If you eat meat and believe in global warming you are a hypocrit.

[thetonestarr]

akuma587 said:

thetonestarr said:

 

Problem is, though, if "global warming" were true, a cooler summer would be impossible. Period. That single summer exists entirely as evidence, because it defies everything that global-warming activists insisted about global warming before it ever happened.

Not to mention the winter before also.

Funny that the activists make other claims now. They know it contradicts what they'd been saying, so they try explaining it away another way.

 

Additionally, the world goes through phases. Historically, we've seen trends as far back as records go where the world would go through natural warming and cooling phases. These phases last something like one and a half to two decades, I believe. This effectively explains everything we've been seeing for the past umpteen years regarding "global warming". Don't believe me? In five to ten years, check the daily temperatures. Should be below average.

That's completely false.  That's like saying that the same evolutionary adaptation occuring more than once in nature is impossible because it is statistically improbable.  But that is blatantly disproved by actual data.  Mammals and birds evolved four-chambered hearts independently of each other and birds and bats evolved wings completely independently of each other.  The evolutionary model says this is extremely unlikely, but the model is still true even though these deviations have occurred.

Just because a model predicts that something is less likely to occur does not mean that is impossible or that the deviation from the prediction disproves the model.  In math, sometimes a function crosses an asymptote at one or two points, but as the function approaches infinity it moves infinitely closer to the asymptote without ever touching it.  You are completely ignoring the fact that statistical deviations in science are extremely common and do not automatically disprove theoretical models.

For someone who claims to know a lot of about global warming, you sure as hell know very little about science in general.

 

Lovely how you pick and choose what to reply to and what not. Pay attention to the rest of the post, and pretty much everything you just stated is entirely null and void.

Additionally, there is a point in probability where something becomes "statistically impossible", meaning that the chances of it happening are so ridiculously low that it can be considered impossible. I suppose that yes, it's theoretically possible. But considering the extremely low probability, it is statistically impossible.

For someone who claims to know a lot about science in general, you sure as hell know very little about scientific reasoning.