>>12061028>And I understand that you're scientifically illiterate because what you've provided is an explanation to gravity using a model.
Every explanation is a model, you utter moron.>A model that uses two things that were never empirically verified to exist (space and time).
Every time you measure a distance or a time you empirically verify that they exist. Schizo. >That descriptions aren't explanations and re describing things over and over doesn't answer a "why" question.
Then give an explanation that isn't a description. You already avoided this question once. Let's see how many times you'll fail. Or just admit that nothing satisfies your definition of "explanation" and thus no "why" question is answerable by your standards. >still no explanation to why mass attracts mass
I already gave you an explanation. >>still no explanation correlating CO2 rising with heat
It's called the greenhouse effect, surly you've heard of it. >As opposed to using a scientific approach and not LARPing as a bum.
Only you and a few other schizos seem to think relativity is unscientific. How is it unscientific?>Because heat goes to where it isn't by pressure mediation
What does that mean and why is it? That sounds awfully a lot like a description of heat and not an "explanation." This also doesn't even seem to answer my question. I asked you why the climate "should" change, not why it changes. You seem to think that there is some grand design and not just things happening. >Now prove how it's bad.
Pic related. >Humans don't really do well in ice and snow.
Do you live in ice and snow now? Do you think people lived in ice and snow in the 1800s? Then why do you think mitigating AGW means living in ice and snow? Humans do well in the climate they evolved in, which we are rapidly leaving. Ignoring the consequences of global warming and making up an ice and snow boogeyman is idiotic. >It is schizophrenic gibberish isn't it?