No matter what happens to the climate over the next decade, the premise will remain the same, just "adjusted" to push the results further into the future. Note that the "healing" of the ozone hole, which remains as large as ever, is scheduled for 60 years from now.
Nobody asks if any of the models of ten years ago predicted near-flat temperatures now.
Nobody asks why all the ice graphs compare themselves to a mean that runs from 1979 to 2000. Only. Obviously, the first point is where the satellite data began. Why did it stop at 2000? I've asked this question at the University of Illinois twice now. Haven't gotten an answer yet.
Nobody asks how the prehistoric spikes in CO2 and temperature reversed themselves. If temperature changes alter CO2 levels, this question has several possible answers. If CO2 levels cause the high temperatures, not so much.
What stops a runaway greenhouse? Who's opening the windows when it gets too hot? Why are the spikes cyclical?
Off Topic » in reply to Good luck. For AGW there aint no such animal as falsification. ;-)
Bingo.
The whole thread (46 posts)
- Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder
- If enough people believe anything it's considered "normal".
- The problem is that almost all consideration of global warming is VERY short-term.
- The Null Hypothesis
- Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
- Gee, that's odd.
- So what you are saying is...
- Threadbare argument
- I don't even know where to start... (n/t)
- Perhaps with my first question
- No. Next? (n/t)
- And also...
- Show me the conclusive physics/models that show increasing "greenhouse gasses" produces no "greenhouse effect" (n/t)
- Good luck. For AGW there aint no such animal as falsification. ;-) (n/t)
- Oh?
- And also...
- No. Next? (n/t)
- Perhaps with my first question
- I don't even know where to start... (n/t)
- Threadbare argument
- It's not a mental disorder. They know exactly what they're doing. (n/t)
- Not surprising.
- If enough people believe anything it's considered "normal".