have been many many models produced, many of which take in account thinks like precipitation and cloud cover. Scientists have also tested those models against past Cenozoic climate records, and for many models have found that they accurately predict climate as reconstructed from fossil/pollen/isotope evidence.
As for "Climate gate", the reason that the researchers were cleared is because hey, there was no wrong doing. Those were personal emails, and scientists generally are not robots and will refer to things in a causal matter, or use phraselogy that might mean something different to laymen
The rest of the argument seems to boil down to "one researcher/study was wrong about this one aspect of climate prediction, ergo EVERYTHING IS WRONG". Which ignores the fact that a lot of the predictions appear to be right, even if some of the timings are off. Also, if you doubt the science, try actually looking at the papers and research. Too many people cite failed predictions of TV shows or pop press articles as evidence that the science is bad. Guess what...pop press and TV shows regularly get things wrong. Or do you watch History Channel and think that "aliens did it!" is an accurate reading of ancient history.
Oh man, I remember the summer of 1988, too. Our whole yard (like ~1 acre) was flooded. The sump pump was flooded and our toilet backed up. It was gross.
I am sure I did not claim to be able to disprove the AGW hypothesis... did I now?
Considering that there has been measuring stations "without geographical position", someone at some point obviously felt lying through manipulation of the measuring process was a good idea.
Your suggestion that I am paranoid for thinking this is odd is not appreciated, however.
I hate going into these arguments, because I am pretty sure it is equivalent to talking to a wall, but:
Climate models are used because complex systems are often difficult to study. Turns out scientists can't make another earth and vary atmospheric components. It's funny that models used for climate are bad, but modeling is apparently awesome when applied to physics, engineering, biomedical research, etc.
I also get the sense that Sissyl thinks there is only one climate model? there have been many many models produced, many of which take in account thinks like precipitation and cloud cover. Scientists have also tested those models against past Cenozoic climate records, and for many models have found that they accurately predict climate as reconstructed from fossil/pollen/isotope evidence.
As for "Climate gate", the reason that the researchers were cleared is because hey, there was no wrong doing. Those were personal emails, and scientists generally are not robots and will refer to things in a causal matter, or use phraselogy that might mean something different to laymen
The rest of the argument seems to boil down to "one researcher/study was wrong about this one aspect of climate prediction, ergo EVERYTHING IS WRONG". Which ignores the fact that a lot of the predictions appear to be right, even if some of the timings are off. Also, if you doubt the science, try actually looking at the papers and research. Too many people cite failed predictions of TV shows or pop press articles as evidence that the science is bad. Guess what...pop press and TV shows regularly get things wrong. Or do you watch History Channel and think that "aliens did it!" is an accurate reading of ancient history.
Once again, aliens, paranoid, denier. Swear in the One True Church of the Holy AGW, and man, hunting season begins. I actually put in the time to read the Climategate emails. If you had too, you would probably agree that it's not quite as the investigation made it out to be. Just answer this:
If they are SO CERTAIN... why do they need to lie about it? Why do they need to subvert journals that don't agree with them? Why do they chance to put in glacial meltoff data that they obviously did not check the source for?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given expanding snowy winters for quite a while now, I feel quite confident in claiming that at the very least, the buildup of CO2 doesn't match any temperature rise right now.
Your claim ignores the higher yearly temperatures in many other locations.
I'm really not sure I understand Sissyl's position anymore.
Yeah. What does "AGW" mean?
Step 1) Fake an oncoming global catastrophe that puts gas, oil, and petrol companies out of business.
Step 2).........?
Step 3) Profit
Could someone explain how this is supposed to work? I'm pretty sure if the scientists were collaborating to get research funding to send themselves to exotic locales, they'd be studying alcohol in Tahiti, not freezing their bearings off at the polar ice caps.
Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists think humans might be causing climate change. These are people with backgrounds in oil, like coming up with methods for finding good places to drill. They make their living in the oil industry.
I'm really not sure I understand Sissyl's position anymore. It seems that she does not, categorically, deny the possibility of climate change, but that she decries alarmist rhetoric. However, to me, it really seems that the argument is about two different things, one: is it reasonable to try and support climate change claims, and two: is climate change a factor in sustainability of our current model for civilization.
Now, I ask, politely, is the first germane to the second at all?
