Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Since we are not football players, we should not assume that we have the ability to correctly interpret football plays.
|
Do you really think the most advanced climate science known to man is as simple as the rules to football? I'd appreciate a yes or no answer to this question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
You can make those assumptions, I don't.
|
Your posts are full of assumptions and generalizations, just like most current discussions between laymen on the issue. If I were involved in the discussions, I'm guessing my posts would be full of assumptions, generalizations, and outright falsehoods, though I wouldn't intentionally be trying to lie or deceive.
Do you know why C02 has risen since 1998 but global temperatures have cooled over the same period? The intuitive response would be that CO2 may not correlate to warming in the same way that global climate change proponents suggest, but when you apply even a most basic understanding of climate science to the question, you understand that data suggests that there's about a 30-year lag time between greenhouse levels and the effects. Why would that be? Simple! Oceans absorb temperature and CO2, creating a lagging effect. I've read up on climate science a great deal in the past few years, but I would be naive for me to assume that reading up on climate science made me a climate scientist. I've barely scratched the surface of the science and judging by what's being posted online and talked about in the media, I guess I'm a few steps ahead of the general public (not that I'm gloating, I'm really not. I honestly don't know shit about shit when it comes to climate science). I also don't know much about particle physics or organic chemistry, so you won't catch me dead trying to hold my own in a debate on those subjects.