Leaderboard

Welcome to the test tube! Personally I would rather we used physical data and understanding of physical processes to model what we can expect to happen, before they happen. Even imperfectly. It isn't up to you. You are entitled to your opinion - unless you are a scientist, operating within professional codes of conduct, which makes misrepresenting the work of your peer or yourself an ethical breach. Or you hold a position of trust and responsibility, which makes ignoring expert advice negligence. Real science skeptics say "I don't know". They do not say "everyone else doesn't know". Not even while the take the effort to check to be sure. If you don't know, how would you know the experts are wrong? You are doing faux skepticism, not genuine scientific skepticism. Presuming the mainstream body of knowledge on climate is false unless your are personally convinced is not scientific skepticism - it is just a sciency sounding way to reject anything you don't, can't or choose not to understand. It is because climate has changed dramatically in the past that makes adding CO2 emissions such a big deal; it would take a climate system that does not change for it to not matter. The very opposite conclusion to it meaning emissions won't matter. It is the vehicle that will not steer a straight line that is most likely to run off the road and crash. I will trust the world's leading science bodies ahead of a pseudonymous internet faux expert. The US National Academy of Sciences for example -

One can also find over the Net the systematic demolition of his arguments. That is the post that bothers me.

What ?? ( you gotta stop being so cryptic, Dim )

Proper time is the geometric length of a test particle’s world line in spacetime - not just in space, and not just in time, but in spacetime. What we find is that in spacetime, the longest possible trajectory between two events is always a geodesic, which is a world line where the test particle does not feel any acceleration at any point. If you start off near a massive object, the only trajectories that avoid you feeling proper acceleration in your own frame are generally those that bring you closer to the massive object (free fall, in the classic sense), since you would need acceleration to do anything else (unless of course you already come in very fast, e.g. in a slingshot manoeuvre). So think about it geometrically - very loosely speaking, world lines near a massive object tend to be longer as compared to similar ones far away, because spacetime there is “stretched out”, particularly in the time direction (that is why e.g. a radar signal passing by a massive planet takes longer to get to its receiver - because its world line through spacetime is longer). Or you can think of it this way - if you sat on a clock somewhere near a massive object, and look back at another reference clock that is somewhere far away, then the far-away clock would appear to go faster. This is due to gravitational time dilation between your own frame, and the far-away frame. So actually, more time is accumulated (very loosely speaking) near a massive object, as compared to anywhere else. Note that this can either be a maximum or a minimum, depending on how you choose the signs in your metric. That’s why it is more generally called the principle of extremal ageing.

It's caused by greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere. You lose the point of my post, namely that it was aimed at cynic. .

This would only matter if CO2 is the only way to cause warming, and people were claiming it was responsible in all those cases .

Why would the purpose of the data recording matter? I invite you to contemplate why that might be. The recent changes in climate, like the "rise of man" have both happened in the blink of an eye. https://xkcd.com/1732/ We know that CO2 levels have gone up . We know the temperature has gone up. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In effect, what you believe is that we put another blanket on the bed, and we are now warmer, but the two things aren't related. Are you surprised that you are called "called stupid, brainwashed, denier, ignorant of science, "? And, of course there's this aspect of it.

Your fired! I just fired you and you have no job, because I just gave you the viper. I won't tell your boss, and it will be up to him for when you should pack up your things at work to leave. No, that is completely up to the president to decide. Congress doesn't have to get involved with states of emergency, because the democratic process takes too long. It is treated as such, an emergency. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

You have trouble interpreting mannerisms from plain text. Your mindset interprets everything I say with the same type of mannerisms implied to other users you have chatted with here previously. Then it becomes irritating to blatantly see you attack users with these false pretenses. I was exaggerating as sort of a joke. Common sense should have allowed you to see that for a cheap laugh.

You know, I feel like the odd man out on this man made global warming thing. Is it an actual thing? I don’t know, maybe. It appears to me that all information I’ve seen consists of attempts, through various models, to correlate atmospheric green house gases generated by human activity with global temperature change, specifically warming. — Correlations, where they can even be demonstrated at all, mean little to nothing because correlation does not mean causation. Only actual experiments can verify whether a correlation is in fact the result of some cause and effect. — However, no truly accurate, controlled experiments can be done to verify or falsify any observed global correlations because it is impossible to even establish a control for a planetary climate experiment. Ideally, we’d need an exact copy of earth, minus humans. — I doubt the ability to accurately measure global temperatures as precisely as have been claimed, with the exception of the only very recent measurements obtained by remote sensing. Much of the data is collected from stations never intended for the purpose of determining global climate change. — Climate has changed repeatedly and dramatically over the millennia with the complete absence of man made technology, or even man for that matter. It seems perfectly reasonable to believe that current changes are due to factors similar to what have happened throughout earth’s history, not something that came along in the last blink of an eye. I have been called stupid, brainwashed, denier, ignorant of science, fill in the blank for merely stating this view on other forums. Is it really so wrong to be skeptical given the above?