Climate Change really

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Climate Change really

Page 1 of 2

Climate Change really24-06-2021 03:13
Einstein3767 ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	I want everyone especially scientist to answer this question. The climate is changing and everyone acts like this is the first time it has happened. The earth runs through cycles of warming the cooling and has been for a million year. This is proven by the fact scientists have identified 5 ice ages over that time. They try to blame it of our pollution and carbon footprint. Why did the 5 ice ages take place because there was no pollution during any of those. Per the scientists over the past 1 million years the earth has continually been in climate change warming and cooling
24-06-2021 03:28
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Please get your references right. At least Harvey shows young booty. Since 800,000 years ago, ice ages occur about every 100,000 years. Before 1 million years ago, it was about once every 40,000 years. Your time frame of 1 million years has no actual value.
RE: Per History.com24-06-2021 03:34
Einstein3767 ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the "Ice Age," reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago.
24-06-2021 03:57
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Einstein3767 wrote: Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the "Ice Age," reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago. The periodicity between 800,000 and 1 million years ago was in flux. Do not discount the time before this. A major change occurred. Over the last 800,000 years I would say 7. Between 800,000 and 1 million years ago, at every 40,000 years, we have your average. This makes me think only 10. And to be an a$$hole, you are off by 2 glacial periods over the last 1 million years. I do accept that radioactive isotropic dating is accurate. Then again I find a barometer to be accurate as well.
24-06-2021 07:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	Einstein3767 wrote:I want everyone especially scientist to answer this question. OK, lay it on me. Einstein3767 wrote:The climate is changing and everyone acts like this is the first time it has happened. The joke is on you. The global Climate is not changing. In fact, it hasn't changed one iota during my lifetime. Einstein3767 wrote: The earth runs through cycles of warming the cooling Nope. The earth runs through cycles around the sun. They are called "years." Einstein3767 wrote:This is proven by the fact scientists have identified 5 ice ages over that time. Nope. Some morons have speculated about past "ice ages" but they have absolutely no evidence that entire hemispheres were somehow buried under kilometers of ice at the same time. No such evidence. No ice ages as far as we know. Just baseless speculation and some neat animated movies. Einstein3767 wrote: Per the scientists over the past 1 million years the earth has continually been in climate change warming and cooling What does the opinion of a couple of morons have to do with anything?

24-06-2021 15:21
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Go the man.Where do they get this stuff from
24-06-2021 16:28
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Einstein3767 wrote: I want everyone especially scientist to answer this question. I'm not a scientist, and there are at least a couple of people on this board who are much more knowledgeable on the subject matter than I am, but I will do my best. Einstein3767 wrote: The climate is changing Stop right here. Problem #1: You make reference to "the climate". Which climate are you talking about? The Earth does not have a single climate called "the climate". Are you claiming that it does? If so, then what is Earth's climate? Hot and arid? Cool and damp? Problem #2: You make reference to some sort of "change" that "the climate" has undergone. How can a non-quantifiable thing such as climate "change"? Is there now 'more climate' than there was before? IOW, the words "the climate is changing" are complete and utter gibberbabble. Einstein3767 wrote: and everyone acts like this is the first time it has happened. It has never happened... not even a single time... Einstein3767 wrote: The earth runs through cycles of warming the cooling and has been for a million year. ... IF the Earth has even been around for a million years... We don't know what the temperature of the Earth is either (not now, and not at any other time in the past)... Einstein3767 wrote: This is proven by the fact scientists have identified 5 ice ages over that time. Interesting... very interesting... Einstein3767 wrote: They try to blame it of our pollution and carbon footprint. Why did the 5 ice ages take place because there was no pollution during any of those. Per the scientists over the past 1 million years the earth has continually been in climate change warming and cooling Continued gibberbabble and religious squalling. Edited on 24-06-2021 17:13
24-06-2021 16:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	duncan61 wrote:Go the man.Where do they get this stuff from People, organizations and governments have a need to own history. In some cases the need is for political control in the present. Most of Greece's economy is based on tourism and the presumption that they own history as we know it. Leftist political movements attack the history of countries, declaring the country "inherently bad" and then plea to the people to put them in power to "fix" the country (this is why tyranny is always welcomed with thunderous applause). This is no different in academia. There is no road to fame and riches for professors who are relegated to teaching and research because they are simply not otherwise competitive enough to be successful in the world ... unless they own a slice of history, i.e. they manage to legitimize some speculation about the past. Geologists have very little hope in life; either they get hired by Big Oil and make a good living or they claim that some rocks support their particular pet speculations of the past and they go on the book/lecture circuit tour. Otherwise they might as well get a second job to make ends meet. Naturally, Global Warming is total fear-mongering for political control ... formed into a religion based on hatred and intolerance. When you make something a religion, the congregation is required to accept the official party-line history, i.e. whatever past events are obligatory to believe, and therefore are required to believe whatever they are told about present events being "unprecedented" ... which includes being required to believe in those present events, even if they have not occurred or are physically impossible. If you are ever having difficulty persuading some person or group to act in a particular way, try manipulating history. The world is full of morons and you will likely achieve better results.
24-06-2021 17:02
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Einstein3767 wrote: Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, Have they now?? Were you there when those events happened? ... Was ANYBODY there when those events happened? How do you know this? Einstein3767 wrote: the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. See above. Approximately a thousand major burning sulfur (fire and brimstone) rain events have occurred over the past five octillion years, the largest of which peaked a million years ago and lasted for three months. Einstein3767 wrote: The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the "Ice Age," reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago. The most recent fire and brimstone period, often known simply as the "judgement upon Sodom and Gomorrah", reached peak condition some 3,900 years ago before giving way until the final judgement upon the Earth.
