Name a single popular leftist conspiracy that you don't believe.

(01-21-2014 02:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Name a single popular leftist conspiracy that you don't believe.

I don't know any, so it's impossible to answer your ignorant question.

Now, provide a single post you've made that doesn't contain a factual or logical fallacy.

Quote:We've taken our predictive models, applied them to other planets with large variations of atmospheric gasses, and the models pan out. It makes sense on every level, chemical, physical, thermodynamically, everything.

That is hilarious. I mean I didn't realize that was being peddled these days, but you really are astoundingly ignorant. And I do mean ignorant.

Do you realize the Jetsons was fiction?

(01-21-2014 02:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point is that the research isn't nearly as shaky as you've been led to believe. We've taken our predictive models, applied them to other planets with large variations of atmospheric gasses, and the models pan out. It makes sense on every level, chemical, physical, thermodynamically, everything.

Why the hell would they apply predictive models to other planets that have nothing in common with the Earth in relation to atmosphere? That is the most incredibly laughable statement I've seen regarding climate change. It doesn't matter what would happen on other planets. WTF?!?!

Yeah, again you're right and 97% of climate scientists are completely wrong. Man, with such evidence presented I don't know how anyone could doubt you.

Explain the benefits of applying the predictive models to 'other planets'?

(01-21-2014 02:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, again you're right and 97% of climate scientists are completely wrong. Man, with such evidence presented I don't know how anyone could doubt you.

Ok, show us proof to match your claim.

Oh, and the 97% of climate scientists claim has been shown to be fiction too.

You really are gullible.

(01-21-2014 02:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point is that the research isn't nearly as shaky as you've been led to believe. We've taken our predictive models, applied them to other planets with large variations of atmospheric gasses, and the models pan out. It makes sense on every level, chemical, physical, thermodynamically, everything.

Why the hell would they apply predictive models to other planets that have nothing in common with the Earth in relation to atmosphere? That is the most incredibly laughable statement I've seen regarding climate change. It doesn't matter what would happen on other planets. WTF?!?!

You take a climate change model, plug in the atmospheric components, relative distance from the sun, and compare the predicted temperature with actual temperature. The fact that it's atmosphere is drastically different actually helps the argument that the models are fairly strong predictor of actual results.

it's the same way we predicted how much weight the moon lander would have on the moon, for instance. the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

(01-21-2014 02:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point is that the research isn't nearly as shaky as you've been led to believe. We've taken our predictive models, applied them to other planets with large variations of atmospheric gasses, and the models pan out. It makes sense on every level, chemical, physical, thermodynamically, everything.

Why the hell would they apply predictive models to other planets that have nothing in common with the Earth in relation to atmosphere? That is the most incredibly laughable statement I've seen regarding climate change. It doesn't matter what would happen on other planets. WTF?!?!

You take a climate change model, plug in the atmospheric components, relative distance from the sun, and compare the predicted temperature with actual temperature. The fact that it's atmosphere is drastically different actually helps the argument that the models are fairly strong predictor of actual results.

Not at all.

Cloud formation is still not understood, and biological processes are unique to Earth. Earth's oceans are not seen elsewhere.

You're not only wrong in your horseshit claim that this has happened, you're wrong assertion of what it would mean.

Furthermore, measurements of other planets are far more limited than than of Earth, in duration, accuracy, precision and thoroughness.

Quote:it's the same way we predicted how much weight the moon lander would have on the moon, for instance. the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

You are a simpleton. You try to reason by analogy, and then claim you understand science.

Here's a newsflash for you, we also figured out the moon wasn't made of cheese prior to the Apollo missions.

(01-21-2014 02:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, again you're right and 97% of climate scientists are completely wrong. Man, with such evidence presented I don't know how anyone could doubt you.

Oh, and the 97% of climate scientists claim has been shown to be fiction too.

You really are gullible.

Really, you claim it's fiction that the overwhelming majority of all scientific bodies have gone out of their way to state that they support the evidence of anthropomorphic climate change? I'll need a source for that, because I have an obscene amount of direct quotes that says otherwise.

I'll source my claim - http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

American Association for the Advancement of Science - "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

American Chemical Society - "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

American Geophysical Union - "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

American Meteorological Society - "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

American Physical Society - "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

The Geological Society of America - "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

U.S. National Academy of Sciences - "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

Joint Statement made by Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Science, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of the UK, and National Academy of Sciences US - "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

If you'd rather trust the research coming out of a select few conservative think tanks funded directly by oil and coal interests over such a wide scientific consensus, you're beyond help.

