dutchroll Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Duterte talks tough, just like the original topic of this thread (Trump) and there is a certain element of humankind which is completely enamoured with tough-talkers to the point of ignoring what they actually achieve. The dustbins of history are filled with leaders who talked tough and led their countries to total disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 If you had a far-right politician over here who wants to kill 3 million alcohol, tobacco or gambling addicts, would you support them Gnu? Well.........it would considerably reduce the welfare budget.. Oh, don't forget coffee, an addict is an addict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 The dustbins of history are filled with leaders who talked tough and led their countries to total disaster. I think we had one of those, didn't we? Mentioned "shirtfronting" Vlad? Talked tough and did nothing? At least he got rolled before he could do too much damage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I think we had one of those, didn't we? Mentioned "shirtfronting" Vlad? Talked tough and did nothing? At least he got rolled before he could do too much damage... Errrr.....I'm sure DR said "talked tough AND lead the country to disaster", not "talked tough and lead the country to mediocrity" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Yeah I have to side with M61A1 here (cripes........is this a dream?). I wouldn't say Abbott led us to disaster. I think "mediocrity" is an appropriate adjective for what he achieved. What might've happened over a longer time is speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Errrr.....I'm sure DR said "talked tough AND lead the country to disaster", not "talked tough and lead the country to mediocrity" ....hence the "got rolled BEFORE he did too much damage". Yeah I know the budgie-smuggling TA is not in the same class, just the ineffectual "talking tough" bit applied to him so well. That's where I think... well, hope... Australia is a bit different. If we can cast the canny "pub eye" over our pollies then hopefully we'll have the collective nous not to elect a Trump or Duterte... I know the occasional Hanson or Palmer manages to get enough of a following for a few seats, but they don't tend to last too long. PS... M61, that coffee video really made me want another coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Yeah I have to side with M61A1 here (cripes........is this a dream?). I wouldn't say Abbott led us to disaster. I think "mediocrity" is an appropriate adjective for what he achieved. What might've happened over a longer time is speculation. I think that the best of our current crop of pollies can only deliver mediocrity, but I am sure that some of them could make things a lot worse, and I am not specifically talking about the like of Pauline. I guess that "worse" is also subjective, as my " worse", is probably a "wonderful" for Marty, and my "wonderful", would probably see Marty suicidal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Another one, a bit more political... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 Well Abbot was rolled, but the Roller doesn't appear to be as good as Abbot. As for those who who denigrate Pauline, she has just spoken up about the governments scheme to enlarge the Shoalwater bay army training area. The locals don't want to be pushed off their land, which is top quality agricultural land. The greenies seem very quiet and it wasn't so long ago that they wanted to close the training area. Funy that just a coupple of months ago the government annoubced a massive deal with Singapore Armed forces to use the training area. Then suddenly they want to enlarge it. It looks to me that they told the Singaporeans, it was going to be enlarged before the deal was done. Can we trust them? No. I see the government has also made Kratom an illegal substance. I had never heard of it until a few days ago. It is a member of the coffee plant family, which has pain killing abilities. Guess who lobbied the government to make it illegal. Yes. You guessed it, the pharmaceutical industry. Pauline can be trusted, she is not clever enough to compete with the party hacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I don't think Pauline is dishonest but I disagree that she can be trusted. The reason for this is similar to why I don't think Trump can be trusted. She says things which resonate with people and yes she speaks her mind. But she gets some pretty significant things wrong and is not always big on facts. That is a concern to me. Hanson "facts": We're being swamped by Muslims - utter nonsense. Not supportable by evidence in any way, shape, or form. Crime is rising - utter nonsense, it has been steadily declining or at worst, static, in most areas for a long time. Religious headgear like the burqa covering your face can be worn when getting a driver's licence - rubbish. It absolutely cannot cover your face for a driver ID photo in any State or Territory. Muslims want a separate legal system - rubbish. Stems from a total misunderstanding of what constitutes "sharia law", which is a set of guidelines and clerical interpretations (not much different in principle to what the catholic church does). They know you can't establish a separate legal system in Australia. It's simply unconstitutional to do that. End of argument. Thinks vaccines cause autism and cancer - rubbish. Disproven by massive studies which show absolutely no correlation whatsoever. There is no coral bleaching on the Barrier Reef. She went snorkelling 1000km from where the bleaching is occurring to "prove" it! The list goes on. But like with Trump, supporters don't actually care if it's true or not and will happily spread it around even when it's false. I'm fine with people being angry with pollies or the political "establishment", but personally I find it pretty disconcerting that quite