On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 01:34:37 +0100, pothead wrote:

On 2021-04-17, Rod Speed wrote:
Snit wrote
Rod Speed wrote

What matters is the evidence with science, not individuals.

Correct: though the experts will generally side with the evidence (if
they did not they would not be the experts!)

Problem is that the evidence changes, particularly with the
recent less than predicted rate of world temperature change.

Do you mean the hand picked specific areas where it was less even as the
world beat the predictions?

Nope, the world as a whole didnt beat predictions.

At this point there is no internationally recognized scientific group
that still denies the evidence.

Science isnt about voting. At one time the vast majority of scientists
denied free radicals but then the evidence showed that they are real.

If the evidence showed it then over time the view of most scientists
likely changed. It is not like our knowledge does not grow.

And thats just as true of purported man made climate change.

Yes, we keep leaning more.

And we are finding that we cant predict what the world climate will do.

Its obvious that climate does change, thats obvious from the ice ages
etc, but its much less clear how much of the change we have seen is man
made.

The models show it to be between about 95% and 105% if I recall correctly.

Thats bull**** and the models clearly dont predict what actually
happened, so the models are clearly a long way from being useful.

So, yes, there is some disagreement.

And they are hopeless at predicting what will happen. .

It wasnt that long ago that most scientists were hyperventilating about
global cooling.

"Never" was neither long ago nor not long ago. It did not happen.

Bull****. Same with the mindless hyperventilation about world population.

Yes, we can certainly measure a substantial hike in atmospheric
CO2 levels, but its much less clear how much effect that actually
has on world temperatures, let alone climate change.

We can quibble over exact amounts but there is no question it accounts for
a huge percentage of the warming we see.

Thats mindless bull**** too. We havent in fact seen anything
even remotely like the same effect on world climate as we
have measured in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And its even less clear whether lots more 'renewable' energy
will make any useful difference to world climate or whether
it makes much more sense to have lots more nukes and
dramatically reduce the addition to world CO2 levels and
stop wasting fossil fuels on power generation now that it
is clear that we are consuming them at a far greater rate
than they are being laid down.

Solar is not perfect but it is a lot less harmful.

Nukes arent harmful. And solar ****s power distribution
and isnt useful at higher latitudes and is ****ed in the
sense that its only useful for part of the day even at the
lower latitudes.

Just in case you are not aware, you are replying to one of USENET's most
prolific trolls. The snit Michael Glasser troll.

See the links in my siggie for details regarding this waste of skin.

And you're saying this to Rod Speed?!