One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Texas
Page <<first <prev 14 of 21 next> last>>
Feb 23, 2021 10:06:43   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Oh, I get it. Your contention is that the planet has had all the CO2 build up, g****l w*****g, greenhouse gases, etc, that it can tolerate without triggering a catastrophic cascade failure of critical parts of the biosphere. Thus the lame metaphor about a bucket filled with water.
But you have no proof and very little evidence. And what you DO have is based on mountains of assumptions, as I explained in earlier posts.
So your contention that it is 100% accurate is an unsupported opinion on your part, and admittedly on the part of millions of others. That does not make it true. In fact, all it proves is the socialogical theory that if you repeat lies often enough and long enough, in this case more than forty years, uneducated and even many educated people will accept it as fact. However, if it can't be proven mathematically, then it is opinion and not science. And it is not logical for me to have to disprove your beliefs. If you want me, or anyone with common sense, to accept your contentions and theories, then provide credible evidence. And lots of it, if you want to convince us to abandon our lives and culture and remodel them as you claim we must.
Oh, I get it. Your contention is that the planet ... (show quote)




some more facts for you to refuse to believe..


https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-c*****e-c****e



The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).
Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).
Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).
Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning f****l f**ls (research beginning in the 1950s).
Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).
Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).
Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).
Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).
Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).

Reply
Feb 23, 2021 10:23:10   #
fullspinzoo
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Yes, and can you tell me what creatures were on the planet at that time. Do you know that dinosaurs would not be able to live in our environment as the environment was almost opposite of what it is today. So that means that even if we were to warm up, it is till not the same conditions as 65 million years ago. Now grasping that time line I think you would have to agree that we humans have changed the climate of the planet in record timing comparing to the earths natural process, not taking into consideration a meteor or some other cataclysmic event, I mean it's only been about a short hundred years, and this during the earths cooling trend.

Climatic Cooling from 60 million years ago to present day
Between 52 and 57 million years ago, the Earth was relatively warm. Tropical conditions actually extended all the way into the mid-latitudes (around northern Spain or the central United States for example), polar regions experienced temperate climates, and the difference in temperature between the equator and pole was much smaller than it is today. Indeed it was so warm that trees grew in both the Arctic and Antarctic, and alligators lived in Ellesmere Island at 78 degrees North.

But this warm period, called the Eocene, was followed by a long cooling trend. Between 52 and 36 million years ago, ice caps developed in East Antarctica, reaching down to sea level in some places. Close to Antarctica, the temperature of the water near the surface dropped to between 5 and 8 degrees Celsius. Between 36 and 20 million years ago the Earth experienced the first of three major cooling steps. At this time a continental-scale temperate ice sheet emerged in East Antarctica. Meanwhile, in North America, the mean annual air temperature dropped by approximately 12 degrees Celsius.

We are still in the midst of the third major cooling period that began around 3 million years ago.
Between 20 and 16 million years ago, there was a brief respite from the big chill, but this was followed by a second major cooling period so intense that by 7 million years ago southeastern Greenland was completely covered with glaciers, and by 5-6 million years ago, the glaciers were creeping into Scandinavia and the northern Pacific region. The Earth was once more released from the grip of the big chill between 5 and 3 million years ago, when the sea was much warmer around North America and the Antarctic than it is today. Warm-weather plants grew in Northern Europe where today they cannot survive, and trees grew in Iceland, Greenland, and Canada as far north as 82 degrees North.

{We are still in the midst of the third major cooling period that began around 3 million years ago, and its effect can be seen around the world, perhaps even in the development of our own species. Around 2 and a half million years ago, tundra-like conditions took over north-central Europe. Soon thereafter, the once-humid environment of Central China was replaced by harsh continental steppe. And in sub-Saharan Africa, arid and open grasslands expanded, replacing more wooded, wetter environments. Many paleontologists believe that this environmental change is linked to the evolution of humankind.}
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/cause-ice-age/
Yes, and can you tell me what creatures were on th... (show quote)


Waste of time reading your BS.

Reply
Feb 23, 2021 11:02:33   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
permafrost wrote:
some more facts for you to refuse to believe..


https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-c*****e-c****e



The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).
Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).
Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).
Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning f****l f**ls (research beginning in the 1950s).
Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).
Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).
Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).
Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).
Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).
some more facts for you to refuse to believe.. br ... (show quote)


i can't dispute any of the above. All important components in tracking and understanding what is going on in the earth's biosphere. The logical problem is with the conclusions that are being prematurely made from the data by the left, who want to base political decisions on them. And the fact that a LOT is based on the assumptions mentioned previously. One example: there is no scientific evidence that verifies that rising CO2 levels in prehistory caused warming, or if the CO2 increases were the RESULT of the warming. Opinions do not count. The 'science' of man made global c*****e c****e is literally FILLED with such unproven, unverified assumptions. Statistically, many or most of these assumptions will eventually be proven wrong.
So again, prove your case. You can not. All you can do is impotently call anyone who questions your conclusions 'science deniers', or uneducated, or unsophisticated, or many other derogatory names.
I practice recycling, even though my location does not require it. I walk where I can. I have been an active conservationist for over 50 years. I have studied science for the even longer. I have participated in activities to protect clean water, wetlands, and fight industrial pollution. I believe in such activities. But I will not condone the destruction of our culture and freedoms WITHOUT the evidence your side can provide ONLY with asinine presumptions and 'guesstimates'.