Let's try a different angle "Dr" Torch.

Something like one paper denying climate change has been published in the last two years. 24 were published between 1991 and 2012.

(01-21-2014 02:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point is that the research isn't nearly as shaky as you've been led to believe. We've taken our predictive models, applied them to other planets with large variations of atmospheric gasses, and the models pan out. It makes sense on every level, chemical, physical, thermodynamically, everything.

Why the hell would they apply predictive models to other planets that have nothing in common with the Earth in relation to atmosphere? That is the most incredibly laughable statement I've seen regarding climate change. It doesn't matter what would happen on other planets. WTF?!?!

You take a climate change model, plug in the atmospheric components, relative distance from the sun, and compare the predicted temperature with actual temperature. The fact that it's atmosphere is drastically different actually helps the argument that the models are fairly strong predictor of actual results.

it's the same way we predicted how much weight the moon lander would have on the moon, for instance. the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

I've got several years of college physics under my belt, I'm aware that generally speaking the laws of physics are the same nearly everywhere.

In relation to using other planets, what would such information tell you about climate change here on Earth? The atmospheres on other planets remain largely constant, even on a planet such as Jupiter which has massive amounts of 'weather'. The problem I have with your line of thought is that factors that drive weather and natural climate change here on earth do not exist on other planets, namely liquid water. Most of the other planets can be compared to one another because they are reasonably similar, (gases to gases, solids to solids at least) the Earth however is entirely unique, not just because of the presence of humans, but also because of the presence of liquid water. As such I don't see the relevance or validity of climate models on other planets compared to here on Earth.

Regardless of the perceived relevance or validity, what applicable information can be harvest from the models? The Earth is in a state of change unlike any of the other planets. Thus climate models that predict temperatures on other planets, no matter who accurate, would not be a good indicator of the predicted versus observed temperature here on Earth since the other planets are not suitable to use as a control.

Do humans effect global climate change? Probably. Is the net effect of humans on the planet significant? The jury is out, at this point I would say probably not. Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, would be perceived as much more credible if there wasn't so much special interest influence and if the predictive models were more consistent. The other thing that hurts the argument is that every time a predicted outcome fails to develop, the lack of desired result is also claimed as an effect of global warming.

There won't be snow in the near future because of global warming.
It's freezing cold because of global warming.

The ice caps are melting because of global warming.
The ice sheets are thicker than ever because of global warming.

Hurricanes will be stronger and more frequent because of global warming.
There aren't as many hurricanes because of global warming.

Need I go on?

(01-21-2014 03:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point is that the research isn't nearly as shaky as you've been led to believe. We've taken our predictive models, applied them to other planets with large variations of atmospheric gasses, and the models pan out. It makes sense on every level, chemical, physical, thermodynamically, everything.

Why the hell would they apply predictive models to other planets that have nothing in common with the Earth in relation to atmosphere? That is the most incredibly laughable statement I've seen regarding climate change. It doesn't matter what would happen on other planets. WTF?!?!

You take a climate change model, plug in the atmospheric components, relative distance from the sun, and compare the predicted temperature with actual temperature. The fact that it's atmosphere is drastically different actually helps the argument that the models are fairly strong predictor of actual results.

it's the same way we predicted how much weight the moon lander would have on the moon, for instance. the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

I've got several years of college physics under my belt, I'm aware that generally speaking the laws of physics are the same nearly everywhere.

In relation to using other planets, what would such information tell you about climate change here on Earth? The atmospheres on other planets remain largely constant, even on a planet such as Jupiter which has massive amounts of 'weather'. The problem I have with your line of thought is that factors that drive weather and natural climate change here on earth do not exist on other planets, namely liquid water. Most of the other planets can be compared to one another because they are reasonably similar, (gases to gases, solids to solids at least) the Earth however is entirely unique, not just because of the presence of humans, but also because of the presence of liquid water. As such I don't see the relevance or validity of climate models on other planets compared to here on Earth.

Regardless of the perceived relevance or validity, what applicable information can be harvest from the models? The Earth is in a state of change unlike any of the other planets. Thus climate models that predict temperatures on other planets, no matter who accurate, would not be a good indicator of the predicted versus observed temperature here on Earth since the other planets are not suitable to use as a control.

