climate change at this point is a fact, not a theory. We can debate what's causing it, but not that it's happening. Biological, physical, meteorological data all point to global warming.
> climate change at this point is a fact, not a theory.
No, not at this point. It has always been established and believed. We live on a planet with a dynamic climate that changes and shifts month to month, year to year, decade to decade, millennium to millennium, and has cycles that extend even beyond that.
> We can debate what's causing it, but not that it's happening.
We have no idea what's causing it, why it's happening (or why it happened), not even close to it. It's that complex.
> Biological, physical, meteorological data all point to global warming.
No, they do not. They point to climate change. Some places are getting warmer. Some cooler. Some are static. Again, complex.
Given that you appear to be disagreeing with the vast majority of climatoligists on this topic, I'm wondering if you could share your credentials and/or cite the source of your theory that the data does not point to global warming?
> Given that you appear to be disagreeing with the vast majority of climatoligists on this topic
Huh? I'm quite sure the overwhelming majority agree with me.
> I'm wondering if you could share your credentials and/or cite the source of your theory that the data does not point to global warming?
The people spouting about global warming are the same clowns who were wringing their hands about global cooling in the 70s. The moment I hear warming or cooling the only word that bubbles up in my mind is idiot.
I read through the article on "Global Cooling" (from the 1970s) - it was missing two things - one, a clear causative description - it was predominantly "observational", and two, a lack of scientific consensus.
Comments
climate change at this point is a fact, not a theory. We can debate what's causing it, but not that it's happening. Biological, physical, meteorological data all point to global warming.
> climate change at this point is a fact, not a theory.
No, not at this point. It has always been established and believed. We live on a planet with a dynamic climate that changes and shifts month to month, year to year, decade to decade, millennium to millennium, and has cycles that extend even beyond that.
> We can debate what's causing it, but not that it's happening.
We have no idea what's causing it, why it's happening (or why it happened), not even close to it. It's that complex.
> Biological, physical, meteorological data all point to global warming.
No, they do not. They point to climate change. Some places are getting warmer. Some cooler. Some are static. Again, complex.
Given that you appear to be disagreeing with the vast majority of climatoligists on this topic, I'm wondering if you could share your credentials and/or cite the source of your theory that the data does not point to global warming?
> Given that you appear to be disagreeing with the vast majority of climatoligists on this topic
Huh? I'm quite sure the overwhelming majority agree with me.
> I'm wondering if you could share your credentials and/or cite the source of your theory that the data does not point to global warming?
The people spouting about global warming are the same clowns who were wringing their hands about global cooling in the 70s. The moment I hear warming or cooling the only word that bubbles up in my mind is idiot.
It's global climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
So, you are suggesting the following people are, "idiots" - or, at least, the only word that bubbles up into your mind is idiot?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anthropogenic+global+war...
I read through the article on "Global Cooling" (from the 1970s) - it was missing two things - one, a clear causative description - it was predominantly "observational", and two, a lack of scientific consensus.