Even if you stood firm in your convictions that current claims of human contribution to climate patterns (changing or otherwise) were elevated for political or personal reasons and that you, personally, did not share the same vision (whether you see that vision as reactionary, hysterical or otherwise) could you discuss the question of, is a changing climate a factor for the prediction of collapse of civilization?
I would say it is rather simple. I see a highly political process that seems deeply infested with errors, lies and vile tactics. Now... as you noted, I did not claim that it was not happening. It is, perhaps, possible, even though they behave like sociopathic monkeys, that their conclusions are right. However, it does seem that a fair percentage of their data is off, and has been. As a consequence, my position is that 1) I want no part of supporting them, and 2) I remain unconvinced by their rhetorics so far.
Step 2: If their doom scenarios WERE to be correct, what should we do? Well, they already claimed that we're all f#*@ed unless steps that were needed in 2012 were not taken, and they weren't, but disregarding that, the date with apocalypse is STILL fifty years away (adjusted from the earlier doom date of 2050 in the summer of 2011). That is not the time scale of someone who has data to show. Now... they have told us what will be needed in 2060: Several trillions of dollars!!! If we do NOTHING, and the doom of 2060 comes, we'd actually have to pay LESS than the US today spends on its military every year? That can't be right, I think to myself. Apparently, it is. According to them. Also: Peak Oil is coming! If we're going to run out of fossil fuels... it sounds pretty much like the problem will solve itself. Also: Nuclear power. We KNOW how to extend the fissile cycle for thousands of years through breed reactors. We know how to make nuclear plants far, far safer than those of today. Even with cruddy upkeep, only one of the ancient monuments in old Soviet blew up, and that was the old school plants. Still, the environmental circus actively argues AGAINST big energy production that does NOT emit CO2. Something is definitely funny about this, and my consequence is: The price of not acting is not likely to be unmanageable, fossil fuels will disappear along with most of the scary CO2, and there are clear alternatives that we know how to use. Not acting doesn't seem too problematic.
Step 3: If you start looking at what happens if we DO act: The latest environmental treaties are utter gobbledigook about a utopian vision where the environmental agencies have a VERY central role. Looking at their documents, democracy seems not even to be mentioned. Take a look at Agenda 21, for example. Democracy doesn't seem to be on the wish list. Their educational material is even more scary. They tell us that humans will have the right to a clean environment, that the Sustainable Society will be a stated goal of human society as a whole, that the population will need to be resilient, adaptable and cooperative. No mention is made of any of the classical freedoms. One of them had the pretty text "BIG RISK: Differences between different ideologies cause conflict between groups". Agenda 21 would most likely best be called a central plan, considering that it aims to plan the resource usage for all land and water surfact on Earth and so on. They are already talking about "suspending democracy for a short while while we fix the climate", and not the lunatic fringe among them either. To be honest, a global planned community without room for democracy or any freedom other than "having a clean environment" is NOT a step forward for humanity, nor will such steps help us in any large scale project we want to engage in. The efficiency of such projects has always been miserable. All things considered, the risks of going forward seem to be pretty massive, and they won't help the problem.
So... all in all: I see little I can believe in, the risks of going forward are horrible, while the risks of ignoring it seem manageable. Now, I do not mind work to reduce pollution, to preserve species, to protect wilderness, to plant trees, to reintroduce animals to old habitats, to study the risks of various environmental policies, to improve energy output and lower risks of its production, and so on and so forth. I buy eco-eggs and eco-milk because I find it important that farm animals live decent lives, I use alternatives to meat, I try to learn how to cook well, I separate garbage, I travel collectively, and so on. That does not mean I am willing to surrender the world to the policies they champion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists think humans might be causing climate change. These are people with backgrounds in oil, like coming up with methods for finding good places to drill. They make their living in the oil industry.
Yeah... the WWF has a pretty solid working relationship with the big oil companies. They did a lot of work together in Papua/New Guinea, with displacing indigenous tribes that lived in the rainforest where the oil people wanted to drill. The WWF declared the area nature preserves, which meant the tribes could not live there anymore. The WWF is a major part of the influence map of the IPCC. I expect they have to act like enemies every so often to appease the media.
Step 1) Fake an oncoming global catastrophe that puts gas, oil, and petrol companies out of business.