Do humans effect global climate change? Probably. Is the net effect of humans on the planet significant? The jury is out, at this point I would say probably not. Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, would be perceived as much more credible if there wasn't so much special interest influence and if the predictive models were more consistent. The other thing that hurts the argument is that every time a predicted outcome fails to develop, the lack of desired result is also claimed as an effect of global warming.

There won't be snow in the near future because of global warming.
It's freezing cold because of global warming.

The ice caps are melting because of global warming.
The ice sheets are thicker than ever because of global warming.

Hurricanes will be stronger and more frequent because of global warming.
There aren't as many hurricanes because of global warming.

Need I go on?

Some of these statements are inaccurate, fyi. Nobody is saying that snow is going to completely disappear.

(01-21-2014 02:57 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:38 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yeah, again you're right and 97% of climate scientists are completely wrong. Man, with such evidence presented I don't know how anyone could doubt you.

Oh, and the 97% of climate scientists claim has been shown to be fiction too.

You really are gullible.

Really, you claim it's fiction that the overwhelming majority of all scientific bodies have gone out of their way to state that they support the evidence of anthropomorphic climate change?

And there have been pushbacks by members every time those bodies made those claims. Many members of those groups disagree with those claims, and some have resigned.

However, that's not really the same as your 97% argument. So you don't even know where that number came from, you just repeated it.

Quote: I'll need a source for that, because I have an obscene amount of direct quotes that says otherwise.

That's easy. Mostly b/c I know something about the issue.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/

(Careful, there are statistics cited at times.)

Quote:If you'd rather trust the research coming out of a select few conservative think tanks funded directly by oil and coal interests over such a wide scientific consensus, you're beyond help.

Well it helps that this claim is also been shown to be fiction. So who needs help again?

(01-21-2014 03:03 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Let's try a different angle "Dr" Torch.

Something like one paper denying climate change has been published in the last two years. 24 were published between 1991 and 2012.

So? That's not the issue. We had this discussion before

http://csnbbs.com/thread-668032-post-101...id10195528

so let's try a different angle. Why do you keep making the same refuted claims?

(01-21-2014 03:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point is that the research isn't nearly as shaky as you've been led to believe. We've taken our predictive models, applied them to other planets with large variations of atmospheric gasses, and the models pan out. It makes sense on every level, chemical, physical, thermodynamically, everything.

Why the hell would they apply predictive models to other planets that have nothing in common with the Earth in relation to atmosphere? That is the most incredibly laughable statement I've seen regarding climate change. It doesn't matter what would happen on other planets. WTF?!?!

You take a climate change model, plug in the atmospheric components, relative distance from the sun, and compare the predicted temperature with actual temperature. The fact that it's atmosphere is drastically different actually helps the argument that the models are fairly strong predictor of actual results.

it's the same way we predicted how much weight the moon lander would have on the moon, for instance. the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

I've got several years of college physics under my belt, I'm aware that generally speaking the laws of physics are the same nearly everywhere.

In relation to using other planets, what would such information tell you about climate change here on Earth? The atmospheres on other planets remain largely constant, even on a planet such as Jupiter which has massive amounts of 'weather'. The problem I have with your line of thought is that factors that drive weather and natural climate change here on earth do not exist on other planets, namely liquid water. Most of the other planets can be compared to one another because they are reasonably similar, (gases to gases, solids to solids at least) the Earth however is entirely unique, not just because of the presence of humans, but also because of the presence of liquid water. As such I don't see the relevance or validity of climate models on other planets compared to here on Earth.

Regardless of the perceived relevance or validity, what applicable information can be harvest from the models? The Earth is in a state of change unlike any of the other planets. Thus climate models that predict temperatures on other planets, no matter who accurate, would not be a good indicator of the predicted versus observed temperature here on Earth since the other planets are not suitable to use as a control.

Do humans effect global climate change? Probably. Is the net effect of humans on the planet significant? The jury is out, at this point I would say probably not. Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, would be perceived as much more credible if there wasn't so much special interest influence and if the predictive models were more consistent. The other thing that hurts the argument is that every time a predicted outcome fails to develop, the lack of desired result is also claimed as an effect of global warming.

There won't be snow in the near future because of global warming.
It's freezing cold because of global warming.

The ice caps are melting because of global warming.
The ice sheets are thicker than ever because of global warming.

Hurricanes will be stronger and more frequent because of global warming.
There aren't as many hurricanes because of global warming.

Need I go on?

