There’s a reason, once again, that I call it Hotcoldwetdry
Gee, thanks: "In some places, the wet will get wetter, and the dry will get drier. And in other places, the wet will get drier, and the dry will get wetter" https://t.co/ZD3rOycVM0
— Tom Nelson (@TomANelson) December 27, 2017
From the fable
We hear a lot about areas of the planet that are going to be drier in the future because of climate change. But do scientists think any places will get wetter?
—Tim Merrill in Alexandria, Virginia
Definitely. In some places, the wet will get wetter, and the dry will get drier. And in other places, the wet will get drier, and the dry will get wetter. Consider the emphasis to be on the word “change.â€
In other words, it’s a completely non-falsifiable bit of cultish dogma that has nothing to do with science.
The TEACH typed:
That’s dumb even by the low standards of the Denialati.
You can falsify the theory of AGW any number of ways. You can demonstrate that the Earth is not warming. You can show that CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation. You can show that the oceans are not warming. You can demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 is not increasing. You can show that the increased CO2 is not derived from fossil fuel burning. You can propose a feasible alternative hypothesis to account for the current warming and support your hypothesis with evidence. See? The Theory of AGW is easily falsified with evidence.
We’re not convinced you understand what “science” is.
It’s understandable that a hard-core Denier such as you would be “confused” (disingenuously at that) that different areas of the Earth could respond differently to a rapid increase in mean global surface temperature.
Or you could show that there is evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
But you can’t because there isn’t any, anywhere in the universe.
Or are you still confused, little dumbass?
Thanks again, little guy, for the “science” lesson.