24-06-2021 20:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	gfm7175 wrote: Einstein3767 wrote: Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, Have they now?? Were you there when those events happened? ... Was ANYBODY there when those events happened? How do you know this? Einstein3767 wrote: the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. See above. Approximately a thousand major burning sulfur (fire and brimstone) rain events have occurred over the past five octillion years, the largest of which peaked a million years ago and lasted for three months. Einstein3767 wrote: The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the "Ice Age," reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago. The most recent fire and brimstone period, often known simply as the "judgement upon Sodom and Gomorrah", reached peak condition some 3,900 years ago before giving way until the final judgement upon the Earth. The present fire and brimstone period was started in China by Man and spread around the world. These usually peak around July 4th in the United States (now the States of America). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-06-2021 21:00
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Into the Night wrote: The present fire and brimstone period was started in China by Man and spread around the world. These usually peak around July 4th in the United States (now the States of America).
03-07-2021 12:14
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Einstein3767 wrote:...The climate is changing ...They try to blame it [on] our pollution... If there is human caused climate change (highly likely) it is a very interesting question what would be happening without us on the planet. That does not though mean it doesn't matter. I think you may be making a fair criticism of the news cycle on Global Warming but not of the scientists studying it. Einstein3767 wrote:...The most recent glaciation...18,000 years ago... Probably accurate and the estimate that it was just about 7 degrees C cooler is also probably accurate link So you can see that you're own premise is satisfied by a provable AGW theory. If the temperature of Earth were to increase a full 2 degrees C in 100 years that would be "freaky" right? link "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 03-07-2021 12:23
03-07-2021 17:55
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	There is nothing wrong with speculation, guessing, dreaming. But, when you are having a bad dream, it's usually best to wake-up, before you do something stupid, like crap your shorts. All the hype, hysteria, panic, fear mongering based on a silly, liberal bad dream, is just plain stupidity. We've made a lot of technological progress, since squatting in caves, bang rocks together hoping to spark fire. So, we could hopefully thaw out a chunk of some sort of semi-putrefied meat, we pried out of the frozen tundra. We've never been able to influence/change the weather. And mankind has tried, for millennia, with zero success. Is the definition of stupid, trying, failing, then keep doing the same thing, expecting a different outcome, with each failure? We have written history of shifting weather patterns. We have many well documented extreme weather events. We all have lived through, and survived several such events. Mankind didn't piss off the gods, and get punished for their sinful, perverted acts. It's just the natural of the planet we live on. Burning fossil fuels, isn't pissing off an carbon-gods. We don't need to sacrifice any virgins, or all the technological progress we've made to make our lives easier. We do have the tools and materials, to make life easier, to live through and survive, any unpleasant weather shifts. Trying to change the weather, is stupid, liberal crap. Changing the way we live, to better survive harsh weather, is what intelligent humans do.
03-07-2021 20:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	tgoebbles wrote:If there is human caused climate change (highly likely) it is a very interesting question what would be happening without us on the planet. How did you arrive at this probability? You didn't use any math, of course, so inquiring minds would like to know. You found what you wanted to hear compelling. tgoebbles you do realize this is that very definition of confirmation bias right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias tgoebbles wrote:That does not though mean it doesn't matter. It also doesn't mean that peanut butter is green. It also doesn't mean that walnuts will grow into Toyota Camrys. There are infinite things that it does not mean, except, in this case, your inability to distinguish Climate from weather really doesn't matter. tgoebbles wrote: I think you may be making a fair criticism of the news cycle on Global Warming but not of the scientists studying it. You are scientifically illiterate and you don't know what a scientist is. You believe that religious clergy are scientists and that math is bogus voodoo. tgoebbles wrote: Einstein3767 wrote:...The most recent glaciation...18,000 years ago... Probably accurate and the estimate that it was just about 7 degrees C cooler is also probably accurate How did you arrive at the probability? You didn't use any math, of course, so inquiring minds would like to know. What makes you so certain there was even a glaciation "period"? Btw , with your incredible need for your speculation to be reality, you should be investing in Safemoon and other cryptocurrency-appearing pyramid schemes. tgoebbles wrote: So you can see that you're own premise is satisfied by a provable AGW theory. You found what you wanted to hear compelling. tgoebbles you do realize this is that very definition of confirmation bias right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias tgoebbles wrote: If the temperature of Earth were to increase a full 2 degrees C in 100 years that would be "freaky" right? Because that never happens anywhere on earth, right? What percentage of life on earth would be totally eradicated because it cannot withstand a rapid temperature increase of a full 2 degrees C per century, or suffer living a life a full 2 degrees C warmer than the current temperature. And this says nothing for the planet itself. What we know is that very little of the earth itself could withstand that kind of punishment? A full 2 degrees C in temperature increase would probably destabilize the tectonic plates and cause extreme magmatic events ... within the USA, of course, as the Climate dispenses Climate Justice upon the country responsible for Global Warming. Too funny. You don't disappoint.
