Fail, since the actual motivation is power and control,And basically this is another form of denial of the problem. By ascribing the motive to something other than serious concern for a serious problem, you are implying it is not really a serious problem that needs any serious concern. And that is denial.
Fail, since the actual motivation is power and control,
There is no evidence. Evidence would be in the form of experimentation that shows that man can affect the climate
That's all data collection used to develop a hypothesis which needs to be tested, but hasn'tI say testing the air every year for current carbon dioxide levels and charting the results counts as an experiment.
I say testing air bubbles in ice core layers for carbon dioxide levels in the past counts as an experiment.
I say testing annual layers of ice laid down for temperature variations by means of isotope analysis counts as an experiment.
I say having world wide thermometers reporting ground level temperatures and recording, graphing the results counts as an experiment.
I say recording average sea levels around the world and the changes therein counts as an experiment.
I say recording the depletion of glaciers around the world counts as an experiment.
I say measuring the heat capacity of air with various amounts of carbondioxide in the mixture counts as an experiment.
Do you or do you not agree?
Fail, since the actual motivation is power and control,
That's all data collection used to develop a hypothesis which needs to be tested, but hasn't
That's all data collection used to develop a hypothesis which needs to be tested, but hasn't
There is no evidence. Evidence would be in the form of experimentation that shows that man can affect the climate
Non sequitur caring about the earth and politicians pushing an agenda based on pseudoscience are not the same thingJust because you can't understand that people seriously care about the earth doesn't mean everyone thinks with the jaded view you seem to live by. What a dark, dark world you must live in. When someone dares care about the gift God gave us of the earth you see only "evil intent".
The hypothesis has not been tested, so we're stuck there, waiting for someone to actually develop a way to test itWrong. The hypothesis has been tested and it keeps showing up the confirmation of the AGW hypothesis.
That is why more than 90% of the earth's climate scientists believe it is real.
And further more: the fact that YOU disagree is confirmation that the science is likely right.
Data collection during an experiment is uded to test a hypothesis, but no such experimentation has been performed to date. The only data collected so far is that necessary to develop the hypothesisYou are even wrong on this point! DATA COLLECTION HAPPENS AS A PART OF TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS.
HOW DO YOU THINK THE HYPOTHESIS IS TESTED????
That's all data collection used to develop a hypothesis which needs to be tested, but hasn't
If you want to understand climate change, it will take a little more than skimming a pamphlet. A true skeptic (as opposed to a denier) would want to thoroughly review something he is skeptical of, and would change his mind if new information led him to a new conclusion.AS I skimmed through the pamphlet you linked to I did not find concrete physical evidence of a cause and effect relationship. It does cite computer model data as a reason to assume a cause and effect relationship. If I am missing something perhaps you could be so kind as to quote the exact parts that show the concrete physical evidence I am searching for. When one is unimpressed by computer modelling, as i am, then it hardly suffices in this case or in the case of predictions of future disasters. I do however, not categorically rule out that the computer models may be correct I am sure they often are correct especially when used for much simpler situations with many less variables involved.
No, it is not the definition of an experiment. Using the data collection necessary to form a hypothesis and calling it the results of a supposed experiment is pseudoscienceThat's the definition of an experiment. On the other hand, word play without reference to the evidence or the reasoning from the evidence is the essence of denialism.
Nothing scientists ever did would be conceded by you to be an "experiment". That's the way you play the game of denial.
Since no experiments have been conducted, no evidence to support the hypothesis has been produced.
Non sequitur caring about the earth and politicians pushing an agenda based on pseudoscience are not the same thing
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?