a number of those same people don't actually care - quite literally they couldn't give a damn - what's true and what's not. We're entering a brave new era, according to pro-Trump columnist and commentator Scottie Nell Hughes, where (and I quote) "there is no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts". And she is proud of it! Just opinions. The Moon orbits around the Earth? That's simply an opinion. Others may choose to disagree and their different opinion should be respected on equal terms with everyone else's. If you don't do that, you're one of these snobbish elites. Wow. You can assert something which is completely objectively and comprehensively wrong, and the rest of us must totally respect it and just be good little people and keep our mouths shut about it. That's basically what we're being told by this newly "empowered" demographic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willedoo Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I think we had one of those, didn't we? Mentioned "shirtfronting" Vlad? Talked tough and did nothing? At least he got rolled before he could do too much damage... Marty, you've got your facts wrong. Sure, Budgie talked tough - I'll give you that point. But to say he did nothing is pure humbug. He went out of his way to organize a photo op and hug koalas with his new best friend, Vladimir Vladimirovich. They had a fat old time. Cheers, Willie. [ATTACH]48062._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]48063._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]48064._xfImport[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Book store in Moscow. Someone appears to be popular . . . [ATTACH]48065._xfImport[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Jesus wept. A day after appointing his son-in-law as a senior advisor, Trump now appoints an anti-vaxer to head a commission reviewing the "scientific integrity" over vaccines. This is the guy who in 2005 wrote an article for Rolling Stone magazine alleging that there was a Government conspiracy to cover up a link between thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative once upon a time used in vaccines) and autism. No such link was ever proven but as a precaution, thimerosal was removed from almost all vaccines nearly 2 decades ago and was never in the MMR vaccine (which is accused of causing autism, though there's no evidence it does). The removal of thimerosal made no difference whatsoever to the rise in autism diagnoses. Meanwhile, millions of little polioviri are currently rubbing their hands in glee at the possibility they might once again be allowed to disable children around the world. Why not just ask (anti-vaxer and former Playboy playmate) Jenny McCarthy to head the commission? She's just as qualified. It's just a train wreck, and it's happening faster than I actually thought it would. Robert Kennedy Jr. says tapped by Trump to head vaccine safety review Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Trump's understanding and acceptance of science is inversely proportional to the size of his ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 [ATTACH]48066._xfImport[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I suppose some of you watched all, or part of the Trump Press conference ?. . . Jeeze,. . .it sounded like he had laryngitis or something. . .maybe talking too much lately ? ? Hmmmm. . . . this did not make a great deal of sense to me,. . .the only bit I actually enjoyed, was the part where he denigrated the 'Reporter' from the BBC, and then totally ignored his question. I think his comment was something like, "Another beauty" or something similar, this was just following his denigration of CNN. . . Most of you ( by now ) know what I think of that bunch of useless cretins at the BBC, . .well. . .the so called NEWS part anyhow. Much of their other non-dramatic output ( this is all filled with lefty propaganda, thanks to the lefty scriptwriters following the lefty BBC narrative ) particularly the scientific stuff is excellent, and always has been. I was even happy to see a programme hosted by Professor Brian Cox ( Supreme Lefty- Personal friend of Tony Bliar, and keyboard player in the band which produced the New Labour Party theme song 'Things - can only get better ' - 1997 Election ) on a repeat showing of part of the very good seroes about the solar system. Cox's programmes are spoilt by his 'Personality' culture, ie, long range video shots of him standing on the tip of some mountain ridge,. . .then a zoom in shot of him staring ito the distance FFS the guy is supposed to be a a Professor. . .! We really DOn't need these impossbile video shots of some bloke who has been dropped by helicopter onto some impossible ridge somewhere to enhance the subject he is supposed to be promoting . . .? ? ? What a load of fecking bollox. . . . Just tell the story Bri. . . . we can work out the rest. . . .( I have to say that Wifey isn't a TV critic like me, but this stuff boils her blood as well. . .) BBC produce some crackingly good scientific and historical programming, ( assuming you can ignore their enormous bias with regard to hysterical climate change ) then there are some really good progs to be seen. I shall be watching another one when I put the laptop to bed soon this evening. . . . These alone are worth paying the TV tax for, to be bereft of advertising breaks every ten minutes. . . . ( I refer mainly to BBC4, and on the rare occasion. . . BBC2, although, this is quite rare. . . ) All BBC rado serivces are a lefty wankfest and do not get monitored any more in ths household. Their 'NEWS' output is, conversely, total bollox, which anyone, having posession of at least two brain cells,. . can immediately see. . . They grab 'Tweet' from some jerk living in a suburban house in Coventry, (the SOHC) who purports to reperesent all of the rebels in Syria,. . .and use him as their main information source for their reports