It's already underway. Because of rising seas, much of Florida's fresh water is going away. Engineering can delay it, but it can't stop it.If sea levels rise by 2 feet, a lot of florida is in trouble.
Which science, they say opposite things, depending on who we ask. Better to go with God, He knows.Go with the science.
I suppose with enough prophets, some would get it close in the short term. So what, we are supposed to pick and choose a few that actually seemed to be close?Ehrlich was always way out on the edge. Go with the guys whose predictions actually worked, like James Hanson, who correctly predicted the warming trend about thirty years in advance, using only carbon dioxide emissions.
Change is always here on earth. The world changed a lot and will keep changingIt's already a crisis. The islands are losing ground now. The government hopes to make it work by erecting walls around some of the land to save it.
You know what's GREAT though? If you take the aggregate of ALL of the models and you find the AVERAGE of ALL the model outputs, it actually mirrors really really, REALLY well!Which science, they say opposite things, depending on who we ask. Better to go with God, He knows.
I suppose with enough prophets, some would get it close in the short term. So what, we are supposed to pick and choose a few that actually seemed to be close?
Change is always here on earth. The world changed a lot and will keep changing
How about we take the aggregate of all the totally false and wrong ones and flush them all? Flush really really well.You know what's GREAT though? If you take the aggregate of ALL of the models and you find the AVERAGE of ALL the model outputs, it actually mirrors really really, REALLY well!
What would be the purpose of that? Do....do you know how averages work?How about we take the aggregate of all the totally false and wrong ones and flush them all? Flush really really well.
Sure. The purpose would be to show that as a whole, prophesies from science can't be trusted. In that case, we toss the whole thing out. Like a bad witness in court caught lyingWhat would be the purpose of that? Do....do you know how averages work?
In the case of climatology, go with climatologists. Doesn't seem like a difficult idea to me.Which science
No, even in the 1970s, the vast majority of climatologists already knew that the climate would be warming. Would you like me to show you that?they say opposite things, depending on who we ask.
But the vast majority of climatologists got it right, a half-century ago. Maybe someone is playing you on that.I suppose with enough prophets, some would get it close in the short term.
But climatologists accurately predicted which way it would change, decades earlier. Maybe it's time to reconcile yourself with the reality.Change is always here on earth.
There were a lot of people saying that the world was going to be cooling off. But few, if any of them were climatologists. Maybe there's an important message there for you.How about we take the aggregate of all the totally false and wrong ones and flush them all?
I notice that almost all climatologists made predictions that where subsequently confirmed. I notice pretty much all deniers made predictions that have since been falsified. Something can't be trusted, but it isn't science.Sure. The purpose would be to show that as a whole, prophesies from science can't be trusted.
I go with truthGo with the science.
They go all over the place. Better to have some directionIn the case of climatology, go with climatologists. Doesn't seem like a difficult idea to me.
There was no consensus though? Funny, thatNo, even in the 1970s, the vast majority of climatologists already knew that the climate would be warming. Would you like me to show you that?
Not on the why. There is some disagreement as to why it gets a little warmer. Or cooler. EtcBut the vast majority of climatologists got it right, a half-century ago. Maybe someone is playing you on that.
They also predicted falsely. You don't get to ignore all predictions except the few who (for whatever reasons, right or wrong) were close.But climatologists accurately predicted which way it would change, decades earlier. Maybe it's time to reconcile yourself with the reality.
Yes, not only climatologists are falsely prophesying.There were a lot of people saying that the world was going to be cooling off. But few, if any of them were climatologists. Maybe there's an important message there for you.
Do you? Was that in a dream?I notice that almost all climatologists made predictions that where subsequently confirmed.
What is a 'denier'? Where do we find a list of their prophesies that failed? Try to talk realityI notice pretty much all deniers made predictions that have since been falsified. Something can't be trusted, but it isn't science.
Yep.Do you?
American Meteorlogical Society. Someone actually did a literature search to check the denier stories. Turns out, they lied:Was that in a dream?
Climate deniers are those who reject the evidence for global warming that was obvious to researchers even in the 1970s.What is a 'denier'?
Where do we find a list of their prophesies that failed?
