re: If a hypothesis isn't falsifiable, is it science or religion?

quote:

---

how bout you explain a rise of 105ppm CO2 in 55 years and the associated century global temperature anomaly that is observed and trending up

naturally that would take about 1 million years

explain please

---

How do you explain the climate change on Mars??

How do you determine when an Ice Age is over?? We are still recovering from an ice age within the last 20K years, a snapshot of time in the scope of the earth's age. How do you recover from an ice age without warming the planet?? This has happened a number of times in the history of the earth well before vertibrates crawled out of the sea. What caused those climate changes?? Did the mechanics of those warming events cease to exist??

How do you know that CO2 causes global warming - what if CO2 is a result of a warming planet???

Water vapor is an order of magnitude more effective a greenhouse gas than is CO2. How do you know that it is not water vapor as the primary agent vs CO2??

etc etc.

quote:

---

How do you know that CO2 causes global warming - what if CO2 is a result of a warming planet???

Water vapor is an order of magnitude more effective a greenhouse gas than is CO2. How do you know that it is not water vapor as the primary agent vs CO2??

etc etc.

---

Abdussamatov.. is a brilliant dude. He's the champion of the 'anti-consensus' global warming on mars idea.. believes that the earth and mars are warming because of abnormally high levels of solar radiation. He also says that we're due for a mini-ice age starting this decade and ending in the 2050s.

He also admits that anthropogenic activities contribute (albeit in a smaller amount) to climate change on this planet.

Yes but, "extreme weather" is really just "bad weather". Way too hot or way too cold. That makes no sense if the globe is simply warming; winters and summers should get warmer. A warmer planet does not mean more snow.

It's just a convenient way to blame "climate change" for bad weather.

quote:

---

earth and mars are warming because of abnormally high levels of solar radiation

---

quote:

---

anthropogenic activities contribute (albeit in a smaller amount) to climate change on this planet.

---

quote:

---

we're due for a mini-ice age starting this decade and ending in the 2050s

---

Now, I know it is a difficult ask.
I really do.
But I am going to ask you to think about what you posted.

Consider the irony of your post in the shadow of your "but they're too stupid to discern the difference sometimes" statement.

Do you have a mirror. Just take a moment to look into it.

E.g.,
Is CO2 a "greenhouse gas"?
Of course it is!
I'm not sure a single poster here would dispute that.
The question is as to degree of contribution.

We are in the midst of an ice age.
Do you understand the relevance of that FACT?
We appear to be at an interglacial maximum within that ice age.
Do you understand the relevance of that FACT as well?
AGW "scientists" do not have any sound explanation for either of the above.
Do you understand the relevance of that either?

So when you dismiss out-of-hand the likelihood of a future decline in global temp, despite increased atmospheric CO2, please do so with an understanding that your opinion has nothing to do with science.

====

In terms of a pragmatic tack:
The United States is the planet's sole remaining superpower. We are the most charitable, giving country in history. In the 70yrs we've held that status, previously ever-present major European Wars have virtually disappeared. As goes the US, so goes world peace. Granted, we've had our share of regional hiccoughs in the interim. But nothing rivaling the 5 centuries predating the US rise.

European oligarchs over centuries made their fortunes off of those European Wars, or at least off of international instability (AKA omnipresent international rivalry or old-world economic basis). So being forced into stability via the US's overwhelming economic station is unpalatable for some.

Opportunity to recreate old-world economic patterns would arise if international entities could level the economic playing field with the US. A roadblock in that endeavor is the fact that modern economies are energy driven. Europe suffers from a relative dearth of fossil fuel resources. So does China. So does Japan.

Artificially increasing cost of fossil fuel would help those players considerably in closing economic gaps with the US. In the world of relativism, it would raise their status. Needless to say, increasing fossil fuel energy cost yields a disproportionate and negative effect on the US economy. So overall, their efforts would result in a slight global economic decline, but with a major shift of money from the US.

US economic underperformance would obviously limit internationally stabilizing US influences, and that is the destabilizing result AGW activists promote.

That is the destabilization a select few desire to enrich themselves. That is the objective you also promote. George Soros promotes it because as a masterful currency manipulator, he's mades billions off of international chaos. You don't enjoy the same benefit though.

Perhaps your promotion of targeted anti-US-economic effort is unwitting and naive.
Nonetheless, it is what it is.