Urgent message
- Thread starter BombadEER
- Start date
This is where I call bs on the bs calling. Halfway down their rebuttal, they offer this graph.
It looks great like a big GOTCHA! Then you look closer, and their "real" observations go back ~150 years. Everything else is made up bs of their own. It might be right. It probably isn't. Noone was their to measure the results, so THEY CAN'T KNOW.
Can they test whatever estimations they made? Can they test it against what was there 200 years ago? 700 years? 1,000?
scientific method
noun
1.
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
Biggest problem with modern science trying to test historical measurements.
This is where I call bs on the bs calling. Halfway down their rebuttal, they offer this graph.
It looks great like a big GOTCHA! Then you look closer, and their "real" observations go back ~150 years. Everything else is made up bs of their own. It might be right. It probably isn't. Noone was their to measure the results, so THEY CAN'T KNOW.
Can they test whatever estimations they made? Can they test it against what was there 200 years ago? 700 years? 1,000?
scientific method
noun
1.
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
Biggest problem with modern science trying to test historical measurements.
Just out of curiosity, what branches of science do you discount? I'm assuming evolutionary biology, palentology, geology, astronomy and astrophysics. And climate science. What else?
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/This is where I call bs on the bs calling. Halfway down their rebuttal, they offer this graph.
It looks great like a big GOTCHA! Then you look closer, and their "real" observations go back ~150 years. Everything else is made up bs of their own. It might be right. It probably isn't. Noone was their to measure the results, so THEY CAN'T KNOW.
Can they test whatever estimations they made? Can they test it against what was there 200 years ago? 700 years? 1,000?
scientific method
noun
1.
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
Biggest problem with modern science trying to test historical measurements.
That's a great guess as to how it might've been. It's not a known fact that it was.
I hear you, but I defer to experts....and I don't buy the conspiracy theories. Also, there are many fields seeing climate change becoming a problem. Conservation, innovation, and commitment to the planet can only be a good thing.
For anyone that thinks the cries of climate change are a fraud, if you want to get rich all you have to do is start your own insurance company. A key component in making money as an insurance company is being able to accurately assess reality. Insurance companies by and large agree that climate change is happening and they set their rates accordingly.
If you think climate change isn't happening then start an insurance company and set your rates accordingly. And you can rake in a bunch of business by taking customers that prefer your lower rates to those of insurance companies that think climate change isnt' happening.
If you're right and climate change isn't happening then you make a bundle. If you're wrong and climate change is happening then you lose your shirt.