Not this time. In the case of climatology, go with climatologists. Doesn't seem like a difficult idea to me. Even in the 1970s, the vast majority of climatologists already knew that the climate would be warming. I just showed you that.I go with truth
See above. Consensus. Deniers lied about it. For reasons we all understand. The vast majority of climatologists got it right, a half-century ago. Maybe someone is playing you on that.There was no consensus though?
Nope. It's well-established that greenhouse gases are responsible. We get cooling, too. Typically it's from major volcanic eruptions. Of late, they don't actually cool things off, they just moderate the rise in temperatures a bit. Would you like to learn about that?Not on the why. There is some disagreement as to why it gets a little warmer.
See above. You were badly misled.They also predicted falsely. You don't get to ignore all predictions except the few who (for whatever reasons, right or wrong) were close.
Nothing to do with why. The carbon is the cause theories are not something all agree on, to put it mildly.I notice that almost all climatologists made predictions that were subsequently confirmed.
So it looks like there were hot, neutral and cooling papers. Hilarious. When one sort of comes true, you can dismiss the rest and claim accuracy!
Better to go with truth and God.Go with the science.
See above. Why it was changing is the issue, and also the fact that you have all bases covered (hotter, colder, neutral) so how could some of them (despite not knowing the actual causes) be wrong?? When prophets predict all possible outcomes, then you do not get to crown the lucky guessers as true prophets.Not this time. In the case of climatology, go with climatologists. Doesn't seem like a difficult idea to me. Even in the 1970s, the vast majority of climatologists already knew that the climate would be warming. I just showed you that.
? Which is it?Nope. It's well-established that greenhouse gases are responsible. We get cooling, too.
"It" is from? What? The warming, neutral or cooling? You do realize volcanoes existed in the past as well?Typically it's from major volcanic eruptions. Of late, they don't actually cool things off, they just moderate the rise in temperatures a bit. Would you like to learn about that?
They also predicted falsely. Therefore they are all disqualified. Forever. Really.Climatologists accurately predicted which way it would change, decades earlier.
You're wrong about that. For example, James Hanson correctly predicted the warming climate about 30 years in advance, using nothing but CO2 emissions.Nothing to do with why.
As you now realize, even in the 1970s, when climatology was still a new discipline, most of the researches predicted warming. And as you know, they were right. And the few who predicted cooling were proven wrong.So it looks like there were hot, neutral and cooling papers.
Which is what happened. The predicted warming trend is now an observed fact:When one sort of comes true,
James Hanson tested that idea by predicting temperatures based on carbon emissions alone. And the results showed that he was right. It's not all there is to global temperature, of course. We just left a period of lowered solar output. Normally, temperatures would have dropped. But they only increased by a somewhat slower rate.And if the world warmed because of the sun or cycles of some sort rather than man's impact, then the causes for the warming were not what you thought.
His model turned out to be remarkably accurate, considering the relatively small amount of data he had to work with.Not sure how you thought this was something to brag about?
Sulfur dioxide, mostly. It cools the atmosphere. But carbon emissions have pretty much overwhelmed the occasional major eruptions. They used to make things a lot colder. The Krakatoa eruption, for example, produced a "year without a summer." No more."It" is from? What? The warming, neutral or cooling? You do realize volcanoes existed in the past as well?
A few thought perhaps particulates might make things colder. But the majority knew, even then, that more atmospheric carbon would warm things up. And this was first predicted in the 1800s, so it wasn't exactly new science.See above. Why it was changing is the issue, and also the fact that you have all bases covered (hotter, colder, neutral) so how could some of them (despite not knowing the actual causes) be wrong??
A very small minority. And getting smaller as warming predictions continue to be confirmed. Still, there were a very few who predicted cooling.There are voices in the scientific world that disagree as to what causes it.
Yep. And the climatologists turn out to have had it right. We are continuing to see the earth get warmer.They also predicted falsely.
So what? There were predictions for cooler as well. Those failed. Why would we hold up one guesser who was on the winning side, in that his guess happened to be right?I notice that almost all climatologists made predictions that were subsequently confirmed.
He attributed it to that. Others, with more recent knowledge, attribute to something else. Big deal. They might as well play pin the tail on the donkey. The one who pins it closest wins. The problem is that they are blind.You're wrong about that. For example, James Hanson correctly predicted the warming climate about 30 years in advance, using nothing but CO2 emissions.
