re: 99.999% likelihood GW is man made.

quote:

---

Nice picture. You didn't even read the quoted section in the OP before you ran off to find a picture. That's a sure sign of your intellectual superiority.

---

Without the sun, would the earth be warmer or colder?

quote:

---

There still is a 0.001% chance that the data wasn't slanted to get more grant money.

---

FIFY

quote:

---

all data is ignored here in the Flat Earth society

---

That slur makes no logical sense. The earth is observably round, every individual can observe this for himself, in many ways, including basic experiment, mathematics, and even direct fricking visual observation. There are many other ways as well. To deny it would be insanity or inexplicable stupidity. Climate change is a vast geological spectre, not observable or in any way easily testable by any individual due to its complex, vast, and eon-spanning nature. As if that weren't enough, as if the complex nature of the phenomena itself wasn't enough to obfuscate, we have clear political agendas on either side of the issue to further obfuscate the matter.


You should think your insults through better. Because it appears to me than you simply adhere to climate change as one would a religion, and ostracize the non-believers. Its adherence is not due to any scientific understanding, due to the apparent fact you didn't notice the basic scientific fallacy of your repeated insult.

TL;DR: I just proved through logic that you are an idiot and a cultist

99.999999999999 chance you are an original lonny tune.

There has been no GW in 20 years.

You are just naive.

Why does SpidermanTUba LEAVE every climate thread he starts when I ask this question??

quote:

---

Can you provide a plan or action in which man could materially reverse the effects of global warming?

---

Why can't he answer this??

quote:

---

all data is ignored here in the Flat Earth society.

---

Most 'data' should be ignored as it is noise, especially for a Complex System like the Earth's climate.

The focus should not be on 'modeling' or 'predicting' what the temperature should be but rather a method to detect where 'extreme' caution should be used when taking 'risks' or 'polluting', or, for the nerds, a modified version of Precautionary Principle.

The more skeptical we are about the climate models, the more of a precautionary approach we will probably take.

And, it is a 100% FACT that these "scientist" were paid A TON of money to come to this predetermined "conclusion".

quote:

---

97.873354% chance I don't even care.

---

There's probably a similar chance that folks who live in cold weather environs hope it's true.

quote:

---

I explained already why it's pointless with you.

---

Then why do you keep babbling?

quote:

---

Hell, Im not even sure you can read the article and come to the correct conclusion they describe.

---

The "correct" conclusions?

quote:

---

You're intellectually incapable of discussing the article, so why post it?

---

What evidence have we seen here on Tigerdroppings that YOU are intellectually capable of discussing the article?

quote:

---

only if you look at it while ignoring sea temperatures.

---

The reason that you can't take any statistical data as fact on either side of this argument is because both sides will ignore data to make a statistic back their arguement. Don't pretend like the left doesn't do this as much as the right. The amount of variables that determine temperature change is incredible and to think we can pull a few stats here and ignore others according to our "scientific" assumptions is irresponsible. This has become a religion on both sides. We are bending science to fit the narrative and it's sickening. No one wants the actual answer. They want to find their answer.