Global warming is real

Dantes hasn’t produced any science. All he has argued is that the chance is so low as to not be possible. That logic (or rather, lack thereof) is not the face of science.

Nobody has said that it is likely to be true.

If you want a 100,000 year period and you want it to come anywhere near us, that’s the math.

Not fast enough.

There is no science that provides any evidence to support this idea.

Well, then prove me wrong. I googled and couldn’t find one. If the theory was likely, as Samm said, then it should be easy to find astronomers opining on the merits.

And as you know, it is nigh impossible to prove the negative (one can’t feasibly ask every degreed astronomer and physicist in the world, and we know you will hold on to your theory demanding every last one be asked) but all you have to do is find one. Just one.

Or, you could understand I was speaking a bit hyperbolically and not be so literal.

I don’t recall them claiming it was likely, only a possibility.

Maybe. I’m pretty sure Samm was talking about the many years and concluding that made it likely.

Oh, ok. Well in the early years of earth’s life I’m sure there were many NEOs that effected our orbit. Eventually we settled into the orbit we have enjoyed for millennia.

I guess there has been some confusion because Wildrose has been talking about a NEO periodically visiting the earth (100,000 year period) and effecting our orbit and our climate.

You jumped in and seemed to defend his argument.

Now you don’t seem to subscribe to it and talk about some NEO setting up our orbit but not coming back and effecting it periodically. I won’t disgree with that.

So just to be clear, you do reject the notion that a planetoid with a highly elliptical orbit that takes it well past Pluto yet also comes close enough to Earth to effect our orbit every 100,000 years is likely?

Yet … or to discredit it. That’s why it’s called a hypothesis.

I showed you the math. What part of that did you not understand? Time makes even the most unlikely event more likely.

Some people in this thread have difficulty with reading comprehension.

Hypothesis:
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Unfortunately it doesn’t quite meet the definition of a hypothesis.

I look forward to your evidence for that opinion.

By the way, I agree with it. Millennia are measured in thousands of years. What I am referring to is measured in millions of years. In the case of the orbital forcing that settled Earth into the age of ice ages cycle, perhaps 2.5 - 3 million years ago. Nobody is suggesting that Earth’s orbit is altered every hundred thousand years; not even if there is a large body that visits this part of the solar system on that frequency.

But there’s likely and unlikely hypothesis.

likely hypothesis: are such as climate change since there’s a lot of peer review literature to back it up.

unlikely hypothesis: are such as yours where there is little, if any, peer review literature to back it up.

What part of attempting to explain the significant global climate change some two million years ago are you missing?

Unlikely does not mean untrue.

But peer review indicates a level of veracity.

A hypothesis is made on the “basis of limited evidence” and as we’ve discussed there is zero evidence that forms your basis.

And it just could be a part of the natural cycle of the earth’s climate.

We cannot be quivering in fear every time the mountain rumbles, and toss virgins into the volcano, because we believe we humans caused the earth to move.