Global Warming My Aŕs

a reply to: MykeNukem

Oort cloud anyone?

Interesting. How can a theoretical area of comets and stuff which is at 2,000 AU be causing the current increase in CO2, do you reckon? How would it have an isotopic signature similar to that of coal and oil?

You never address points,

What point have I not addressed?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MykeNukem

Oort cloud anyone?

Interesting. How can a theoretical area of comets and stuff which is at 2,000 AU be causing the current increase in CO2, do you reckon? How would it have an isotopic signature similar to that of coal and oil?

You never address points,

What point have I not addressed?

You haven't addressed tons of points. You selectively edit posts to suit your response. Like I said, thanks for the education.

Do you believe the Oort "area" exists? Or just theoretical?

If it doesn't exist, what then?

What part of your Historical Science ISN'T theoretical? But it's at exactly 2000 au? Still theoretical? lol.

Please show me the Laws we are dealing with? Or are we just theorizing? Be honest.

Other than 2nd LOTD, which applies but doesn't prove anything.

a reply to: MykeNukem

You haven't addressed tons of points.

Ok. Can you provide one or two?

Do you believe the Oort "area" exists? Or just theoretical?

Yes, I think it fits the data quite well. Sort of like the theory of General Relativity does. I'd like to know how the Oort cloud might be causing the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2.

What part of your Historical Science ISN'T theoretical?

Science is all about theory. Seems you may not really understand what the word means, in science.

Please show me the Laws we are dealing with?

Are we talking about the source of CO2, or why it causes warming?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MykeNukem

You haven't addressed tons of points.

Ok. Can you provide one or two?

Do you believe the Oort "area" exists? Or just theoretical?

Yes, I think it fits the data quite well. Sort of like the theory of General Relativity does. I'd like to know how the Oort cloud might be causing the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2.

What part of your Historical Science ISN'T theoretical?

Science is all about theory. Seems you may not really understand what the word means, in science.

Please show me the Laws we are dealing with?

Are we talking about the source of CO2, or why it causes warming?

Oh my.

Why TF do you think your word holds any more than someone else's?

Do I know what theory means? Ok then. That's a real question? Why don't you lead with that question/accusation/spurious innuendo, instead of waiting until you're caught between a rock and a hard place?

Please show me some predictable and reproducible science/experiment/prediction concerning the Oort "area", then, we'll compare it to GR, ok?

I'm using the Oort cloud as a metaphor for your CO2. You have no idea where it come's from, only hypothesis.

Go look at the previous posts, you selectively missed tons of points.

You can go look, I already did the courtesy of taking the time and responding to you.

Is this how you argue with colleagues?

Can't see you making progress that way, maybe that's what's happening to the AGW field?

K, I've been up all night, I know it's only evening there.

I'll argue with ya in the morning.

This helps debunk some popular climate change myths...many of which are often repeated on ATS:

Talking of predictions ......

Climate contrarians predicted the world would cool—it didn’t

Oops!


Meanwhile predictions of increasingly severe heatwaves (Canada anyone?), droughts and extreme flash floods (Germany?) are clearly coming true.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
Talking of predictions ......

Climate contrarians predicted the world would cool—it didn’t

Oops!


Meanwhile predictions of increasingly severe heatwaves (Canada anyone?), droughts and extreme flash floods (Germany?) are clearly coming true.

Failed predictions prove something?

What are your chances of predicting whether tomorrow will be hot or cold?

50 percent?

In other words, if your prediction is wrong, the opposite of your prediction will be true.

Phage:
you agree that to stop global warming you have to eliminate the couse of it ?
ore just the affects...


a reply to: Phage

global warming is the effect of the contradiction of economics and nature !
it seems that humans have different opinions about it...
but wait !
the dino's (wich were extinct by an comet) left us an nasty legacy in the form of there s**t that is kept for millions years in the permafrost of the northern hemisfeer...now that is melting the bad gasses are reliefed in the atmosfeer and accelerates the global warming and forfilling the circle of live...
hmm Karma ??

31,487 Scientists Reject AGW Alarmism
Global Warming Claims
Manhattan Declaration
Scientists Reject U.N. Climate Change Treaty