Fact checking climate predictions: How'd they do?
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
Then you should do your part and voluntarily stop breathing and emitting CO2 when you exhale.
Into the Night
Verified User
Define 'global warming'. You can't prove a meaningless buzzword.
Scientists have done exactly that. If you are arguing nomenclature, you are deflecting.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Into the Night
Verified User
False authority fallacy. You don't get to speak for unnamed 'scientists'. Define 'global warming'. Stop evading.
The weather scientists use super-powerful computers and input all the accumulated data they possibly can get Then they run it so it created models and predictions. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...-program-agu-100-anniversary-cheyenne-wyoming
I am not your secretary and do not answer to you. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...-program-agu-100-anniversary-cheyenne-wyoming It is science bunky, not Rush Limbaugh level logic.
Translation: I can't define it but you better believe me because I said so.
The weather predictions were not severe enough. In many places, it is worse than the predictions. In a few, less severe. that proves it is a big planet not that the global warming scientists are wrong. they are not.
And again, the only mistake is doing nothing. If we clean the air land and water to stave off global warming, we may save the planet. If the scientific data is all wrong, we will end up with a cleaner planet. The only mistake is to do nothing. Trump is doing the opposite,. He is gutting environmental regulation and slashing staff. He is an anti-environmentalist. How the right can allow this mess to continue is a mystery.
And again, the only mistake is doing nothing. If we clean the air land and water to stave off global warming, we may save the planet. If the scientific data is all wrong, we will end up with a cleaner planet. The only mistake is to do nothing. Trump is doing the opposite,. He is gutting environmental regulation and slashing staff. He is an anti-environmentalist. How the right can allow this mess to continue is a mystery.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
they're doing mark to model, like wallstreet wanted to do.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
we've known the size of the planet for some time now, doy.
Into the Night
Verified User
Computer simulations are not data. They are random number generators. It is not possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth. You can't create energy from nothing.
Into the Night
Verified User
False authority fallacy. Computer simulations are not data. They are random number generators. Define 'global warming'. Stop evading.
Into the Night
Verified User
Argument from randU fallacy. Computer simulations are nothing more than random number generators.
Pascal's Wager fallacy.
Clean what out of them? Define 'pollution'.
Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacy.
From what?
There is no such thing as 'scientific' data. Science is a set of theories, not data. There is no data for global temperatures. Computer simulations are not data.
Cleaner? What's dirty about it? Void argument fallacy.
Pascal's Wager fallacy.
The opposite of nothing??
He actually isn't, but he should. The U.S. government has no authority in this area.
No, that would be YOU. You want to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That would be devastating to plant life.
The federal government has no authority over environment. There is nothing in the Constitution that gave it that authority. The EPA is unconstitutional. It should be dissolved. It's a State or local issue, if anything.
What an idiot. Do you think anyone wants zero co2? You makeup arguments and then debate yourself. What a joke you are
Into the Night
Verified User
No, they are your arguments. You deny them now??