You really want to get taken to school again? I don't have the time or inclination to keep tutoring you on the math. Especially after the part where you typed 'you are absolutely correct'.
Newest Covid Scapegoat.......... tha chrrrRIIIIIIIIIISTIANS!!!!!!
- Thread starter launch
- Start date
COVID-19 patients on ventilators are more enthusiastic and exciting than Biden.
lives = the living, alive? I still don't think it works.
What does "settled" mean? The stoichiometry of fossil fuel combustion and heat transfer properties of CO2 are not currently subject to scientific dispute.
Policy should be based on a normative synthesis of sciences and philosophy, which is what the commentary attempts to be.
Lol. Good effort.
The climate alarmism tries to be a "normative synthesis of sciences and philosophy?" I'd love to see this word salad explained. Maybe we should examine a few alarmism claims and you can explain how they are attempting to be a "normative synthesis of sciences and philosophy."
You do know that the record shows that a cooler earth is bad for the living (chuckle), right?
Lol.
Yes you are absolutely correct that the earth has finite human beings. You are the master of the banal.
Would you like to pick some claims to get started or would you like me to?
Right on. Let's examine the global cooling/ice age alarmism first. How's that alarmist prediction doing? Normal synthesis of sciences and philosophy?
Again, I stopped listening to you right after you said I was absolutely right. Anything else by you is just excuse making and crab walking your ignorant ass back.
1. Is a prediction based on linear trends in population and pollution per population and their first order effects. I would grade this is science only.Right on. Let's examine the global cooling/ice age alarmism first. How's that alarmist prediction doing? Normal synthesis of sciences and philosophy?
2. has a lot of predictions and some normative statements based on those predictions. "The oceans will be dead as lake eerie" is science "and it does need saving" is a normative statement synthesizing this guys failed scientific predictions with a philosophical framework, most likely utilitarianism.
3. I would grade the highlighted part as science only. "it is now urgent to..." is a normative statement synthesizing the science this guy is doing, and varied philosophical frameworks most like utilitarianism and rational empiricism.
4. The highlighted part is a normative synthesis of science (what are anti cyclone and what are their physical effects) and philosophy (their effects are "adverse.")
5. is completely descriptive (science)
6. The highlighted part is a normative synthesis of science (predictions about conditions) and philosophy (comparing conditions using "worsen")
Yeah you definitely stopped listening. I can tell. The crab is the guy who walked back all of his statements to the point that the only thing he added to the conversation is "population is finite." Thank you for reminding us.
Silly of me that to infer that you said something beyond "we don't have infinite people" I'll know to expect less of you next time.
If attributing words or meaning I never said makes you feel better then by all means go for it. Doesn't make you right.
"Hey if you thought I had anything worth saying, that's your fault"
Lesson learned. I'll make you be explicit before engaging in the future to prevent this sort of cowardly retreat.
Would you consider any of it to be alarmism? There isn't actually much science presented in those articles. It's mostly commentary on the alleged "science."
I wonder why reality has been so different from the "predictions" based on "science."
Lots of testable hypotheses
Its pretty easy to spot why their hypotheses were proven wrong.
Hmmmmmm. Did they fail to test their own hypotheses?
Why were their hypotheses proven wrong? Have they actually been proven wrong or have their predictions just not happened yet? What's so different in current climate "science" that should assure us that it's reasonably accurate in comparison to previous climate science?
I would say it got tested pretty well.
I'd say the thread that runs through all of them is too much extrapolation. Some were wrong only if you ignore the "if we don't change" part of the hypothesis. We have cleaned up particulate pollution and waterway pollution quite a bit. Some where wrong because they focused too much on particulate pollution and left out greenhouse gas pollution.
One of them still has until 2033 for temperatures to drastically drop, but yes I would say they have all been proven wrong.
[QUOTE="Medic007, post: 1695378, member: 2402"What's so different in current climate "science" that should assure us that it's reasonably accurate in comparison to previous climate science?[/QUOTE]
More of it, more data, less reliance on extrapolation. There is cause for alarm even based on hypotheses that have been tested, when you synthesize that science with a philosophical framework that includes the precautionary principle.
Only the normative statements contained alarm. Especially Ehrlich. I think number 3 is very reasonable.
Less reliance on extrapolation? By who? Are the current predictions based on actual measurable events that have allowed the creation of precise modeling? Is there some place that has had the climactic calamities that are being predicted with a rise in "global" temperature of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celcius?
Yes to which? Less reluctance on extrapolation? Or yes to are the current predictions based on actual measurable events that have allowed the creation of precise modeling?
Point me to an actual measurable event that proves that a global temperature rise of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius will result in the predicted climate calamity.
I'm going to need something that isolates the man-made CO2 variable from all other variables.
QUOTE="MegaPoke, post: 1695708, member: 88"]
@davidallen nothing in this article about science denying.[/QUOTE
But as we’ve already seen, the Left has met this show of community and generosity from their fellow citizens with “REEEEEEEEEE”.
@davidallen nothing in this article about science denying.[/QUOTE
But as we’ve already seen, the Left has met this show of community and generosity from their fellow citizens with “REEEEEEEEEE”.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ormance-of-Past-Climate-Model-Projections.pdf
This evaluates the predictive power of various climate models.
Yeah, that doesn't show that a 1.5 to 2 degrees rise in "global" temperature will result in any predicted calamity. That only says they have gotten better at predicting temperature.