Reply
 
 
Feb 23, 2021 13:25:05   #
ChJoe
 
permafrost wrote:
some more facts for you to refuse to believe..


https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-c*****e-c****e



The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

Simple chemistry – When we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s).
Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s).
Measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find they are increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in nearly a million years (measurements beginning in the 1950s).
Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning f****l f**ls (research beginning in the 1950s).
Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s).
Monitoring climate conditions to find that the air, sea and land is warming, as we would expect with rising greenhouse gas emissions; as a response, ice is melting and sea level is rising (research beginning in the 1930s).
Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s).
Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in the 1960s).
Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s).
some more facts for you to refuse to believe.. br ... (show quote)


It is easy to be fooled by those who gather things like this to promote their beliefs. It was once thought that high cholesterol caused heart disease. Many, many still do but they are incorrect. Many lives have been hurt by the use of statin drugs to reduce cholesterol.

The ice cores clearly show how CO2 levels were subsequent to climate warming, not preceding it.

Reply
Feb 23, 2021 14:56:52   #
Cuda2020
 
America 1 wrote:
My point is the sky is not falling, as you seem to believe.
Not really concerned about what you're talking about "right now".
There has been no major changes during the Trump administration other than U.S. Emissions Dropped in 2019.


US emissions dropped from regulations that had already been in place, with the environmental conditions there is a lag time, Trump's dismantling of regulations has already begun to show its negative effects.

Tell me what is the problem with you and your ilk, I thought conservatives were all about accountability, so where is it now with corporations wasting, spilling and spewing toxic waste. Why don't you want a beautiful clean earth? Is it not true that we are the stewards of the earth, we're not doing a bang up job are we. Though that can change with the right attitude, so like I said what's your problem? Does it have to come from your party for you to care enough for the next generations?

Reply
Feb 23, 2021 14:59:54   #
Cuda2020
 
fullspinzoo wrote:
Waste of time reading your BS.


Feel better posting that now do ya? Like you ever have anything good to say. If that's how you feel don't read them, that's what I do with yours.

Reply
Feb 23, 2021 15:19:33   #
Cuda2020
 
RandyBrian wrote:
i can't dispute any of the above. All important components in tracking and understanding what is going on in the earth's biosphere. The logical problem is with the conclusions that are being prematurely made from the data by the left, who want to base political decisions on them. And the fact that a LOT is based on the assumptions mentioned previously. One example: there is no scientific evidence that verifies that rising CO2 levels in prehistory caused warming, or if the CO2 increases were the RESULT of the warming. Opinions do not count. The 'science' of man made global c*****e c****e is literally FILLED with such unproven, unverified assumptions. Statistically, many or most of these assumptions will eventually be proven wrong.
So again, prove your case. You can not. All you can do is impotently call anyone who questions your conclusions 'science deniers', or uneducated, or unsophisticated, or many other derogatory names.
I practice recycling, even though my location does not require it. I walk where I can. I have been an active conservationist for over 50 years. I have studied science for the even longer. I have participated in activities to protect clean water, wetlands, and fight industrial pollution. I believe in such activities. But I will not condone the destruction of our culture and freedoms WITHOUT the evidence your side can provide ONLY with asinine presumptions and 'guesstimates'.
i can't dispute any of the above. All important c... (show quote)


I see, so you're simply a denier of scientific facts.

"One example: there is no scientific evidence that verifies that rising CO2 levels in prehistory caused warming, or if the CO2 increases were the RESULT of the warming."

Oh contraire, where do you get off with such an absurd statement. NASA would disagree with you.


"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that g****l w*****g can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

You know NASA right, I believe they have some credibility, with their scientific research and facts they were able to land on mars.

They don't do things to satisfy political party agendas but to get the jobs done.

Reply
 
 
Feb 23, 2021 16:14:25   #
nwtk2007 Loc: Texas
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
I see, so you're simply a denier of scientific facts.

"One example: there is no scientific evidence that verifies that rising CO2 levels in prehistory caused warming, or if the CO2 increases were the RESULT of the warming."

Oh contraire, where do you get off with such an absurd statement. NASA would disagree with you.


"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that g****l w*****g can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

You know NASA right, I believe they have some credibility, with their scientific research and facts they were able to land on mars.

They don't do things to satisfy political party agendas but to get the jobs done.
I see, so you're simply a denier of scientific fac... (show quote)


I think you missed the age of Dino's when it was about 2000 ppm.

Reply
Feb 23, 2021 16:21:18   #
fullspinzoo
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Feel better posting that now do ya? Like you ever have anything good to say. If that's how you feel don't read them, that's what I do with yours.