03-07-2021 23:42
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote:...We've never been able to influence/change the weather....We have many well documented extreme weather events.... That is a sweeping and unfounded belief you have their Harvey. To say something is impossible is quite a conclusion to draw. Human's have, according to you, NEVER influenced the weather. How about Volcanoes? Would you disagree that volcanic eruptions have influenced the weather, changed the temperature more specifically? https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features/volcanoes-climate-change-and-society-history-and-future-prospects "....eruptions ...brought a bitterly cold "year without summer" to the Northeastern United States, as snow and frost ruined crops as late as June. ..." So a "year without a summer" sure sounds like a change in the weather to me. Due to a volcanic eruption, which is essentially putting debri into the air. Yet it is "impossible"? for humans to have any impact on the weather at all? Really? Of course Volcanoes have changed the weather (not disputed by anyone) and putting things into the air can and will influence the weather. Change the composition of any planets atmosphere would change the weather there. This was accepted long before climate change was a hot issue so I'd be very curious to know how you think there is a conspiracy afoot if that is what you believe. Someone sure loves their Tucker Carlson: IBdaMann wrote: How did you arrive at this probability? .... How did you arrive at the probability? What ...? ...right? Because that never happens anywhere on earth, right? ...punishment? ... As long as you only ask questions, never answer any, and don't really take a position it's easy to pretend to win (because you're not really playing). "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 03-07-2021 23:51

04-07-2021 01:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	tmiddles wrote (to Harvey):Human's have, according to you, NEVER influenced the weather. ... and to the best of your knowledge, you know of no examples either. You could have just written "Harvey, I totally agree with you." tmiddles wrote (to Harvey): HarveyH55 wrote:...We've never been able to influence/change the weather....We have many well documented extreme weather events.... That is a sweeping and unfounded belief you have their Harvey. To say something is impossible is quite a conclusion to draw. ... and to the best of your knowledge, you know of no examples either. You could have just written "Harvey, I totally agree with you." tmiddles wrote (to Harvey):How about Volcanoes? Would you disagree that volcanic eruptions have influenced the weather, changed the temperature more specifically? This is stupid. You are equating volcanic eruptions with scented candles, i.e. temporarily changing the temperature and odor of a local area? No, scented candles do not influence the weather. Moron. tmiddles wrote (to Harvey):Of course Volcanoes have changed the weather (not disputed by anyone) Nope, to the best of anyone's knowledge, scented candles have never influenced the weather. No person, and that includes you, has any sort of alternate universe to verify what the weather "would have otherwise been" had there been no volcanic eruption. It is therefore not "what we know." tmiddles wrote (to Harvey): ... and putting things into the air can and will influence the weather. ... except that to the best of your knowledge you know of absolutely no way this could happen and you know of no examples of verified weather changes. To the best of your knowledge, you totally disagree with yourself. tmiddles wrote (to Harvey): Change the composition of any planets atmosphere would change the weather there. Write out the equation/formula for the specific change to weather given a specific additional quantity of a certain substance, i.e. the science you are using to make this statement. tmiddles wrote (to Harvey):This was accepted long before climate change was a hot issue If you are saying that that humanity has a long history of people being grossly mistaken then sure, I totally get your point. tmiddles wrote (to Harvey): ... so I'd be very curious to know how you think there is a conspiracy afoot if that is what you believe. Did you just ask why government agencies would collude to deceive the public? What kind of naive moron are you?
04-07-2021 02:25
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:...We've never been able to influence/change the weather....We have many well documented extreme weather events.... That is a sweeping and unfounded belief you have their Harvey. To say something is impossible is quite a conclusion to draw. Human's have, according to you, NEVER influenced the weather. How about Volcanoes? Would you disagree that volcanic eruptions have influenced the weather, changed the temperature more specifically? https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features/volcanoes-climate-change-and-society-history-and-future-prospects "....eruptions ...brought a bitterly cold "year without summer" to the Northeastern United States, as snow and frost ruined crops as late as June. ..." So a "year without a summer" sure sounds like a change in the weather to me. Due to a volcanic eruption, which is essentially putting debri into the air. Yet it is "impossible"? for humans to have any impact on the weather at all? Really? Of course Volcanoes have changed the weather (not disputed by anyone) and putting things into the air can and will influence the weather. Change the composition of any planets atmosphere would change the weather there. This was accepted long before climate change was a hot issue so I'd be very curious to know how you think there is a conspiracy afoot if that is what you believe. Someone sure loves their Tucker Carlson: IBdaMann wrote: How did you arrive at this probability? .... How did you arrive at the probability? What ...? ...right? Because that never happens anywhere on earth, right? ...punishment? ... As long as you only ask questions, never answer any, and don't really take a position it's easy to pretend to win (because you're not really playing). "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Volcanoes aren't humans... Humans don't control volcanoes, or the weather. We don't control the tides, or the wind either. Apparently, California can't control wildfires either... <Deflection failed> Do you have any examples of when mankind was ever in control of weather events? Have we ever been able to make it rain, to relieve drought? Make it stop raining to prevent flooding? Can we stop hurricanes from making landfall, or even forming. Tornadoes? Why not? All would be extremely useful things to control. If we totally understand the planet, and have control over weather, why aren't we doing it? All you have is fantasy. A control-freak's wet-dream. Can't control nature, but you think you can control the humans, as if liberals are some how superior. There are dozens of natural sources of crap being added to the atmosphere, all the time. It's not the huge influence of your wet-dreams. CO2 is a non-issue, nature can use a lot of it. More, probably isn't a bad thing, considering the population. It's also likely, that humans did most of their evolving, in a much warmer climate. We aren't covered in thick fur, didn't always have fire, or electric heaters. Naked apes probably would survive long enough to figure out wearing animal skins for warmth. Liberals are lazy. They don't like challenges or change. The like being in complete control. Liberals fear change, because they know it's work, for which the are allergic, and unlikely to survive. Most humans, will rise to the challenges, figure out how to survive them, and be stronger for it. Just nature's way of thinning the herd, of undesirable occupants, that have little to offer.
