You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Rigid thinking - Let's talk Flat Earth and problems with conspiracy theories [What I write may not be what you expect]

in #flatearth8 years ago

I'm sure some teams are factoring in all they can. If they are seeing rapid changes then it's unlikely to be a natural process. Even if we are not changing the climate it's undeniable that we are poisoning our environment.

As for flat earth, that was resolved centuries ago. There's little to be gained by debating that.

Sort:  

see but that's my point... do you know that we have also entered into a period of higher than normal geologic activity?(volcanoes). Volcanoes pump more CO2, and other gasses into the atmosphere in one day of euruption than all of the vehicles in the U.S. does in a year? yeat all you ever hear climatologists talk about are the manmade sources... the data is skewered, it isn't real science... it is a Pseudo science because they are neglecting to incorporate ALL of the data... not only that, but how on earth would you do a double blind study to determine the amount of CO2 from only man made sources? it is things like flat earth, and climate change that make me sick of pseudo science being called science at all....

I'm sure real scientists take this into account and I think they might be a little insulted that you suggest otherwise. What interest do they have in doing 'pseudo science'? Nothing is perfect, not even science, but you do the best you can. By your measure a lot of biology would not be classed as science, but we rely on it for medicines. We don't have a spare planet to use, so why gamble on messing up this one. As I said, the pollution produced along with all the CO2 is doing damage we can plainly see.

i can agree on the pollution....and it should be addressed....separately. pollution and climate are two separate issues, my only issue with climate change science is the overweighted ammount of responsibility they place on manmade CO2 emissions as the greatest contributor to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere... when in reality thereare a number of contributors, many of them being natural sources.

Interesting article. The scientists can test their modes on past data and this will show up where they are missing out factors. These people are not dumb.

it is an interesting article.... it's just working with flawed data. That is my one and only complaint with climate based science... they work with an incomplete set of data and then try and articulate that into fact...

As they quote there "all models are flawed, but some are useful". Science is imperfect, but improves. If not we would still be banging rocks together

@@ -244,10 +244,10 @@
en .
-0
2
+0
of