Humans CANNOT change the climate of a planet

[reason10]

39 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're NOT a climate scientist of whom I spoke, and certainly not worth paying for your OPINIONS.

Gore learned about GW theories from Roger Revelle PhD, and is NOT a climate scientist either.

So strike 2.

From your own post:

Quote

The fossil fuel industry pays "scientists" to say the things YOU post here.

Caught in another lie, huh?

 

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, reason10 said:

From your own post:

Caught in another lie, huh?

 

So you DIDN'T post what scientists say about GW?

IF that's the case, your posts have NO CREDIBILITY on CLIMATE.

[Rebound]

9 hours ago, reason10 said:

Here is the evidence.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2014/nov/25/climate-change-is-an-obvious-myth-how-much-more-evidence-do-you-need

Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need?

https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Myth-Human-Climate-Change/dp/1914366530

Debunking The Myth Of Human Made Climate Change: Challenging the Construction of a theory which uses manipulation to gain acceptance Paperback – August 27, 2021

 

How about that fairy tale that CO2 in the atmosphere is creating a greenhouse effect?

97 percent of all greenhouse gasses is WATER VAPOR.

CO2 represents a percentage point of greenhouse gasses, and a small dot of that is produced by humans.

Termites release more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans.

Water vapor has nothing to do with climate change. The atmosphere and nature work in balance. The water cycle had been part of our ecology for billions of years.  
 

Sea levels have risen. Here is the data, from NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

[reason10]

Boys and girls, it's time for science.

Climate is defined as

the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period: "our cold, wet climate"

For there to be CLIMATE CHANGE, it has to snow in Key West, FLorida in July. THAT'S climate change.

There has to be 100 degree temperatures in Alaska in January. THAT'S climate change.

There has to be massive blizzards and flash flooding in Saudi Arabia, putting most of that sand box under water. THAT'S climate change.

Only an imbecile imagines that will happen even in our lifetime. A psychotic imbecile imagines somehow a bunch of Texans driving SUVs will cause those changes to happen.

Libs, dial it back. You look dumber and dumber the more you argue this. Science and common sense are NOT on your side.

[reason10]

Just now, Rebound said:

Water vapor has nothing to do with climate change. The atmosphere and nature work in balance. The water cycle had been part of our ecology for billions of years.  
 

Sea levels have risen. Here is the data, from NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Sea levels have NOT risen. That is a very dangerous LIE.

I work on the Gulf coast of Florida and I'm on the beach usually several days a week. I would be the first to notice ANY change in the water levels. I've been here since 2003, when Algore claimed Florida would soon be under water. The levels have not changed one iota.

Barak the Kenyan Village Idiot, spend MILLIONS on that waterfront mansion in Martha's Vineyard. He's less concerned about rising sea levels and more concerned about those lowly brown people the state of Florida keeps shipping to his country club island.

Get over yourself. Water levels are not rising. The climate is not changing.

When it snows in Key West in July, THAT will be climate change.

Until then, you're just making a fool out of yourself for believing the Greta Thunbergs of the world.

Grow a brain.

[reason10]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

So you DIDN'T post what scientists say about GW?

IF that's the case, your posts have NO CREDIBILITY on CLIMATE.

I am not on any payroll from the fossil fuel industry to post anything here. That's what you people accused me of.

I'm here for the same reason everyone else is. I'm just better educated than any of the liberals here.

[robosmith]

19 minutes ago, reason10 said:

I am not on any payroll from the fossil fuel industry to post anything here. That's what you people accused me of.

I'm here for the same reason everyone else is. I'm just better educated than any of the liberals here.

I never spoke about you in that post, I spoke about "scientists," and you're obviously just an amateur Internet poster who makes a lot of BOGUS claims here. AKA, not what I addressed.

[robosmith]

28 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Boys and girls, it's time for science.

Climate is defined as

the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period: "our cold, wet climate"

For there to be CLIMATE CHANGE, it has to snow in Key West, FLorida in July. THAT'S climate change.

There has to be 100 degree temperatures in Alaska in January. THAT'S climate change.

There has to be massive blizzards and flash flooding in Saudi Arabia, putting most of that sand box under water. THAT'S climate change.

Only an imbecile imagines that will happen even in our lifetime. A psychotic imbecile imagines somehow a bunch of Texans driving SUVs will cause those changes to happen.

Libs, dial it back. You look dumber and dumber the more you argue this. Science and common sense are NOT on your side.

Sorry, but you don't get to define climate change.

Global Warming vs. Climate Change | Facts

Climate change is a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth's local, regional and global climates.

 

[robosmith]

26 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Sea levels have NOT risen. That is a very dangerous LIE.

