Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.skeptic    |    Skeptics discussing pseudo-science    |    95,770 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 95,440 of 95,770    |
|    JTEM to Dawn Flood    |
|    Re: Gwobull Warbling: Follow the money    |
|    21 Jan 26 14:32:25    |
      XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.atheism       From: jtem01@gmail.com              On 1/20/26 11:53 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:       > On 1/19/2026 10:05 PM, JTEM wrote:       >> On 1/19/26 8:18 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:       >>       >>> On 1/19/2026 7:55 AM, JTEM wrote:       >>       >>>> It's not science. In science, when your hypothesis is falsified       >>>> it's discarded. In climate hysterics, you double down.       >>>>       >>>> These aren't just words. I don't make up shit like you do. This       >>>> is how science works, and climate hysterics does not work this       >>>> way. It fails to meet a basic definition of science.       >>>>       >>>       >>> Then, let's assume       >>       >> "Then," what?       >>       >> Are you acknowledging that falsifiability is a basic tenant of       >> science?       >>       >> Yes or no?              > Duh! But, you have not presented a testable hypothesi              Other than the fact that we are inside of an ice age -- the Quaternary       Ice Age -- and it's characterized at this stage by a       glacial/interglacial cycle with us presently inside of an interglacial       which is overdue to end.              "Other than that," you mean. Right?              But you have presented a testable hypothesis. And it's been falsified.       And that's the point. CO2 does not control our climate and has not       caused it to be unnaturally warm.              > rather, your       > "it's always natural variability" is not falsifiable.              It can't be falsified BECAUSE IT'S TRUE. You can look back at the       past and see many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many periods       were CO2 failed to produce the rise in temperatures you require. You       can see instances where a rise in CO2 has FOLLOWED a rise in       temperature -- warmth raised CO2 levels, not the other way around --       and you can see periods which much lower CO2 levels and higher       temperatures.              We can see the very premise of your climate hysterics falsified.              We can see predictions of your pseudo scientific idiocy falsified.              Glacier National Park? All the glaciers were supposed to have       melted five years ago! The Maldives? They were supposed to be       underwater... was it 8 years ago?              Snow was supposed to already be a thing of the past.              The north pole still has ice. Sorry.                            --       https://jtem.tumblr.com/              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca