/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8362936
>How is that relevant to whether or not AGW will harm us?
How is it relevant that the normal? No, erm predominant state of the Earth is a hothouse environment? That without humanity, the Earth is highly likely to revert back to a hothouse environment. That's the relevance. It isn't about how it will harm us or not, it's about the probability of a hothouse environment occurring with AGW or without and there is no way of knowing if it would have occurred sooner or later without humanity. We simply don't know and to say you do is fruitcake territory.

>So you are concerned about what will happen millions of years from now and not about what will happen in the next hundreds?
No, you've missed the point. We're trying to gauge something that works in cycles, variable and data masses we can't as yet understand. Nevermind predict.

>This seems like some hardcore mental gymnastics to deny AGW.
ad hominem. It's not about denying AGW, we've (humanity) has had a affect on the environment since we began cutting down trees and domesticating wild life.

>Except we can directly measure the infrared spectra of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is what the radiative forcing methods are based on, not experiments in a lab. Where do you people get this nonsense?
>ad hominem. So laboratory work is not involved or used by the IPPC to further it's understandings of the data provided? Brilliant, so it's all based off greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. Thanks, didn't know that. Oh, erm how do they know what 'radiative forcing methods' results imply? Big question. Hint: from a Lab.

>And then you write as if you know anything about climatology. You're only fooling yourself. It's pathetic.
See, i not fooling myself, the IPPC is well aware that AGW is a thing and that whatever a bunch of cunts having isn't going to stop humans like Pajeet and the millions like him burning coal to heat his tea or cows farting.