Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
Scientists attempt to correct science to get more accurate information...or at least they should, but there's ample reason to believe otherwise. The emails from East Anglia should have at least raised some eyebrows, or at the very least had everyone calling for more oversight into these climate issues. Those at East Anglia can hardly be a one off, they can not be the ONLY "scientists" looking for more funding rather than legitimate data but even to pose that question seems to shake those who buy into Anthropogenic Global Climate Change to the very core that they "...just can't even" and end any and all debates.


Greenhouse gas effect as a quantifiable model? Well we can get rough estimates of how much of what kinds of gases are in the atmosphere but it won't be absolute.




Before Global Warming came about there was great concern over Global Cooling and The Population Bomb and so on....there's a part of "science" that is fatalistic, agenda driven, and worshiped as religion and Anthropogenic Climate Change IS JUST THAT...it's a catch all #1, if it rains too much it's the reason, if it rains too little it's the reason, if it snows, if it doesn't snow, if there's a hurricane, if there are no hurricanes, if there's tornadoes or not etc Anthropogenic Climate Change is the cause and frankly I've been sick as fuck of it for a long time and I'll question the absolute Hell out of it up u[B]ntil there is DIRECT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that proves me wrong. We're not there yet, and we won't ever get there.
Great step one you acknowledge Greenhouse effects are a thing that can be at least approximated by mathematical models (there are no absolutes in real life sorry, that is the domain of religions)

Step two, do you acknowledge that the sun emits an amount solar radiation on the earth that provides energy in the form of heat?