04-07-2021 02:31
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:...We've never been able to influence/change the weather....We have many well documented extreme weather events.... That is a sweeping and unfounded belief you have their Harvey. To say something is impossible is quite a conclusion to draw. Human's have, according to you, NEVER influenced the weather. How about Volcanoes? Would you disagree that volcanic eruptions have influenced the weather, changed the temperature more specifically? https://www.historicalclimatology.com/features/volcanoes-climate-change-and-society-history-and-future-prospects "....eruptions ...brought a bitterly cold "year without summer" to the Northeastern United States, as snow and frost ruined crops as late as June. ..." So a "year without a summer" sure sounds like a change in the weather to me. Due to a volcanic eruption, which is essentially putting debri into the air. Yet it is "impossible"? for humans to have any impact on the weather at all? Really? Of course Volcanoes have changed the weather (not disputed by anyone) and putting things into the air can and will influence the weather. Change the composition of any planets atmosphere would change the weather there. This was accepted long before climate change was a hot issue so I'd be very curious to know how you think there is a conspiracy afoot if that is what you believe. Someone sure loves their Tucker Carlson: IBdaMann wrote: How did you arrive at this probability? .... How did you arrive at the probability? What ...? ...right? Because that never happens anywhere on earth, right? ...punishment? ... As long as you only ask questions, never answer any, and don't really take a position it's easy to pretend to win (because you're not really playing). "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Volcanoes aren't humans... Humans don't control volcanoes, or the weather. We don't control the tides, or the wind either. Apparently, California can't control wildfires either... <Deflection failed> Do you have any examples of when mankind was ever in control of weather events? Have we ever been able to make it rain, to relieve drought? Make it stop raining to prevent flooding? Can we stop hurricanes from making landfall, or even forming. Tornadoes? Why not? All would be extremely useful things to control. If we totally understand the planet, and have control over weather, why aren't we doing it? All you have is fantasy. A control-freak's wet-dream. Can't control nature, but you think you can control the humans, as if liberals are some how superior. There are dozens of natural sources of crap being added to the atmosphere, all the time. It's not the huge influence of your wet-dreams. CO2 is a non-issue, nature can use a lot of it. More, probably isn't a bad thing, considering the population. It's also likely, that humans did most of their evolving, in a much warmer climate. We aren't covered in thick fur, didn't always have fire, or electric heaters. Naked apes probably would survive long enough to figure out wearing animal skins for warmth. Liberals are lazy. They don't like challenges or change. The like being in complete control. Liberals fear change, because they know it's work, for which the are allergic, and unlikely to survive. Most humans, will rise to the challenges, figure out how to survive them, and be stronger for it. Just nature's way of thinning the herd, of undesirable occupants, that have little to offer. And if Trump is charged, he is the grandson of an illegal immigrant. What is his position on illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants like 2 out of 3 of his wives? To be clear, Trump's family history is based on illegal immigration starting with his grandfather. What makes America great? Illegal immigration and not legal immigrants like my father. Edited on 04-07-2021 02:34
04-07-2021 02:44
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: Volcanoes aren't humans... Humans don't control volcanoes, or the weather. "control" ? Of course not, that's the literal point of the Climate Change debate, is that things are out of control. Do humans influence the weather? Do they? I'm asking you. Valcanoes are a useful example because there is a sudden and dramatic change to the atmosphere due to the eruption. Human's have had a gradual impact, whatever it is, so it's hard to separate out how we've influenced the weather. But you are the one saying it's IMPOSSSIBLE right? And you said "influence/change" not "control" in your earlier post. That's what I'm refuting. HarveyH55 wrote:Do you have any examples of when mankind was ever in control of weather events? And again you've introduced the word "control", I'm refuting your wild assertion we have no influence. I can't think of any clear cut examples like a volcanic eruption. However as we are responsible for a dramatic effect on vegetation either being planted or removed you must also believe that the presence or absence of plants has no influence on weather. Is that so? What about additional CO2 causing more plant growth? You abandon that belief here out of convenience? HarveyH55 wrote:There are dozens of natural sources of crap being added to the atmosphere, all the time. It's not the huge influence of your wet-dreams. So again, volcanoes, you just dismiss that? "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
04-07-2021 04:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	tgoebbles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:Volcanoes aren't humans... Humans don't control volcanoes, or the weather. "control" ? Of course not, Right. You waffle with the completely unspecified word "influence" so that you aren't saying anything in particular. Naturally you won't say what you mean by "influence" because you don't mean anything. You have no idea what you even wish to ask so you vomit general wording that specifies nothing. Science specifies Cause -> Effect. Nature operates on Cause -> Effect. You won't specify: 1) about who/what you speak, 2) about what actions you speak are taken by those specified in 1) above 3) about what Effect(s) you speak Everything is totally unspecific. The problem is definitely on your end. tgoebbles wrote:Valcanoes are a useful example ... No they are not, for the same reason that scented candles are not useful examples. tgoebbles wrote:because there is a sudden and dramatic change to the atmosphere due to the eruption. "Sudden and dramatic" perhaps to li'l ol' you ... but to the earth and to the atmosphere it's a nothing-burger. Oh wait, are you talking about a limited local area smelling differently for a while, like when you light a scented candle? Yeah, smell/odor is not a parameter of weather. Otherwise volcanoes don't affect wind as far as anyone can tell and any thermal energy released from the earth's magmatic event is quickly radiated away without anyone outside the local area ever even noticing its brief existence. tgoebbles wrote to Harvey: Human's have had a gradual impact, Humans have never had any physical impact on the totally imaginary. There is no global Climate for any humans to impact. Zero is never referred to as "gradual." It must be referred to as "zero." tgoebbles wrote to Harvey:But you are the one saying it's IMPOSSSIBLE right? I'll say it ... by my definition of "influence" it is IMPOSSSIBLE (with three "S" for emphasis) for humans to "influence" the weather. Did you want to take a shot at actually specifying what you mean? tgoebbles wrote to Harvey: And again you've introduced the word "control", I'm refuting your wild assertion we have no influence. There's no difference between those two words that you have specified so either specify what you mean or stop sniveling. tgoebbles wrote to Harvey: However as we are responsible for a dramatic effect on vegetation either being planted or removed you must also believe that the presence or absence of plants has no influence on weather. Naturally plants do not control the weather either. Did you want to specify what you mean by "influence" or shall we just presume that you mean "control"? tgoebbles wrote to Harvey:What about additional CO2 causing more plant growth? Since plants do not control the weather, more of them will afford no more influence over the weather. tgoebbles wrote to Harvey: So again, volcanoes, you just dismiss that? Consider them dismissed ... long ago. Not everyone feels obligated to wait on you.
