What probabilistic predictions do we have for the so called “Climate Change” or “to frack is to die” Green “science”?
There were models that have predicted how much the Earth would be expected to heat up given certain amounts of carbon released into the atmosphere from the early 1990′s, and they have been pretty accurate predictions.
Anyway, I’m not opposed to fracking, at least not in the short run. It’s still probably less harmful to people’s health and to the environment then coal is, even with the earthquakes. But I don’t think there’s any doubt it causes small earthquakes; if nothing else, you can just observe the fact that areas which do a lot of fracking now have lots of small earthquakes in places that simply never have before. That’s just a fact, an emperical observation.
If you want to come up with an alternate scientific hypothesis to explain that fact, feel free, but I don’t see how you can deny the accuracy of the observation.
There were models that have predicted how much the Earth would be expected to heat up given certain amounts of carbon released into the atmosphere from the early 1990′s, and they have been pretty accurate predictions.
Really?
If you want to come up with an alternate scientific hypothesis to explain that fact
I don’t want to. I even don’t know if it is a fact or not. I don’t see any raw data about this anywhere. I will most certainly not bother with that. Because if something is presented without solid data, it can be simply dismissed.
Uh. About 10 posts ago I linked you to a long list of published scientific papers, many of which you can access online. If you wanted to see the data, you easily could have.
A probabilistic prediction is still a prediction. Or do you think nuclear physics isn’t science either?
What probabilistic predictions do we have for the so called “Climate Change” or “to frack is to die” Green “science”?
We have “no doubt, the science is settled”.
The Green “science” is quite a big part of our lives. Unfortunately.
Appart from this, we have problems with fats and sugars in medicine and many things elsewhere.
Science might be the best we have, but it isn’t perfect, at all.
There were models that have predicted how much the Earth would be expected to heat up given certain amounts of carbon released into the atmosphere from the early 1990′s, and they have been pretty accurate predictions.
Anyway, I’m not opposed to fracking, at least not in the short run. It’s still probably less harmful to people’s health and to the environment then coal is, even with the earthquakes. But I don’t think there’s any doubt it causes small earthquakes; if nothing else, you can just observe the fact that areas which do a lot of fracking now have lots of small earthquakes in places that simply never have before. That’s just a fact, an emperical observation.
If you want to come up with an alternate scientific hypothesis to explain that fact, feel free, but I don’t see how you can deny the accuracy of the observation.
Really?
I don’t want to. I even don’t know if it is a fact or not. I don’t see any raw data about this anywhere. I will most certainly not bother with that. Because if something is presented without solid data, it can be simply dismissed.
Uh. About 10 posts ago I linked you to a long list of published scientific papers, many of which you can access online. If you wanted to see the data, you easily could have.