So, you are saying that climate science can not make any predictions over a 10 year period?
After all, statistics says that if one flips a coin 10 times, one will get around 5 heads and 5 tails. But, if you weight one side of the coin, that side will tend to be down, so if tracks the number of head and tails, then one can figure out about what the number of heads and tails the next 10 flips will be.
Really, that sounds to me like you are saying that climate science isn't science at all.
So, pointing out how people are actively tearing down something is counter-productive? How about someone actively trying to destroy the international relationships of one's country and government?
I thought all information, including information that you don't want out there, wants to be free.
He should not have to argue for a scientific fact. That is the problem. "Common knowledge", which is often wrong, takes precedence over scientific fact, especially if the editors prefer what "common knowledge" states over what the science states. Wikipedia is little better than a religion in this regard.
No, the Theory of Evolution does not do that. But, it does say that if one takes two isolated communities and puts each under different and contradicting pressures, the communities will select for different traits and THAT can be tested.
People claim that climate change is settled science, and it seems to me that settled science should be able to predict a temperature change over a decade, especially when there is allegedly so much data. Seriously, why can't they just publish a table that says if a decade from now the CO2 level is x, then the increase in temperature should have changed by y?
Really? Then, I challenge you to do it, and I will pay you US$1,000.00 if you can successfully publish a general encyclopedia that is widely and publicly recognized as being reliable.
Then, why do environmentalists claim they are doing all this for the Earth? That is all I hear "Save the planet! Save the Earth!" Bah. It is really "Save me in a manner that doesn't involve me making major changes to my life even thought we really have no idea what we are doing!"
Then stop talking like it. And, your so-called scientists are NOT looking at the very long history. They are looking at a short bit of history and making pronouncements they claim to be fact which it is not.
No, I am not going to worship at the alter of the religion of climate change. I want real science, not pseudoscience.
The octopods don't have bring an army. They just have to wait for us to die out, like we are going to do.
Humans are not doing "anything and everything in their power to survive". That would involve killing off or preventing the births of billions of humans instead of letting nature or the climate do it.
In other words, you can't support your statements and are regurgitating the propaganda you have heard, probably from groups like ELF.
Well, if you are so concerned about the environment and believe that people are the problem, there is a simple solution. Go kill your friends, your family, your neighbors, and then yourself.
Save the planet and improve the gene pool at the same time.
What's the matter, asshat? Can't support your own statements? Yeah, thought so. Now, STFU and go back to eating the shit they put in front of you instead of actually learning anything, dumbass.
Actually, I am betting you are a snot-nosed, know-it-all teenager who should be doing homework instead of trying to act intelligent and failing miserably.
In other words, your own personal opinion. You, and I, are no more valuable than any other clever critter. We are just more clever than the others. This is not about what is best for the Earth, or nature, or other species. It is about what is best for humans, and a limited number of humans at that.
A whole 800,000 years worth of data? Wow, that is a whole.02% of the Earth's history. Why I am sure we can base everything we know and do in regards to the climate on that vast knowledge. Just like we can make decisions about you and your future based on what you have done over the last 4 days.
The Earth, dear old Terra, is around 4 billion years old. That is about 114,000 times older than modern humans. If one were to scale that time to an average human lifetime, modern humans have been around for the last 5 days of the Terra's life.
People looking at the last 100, 1,000 or even 100,000 years of climate aren't looking at a statistically significant sample of data. When one gets a statistically significant amount of data, one sees that we are living in a remarkably stable period and for most Terra's history, there have been massive climate changes.
What people are really saying is that they want things to continue on in a way favorable for themselves. The simple fact is that while climate change might kill off a lot of species including humans, but it won't end all life, let alone destroy the Earth.
There will life here again. It just won't be you and that pisses you off. This entire thing is about the over-sized collective ego of the human race.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you are saying that climate science can not make any predictions over a 10 year period?
After all, statistics says that if one flips a coin 10 times, one will get around 5 heads and 5 tails. But, if you weight one side of the coin, that side will tend to be down, so if tracks the number of head and tails, then one can figure out about what the number of heads and tails the next 10 flips will be.
Really, that sounds to me like you are saying that climate science isn't science at all.
So, pointing out how people are actively tearing down something is counter-productive? How about someone actively trying to destroy the international relationships of one's country and government?
I thought all information, including information that you don't want out there, wants to be free.