04-07-2021 04:24
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I subscribe to CDN a Canadian based show and one of the questions often posed is why is everything humans do is bad.New studies are showing how benificial the Carbon cycle is to everything that lives Fauna and flora.Why was it always better before?
04-07-2021 14:51
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Volcanoes aren't humans... Humans don't control volcanoes, or the weather. "control" ? Of course not, that's the literal point of the Climate Change debate, is that things are out of control. Do humans influence the weather? Do they? I'm asking you. Valcanoes are a useful example because there is a sudden and dramatic change to the atmosphere due to the eruption. Human's have had a gradual impact, whatever it is, so it's hard to separate out how we've influenced the weather. But you are the one saying it's IMPOSSSIBLE right? And you said "influence/change" not "control" in your earlier post. That's what I'm refuting. HarveyH55 wrote:Do you have any examples of when mankind was ever in control of weather events? And again you've introduced the word "control", I'm refuting your wild assertion we have no influence. I can't think of any clear cut examples like a volcanic eruption. However as we are responsible for a dramatic effect on vegetation either being planted or removed you must also believe that the presence or absence of plants has no influence on weather. Is that so? What about additional CO2 causing more plant growth? You abandon that belief here out of convenience? HarveyH55 wrote:There are dozens of natural sources of crap being added to the atmosphere, all the time. It's not the huge influence of your wet-dreams. So again, volcanoes, you just dismiss that? "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Influence implies control. You are speculating that man made CO2 controls weather. No way of knowing if it does, until we stop burning stuff. Even then, we won't know, because we can't control natural sources. We can't completely eliminate all CO2, or even a significant amount, because it's essential to life on the planet. Not to mention, it's still only a trace gas, in the vast volume of our atmosphere. It's an unprovable word game, since there is no way to do a controlled experiment, without killing off all life on this planet. If you hate living so much, you have options. Just leave the rest of us out of your choices. There is no proof we control, or even influence weather. Weather changes daily. It's silly to believe that something we, as a species, is going to still be relevant in a couple hundred years.
04-07-2021 15:06
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	duncan61 wrote: I subscribe to CDN a Canadian based show and one of the questions often posed is why is everything humans do is bad.New studies are showing how benificial the Carbon cycle is to everything that lives Fauna and flora.Why was it always better before? Liberals weren't as plentiful before... Liberals are control freaks. If they don't control something, it's bad. It's trending toward liberals controlling, our money, our health care. Which will give them pretty much complete control over our lives, if we wish to participate in civilization.
05-07-2021 14:45
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: I subscribe to CDN a Canadian based show and one of the questions often posed is why is everything humans do is bad.New studies are showing how benificial the Carbon cycle is to everything that lives Fauna and flora.Why was it always better before? http://www.gcesystems.com/what-are-hydrocarbons/
05-07-2021 17:29
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	http://www.gcesystems.com/what-are-hydrocarbons/ Well this is a complete work of fiction to support an agenda Only gulf coast enviromental systems can save us now
05-07-2021 19:28
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: http://www.gcesystems.com/what-are-hydrocarbons/ Well this is a complete work of fiction to support an agenda Only gulf coast enviromental systems can save us now Can you please learn to spell environmental please? You might sound more credible that way. p.s., with hydrocarbons, both the halogen (this is ozone in the troposphere, not good; Both OH and reactive halogen photo-oxidation chemistry mechanisms are tied to ozone abundance . and photo-oxidation explain how hydrocarbons change into other molecules. It does not explain what I am pursuing. What I wonder is if hydrocarbons in the emission of power plants can be captured and used in something that would give them commercial value. That's kind of how IMHO science and economics should work together. Edited on 05-07-2021 19:44
05-07-2021 21:23
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: Influence implies control. You are speculating that man made CO2 controls weather.... So does the neighbors pack of 6 dogs control you lawn? The dogs come and crap all over it, killing the grass, do they control the grass? I suppose in that they are able to destroy the grass as a fairly thoughtless side effect of their behavior that is a type of control. So yes humans can influence their environment by destroying it. This is nothing new and is well established in human history. It's also not exclusive to the human species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom If you are saying that the Climate Debate is pointless because humans cannot have an impact, influence or effect on the climate I would agree that, if that is true, it is pointless. But that is the entire subject matter of this forum. You have already contradicted that premise though as you are the one who discovered the very fascinating fact that the increase in CO2 has resulted in more plant growth. Unless you don't think we caused the increase in CO2 that is. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
05-07-2021 21:23
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: Influence implies control. You are speculating that man made CO2 controls weather.... So does the neighbors pack of 6 dogs control you lawn? The dogs come and crap all over it, killing the grass, do they control the grass? I suppose in that they are able to destroy the grass as a fairly thoughtless side effect of their behavior that is a type of control. So yes humans can influence their environment by destroying it. This is nothing new and is well established in human history. It's also not exclusive to the human species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom If you are saying that the Climate Debate is pointless because humans cannot have an impact, influence or effect on the climate I would agree that, if that is true, it is pointless. But that is the entire subject matter of this forum. You have already contradicted that premise though as you are the one who discovered the very fascinating fact that the increase in CO2 has resulted in more plant growth. Unless you don't think we caused the increase in CO2 that is. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
