Fail.
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
I agree - my opinion, just like yours, just like anyone's, has no effect on the wind, the rain, the temperature. Therefore we look for real physical causes.
As usual, you abandon any pretense of a serious discussion.
Im not the guy who harumped three "fails" in a row and pretends it means something.
You made erroneous statements similar to those you have made before when you were preparing to abandon the discussion.
Have you watched the Khan Academy video yet?
Sheriff Joe
DA
97%, we know.
How many people fell for the old hockey stick?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Nuance
What was erroneous about them?
Give me a better word for percentage.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Those questions seem impossible to answer, therefore.....
You answered, "Fail", and "Fail".
How is that a discussion, e-fessor?
E-fessor just says fail.
Thats good enough for hizz'n.
All of them.
Twice-chewed cabbage.
Proportions, but even that is too rigid.
I think it's quite a bit more than that.
You appear to be saying the hockey stick was false.
Bruddah IZ
DA
But they are better salesman then they are billing experts.
Wez
DA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ick_and_the_climate_wars_by_michael_mann.html
"In the book, Mann goes over the science of global warming, written for the intelligent layman, showing the multiple lines of evidence indicating our planet is in trouble. As a scientist myself I found that fascinating, but it was the description of the attacks on both Mann’s science and his character I found, paradoxically, both appalling and enthralling. In the end, Mann’s work has withstood the test of fire, having been exonerated and supported by his fellow scientists (who have independently confirmed the hockey stick results) as well as by multiple inquiries into the attacks against it. He also talks about the ridiculous “Climategate” manufactroversy, and his role in it."
Im not sold.
It's just not a scientific debate. The energy industry and its allies have done an amazing job convincing laypeople that it is, but it isn't a scientific debate at all. The science is settled. But, e.g., despite any new evidence, many more republicans now deny since the advent of the Trump administration.