about what the nasty Russians are doing . . .Jeeze. . .the sooner the BBC News department is closed down and handed over to people who know what they are doing, the better. End of rant. ( For now ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Ah, the BBC. Lovely organisation. Makes fantastic shows. Absolutely brilliant productions, fantastic comedy, documentaries, dramas, news, social commentary. Can't fault it really. And Professor Cox! What a man. Who said scientists have to look like Albert Einstein? What's wrong with him using his rock star status and zoomed-in wistful looks if it gets teenage girls off their Iphones and interested in science? Another stroke of brilliance by the Beeb! Well done for their objective and science-based coverage of climate change. Refreshing to see an organisation who's not in the hip pockets of big business with a financial incentive to ruin the planet in order to pay dividends to their shareholders. Good on them I say. Go the Beeb. Brian Cox for PM (and if you don't want him, we'll take him.) Huzzah! (I'm off to the BBC website to give them a big thumbs up.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 [ATTACH=full]47705[/ATTACH] Yep... communists... drugs... boat people.... muslims... intellectuals... They blow the old dog whistle and their trained populace sits up and starts frothing at the muzzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 End of rant. ( For now ) Oh come now Phil, we know it's not the end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 And Professor Cox! What a man. Who said scientists have to look like Albert Einstein? What's wrong with him using his rock star status and zoomed-in wistful looks if it gets teenage girls off their Iphones and interested in science? Another stroke of brilliance by the Beeb! Indeed but if you are suggesting that he is not a serious and accomplished scientist then I must disagree. I am not sure whether or not you are sarcastically suggesting that Cox is not a real scientist or not but he has worked at CERN and has published many peer reviewed papers of which I am sure you would be unaware of. If you are REALLY interested (and I am guessing you are not) you could download one of his papers). Here is just one of them Brian Cox - Publications When Cox is in Australia I usually try to get to one of his lectures. Well done for their objective and science-based coverage of climate change. In what way is it not objective??? Is it's coverage at odds with respected and trusted sources such as NASA etc. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence Perhaps you can link me to good solid contradictory evidence. My love of science means that overturning an established theory is actually exciting to me For me climate change is awkward , I do love flying around with an internal combustion engines, this is difficult for me but that is how life is. Do you ever wonder if it is a coincidence that your views on the scientific validity of the theory just happens to coincide with your flying pursuits and perhaps you political beliefs. I may be a hypocrite but I am not in denial . Of course I happily acknowledge that I could wrong about the validity of the evidence, in which case I will happily apologise to my grand children for slightly higher energy costs and slower economical growth and I guess they will benefit from the being able to freely use the fossil fuels that we have conserved for them. I know you are convinced that climate change is just a conspiracy (how does that work exactly) but what if you are wrong? What will you tell your grand children? Actually I quite enjoy your posts, it makes me feel that my life is pretty damn good. I am so glad that I am not angry and dissatisfied like you are. I guess partly that is due to luck, but then I do believe that it is everyone's responsibility to do whatever they can to ensure they have a happy and fulfilled life. I am less impressed by people that make choices that enhance their material wealth rather than those whose make sound choices to ensure their happiness. I find it sad that you seem unable to do this. The term bigotry has been banded around this thread a lot. I make it a policy not to accuse anyone of that although I will happily confess to my own bigotry, My bigotry is against the perpetually angry and whinny people. To be clear some people in the world do have pretty bad lives but anyone who can afford to fly an aircraft even just a few time s a week is doing pretty good. Perhaps I am just one of those nasty elites? I don't think I am my income isn't elite and I am not an elite within my career and it would be great if I was an elite pilot but alas I am not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Indeed but if you are suggesting that he is not a serious and accomplished scientist then I must disagree. I am not sure whether or not you are sarcastically suggesting that Cox is not a real scientist or not but he has worked at CERN and has published many peer reviewed papers of which I am sure you would be unaware of. If you are REALLY interested (and I am guessing you are not) you could download one of his papers). Here is just one of them Brian Cox - Publications When Cox is in Australia I usually try to get to one of his lectures. In what way is it not objective??? Is it's coverage at odds with respected and trusted sources such as NASA etc. Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence Perhaps you can link me to good solid contradictory evidence. My love of science means that overturning an established theory is actually exciting to me For me climate change is awkward , I do love flying around with an internal combustion engines, this is difficult for me but that is how life is. Do you ever wonder if it is a coincidence that your views on the scientific validity of the theory just happens to coincide with your flying pursuits and perhaps you political beliefs. I may be a hypocrite but I am not in denial . Of course I happily acknowledge that I could wrong about the validity of the evidence, in which case I will happily apologise to my grand children for slightly higher energy costs and slower economical growth and I guess they will benefit from the being able to freely use the fossil fuels that we have conserved for them. I know you are convinced that climate change is just a conspiracy (how does that work exactly) but what if you are wrong? What will you tell your grand children? Actually I quite enjoy your posts, it makes me feel that my life is pretty damn good. I am so glad that I am not angry and dissatisfied like you are. I guess partly that is due to luck, but then I do believe that it is everyone's responsibility to do whatever they can to ensure they have a happy and fulfilled life. I am less impressed by people that make choices that enhance their material wealth rather than those whose make sound choices to ensure their happiness. I find it sad that you seem unable to do this. The term bigotry has been banded around this thread a lot. I make it a policy not to accuse anyone of that although I will happily confess to my own bigotry, My bigotry is against the perpetually angry and whinny people. To be clear some people in the world do have pretty bad lives but anyone who can afford to fly an aircraft even just a few time s a week is doing pretty good. Perhaps I am just one of those nasty elites? I don't think I am my income isn't elite and I am not an elite within my career and it would be great if I was an elite pilot but alas I am not. Oh bloody hell... Octave, it's ME... I was having a light hearted counter of Phil's BBC bashing!!! Look I know I usually use a bit of sarcasm but in this case you can read every word of my post as how I really feel. I in no way think Prof. Cox is any less of a scientist because of either his high media profile or his stint as a keyboardist in D-Ream. Quite the opposite - I think it's great that a physicist with a brain the size of Jupiter can communicate his wonder at the natural universe so well. Plus if you listen to his and Robin Ince's "Infinite Monkey Cage" (another brilliant production from BBC Radio 4) then you'll know that not only is he a damn fine scientist, he's got a sense of humour too! I can't believe you've read my stuff and think I could possibly be having a crack at climate change? After all my arguments with certain people who obviously have no trust of the science? Come on!! I'm really sorry you took my post the wrong way... I saw Phil's rant against the Beeb and thought I'd better stick up for them in the interests of fairness... obviously karma bit me in the ass big time, the one time I say what I mean, you think I mean the opposite!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Oh bloody hell... Octave, it's ME... I was having a light hearted counter of Phil's BBC bashing!!! Look I know I usually use a bit of sarcasm but in this case you can read every word of my post as how I really feel. I in no way think Prof. Cox is any less of a scientist because of either his high media profile or his stint as a keyboardist in D-Ream. Quite the opposite - I think it's great that a physicist with a brain the size of Jupiter can communicate his wonder at the natural universe so well. Plus if you listen to his and Robin Ince's "Infinite Monkey Cage" (another brilliant production from BBC Radio 4) then you'll know that not only is he a damn fine scientist, he's got a sense of humour too! I can't believe you've read my stuff and think I could possibly be having a crack at climate change? After all my arguments with certain people who obviously have no trust of the science? Come on!! I'm really sorry you took my post the wrong way... I saw Phil's rant against the Beeb and thought I'd better stick up for them in the interests of fairness... obviously karma bit me in the ass big time, the one time I say what I mean, you think I mean the opposite!! No No I most definitely wasn't having a go at you, I missgrabed what I thought was a quote by Phil, I usually only post after one or four glasses of red. I was intending to respond to message #301 Apologies Marty, I do enjoy and agree with most of your posts. Can we just kiss and make up <3 Oh BTW I love the infinite monkey cage,. also going to see http://www.sciencewa.net.au/component/ohanah/cosmic-shambles-live later this year, can't wait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted January 14, 2017 Author Share Posted January 14, 2017 No doubt about it brian Cox is a scientist, but that doesn't mean that everything he says is true. I believe climate change is occuring, but to let scientists say whatever they want and believe every word they say is not sensible. For something to be science it has to be a theory that can be reproduced and a lot of the climate changs "science" does not fall into that camp. Some of the scientists, pushing climate change are in my opinion nothing more than opportunists jumping onto the big new bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 No doubt about it brian Cox is a scientist, but that doesn't mean that everything he says is true. The scientific process is not about people saying what they believe and others agreeing or disagreeing. Publish a scientific paper and it will be peer reviewed. Peer review is not just a group of pals nodding in agreement, you can't just say "yep I agree with what he said" you very much have to show your "workings out". Scientists are just as competitive as anyone else, if the theory is so flimsy surely plenty of ambitious scientists would love to go down in history as the one who blew the theory out of the water. Certainly there should be a lot of funding around for scientists to disprove the theory, it would surely make sense for those with economic interests in the fossil fuel industries to fund this kind of research. I believe climate change is occuring, but to let scientists