WebsterMark wrote on 08/16/19 at 09:54:24:



Yep.

Keep on laughing.

97% of scientists, .. 200 worldwide scientific organizations,..

... but you saw snow where you grew up...  so they are wrong.

This is a dispute between 97% of scientists and one political party.
Do you take medical advice from your mailman?...

 I think part of the problem is people who don't think global warming/climate change is real or influenced by humans or think its a hoax will only focus on the inaccurate weather modeling.

 Just like people who hate the Federal Reserve only focus on negative financial movement.

 Just like people who hate pizza focus on how many pizza joints there are around town.

 There are accurate weather and climate models, many farmers use them.  Many fishing industries use them.  None of the accurate models predict catastrophic global human race ending climate change because they are focused on accuracy and so they don't run timelines far enough ahead to predict the end of man.

 But lets not talk about those, let's talk about weather predictions from the 70's.

 Yeah the predictions from the 70's were wrong.

 A ton of them are wrong.

 What's the point of ignoring the ones that are correct?

 Global warming will cause lower temperatures in certain areas because it changes weather patterns.

 This is part of the reason why the term is largely changed from "Warming" to Change".

"Unless you're going with the
May cause constipation or diarrhea warnings.
Where they throw everything out there and declare they were right."

 They don't "declare" anything.  They take data from continuous station input, runoff measurements, satellite footage, barometric pressure readings, wind pattern, soil temperatures, water temperatures, ambient weather temperatures at 4 separate altitudes, localized yield results of crops by date of yield, volume of yield, timeframe of yield, and termination of yield.

 This information is used to create a predictive model of what will most efficiently grow in the upcoming year and based of off geographical location varies in how many years the projection runs until it assumes a lower than 85% accuracy.

 Since these are compared to tangible goods, measurable water usage, and soil analysis the results are quite literally viewable by anyone who can see produce in front of their eyes.  People who use weather modeling have historically had higher yield averages than people who do not.

 What is there to declare?  They use measurable data to provide a model that historically creates positive outcomes.  That's it.

Serowbot wrote on 08/16/19 at 15:37:37:


See? The 97% thing isn't true and has never been true. Its just repeated as truth. But Sew will crucify someone who hangs onto 7 day creation story.

The warmlarmists really want it to all be true. It would be so perfect.
Finally, a problem only government can fix, proving once and for all, only governments Can fix problems.

Phhht,

You're so desperate for a
Point
That you think THAT was one.