Some of these statements are inaccurate, fyi. Nobody is saying that snow is going to completely disappear.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment...24017.html

(01-21-2014 03:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point is that the research isn't nearly as shaky as you've been led to believe. We've taken our predictive models, applied them to other planets with large variations of atmospheric gasses, and the models pan out. It makes sense on every level, chemical, physical, thermodynamically, everything.

Why the hell would they apply predictive models to other planets that have nothing in common with the Earth in relation to atmosphere? That is the most incredibly laughable statement I've seen regarding climate change. It doesn't matter what would happen on other planets. WTF?!?!

You take a climate change model, plug in the atmospheric components, relative distance from the sun, and compare the predicted temperature with actual temperature. The fact that it's atmosphere is drastically different actually helps the argument that the models are fairly strong predictor of actual results.

it's the same way we predicted how much weight the moon lander would have on the moon, for instance. the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

I've got several years of college physics under my belt, I'm aware that generally speaking the laws of physics are the same nearly everywhere.

In relation to using other planets, what would such information tell you about climate change here on Earth? The atmospheres on other planets remain largely constant, even on a planet such as Jupiter which has massive amounts of 'weather'. The problem I have with your line of thought is that factors that drive weather and natural climate change here on earth do not exist on other planets, namely liquid water. Most of the other planets can be compared to one another because they are reasonably similar, (gases to gases, solids to solids at least) the Earth however is entirely unique, not just because of the presence of humans, but also because of the presence of liquid water. As such I don't see the relevance or validity of climate models on other planets compared to here on Earth.

Regardless of the perceived relevance or validity, what applicable information can be harvest from the models? The Earth is in a state of change unlike any of the other planets. Thus climate models that predict temperatures on other planets, no matter who accurate, would not be a good indicator of the predicted versus observed temperature here on Earth since the other planets are not suitable to use as a control.

Do humans effect global climate change? Probably. Is the net effect of humans on the planet significant? The jury is out, at this point I would say probably not. Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, would be perceived as much more credible if there wasn't so much special interest influence and if the predictive models were more consistent. The other thing that hurts the argument is that every time a predicted outcome fails to develop, the lack of desired result is also claimed as an effect of global warming.

There won't be snow in the near future because of global warming.
It's freezing cold because of global warming.

The ice caps are melting because of global warming.
The ice sheets are thicker than ever because of global warming.

Hurricanes will be stronger and more frequent because of global warming.
There aren't as many hurricanes because of global warming.

Need I go on?

The only significant special interest taking part in climate change is on the conservative side, the scientists who are doing their own work all find the same outcome. Those being paid for by the special interests literally just try to find anything they can do discredit that actual research, often just relying on lazily dismissing the claims by pointing out exactly what we don't know. You've got a few years of physics under your belt, then I assume you understand and stood by the theory of gravity despite us not finding the higgs boson until now, yes? We weren't sure about the Higgs Boson, which provides the entire basis of the theory itself, but repeated experiment and data showed we still understand the basics pretty well. Poking holes in research doesn't mean the research is bad, or even that it's wrong, it just means this is a complex problem that we're still trying to fully predict accurately.

The climate change science is not perfect, and will never be perfect for something this complex, but slightly altering models isn't evidence against climate change.

(01-21-2014 03:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Some of these statements are inaccurate, fyi. Nobody is saying that snow is going to completely disappear.

Nobody may have said that it will completely disappear, but Gore was a champion of the statement about snowpacks decreasing 30-70% due to man-made global warming.

You still get the point that regardless the observation in relation to the prediction, global warming is always to blame.

(01-21-2014 03:16 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:41 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:34 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 02:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point is that the research isn't nearly as shaky as you've been led to believe. We've taken our predictive models, applied them to other planets with large variations of atmospheric gasses, and the models pan out. It makes sense on every level, chemical, physical, thermodynamically, everything.

Why the hell would they apply predictive models to other planets that have nothing in common with the Earth in relation to atmosphere? That is the most incredibly laughable statement I've seen regarding climate change. It doesn't matter what would happen on other planets. WTF?!?!

You take a climate change model, plug in the atmospheric components, relative distance from the sun, and compare the predicted temperature with actual temperature. The fact that it's atmosphere is drastically different actually helps the argument that the models are fairly strong predictor of actual results.

it's the same way we predicted how much weight the moon lander would have on the moon, for instance. the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

I've got several years of college physics under my belt, I'm aware that generally speaking the laws of physics are the same nearly everywhere.