Then you admit some predicted other things. And even if some predicted it, the 'why' is what must be proven. Then we have the preachers of the new green religion flying in on jets to climate gatherings! Hypocrites as well as false prophets.As you now realize, even in the 1970s, when climatology was still a new discipline, most of the researches predicted warming. And as you know, they were right. And the few who predicted cooling were proven wrong.
What happened is a warming trend. Why we don't know. We also had many of the experts saying the opposite would happen! That destroys all their credibility.Which is what happened. The predicted warming trend is now an observed fact:
Tested? Show how? HaJames Hanson tested that idea by predicting temperatures based on carbon emissions alone. And the results showed that he was right. It's not all there is to global temperature, of course. We just left a period of lowered solar output. Normally, temperatures would have dropped. But they only increased by a somewhat slower rate.
Now they admit he was basing it on precious little.His model turned out to be remarkably accurate, considering the relatively small amount of data he had to work with.
? Mentioning a greenhouse effect was detected means all his prophesies based on precious little are true as well as all other prophesies from climate prophets?? No Was there ever a greenhouse effect in history? What are the causes? Proof?“The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.
Those were the words of James Hansen, then the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to the U.S. Senate Energy committee on a sweltering June day in 1988. Thirty years on, the overwhelming consensus from scientists is that Hansen was right—and most would say that far too little has been done since to address the threat.
So you now realize that those people didn't get it right, and you should listen to the people who did get it right. I think you just proved my point for me.So what? There were predictions for cooler as well. Those failed.
Even in the 1970s, it was the great majority of climatologists who got it right, and a small minority who got it wrong.Why would we hold up one guesser who was on the winning side, in that his guess happened to be right?
There will always be those who don't agree. Point is, most climatologists, even in the 1970s, were correct in predicting warming, while deniers were predicting cooling. If you're smart, you go with the guys who have a record of getting it right.I notice your claim is at odds with the claims of many as well
Polls don't determine science. Predictions that are confirmed determine science. It just so happens that the great majority of climatologists got it right even 50 years ago. For example, James Hanson correctly predicted the warming climate about 30 years in advance, using nothing but CO2 emissions.In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses.
Nope. Carbon dioxide is still the primary forcing for a warming climate. That could change if the permafrost melts, releasing huge amounts of methane. But so far, that hasn't happened, as the evidence indicates.He attributed it to that. Others, with more recent knowledge, attribute to something else.
In science, it's the only deal. Theories that work are accepted. Those that don't work are discarded.Big deal.
Tested? Show how? Ha
As you now realize, Hanson accurately predicted the warming trend using only carbon dioxide emissions. We now have means to be even more accurate, using Hanson's model and adding knowledge gained over those decades.We need more than someone noting or guessing a trend!
You're getting overexcited. Hanson tested his predictions by seeing how well they matched reality. As you see, it was a very good result. No magic, just careful science.Mentioning a greenhouse effect was detected means all his prophesies based on precious little are true as well as all other prophesies from climate prophets??
Hanson tested that. It's almost entirely due to increases in carbon dioxide, a result that was first predicted in the 1800s.We need more than someone noting or guessing a trend! We need to know why.
God made man the steward of His creation on Earth. And as you just learned, what we do, does make a difference.And no matter the reasons why, the end is already prophesied in the bible by God.
Cows don't fart carbon dioxide. They do belch methane, which is a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but the relatively small amount has so far not made much of a difference. Ignorance is your enemy. But it's fixable. Worth a try?Of all the things man needs to worry about, farting cows is really not on the top of the list.
No. When a coven of people all predict different things and many are shown to be lies, we should not believe the ones who may have gotten it seemingly right. We should reject anything the coven says.So you now realize that those people didn't get it right, and you should listen to the people who did get it right. I think you just proved my point for me.
Jeanne Dixon got many things right. Same sort of thing. Because she also was wrong, we toss it all out.Even in the 1970s, it was the great majority of climatologists who got it right, and a small minority who got it wrong.
Many of those who do not agree are in the group of experts that prophesy. All in the name of science.There will always be those who don't agree. Point is, most climatologists, even in the 1970s, were correct in predicting warming, while deniers were predicting cooling. If you're smart, you go with the guys who have a record of getting it right.