say whatever they want and believe every word they say is not sens ible. I don't believe in climate change but rather I accept that the theory is the best fit for the evidence and that this is also accepted by the majority of practising scientist in this field. By the way Brian Cox is not a climate scientist as he will readily admit, he is a particle physicist. My acceptance of the evidence being the best fit for the observations has nothing to do with what Brian Cox says but rather the fact that it is hard to find papers published peer reviewed journals that dismiss the theory. It is like this, my Doctor says I should watch my cholesterol level as just about every doctor does. There are a very few Doctors who claim that cholesterol is not implicated in heart disease. I can not do the research myself but I can read studies and any criticisms by peer reviewers but in the end the rational thing to do is to go with majority of scientific papers, yes the orthodox position could one day turn out to be wrong but I am not willing to bet my life on it. For something to be science it has to be a theory that can be reproduced That seems to dismiss all sorts of areas of science, cosmology, astronomy etc, is a professor of theoretical physics a scientist or not? I think most people would consider that Einstein's theory of general and theory of special relativity were real scientific theories even though he was not able to perform the experiments during his life time that would eventually confirm them. The notion that scientists sit around inventing this stuff for notoriety or wealth (I know 5 or 6 CSIRO scientists and they are not particularly wealthy) does not ring true to me, but maybe they are just excellent liars.} Peer review is a rather thorough and brutal regime, there is not a fellowship of friendly scientists agreeing with each other, any whiff of falsifying the evidence will be aggressively and cheerfully exposed. ( as with William McBride - Debendox) Some of the scientists, pushing climate change are in my opinion nothing more than opportunists jumping onto the big new bandwagon. l "Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature." If it is a "bandwagon" then it is not some recent trendy creation nor is was it invented by the Chinese to undermine the US economy. It is even being recognised by some in the fossil fuel industries Oil and gas CEOs jointly declare action on climate change Anyway, I am an optimist although I do not think these problems can be solved by governments but I can see a lot going on in the business world http://www.teslarati.com/bill-gates-follows-elon-musk-cleantech-investments Like it or not, just like we moved on from the stone age etc we will sooner or later move on from the fossil fuel age, it is inevitable. If the theory is incorrect and we can release all of the carbon content of fossil fuels built up over millions of years in a couple of hundred years with no consequence then we can gift those resources to our great grandchildren to burn or more importantly and often forgotten they can use them to make chemicals drugs etc. I am always happy to debate facts and data but I note you have used the terms "belief" and "in my opinion" so I guess we are coming at it in different ways. Anyway I am not meaning to be a dick about it and I am not bothered so much in what people believe, I was mainly troubled by the notion that scientist and science organisations are so shallow and unethical that they will say anything to get research funds. The research from these organisations does not seem to change when the political flavour of the government (who they rely upon for funding) changes. If they do do this on a regular basis then no science can be trusted. Perhaps the anti vax and anti gm people are right!!! "Climate change: Don't undermine the science just because you don't like the economics" Brian Cox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 For something to be science it has to be a theory that can be reproduced and a lot of the climate changs "science" does not fall into that camp. It's not the theory which has to be reproducible. It's the results of experiments which support the theory which have to be reproducible. A theory can be whatever you like. A theory can also be modified and tweaked if some things support it but some things don't. In fact almost every scientific theory there ever was falls into this camp and has been modified at some point in time, including all of the uncontroversial ones. When theories are first proposed, they are never "perfect", even if their basic foundation might be largely undisputed. A central tenet of a scientific theory is that it should be falsifiable, ie, that there is an experiment or an observation or measurement that could be made which shows that it simply cannot be true. Some sceptics say the AGW theory is unfalsifiable, which only shows that they're not thinking very hard about it or don't understand what constitutes falsifiability. You need to be careful how you interpret "falsified". Birds fly. This does not falsify the theory of gravity. It could be falsified if you could show a relatively continuous drop in global temperatures for say 50 years or so without a clear cause. It could be falsified if you could show a sustained long term drop in global sea levels. It could be falsified if you could show a decline in atmospheric CO2 but no change in the temperature trend. It could be falsified if you could discover a heat source within the climate system which was previously unknown. It could be falsified if you could demonstrate major errors in our understanding of radiation physics or thermodynamics. It could be falsified if CO2 molecules in a lab behave totally differently to CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. No-one has ever successfully demonstrated any of these possibilities, so the theory remains intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now