05-07-2021 22:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	tgoebbles wrote to Harvey:So does the neighbors pack of 6 dogs control you lawn? They absolutely influence the lawn through the actions they totally control. tgoebbles wrote to Harvey:The dogs come and crap all over it ... Thank you for making Harvey's point with determined alacrity. The dogs' influence implies control. In this case, they totally control the crapping. tgoebbles wrote to Harvey: So yes humans can influence their environment by destroying it. You just shifted goalposts. You are supposedly in the process of showing that humans can, in fact, destroy some totally undefined thing you call the global "Climate." Whenever it comes time for you to supposedly show what you are supposed to show, you make a lame goalpost shift like you just did here and hope no one notices. Crap, I noticed. Just write "Harvey, you are entirely correct and I should never have implied otherwise." tgoebbles wrote to Harvey: This is nothing new and is well established in human history. Nope. You need to show this. You don't get to just say "This is what we know." tgoebbles wrote to Harvey:If you are saying that the Climate Debate is pointless because humans cannot have an impact, influence or effect on the climate I would agree that, if that is true, it is pointless. ... and you know that you won't unambiguously define this global "Climate" of which you speak ... so if we follow the logic then we see that no group of persons can affect the undefined ... and that you agree that continuing to try to discuss/debate this undefined buzzword is pointless. Thank you. You are on a roll. tgoebbles wrote to Harvey:But that is the entire subject matter of this forum. Where did you read that this forum somehow prohibits posters from unambiguously defining their terms? tgoebbles wrote to Harvey: You have already contradicted that premise though as you are the one who discovered the very fascinating fact that the increase in CO2 has resulted in more plant growth. Too funny! tgoebbles doesn't even know the difference between plants and Climate. He must have something stuck way up his nose.
06-07-2021 09:08
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Influence implies control. You are speculating that man made CO2 controls weather.... So does the neighbors pack of 6 dogs control you lawn? The dogs come and crap all over it, killing the grass, do they control the grass? I suppose in that they are able to destroy the grass as a fairly thoughtless side effect of their behavior that is a type of control. So yes humans can influence their environment by destroying it. This is nothing new and is well established in human history. It's also not exclusive to the human species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom If you are saying that the Climate Debate is pointless because humans cannot have an impact, influence or effect on the climate I would agree that, if that is true, it is pointless. But that is the entire subject matter of this forum. You have already contradicted that premise though as you are the one who discovered the very fascinating fact that the increase in CO2 has resulted in more plant growth. Unless you don't think we caused the increase in CO2 that is. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN I don't know what you feed your dogs... My dogs, did a lot of crapping in the backyard, and didn't kill the grass... CO2 is just one thing plants need. More CO2 would be a good thing. Plants need sunlight, water, and nutrients from the soil to grow. I'm not so narrow-focused, to believe plant growth, is solely am indicator of CO2 levels... Then again, I'm not marketing socialist agenda either. How did climatologists isolate man-made, from natural? How do you know anything is abnormal, and needs fixing? This is our first inter-glacial. We have no data to support. There is very little actual direct measurements, over too few years, to mark 100 year trends. The data available, also carries a huge margin of error, making it basically worthless, other than for marketing purposes. Very little scientific value. Poorly done science, doesn't make it so...

06-07-2021 10:08
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote:...How do you know anything is abnormal, and needs fixing? This is our first inter-glacial. We have no data to support.... Ah yes the old denier standby "Nothing can be known!". So how do we know anything is abnormal? It's called science. We use research, statistics, peer reviewed methodology. You know what we don't use though? Joe Sixpack, you or me. I realize I'm only an interested civilian in this field. However I don't just take it on faith that the "experts" are incredibly good at what they do. I judge the field by it's accomplishments and they are not all equally authoritative. Planetary/Atmospheric/Climate science?: We've literally visited most of the planets in our solar system, physically landed humans on the moon, that is amazing (still blows my mind). They are clearly extremely capable and competent. Astrology on the other hand?: A bunch or morons, incapable of predicting anything. See how that works? Judge them by their accomplishments. Just look up at the airplane flying through our atmosphere and you'll know that yes indeed we can know quite a bit in the field because the science and technology is incredible. But you're subscribing to the GRAND CONSPIRACY where the data is falsified due to some nefarious agenda of the super powerful. But here is where that breaks down: Most of the science we discuss here predates "Global Warming" and certainly "Anthropogenic Global Warming" as an issue by tens or hundred of years. Fourier, Tyndall, the Venera team in Russia, did not have the faintest clue that "GLOBAL WARMING" was ever going to be an issue. So you're left with a conspiracy that has no motive. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
06-07-2021 15:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395)	tmiddles wrote:Ah yes the old denier standby "Nothing can be known!". Ah yes, the tgoebbles delusion "I am omniscient. Of course it's 'What we know.'" tmiddles wrote:So how do we know anything is abnormal? It's called science. You need to provide that science then. Oh wait, you are a scientifically illiterate moron. You wouldn't know science if you spent the weekend together. This is all just part of your omniscience delusion. tmiddles wrote: We use research, statistics, peer reviewed methodology. None of this is science. Again, it would be a huge mistake to presume you know what you are talking about. tmiddles wrote:However I don't just take it on faith that the "experts" are incredibly good at what they do. Yes you do. Your WACKY religion is based entirely on unquestioned faith. In fact, your faith determines who is an "expert" and who you believe without question ... even when the topic is science whereby no human's opinion is supposed to matter. You are only posting on this site to preach this WACKY religion of yours. You aren't interested in learning anything. tmiddles wrote: We've literally visited most of the planets in our solar system, No human has visited any other planet. By the way, I saw what you did there. You used the Marxist form of "we" to include yourself in the "literally" having visited most other planets in our solar system, i.e., wording to lend