Global Warming not real???/

#3
#3
IPorange said:
Christy has been of that opinion for a decade.
Click to expand...

Its kind of funny, the scientists arguing over who's right thing! Seems like half prove it one way and half another way! In this type of case, which one gets the correct call here?
 
#5
#5
Less than 5% of scientist thought the sun was the center of the solar system at one point...
 
#6
#6
IPorange said:
Half? We've been over this. It's more like less than 5 %.
Click to expand...

You mean 5 % believe in AGW??

toles_biofuels_B.jpg


It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
 
#12
#12
IPorange said:
Half? We've been over this. It's more like less than 5 %.
Click to expand...
But I thought all the evidence points to AGW? Why in the world would even 5% of climate scientists say anything different?!?!

Must be a skeptic... no, a DENIER. Burn him!
 
#13
#13
rwemyss said:
But I thought all the evidence points to AGW? Why in the world would even 5% of climate scientists say anything different?!?!

Must be a skeptic... no, a DENIER. Burn him!
Click to expand...

Why do 5% of people think Elvis is still alive? I have no idea.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#17
#17
overseasorange2 said:
They must have a PHD.
Click to expand...

So the farm boy goes off to college over the protests of of his dad who says it's a waste of good money and comes home four years later to announce he now has a BS degree.

The dad isn't impressed, saying; "Son you can get all the BS you want for free down at the feed store any Saturday morning."

"Well I'll go back then", says the son and does and returns two years later announcing he now has an MS degree to which the old farmer informs him that MS just means more of the same.

So after a couple of more years the student returns home to the farm to tell his dad that he now has the highest degree one can get and it's called a PHD!

"Son," says the old farmer, "I hate to tell you this but PHD just means "piled high and deep."
 
#18
#18
gsvol said:
So the farm boy goes off to college over the protests of of his dad who says it's a waste of good money and comes home four years later to announce he now has a BS degree.

The dad isn't impressed, saying; "Son you can get all the BS you want for free down at the feed store any Saturday morning."

"Well I'll go back then", says the son and does and returns two years later announcing he now has an MS degree to which the old farmer informs him that MS just means more of the same.

So after a couple of more years the student returns home to the farm to tell his dad that he now has the highest degree one can get and it's called a PHD!

"Son," says the old farmer, "I hate to tell you this but PHD just means "piled high and deep."
Click to expand...

:birgits_giggle:
 
#20
#20
Oldvol75 said:
Its kind of funny, the scientists arguing over who's right thing! Seems like half prove it one way and half another way! In this type of case, which one gets the correct call here?
Click to expand...

well the problem is that a whole lot of the half who say it's not right go about it as finding that out, i.e. "ok, I want to do work to prove global warming doesn't exist"

that's not how the scientific method works and that's not how you make discoveries; anytime anything is done -on either side - as a non-hypothesizing trying to see what happens but instead a "find the end goal".... it's not science anymore, it's now just trying to support one person's idea
 
#22
#22
TrueOrange said:
well the problem is that a whole lot of the half who say it's not right go about it as finding that out, i.e. "ok, I want to do work to prove global warming doesn't exist"

that's not how the scientific method works and that's not how you make discoveries; anytime anything is done -on either side - as a non-hypothesizing trying to see what happens but instead a "find the end goal".... it's not science anymore, it's now just trying to support one person's idea
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you have stated here... scientific method would look like this:

1) Form Hypothesis - "Global climate change is not anthropogenic, but a system in chaos."

2) Experiment to gain knowledge that is intended to prove or disprove said hypothesis.

It works the same way for AGW'ers... or are you just complaining that skeptics test data that is intended by AGW'ers to prove their hypothesis?
 
#23
#23
rwemyss said:
I have no idea what you have stated here... scientific method would look like this:

1) Form Hypothesis - "Global climate change is not anthropogenic, but a system in chaos."

2) Experiment to gain knowledge that is intended to prove or disprove said hypothesis.

It works the same way for AGW'ers... or are you just complaining that skeptics test data that is intended by AGW'ers to prove their hypothesis?
Click to expand...

have to ask what AGW stands for here
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top