He should not have to argue for a scientific fact. That is the problem. "Common knowledge", which is often wrong, takes precedence over scientific fact, especially if the editors prefer what "common knowledge" states over what the science states. Wikipedia is little better than a religion in this regard.
No, the Theory of Evolution does not do that. But, it does say that if one takes two isolated communities and puts each under different and contradicting pressures, the communities will select for different traits and THAT can be tested.
People claim that climate change is settled science, and it seems to me that settled science should be able to predict a temperature change over a decade, especially when there is allegedly so much data. Seriously, why can't they just publish a table that says if a decade from now the CO2 level is x, then the increase in temperature should have changed by y?
Really? Then, I challenge you to do it, and I will pay you US$1,000.00 if you can successfully publish a general encyclopedia that is widely and publicly recognized as being reliable.
Many people complain that Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source. This story shows the reason Wikipedia can not be considered a reliable source.
I guess it is a good thing we can get started now and have hundreds of years to deal with it, now isn't it?
And, I really don't care about the coastal cities and I live in one.
Then, why do environmentalists claim they are doing all this for the Earth? That is all I hear "Save the planet! Save the Earth!" Bah. It is really "Save me in a manner that doesn't involve me making major changes to my life even thought we really have no idea what we are doing!"
No, it wasn't. Go read a book and learn something.
If you care about that, then you should be working to reduce the human population by at least half.
But, I don't see you or anyone doing that.
Then stop talking like it. And, your so-called scientists are NOT looking at the very long history. They are looking at a short bit of history and making pronouncements they claim to be fact which it is not.
No, I am not going to worship at the alter of the religion of climate change. I want real science, not pseudoscience.
Yes, a couple of billion. Even 1 billion. Hell half a billion is still significant.
A couple of hundred or even a couple of hundred thousand years just isn't a significant time frame on geological scales.
The octopods don't have bring an army. They just have to wait for us to die out, like we are going to do.
Humans are not doing "anything and everything in their power to survive". That would involve killing off or preventing the births of billions of humans instead of letting nature or the climate do it.
And, that is a lie. Maybe you should go get some facts before spouting off.
In other words, you can't support your statements and are regurgitating the propaganda you have heard, probably from groups like ELF.
Well, if you are so concerned about the environment and believe that people are the problem, there is a simple solution. Go kill your friends, your family, your neighbors, and then yourself.
Save the planet and improve the gene pool at the same time.
Actually, it is most people, many animals including bears and wolves, and many fishes.
What's the matter, asshat? Can't support your own statements? Yeah, thought so. Now, STFU and go back to eating the shit they put in front of you instead of actually learning anything, dumbass.
Actually, I am betting you are a snot-nosed, know-it-all teenager who should be doing homework instead of trying to act intelligent and failing miserably.
In other words, your own personal opinion. You, and I, are no more valuable than any other clever critter. We are just more clever than the others. This is not about what is best for the Earth, or nature, or other species. It is about what is best for humans, and a limited number of humans at that.
A whole 800,000 years worth of data? Wow, that is a whole .02% of the Earth's history. Why I am sure we can base everything we know and do in regards to the climate on that vast knowledge. Just like we can make decisions about you and your future based on what you have done over the last 4 days.
Using your own reasoning, it is perfectly acceptable to kill off other species to keep humans around.
We are just really clever apes. Who are you to say that we are more important than, say, the really clever octopods who will come after us?
Please provide background data from reputable scientific sourcesfor each and every statement you have above.
Then, explain why current research on Antarctica shows that the ice sheets have come and gone repeatedly over the last million years.
The Earth, dear old Terra, is around 4 billion years old. That is about 114,000 times older than modern humans. If one were to scale that time to an average human lifetime, modern humans have been around for the last 5 days of the Terra's life.
People looking at the last 100, 1,000 or even 100,000 years of climate aren't looking at a statistically significant sample of data. When one gets a statistically significant amount of data, one sees that we are living in a remarkably stable period and for most Terra's history, there have been massive climate changes.
What people are really saying is that they want things to continue on in a way favorable for themselves. The simple fact is that while climate change might kill off a lot of species including humans, but it won't end all life, let alone destroy the Earth.
There will life here again. It just won't be you and that pisses you off. This entire thing is about the over-sized collective ego of the human race.
How does the last decade compare to the last 10 million decades? That covers the last 2.5% of Terra's history.
It is also .37% between the time of the earliest known Cro-magnons and now.
What makes humans more important than the rest of the ecosystem?