credence to your implications of omniscience. You like to imagine that you have literally visited the other planets and thus have first-hand experience, to include intimate knowledge of the temperatures there ... making anything you wish to fabricate about any planet "What we know." tmiddles wrote:They are clearly extremely capable and competent. Who are "they" and why does it matter that there have existed teams of competent engineers? How does that somehow make you any more knowledgeable? tmiddles wrote:Astrology on the other hand?: A bunch or morons, incapable of predicting anything. So you finally accepted your rightful place in this conversation. tmiddles wrote:Just look up at the airplane flying through our atmosphere and you'll know that yes indeed we can know quite a bit in the field because the science and technology is incredible. Just look up at the airplane flying through our atmosphere and you'll realize that you don't know any of the science required to make that happen. You will also realize that you don't know what is known and what is not known, and that other people knowing a great deal does not somehow make you omniscient. tmiddles wrote:But you're subscribing to the GRAND CONSPIRACY where the data is falsified due to some nefarious agenda of the super powerful. Naturally you equate recognizing your fabrication of "data" all the live-long day in your delusion of omniscience with being a "conspiracy theorist." All the brainless morons of the internet think along those lines ... with you seemingly being their leader. tmiddles wrote: But here is where that breaks down: Most of the science we discuss here predates "Global Warming" and certainly "Anthropogenic Global Warming" as an issue by tens or hundred of years. Global Warming has never been an issue. It is a WACKY religion that recruits new members based on their lack of education and exaggerated feelings of inadequacy, i.e. total losers. . Attached image: Edited on 06-07-2021 15:46
06-07-2021 17:43
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Einstein3767 wrote:...The climate is changing ...They try to blame it [on] our pollution... If there is human caused climate change (highly likely) it is a very interesting question what would be happening without us on the planet. That does not though mean it doesn't matter. I think you may be making a fair criticism of the news cycle on Global Warming but not of the scientists studying it. Einstein3767 wrote:...The most recent glaciation...18,000 years ago... Probably accurate and the estimate that it was just about 7 degrees C cooler is also probably accurate link So you can see that you're own premise is satisfied by a provable AGW theory. If the temperature of Earth were to increase a full 2 degrees C in 100 years that would be "freaky" right? link "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Welcome back!!! Define "climate change". Define "global warming".
06-07-2021 18:21
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	James___ wrote: And if Trump is charged, With what crime?? James___ wrote: he is the grandson of an illegal immigrant. Sounds to me like he is owed reparations then... James___ wrote: What is his position on illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants like 2 out of 3 of his wives? Irrelevant. If Trump is a descendant of an illegal immigrant, then he is owed reparations, as are all black people. They are oppressed groups who need to be elevated, you see. They deserve reparations because of how poorly the "evil white man" has treated them in the past. Of course, black illegal immigrants are owed double reparations. Of course, I (as a biological white male whose lineage legally immigrated to the USA from Germany) identify as a black illegal immigrant, therefore I am likewise owed double reparations. Ain't libtard "logic" grand?? James___ wrote: To be clear, Trump's family history is based on illegal immigration starting with his grandfather. Splendid! Trump is then owed reparations, as he belongs to a lineage that illegally immigrated here. Trump is an oppressed individual who needs to be "lifted up" from the oppression of the "white man". James___ wrote: What makes America great? I think what you meant to ask was "what MADE the USA great?" (the USA does not exist anymore, as the SODC does not recognize the Constitution). The USA was great because the USA was founded as a federated republic that was governed under rule of law rather than rule of man (IOW, a single dictator, a group of dictators, a majority of citizens, etc). The USA also embraced capitalism and recognized the freedoms/liberties of its individual citizens. This allowed for an industrial revolution to take place, and the USA quickly became the greatest nation on Earth. Now, the USA is no more because Demonkkkrats have attempted a (so far successful) coup of it and have replaced Washington DC with a socialist oligarchy (the SODC). While they have installed Joe Biden as the "face of the SODC", Joe Biden can't even remember who or where he is half the time, so the not-formally-recognized fourth branch of government (the Intelligence Community) runs everything instead. The other three formally-recognized branches of government are only kept as a formality to provide for the illusion of "checks and balances" which no longer actually exist. Now, it is up to individual States (and the individual counties and localities within those States) to choose sides. Florida is choosing freedom. Who will stand with Florida? Only time will tell. James___ wrote: Illegal immigration and not legal immigrants like my father. Illegal immigration helped bring the USA to non-existence (and is bringing various types of ruin to the individual States, such as Texas). Edited on 06-07-2021 18:30
06-07-2021 18:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	tmiddles wrote: Einstein3767 wrote:...The climate is changing ...They try to blame it [on] our pollution... If there is human caused climate change (highly likely) Define 'climate change'. The only highly likely thing about this meaningless buzzword is that you will probably use it again real soon. tmiddles wrote: it is a very interesting question what would be happening without us on the planet. That does not though mean it doesn't matter. I think you may be making a fair criticism of the news cycle on Global Warming but not of the scientists studying it. Define 'global warming'. tmiddles wrote: So you can see that you're own premise is satisfied by a provable AGW theory. Define 'global warming'. It is not possible to have a theory using an undefined word in it. tmiddles wrote: If the temperature of Earth were to increase a full 2 degrees C in 100 years that would be "freaky" right? The temperature of Earth is unknown. Making up random examples is meaningless. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-07-2021 18:46
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	I don't know about the rest of the world, but I have better things to waste time on, than watch some fool beating a dead, putrefied horse. I remember going through all this crap a few times in the past. Twiddles can reminisce, by just reading through past threads, which he probably did..