I work on the Gulf coast of Florida and I'm on the beach usually several days a week. I would be the first to notice ANY change in the water levels. I've been here since 2003, when Algore claimed Florida would soon be under water. The levels have not changed one iota.

Barak the Kenyan Village Idiot, spend MILLIONS on that waterfront mansion in Martha's Vineyard. He's less concerned about rising sea levels and more concerned about those lowly brown people the state of Florida keeps shipping to his country club island.

Get over yourself. Water levels are not rising. The climate is not changing.

When it snows in Key West in July, THAT will be climate change.

Until then, you're just making a fool out of yourself for believing the Greta Thunbergs of the world.

Grow a brain.

Why do you believe your OPINIONS mean ANYTHING on ^this subject?

Being a school teacher, you obviously don't have a degree for, or experience working on, CLIMATE SCIENCE.

[Rebound]

30 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Sea levels have NOT risen. That is a very dangerous LIE.

I work on the Gulf coast of Florida and I'm on the beach usually several days a week. I would be the first to notice ANY change in the water levels. I've been here since 2003, when Algore claimed Florida would soon be under water. The levels have not changed one iota.

Barak the Kenyan Village Idiot, spend MILLIONS on that waterfront mansion in Martha's Vineyard. He's less concerned about rising sea levels and more concerned about those lowly brown people the state of Florida keeps shipping to his country club island.

Get over yourself. Water levels are not rising. The climate is not changing.

When it snows in Key West in July, THAT will be climate change.

Until then, you're just making a fool out of yourself for believing the Greta Thunbergs of the world.

Grow a brain.

So NASA is lying. Uh huh. Right. 

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, ironstone said:

What caused CO2 to rise to that high level over 800,000 years ago? You can't blame it on man-made emissions.

Apparently the planet survived that event.

 

The planet will survive, that doesn't mean humans and their society will.

So what's increasing it now genius?

Edited October 17, 2022 by Aristides

[Rebound]

Between 1851 and 2022 — a span of 171 years — there have been a total of 38 Category Five hurricanes. 
 

Fifteen of the 38 have occurred in the last twenty years.  

[Infidel Dog]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Take it up with NASA.

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming

Why? Who said Earth's climate hasn't been warming for 150 years of so. It started happening about the time this era they call the Little Ice Age was ending. It was a natural phenomena. 

What I said and still say is there is no scientific consensus for an inevitable human caused catastrophe of global warming.

Go back to Google and try again that one didn't help you. The catastrophe is the key ingredient. If you don't have that you can't explain the political necessity of responding.

Also statements from organizations are generally political. If you start interviewing the general membership you'll hear differing opinions.

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

What I said and still say is there is no scientific consensus for an inevitable human caused catastrophe of global warming.

Of course there is. It's not the 100% you demand but that's a crazy expectation.  Meanwhile there's been way more than enough consensus to have started taking action decades ago.  I don't know what you people are so concerned about though because you've clearly won the day.  No one is taking any sort of meaningful action and we're on target to exceed every limit that was negotiated and agreed to.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Why? Who said Earth's climate hasn't been warming for 150 years of so. It started happening about the time this era they call the Little Ice Age was ending. It was a natural phenomena. 

What I said and still say is there is no scientific consensus for an inevitable human caused catastrophe of global warming.

Go back to Google and try again that one didn't help you. The catastrophe is the key ingredient. If you don't have that you can't explain the political necessity of responding.

Also statements from organizations are generally political. If you start interviewing the general membership you'll hear differing opinions.

Didn't click on the link, didya.

Check the temperature chart. Warming accelerated dramatically in ~1980 after being stable between 1880 and 1920.

So it DOES NOT go back 150 years to the little ice age. It is much higher since industrialization.

Got stock in fossil fuel companies? Is that why you're discouraging renewables?

 

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Of course there is. It's not the 100% you demand but that's a crazy expectation.  Meanwhile there's been way more than enough consensus to have started taking action decades ago.  I don't know what you people are so concerned about though because you've clearly won the day.  No one is taking any sort of meaningful action and we're on target to exceed every limit that was negotiated and agreed to.

 

Why? Who said it had to be 100%. 97% is the one you hear about most. That one's bogus but I don't want to get into it because it's a trick. It doesn't claim to  be what I'm asking for. 

A consensus supporting the idea there's an inevitable catastrophe coming of Global Warming caused by man's use of fossil fuels.

When is this catastrophe coming? What exactly will it look like? Show me this consensus that is on board with what ever your answers will be.

Don't just say "Of course" like you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

Why? Who said it had to be 100%. 97% is the one you hear about most. That one's bogus but I don't want to get into it because it's a trick. It doesn't claim to  be what I'm asking for.

What you're asking for of course is a trick.

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Didn't click on the link, didya.

Check the temperature chart. Warming accelerated dramatically in ~1980 after being stable between 1880 and 1920.

So it DOES NOT go back 150 years to the little ice age. It is much higher since industrialization.

Got stock in fossil fuel companies? Is that why you're discouraging renewables?

 

Of course I clicked on it. Everything in my answer should have told you I clicked on it. 

Didn't need to though. I've seen it all before.

I wouldn't get stuck on that graph. It's not what passes for ultimate truth. The graphs were changed to create a kind of homogenized truth a few years back. Satellite graphs are the exception. It's a long story. It has to due with a climate pause where warming stopped showing up for awhile so this guy who's more a political favorite than a scientist gathered some agreeable scientists together and they decided that because there was a switch in how ocean temps were taken from submarines around the time of the second world war the current measurements had to be massaged to take out the climate pause. All the land and ocean based gatherers of temperature data complied. Previously all graphs looked slightly different with NASA GISS having the most radical ones. 

Warming tends to happen in steps though. Emphasis on the angle is deceptive in general. What actually happened was there was a super El Nino in 1998. That was the final real step in warming so far. It's been leveling off since then. Even by eye you can see it on the satellite graph:

Also, I hope you noticed how this radical rise they create on your graph can only happen because they measure in tenths of a degree. If they measured in full degrees you wouldn't even notice the slope.

Even on your graph though 1 degree from 1980 or 1.5 from 1880 is not that scary. 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

30 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What you're asking for of course is a trick.

Yes, it's a trick to bring the irrational mind back from the fantasy some mystic consensus of climate scientists knows for a fact the sky is falling.

Whether or not there's a reason to get scared about a proposed climate catastrophe is the only question that really matters.

If there's not even a scientific consensus on that we don't need a massive politically charged response to it.

The superior response if it's just another possibility of a possible tragedy someday is to continue to adapt. Maybe build some bigger dykes or something.

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

No I didn't. 

I cite them as the kind of prophets of a global warming catastrophe religion supported by the PTB that for some reason otherwise sensible humans are too willing to fall in line behind.

If you didn't have Gore this whole warming scare would never have happened.

If you didn't have Greta nicompoop teenage girls wouldn't be throwing tomato soup on priceless works of art.

 

You overstate the importance of these figures.  There were no equivalents when the ozone problem came up - it was a body of science warning of a problem that needed to be dealt with and the politicians acted.  In the age of trolls you need pixies to deal with them.  So the Gretas and the Trudeaus and Gores fight with the Monktons and Alex Joneses and people who think THAT is politics debate their points and munch away on their popcorn.  Enjoy it.

Meanwhile, I will just assume you had nothing to say about my points about the real science off thread.

Cheers.

[BeaverFever]

20 hours ago, reason10 said:

Here is the evidence.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2014/nov/25/climate-change-is-an-obvious-myth-how-much-more-evidence-do-you-need

Climate change is an obvious myth – how much more evidence do you need?

Dude you realize that article is sarcastic and makes fun of climate deniers like yourself right?  I mean right in the section you quoted the author doubts that Miami or polar ice caps ever existed. Further on in the article he doubts the existence of cows.   

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Dude you realize that article is sarcastic and makes fun of climate deniers like yourself right?  I mean right in the section you quoted the author doubts that Miami or polar ice caps ever existed. Further on in the article he doubts the existence of cows.   

God save us from the fumbling newbie....?

[Rebound]

9 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Why? Who said Earth's climate hasn't been warming for 150 years of so. It started happening about the time this era they call the Little Ice Age was ending. It was a natural phenomena. 

What I said and still say is there is no scientific consensus for an inevitable human caused catastrophe of global warming.

Go back to Google and try again that one didn't help you. The catastrophe is the key ingredient. If you don't have that you can't explain the political necessity of responding.

Also statements from organizations are generally political. If you start interviewing the general membership you'll hear differing opinions.

It is only political because the oil companies are giving fortunes to Republicans. It doesn’t have to be that way. 
 

We had a global crisis because of CFC’s destroying the ozone layer. Thankfully, we didn’t have assholes like Ted Cruz in Congress, and instead, we just solved the problem. No politics. We just did what had to be done, worldwide. Saved the planet… at least, the human habitability part.  

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Meanwhile, I will just assume you had nothing to say about my points about the real science off thread.

Cheers.

Are you talking about the link at the bottom of your thread? Because I did comment there.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Are you talking about the link at the bottom of your thread? Because I did comment there.

Hmmm... I don't *think* so ?  It's easy to get lost in all the threads here - let me know if you're interested and I'll dive into what I'm thinking of and ping you again... otherwise if you want to leave it that's ok too.  Cheers.