Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
ONE debunked "hypothesis"? In a "tabloid"???
Time magazine is not a "tabloid". And the "hypothesis" was "debunked" by the Earth NOT going into an Ice Age.
How come all the ones that were already WRONG are now nothing more than "debunked hypothesis" to you now. But the one that is based on OLD data that you are currently championing is Unquestionable Scientific FACT???
You do realize that in 1977 people were saying that (as you put it) "debunked hypothesis" was Scientific FACT as well.
Wonder what will be the next one now that "Global Warming" has been changed to "Climate Change"?
EDIT: I also gave you the example of Pres. Nixon being told in 1970 that the coast would be underwater because of Global Warming by the year 2000. I also gave you the example of Global Warming in the late 1990's that has now changed to "Climate Change" because the computer models are based on OLD information.
That's over 40 years of being wrong. So no, Richard...I'm not reading some "tabloid" and closing my mind to anything else.
But you may be if you aren't acknowledging the new data about CO2 that makes the "Global Warming" computer generated hypothesis wrong and outdated.
|
it's a joke.
and 'tabloid', as an updated noun, means: 'sensational in a lurid or vulgar way.'
so, one guy writing one story about a hypotheses resulting in time magazine to post a cover article about 'surviving an ice age'
seems very tabloid -y..
i wonder how different the environment looks from the 70s to now.. just on an spill/nuclear meltdown/type thing.. not even getting into this 'nitty gritty'