06-07-2021 18:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:...We've never been able to influence/change the weather....We have many well documented extreme weather events.... That is a sweeping and unfounded belief you have their Harvey. To say something is impossible is quite a conclusion to draw. If something is impossible, it's impossible. What conclusion are you talking about? Define 'extreme weather'. You keep using meaningless buzzwords. tmiddles wrote: Human's have, according to you, NEVER influenced the weather. Weather is not climate. Weather is not temperature. tmiddles wrote: How about Volcanoes? What about 'em? They are not weather. tmiddles wrote: Would you disagree that volcanic eruptions have influenced the weather, changed the temperature more specifically? The temperature of Earth is unknown. Volcanoes make no difference to the temperature of Earth. tmiddles wrote: "....eruptions ...brought a bitterly cold "year without summer" to the Northeastern United States, as snow and frost ruined crops as late as June. ..." Weather changes. So? tmiddles wrote: So a "year without a summer" sure sounds like a change in the weather to me. Weather changes. So? tmiddles wrote: Due to a volcanic eruption, which is essentially putting debri into the air. Yet it is "impossible"? for humans to have any impact on the weather at all? Really? Weather changes. So? tmiddles wrote: Of course Volcanoes have changed the weather (not disputed by anyone) Weather changes. So? tmiddles wrote: and putting things into the air can and will influence the weather. Weather changes. So? tmiddles wrote: Change the composition of any planets atmosphere would change the weather there. No. Weather changes anyway. So? tmiddles wrote: This was accepted long before climate change was a hot issue so I'd be very curious to know how you think there is a conspiracy afoot if that is what you believe. Define 'climate change'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-07-2021 18:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Volcanoes aren't humans... Humans don't control volcanoes, or the weather. "control" ? Of course not, that's the literal point of the Climate Change debate, is that things are out of control. Do humans influence the weather? Do they? I'm asking you. Non one controls the weather. There is no 'Government Weather Control Station' either. tmiddles wrote: Valcanoes are a useful example because there is a sudden and dramatic change to the atmosphere due to the eruption. Human's have had a gradual impact, whatever it is, so it's hard to separate out how we've influenced the weather. Weather changes. So? tmiddles wrote: But you are the one saying it's IMPOSSSIBLE right? And you said "influence/change" not "control" in your earlier post. That's what I'm refuting. No one controls the weather. The weather changes. So? tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:Do you have any examples of when mankind was ever in control of weather events? And again you've introduced the word "control", I'm refuting your wild assertion we have no influence. The weather changes. So? tmiddles wrote: I can't think of any clear cut examples like a volcanic eruption. However as we are responsible for a dramatic effect on vegetation either being planted or removed you must also believe that the presence or absence of plants has no influence on weather. Is that so? What about additional CO2 causing more plant growth? You abandon that belief here out of convenience? The weather changes. So? tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:There are dozens of natural sources of crap being added to the atmosphere, all the time. It's not the huge influence of your wet-dreams. So again, volcanoes, you just dismiss that? Volcanoes are not weather. The weather changes. So? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-07-2021 18:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Influence implies control. You are speculating that man made CO2 controls weather.... So does the neighbors pack of 6 dogs control you lawn? The dogs come and crap all over it, killing the grass, do they control the grass? I suppose in that they are able to destroy the grass as a fairly thoughtless side effect of their behavior that is a type of control. So yes humans can influence their environment by destroying it. This is nothing new and is well established in human history. It's also not exclusive to the human species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom If you are saying that the Climate Debate is pointless because humans cannot have an impact, influence or effect on the climate I would agree that, if that is true, it is pointless. But that is the entire subject matter of this forum. You have already contradicted that premise though as you are the one who discovered the very fascinating fact that the increase in CO2 has resulted in more plant growth. Unless you don't think we caused the increase in CO2 that is. Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. The presence or absence of plants does not change the temperature of Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-07-2021 19:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:...How do you know anything is abnormal, and needs fixing? This is our first inter-glacial. We have no data to support.... Ah yes the old denier standby "Nothing can be known!". Compositional error fallacy. No one has ever said that. Lie. tmiddles wrote: So how do we know anything is abnormal? It's called science. Science isn't data. tmiddles wrote: We use research, statistics, peer reviewed methodology. Science isn't research. Science isn't math. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science isn't a 'method' or 'procedure'. Science has no method. tmiddles wrote: You know what we don't use though? Joe Sixpack, you or me. I realize I'm only an interested civilian in this field. Anyone can create a theory of science. Any one can falsify a theory of science. Even Joe Sixpack can do so. tmiddles wrote: However I don't just take it on faith that the "experts" are incredibly good at what they do. Expert worship. tmiddles wrote: I judge the field by it's accomplishments and they are not all equally authoritative. The ONLY authoritative source of any theory of science is the theory itself. A theory is not an 'accomplishment'. It is a theory. Nothing more. tmiddles wrote: Planetary/Atmospheric/Climate science? Define 'climate science'. tmiddles wrote: We've literally visited most of the planets in our solar system, physically landed humans on the moon, that is amazing (still blows my mind). They are clearly extremely capable and competent. So? tmiddles wrote: Astrology on the other hand?: A bunch or morons, incapable of predicting anything. So? tmiddles wrote: See how that works? Judge them by their accomplishments. Just look up at the airplane flying through our atmosphere and you'll know that yes indeed we can know quite a bit in the field because the science and technology is incredible. Airplanes don't fly because of science. They fly because of engineering. Engineering is not science. Science is not engineering. tmiddles wrote: But you're subscribing to the GRAND CONSPIRACY where the data is falsified due to some nefarious agenda of the super powerful. There is no data on the temperature of any planet, including Earth. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate Climate Change really: