Bombshell: Global Warming Is NOT Caused by Man
Jul 14, 2019 08:15:08 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
I think everyone who doesn't believe in the rise of temperatures should be banned from using their air conditioners and live on limited water supply, put yourself in other's shoes for a while.
Jul 14, 2019 08:40:58 #
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Your chart literally has nothing to do with anything we're talking about today. And the Oooops is on you as it was the right who wanted to change the phrase to climate change to better fight the argument of Global warming and you guys bought it, and now use it as their working tools, shown here with your chart. Good job.
OK, Bozocuda...
"It was during the 1970s that the term “global warming” was coined. Specifically, the term has its roots in the year 1975, when Columbia University Professor Wally Broecker published a paper called "Climate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming" in Science magazine. That is correct, he did actually use the words “climate change” all the way back in 1975. The term “climate change” was not a later invention by those seeking to broaden the definition of the effects of global warming."
Jul 14, 2019 08:47:12 #
Michael Rich
Loc: Lapine Oregon
Barracuda2020 wrote:
I think everyone who doesn't believe in the rise of temperatures should be banned from using their air conditioners and live on limited water supply, put yourself in other's shoes for a while.
You Antifa supporters are all the same, you get mad and think forcing people to submit to your insanity will work.
I think that your oppression should be eliminated.
Jul 14, 2019 10:35:42 #
Ferrous wrote:
OK, Bozocuda... br br "It was during the 197... (show quote)
OK, Erroneous...we're not being so anal to be trying to pinpoint the exact time and place it was first articulated. I recall the manipulation the right took in their efforts to discredit global warming with the climate change hyperbole. They still use it as their go-to tool.
Jul 14, 2019 10:42:17 #
byronglimish wrote:
You Antifa supporters are all the same, you get mad and think forcing people to submit to your insanity will work.
I think that your oppression should be eliminated.
I think that your oppression should be eliminated.
Talking through your hat, I've never mentioned Antifa or whether or not I supported it and you have no idea what I get mad over as I've never gotten mad on here, a simple blog/forum. I also never force anything on here, what a ludicrous statement, it's an online forum, no can force anything on anyone, and you call me insane, funny coming from you.
My oppression? And what would that be?
Jul 14, 2019 10:52:17 #
Michael Rich
Loc: Lapine Oregon
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Talking through your hat, I've never mentioned Antifa or whether or not I supported it and you have no idea what I get mad over as I've never gotten mad on here, a simple blog/forum. I also never force anything on here, what a ludicrous statement, it's an online forum, no can force anything on anyone, and you call me insane, funny coming from you.
My oppression? And what would that be?
My oppression? And what would that be?
Guaranteed, you support Antifa...your type has already proven that.
You want to take away thinking people's air conditioning because they won't buy into the carnival barking climate story...thats what you said.
Jul 14, 2019 11:23:49 #
byronglimish wrote:
Guaranteed, you support Antifa...your type has already proven that.
You want to take away thinking people's air conditioning because they won't buy into the carnival barking climate story...thats what you said.
You want to take away thinking people's air conditioning because they won't buy into the carnival barking climate story...thats what you said.
I said they should do without it so they could realize what others live through without it, this has nothing to do with Antifa, and your guarantee is only in your head. I find people's dispositions drastically changes when they have different experiences. I wasn't going to take anything away, that's delusional once again. The right always seems to have a hard time grasping reality. Just as their inability to grasp what we do to the environment. You can go bury your head once again, I won't disturb you.
Jul 14, 2019 11:35:44 #
Michael Rich
Loc: Lapine Oregon
Barracuda2020 wrote:
I said they should do without it so they could rea... (show quote)
Thank you, but you don't bug me, it's called arguing points of perception.
Jul 14, 2019 12:56:57 #
Parky60 wrote:
b Bombshell: Global Warming Is NOT Caused by Man ... (show quote)
Two other bombshells that make the lefties and "Green New Deal Idiots" grind their teeth, some things they just can't accept.
1) Automobiles and internal combustion engines don't emit CO2. They emit carbon, CO1 (carbon monoxide) and SO2 (sulphur dioxide) The left can't accept this.
2) Even the original climate change scientists (back in 1973 to 1979) admitted the statistics were flawed as the input data was only about 90 years old. They admitted later in 2005 that there was no way that the data could be verified with only a small window of time. To verify the REAL climate change scenario would require thousands of years of input data, which they DID NOT have. The left can't accept this.
Jul 14, 2019 13:16:05 #
Parky60 wrote:
b Bombshell: Global Warming Is NOT Caused by Man ... (show quote)
Are you kidding me?!?!? Do you realize what those scientists have just done?