Perfect

Reply
Feb 23, 2021 16:32:26   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
I see, so you're simply a denier of scientific facts.

"One example: there is no scientific evidence that verifies that rising CO2 levels in prehistory caused warming, or if the CO2 increases were the RESULT of the warming."

Oh contraire, where do you get off with such an absurd statement. NASA would disagree with you.


"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that g****l w*****g can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

You know NASA right, I believe they have some credibility, with their scientific research and facts they were able to land on mars.

They don't do things to satisfy political party agendas but to get the jobs done.
I see, so you're simply a denier of scientific fac... (show quote)


Oh dear heavens!
With that last line you show that you do NOT know a thing about NASA!
NASA has been infested with left wing politics since it's inception. True, it has done some amazing things. The vast majority of them produced by those mean nasty corporations under contract to produce the miracles, since NASA itself has always been too overly politically controlled. Dollar for dollar, and miracle for dollar, NASA has been the best investment that the human race has ever made. But their politics can not be trusted any more than a typical university. They are fully aware of how precariously their funding is balanced on their willingness to toe the political line.

Reply
Feb 23, 2021 16:44:46   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
I see, so you're simply a denier of scientific facts.

"One example: there is no scientific evidence that verifies that rising CO2 levels in prehistory caused warming, or if the CO2 increases were the RESULT of the warming."

Oh contraire, where do you get off with such an absurd statement. NASA would disagree with you.


"When carbon dioxide increases, more water vapor returns to the atmosphere. This is what helped to melt the glaciers that once covered New York City," said co-author David Rind, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "Today we are in uncharted territory as carbon dioxide approaches 390 parts per million in what has been referred to as the 'superinterglacial.'"

"The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that g****l w*****g can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

You know NASA right, I believe they have some credibility, with their scientific research and facts they were able to land on mars.

They don't do things to satisfy political party agendas but to get the jobs done.
I see, so you're simply a denier of scientific fac... (show quote)


Sorry, I was laughing so hard at your last line, I overlooked your first one.
To the contrary....I do not deny scientific facts. I simply haven't seen any yet. Just opinions based on those 'guesstimates' we have been discussing. When you have actual facts, I would enjoy seeing them.
Unfortunately for a reasoned discussion, as is typical, in your view there seems to be no difference between an opinion you agree with and a scientific fact.

Reply
 
 
Feb 23, 2021 18:36:10   #
America 1 Loc: South Miami
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
US emissions dropped from regulations that had already been in place, with the environmental conditions there is a lag time, Trump's dismantling of regulations has already begun to show its negative effects.

Tell me what is the problem with you and your ilk, I thought conservatives were all about accountability, so where is it now with corporations wasting, spilling and, spewing toxic waste. Why don't you want beautiful clean earth? Is it not true that we are the stewards of the earth, we're not doing a bang-up job are we. Though that can change with the right attitude, so like I said what's your problem? Does it have to come from your party for you to care enough for the next generations?
US emissions dropped from regulations that had alr... (show quote)


Doing a bang-up job flapping your lips.
And, stick your criticism where the sun doesn't shine.
Introduction to the Basic Drivers of Climate
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/introduction-to-the-basic-drivers-of-climate-13368032/

Reply
Feb 24, 2021 07:09:40   #
Cuda2020
 
nwtk2007 wrote:
I think you missed the age of Dino's when it was about 2000 ppm.


And you missed the fact they they lived breathing ina completely different balance of air.

Reply
Feb 24, 2021 07:20:26   #
Cuda2020
 
RandyBrian wrote:
Sorry, I was laughing so hard at your last line, I overlooked your first one.
To the contrary....I do not deny scientific facts. I simply haven't seen any yet. Just opinions based on those 'guesstimates' we have been discussing. When you have actual facts, I would enjoy seeing them.
Unfortunately for a reasoned discussion, as is typical, in your view there seems to be no difference between an opinion you agree with and a scientific fact.


Like I said a denier of facts, I'm not laughing at you, it's way to damn sad that people like you are out there saying you don't see the facts, of course you don't, how could you? Your eyes are closed, solely for the purpose to serve your own narrative, wh**ever that is? To allow industry to spew gases that hurt the environment, good job buddy, you're a puppet to industry.

Science, ONLY guesstimates, how ignorant can one be? Like Jefferson said, speaking with the *unreasonable* is as useful as administering medicine to the dead. Not word for word but you get the drift. You my friend have NO reasoning, just a denier. Good day.

Reply
Feb 24, 2021 07:21:57   #
Cuda2020
 
America 1 wrote:
Doing a bang-up job flapping your lips.
And, stick your criticism where the sun doesn't shine.
Introduction to the Basic Drivers of Climate
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/introduction-to-the-basic-drivers-of-climate-13368032/


Good Gawd, you're missing the rest of the equation. Go back to my link...NASA's link.

You're right, without the sun we don't have to worry about g****l w*****g C*****e c****e, um yeah, we'd be in a little trouble. But it's a fairly safe guess that the sun isn't going anywhere yet.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 14 of 21 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.