Step 2).........?
Step 3) Profit
Could someone explain how this is supposed to work? I'm pretty sure if the scientists were collaborating to get research funding to send themselves to exotic locales, they'd be studying alcohol in Tahiti, not freezing their bearings off at the polar ice caps.
It's a conspiracy, man! ;-)
Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists think humans might be causing climate change. These are people with backgrounds in oil, like coming up with methods for finding good places to drill. They make their living in the oil industry.Yeah... the WWF has a pretty solid working relationship with the big oil companies. They did a lot of work together in Papua/New Guinea, with displacing indigenous tribes that lived in the rainforest where the oil people wanted to drill. The WWF declared the area nature preserves, which meant the tribes could not live there anymore. The WWF is a major part of the influence map of the IPCC. I expect they have to act like enemies every so often to appease the media.
Nothing in that had anything to do with the science of climate change.
I get it, you don't like the politics of some people.
I'm not disputing your opinion of certain political opinions. I am disputing your dismissal of science. You still haven't actually pointed to some evidence that carbon-14 is a bad marker for measuring carbon sources.
[
Once again, aliens, paranoid, denier. Swear in the One True Church of the Holy AGW, and man, hunting season begins. I actually put in the time to read the Climategate emails. If you had too, you would probably agree that it's not quite as the investigation made it out to be. Just answer
...
Which appears to be a way of replying to my post while completely ignoring every point it contained
|
Which appears to be a way of replying to my post while completely ignoring every point it contained[
Once again, aliens, paranoid, denier. Swear in the One True Church of the Holy AGW, and man, hunting season begins. I actually put in the time to read the Climategate emails. If you had too, you would probably agree that it's not quite as the investigation made it out to be. Just answer
...
Happens a lot when you buck the majority
Happens a lot when you buck the majority
Its what happens when you decide to try to buck reason, evidence, experimental data and decades of expertise with nothing more than the sheer obstinacy of 'I know it ain't so' or being forced to denigrate the entire scientific process on some spurious philosophical grounds. If there's no argument there then there's nothing to respond to.
Happens a lot when you buck the majorityWhich appears to be a way of replying to my post while completely ignoring every point it contained[
Once again, aliens, paranoid, denier. Swear in the One True Church of the Holy AGW, and man, hunting season begins. I actually put in the time to read the Climategate emails. If you had too, you would probably agree that it's not quite as the investigation made it out to be. Just answer
...
Maybe you can explain why carbon isotopes are a poor method of tracking sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
I'm willing to listen to an explanation, so far my google-fu hasn't turned up anything.
|
|
Happens a lot when you buck the majority
Its what happens when you decide to try to buck reason, evidence, experimental data and decades of expertise with nothing more than the sheer obstinacy of 'I know it ain't so' or being forced to denigrate the entire scientific process on some spurious philosophical grounds. If there's no argument there then there's nothing to respond to.
That was a generalization about arguments on anything.
That said sometimes scientists disagree and "only they can understand" so it does boil down to what you decide to believe.
What part of the climate science are you not understanding? I might be able to help find something for you.
I'm guessing you don't actually care though, you don't want it to be right. I don't either actually, I think it would be better if they were wrong. Unfortunately, my whims do not dictate reality.
|
|
What part of the climate science are you not understanding? I might be able to help find something for you.
I'm guessing you don't actually care though, you don't want it to be right. I don't either actually, I think it would be better if they were wrong. Unfortunately, my whims do not dictate reality.
How about proof that man has anything to do with it. It has gotten hotter and colder long before man even had fire
That response indicates to me that you don't actually want to know the truth, but are instead happy with your political influenced opinion. Is that what you wanted to convey?
Edit: To add, I get the sense that you don't care what I have to say... about anything. That's fine, I'm no one important. If you do want to engage with me, feel free to take this opportunity to correct this.
|
|
How about proof that man has anything to do with it. It has gotten hotter and colder long before man even had fireWhat part of the climate science are you not understanding? I might be able to help find something for you.
I'm guessing you don't actually care though, you don't want it to be right. I don't either actually, I think it would be better if they were wrong. Unfortunately, my whims do not dictate reality.
When do you think man made fire? yesterday? Indigenous Australians came to Australia 50-75 thousand years ago and burned down the rain forest to kill all the monsters.