In relation to using other planets, what would such information tell you about climate change here on Earth? The atmospheres on other planets remain largely constant, even on a planet such as Jupiter which has massive amounts of 'weather'. The problem I have with your line of thought is that factors that drive weather and natural climate change here on earth do not exist on other planets, namely liquid water. Most of the other planets can be compared to one another because they are reasonably similar, (gases to gases, solids to solids at least) the Earth however is entirely unique, not just because of the presence of humans, but also because of the presence of liquid water. As such I don't see the relevance or validity of climate models on other planets compared to here on Earth.

Regardless of the perceived relevance or validity, what applicable information can be harvest from the models? The Earth is in a state of change unlike any of the other planets. Thus climate models that predict temperatures on other planets, no matter who accurate, would not be a good indicator of the predicted versus observed temperature here on Earth since the other planets are not suitable to use as a control.

Do humans effect global climate change? Probably. Is the net effect of humans on the planet significant? The jury is out, at this point I would say probably not. Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, would be perceived as much more credible if there wasn't so much special interest influence and if the predictive models were more consistent. The other thing that hurts the argument is that every time a predicted outcome fails to develop, the lack of desired result is also claimed as an effect of global warming.

There won't be snow in the near future because of global warming.
It's freezing cold because of global warming.

The ice caps are melting because of global warming.
The ice sheets are thicker than ever because of global warming.

Hurricanes will be stronger and more frequent because of global warming.
There aren't as many hurricanes because of global warming.

Need I go on?

The only significant special interest taking part in climate change is on the conservative side, the scientists who are doing their own work all find the same outcome. Those being paid for by the special interests literally just try to find anything they can do discredit that actual research, often just relying on lazily dismissing the claims by pointing out exactly what we don't know. You've got a few years of physics under your belt, then I assume you understand and stood by the theory of gravity despite us not finding the higgs boson until now, yes? We weren't sure about the Higgs Boson, which provides the entire basis of the theory itself, but repeated experiment and data showed we still understand the basics pretty well. Poking holes in research doesn't mean the research is bad, or even that it's wrong, it just means this is a complex problem that we're still trying to fully predict accurately.

The climate change science is not perfect, and will never be perfect for something this complex, but slightly altering models isn't evidence against climate change.

I'm not going to derail this into a physics conversation quite frankly because I'm too far removed from classes to speak of it accurately and I no longer follow most physics research. More to the point though, you made my argument for me by stating how complex of an issue climate change is. Is it feasible that humans don't have a significant impact on climate change? Absolutely. Will one single proponent of climate change and man made global warming admit to this? Hardly. This is a complex issue that has naturally occurring factors that we aren't even close to understanding yet. Lets get a grasp on them before proclaiming that the sky is falling due to man's relatively insignificant influence over global climate change.

If the only special interest groups taking part in this debate are on the conservative side, then why is my energy costs necessarily skyrocketing? Government is creating regulations based upon shaky models. Conservatives cast doubt and raise questions and are immediately labeled ignorant buffoons for not believing while liberals scream at the top of their lungs without solid evidence and proclaim nearly every change in weather to be a result of man made climate change and their point of view is to be unquestionably accepted?

(01-21-2014 03:16 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  The only significant special interest taking part in climate change is on the conservative side, the scientists who are doing their own work all find the same outcome. Those being paid for by the special interests literally just try to find anything they can do discredit that actual research, often just relying on lazily dismissing the claims by pointing out exactly what we don't know. You've got a few years of physics under your belt, then I assume you understand and stood by the theory of gravity despite us not finding the higgs boson until now, yes? We weren't sure about the Higgs Boson, which provides the entire basis of the theory itself, but repeated experiment and data showed we still understand the basics pretty well. Poking holes in research doesn't mean the research is bad, or even that it's wrong, it just means this is a complex problem that we're still trying to fully predict accurately.

"We're"?

Your ignorance of all things physics continues to show. You really have no idea of what you're writing about.

(01-21-2014 03:16 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(01-21-2014 03:07 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Some of these statements are inaccurate, fyi. Nobody is saying that snow is going to completely disappear.

Nobody may have said that it will completely disappear, but Gore was a champion of the statement about snowpacks decreasing 30-70% due to man-made global warming.

You still get the point that regardless the observation in relation to the prediction, global warming is always to blame.

Your first problem is listening to Al Gore. He's not a scientist.