Come on, I'll give you a more recent example ... since obviously you don't understand ...
ABC's grandfather in 1971 wrote:I'm waiting to see a computer that fits in my pocket, I've never seen one before ....
It's better ?
ABC's grandfather in 1971 wrote:I'm waiting to see a computer that fits in my pocket, I've never seen one before ....
Christophe wrote:Damn, he insists on his psychological mistakes?
Come on, I'll give you a more recent example ... since obviously you don't understand ...ABC's grandfather in 1971 wrote:I'm waiting to see a computer that fits in my pocket, I've never seen one before ....
It's better ?
ABC2019 wrote:the same: I am not saying that it is proven that it will not exist, I am saying that it is possible that it will not exist.
In 70 we believed that we would have intelligent robots with which we could talk and that we would have mastered the merger in 2000, well it did not happen. So it is also possible that things will not happen.
ABC2019 wrote:In 70 we believed that we would have intelligent robots with which we could talk and that we would have mastered the merger in 2000, well it did not happen. So it is also possible that things will not happen.
eclectron wrote:ABC2019 wrote:the same: I am not saying that it is proven that it will not exist, I am saying that it is possible that it will not exist.
In 70 we believed that we would have intelligent robots with which we could talk and that we would have mastered the merger in 2000, well it did not happen. So it is also possible that things will not happen.
Nothing to see....
In one case it is a question of imagination on technical progress, of the Jules Vernes type ...
For the climate, these are computer models of natural and observational phenomena, validated on data from the past.
I think you are doing it on purpose to be c .. or else you have a psychic concern, the same as the platists: contradict the obvious in order to exist ....
But until then what are you doing to us?
gegyx wrote:ABC2019 wrote:In 70 we believed that we would have intelligent robots with which we could talk and that we would have mastered the merger in 2000, well it did not happen. So it is also possible that things will not happen.
We did better.
You can fuck with it (as much as you can that might not happen)
ABC2019 wrote:gegyx wrote:ABC2019 wrote:In 70 we believed that we would have intelligent robots with which we could talk and that we would have mastered the merger in 2000, well it did not happen. So it is also possible that things will not happen.
We did better.
You can fuck with it (as much as you can that might not happen)
for that an inflatable doll is already enough ...
ABC2019 wrote:It has nothing to do with it, we weren't talking about climate models ... We have to follow it a bit.
ABC2019 wrote:we were talking about the possibility that removing fossils would take us back to the Middle Ages
ABC2019 wrote:Models which, moreover, are not at all "precise" according to scientific standards, once again a factor of 3 uncertainty, it has never been considered as a "precise" prediction. And even less the scenarios. But that was not the point.
eclectron wrote:And common sense, right?
Foresight, right?
Wouldn't that encourage you to transit regardless of the size of the RCA?
ABC2019 wrote:eclectron wrote:And common sense, right?
Foresight, right?
Wouldn't that encourage you to transit regardless of the size of the RCA?
well I'll put the question differently: do you agree that removing all the fossils by tomorrow, all at once, would have much more serious consequences on humanity than the RCA?
Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 104 guests