(Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.
Mother Nature doesn't care about your consensus.
9 comments:
Mother Nature doesn't care about your consensus.
And neither does science. Consensus has no place in the scientific method which is why lefties have clung to consensus so desperately, trying to offer it as a substitute for the scientific method.
But it's not and the rude universe ignores consensus as should everyone who's interested in the pursuit of knowledge.
I agree! We have a consensus! That means it's true! ;-)
You really see this as a refutation of concerns about the factual data revealing climate change? A refutation and invalidation? Wow. And you deal in factual data for a living. Hmmmm.
The models aren't predicting reality, and you think I'm crazy for bringing that up? Which of us is dealing with factual data here?
I think I should just respond to each of your comments with this question: Which logical fallacy did you just commit? Here's a list so you can get started on them:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
I think I can help out here:
"factual data revealing climate change?" --this fallacy = begging the question.
"And you deal in factual data for a living. Hmmmm." --this fallacy = ad hominem.
If you want some help with logical fallacies, you're free to enroll in my AP Language and Composition class. My students would love to pick apart your rants.
... factual data revealing climate change?
mazenko, you on the left are throwing out your propaganda again. No one is questioning the climate in changing. It has been changing since a climate developed on this rock, however long ago you believe the Earth has been around. Free thinking men and women are natural suspicious when the same people who predicted global cooling in the 1970s because of CO2 emissions are the same ones who switched to global warming in the late 80s when the second ice age didn't develop. Can you say James Hansen? Again, the Earth will heat and then cool, mountains will rise and fall, it’s evolution.
BTY, if you are so concerned of carbon dioxide as a gas, why are you not terrified of dihydrogen monoxide. You may know it more commonly as water. If you wanted it banned because it’s the greatest gas. Many of the geniuses attending a UN Global Warming conference wanted that banned. cop16-attendees-fall-for-the-old-dihydrogen-monoxide-petition-as-well-as-signing-up-to-cripple-the-u-s-economy
And you wonder why thinking people don’t trust this propaganda.
Good job sidestepping.
"My students would love to pick apart your rants."
They could, of course, examine yours, too. But that might not end so well for the hapless student who shows up the teacher.
Post a Comment