The link I posted actually says something like almost half did not agree it was human caused.Polls don't determine science. Predictions that are confirmed determine science. It just so happens that the great majority of climatologists got it right even 50 years ago. For example, James Hanson correctly predicted the warming climate about 30 years in advance, using nothing but CO2 emissions.
Yet some say otherwise. Why would I accept prophesy based on that? The prophesies conflict with the bible future prophesies. Choose.Nope. Carbon dioxide is still the primary forcing for a warming climate.
Fantasy. Jesus is returning to earth to judge it and rule and make it better. Wild fantasy based on fearmongering and partial information is not going to change anything. If you notice it is just another tool to help some ungodly people achieve more power.That could change if the permafrost melts, releasing huge amounts of methane. But so far, that hasn't happened, as the evidence indicates.
No. There are conflicting deals in science. You don't get to pick out a few unburned pieces of wood from the fire and claim that the fire is cool.In science, it's the only deal. Theories that work are accepted. Those that don't work are discarded.
No. Any results based on partial information that happen to be close means little. I could say that Jack in the beanstalk pours out a trillion gallons a day of hot water, so that temperatures will rise a bit over the next 20 years! Once they rise for whatever actual reason, many think I was right that jack did it.James Hanson tested that idea by predicting temperatures based on carbon emissions alone. And the results showed that he was right.
There will be a period soon of completely different solar output the bible says! The sun will go dark a third of the day. Later it goes out fully. The issue becomes what actually causes the changes in the solar output?It's not all there is to global temperature, of course. We just left a period of lowered solar output. Normally, temperatures would have dropped. But they only increased by a somewhat slower rate.
Just as it might be close to Jack pouring hot water onto earth. The actual causes are not universally accepted in science. Or known. The bible says there will be a time coming when it will be far hotter than it has ever been, scorching the earth. The game here is not 'let's believe one of the scientists who seem to have gotten it close'. The game is, either they know or they do not know, and the pile of prophesies must be weighed together.
As you can see, the observed global temperature increase over the past 30 years has been closest to scenario C and at times, between scenario C and B.
They do not match the reality of bible predictions if we add a little more time. They do not match other predictions from the science world. They do not prove the cause is what he assumed...etc. They have no more credibility than Jack. By the way, what mechanism exists in such prophesies to predict independent of the known trend of more and more carbon in the air? Whatever causes a trend of warming for several decades would also find that carbon increased. So if they blamed it all on that known factor of man pumping more carbon into the world, how would we know that was actually the cause? Maybe we have a trend of warming going on at the same time as more humans pumping more carbon out as well? What reason is there to exclude all other possible causes?You're getting overexcited. Hanson tested his predictions by seeing how well they matched reality. As you see, it was a very good result. No magic, just careful science.
He did not make us steward of the sun! Or the weather. Nor did He make us prophets to know the future, except the few in the past whom He empowered to do so. The scientists obviously were not empowered by God since the sum of their predictions was not true.God made man the steward of His creation on Earth. And as you just learned, what we do, does make a difference.
God owns the cattle on a thousand hills! I do not believe that His cows are a danger to mankind! Only by swallowing the stated reason for weather changes (methane etc) would we worry about that. A more probable reality would be that if some wanted to control mankind in diet etc.Cows don't fart carbon dioxide. They do belch methane, which is a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide,
Yet they are setting up factories to produce insect based 'food' for mankind as we speak. Of all things to worry about, the stated prophesies and fears of some scientists and godless fearmongers are not high on the list.but the relatively small amount has so far not made much of a difference.
... we call them "climate deniers." Maybe your coven is different, but most aren't.No. When a coven of people all predict different things and many are shown to be lies,
That's the difference between science and superstition. In science, when predictions are validated by evidence they are accepted as true.we should not believe the ones who may have gotten it seemingly right
If you think so, she fooled you.Jeanne Dixon got many things right.
And we accept the predictions of the great majority of climatologists because their predictions were confirmed by subsequent events.Because she also was wrong, we toss it all out.
Not all deniers claim to be prophets. Most of them are merely wrong, not religious cranks.Many of those who do not agree are in the group of experts that prophesy.
That's not the only thing deniers got wrong:The link I posted actually says something like almost half did not agree it was human caused.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?