It's the equivalent of them entering the temple of global warming, oops, I mean the temple of climate change, and overthrowing the tables of all the money changers (and money collectors).
It's heresy! Blasphemy! And unforgivable!
Do these scientists realize just how many people will be put out of their crucial work of saving the planet?
These scientists should suffer the same fate as the last person who entered the temple and overthrew the tables of the money changers.
Maybe they will, if even figuratively.
Jul 14, 2019 14:10:54 #
Iamdjchrys wrote:
And yet more scientists agree that humans have contributed greatly to global warming. Go figure.
Have you ever looked up who is on the consensus list? The majority of scientists in consensus are NOT climatologists. Then there are school teachers, nurses aides, even school cafeteria workers to pad the numbers.
Jul 14, 2019 14:30:58 #
lpnmajor wrote:
Here's a bombshell for you..................what *$%%# difference does it make? If your house is on fire, do you try to put the fire out, or argue with your neighbors about how the fire started?
If there is a flood do you bring firefighting equipment because it is being called a fire? Not to mention, how to deal with something is dependent on the cause. Is the flood in your house due to a plumbing fault or the river overflowing its banks. Trying to control it with the tools for the wrong cause will be useless.
Evidence from tree rings, ice cores, and records; indicate the Earth has been on an increasing warming trend since the Maunder Minimum (before the industrial revolution) with a few unpredictable upward or downward spikes which can be associated with natural disasters such as a volcanic eruption.
Since 2012 the Earth has ceased warming globally and has begun a cooling trend. There have been fewer and fewer record highs since 2012 with this year having only record highs in 2 countries--France and Greece. The polar caps have begun increasing, despite the continuing and even accelerating CO2 emissions; with the exception of Greenland and its environs which has recently be traced to plate hot spot activity.
Jul 14, 2019 14:58:04 #
RT friend wrote:
Another term used for the Holocene Epoch is, Antro... (show quote)
You like to cite long debunked science hypotheses.
1) While there is evidence humans hunted megafauna, there is no evidence human hunting caused their extinction. The severe reduction in numbers or even extinction, coincided with the ending of the last ice age. The animals who went extinct are the very ones who were most specialized to their ice age environment.
2) The Indians coming to the Americas by crossing the land bridge hypothesis ran into some big problems. The first was the hypothesis that they crossed the land bridge then migrated to the lands south of those covered by glaciers by traveling in an open area between two large ice sheets. It turned out there was only a single ice sheet and no land available except for a portion of what is now Alaska. The second is more and more human sites have been discovered far predating the time the land bridge could have been exposed. So humans were here long before the time frame that hypothesis outlines.
3) Now how can seeds propagating naturally vs by humans planting them and caring for them, make a difference in global climate? Since the ice age was over and the earth warming at the time cultivation is thought to have begun, isn't it more likely that climate warming led to cultivation instead of the other way around?
And what ever is a systematic climate geographical ritual?
Now as for NASA, more and more of the science studies they fund have had the opposite results than predicted by the narrative of anthropocentric climate change. But their PR writers (not the scientists involved in the studies) wind up writing explanations to attempt to account for this to fit the narrative no matter how convoluted, instead of taking the zebra approach. "When you hear hoofbeats, look for horses not zebras"
Jul 14, 2019 15:40:41 #
Parky60 wrote:
b Bombshell: Global Warming Is NOT Caused by Man ... (show quote)
DENIER!! DENIER!! PANTS ON FIRE !!! Like! All you right wing denier persons using actual un-manipulated Scientific Data to prove your point and who think you are SOOOOOOO! SMART!!! It has since been found out by 173.8% of ...Like! Climate Scientists.....That...TAH! DAH! WOMEN CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING .....You Betcha !!! OOOPS! I slipped into my Sarah Palin persona....I meant PFHHHHT!!!
Jul 14, 2019 15:52:33 #
RT friend wrote:
A great post, i have heard about a bit of what yo... (show quote)
How can anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with reality think the orbital and axial changes of the earth can be affected by CO2. The Mailankovitch cycles are an explanation of how those changes affect climate. But CO2 cannot change the eccentricity nor axial tilt of the earth!!!! This is as bad as when someone argued with me that CO2 caused sunspot activity. And no; CO2 does not cause volcanic eruptions or earthquakes either.
No matter how much CO2 in our atmosphere, the orbital cycles and axial tilt cycles will not be altered by it.
And after reading the report on the NASA Venus climate model, one glaring omission pops out immediately. Venus' atmosphere is very high in sulfur. The cloud cover is made up mostly of H2So4. The model does not take that into account or explain it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.