Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

Climate hysterics say your dog causes climate change.

You see where this is going, right?

 

Well, it MIGHT.  Maybe lower your defense shields a bit...

[blackbird]

On 8/17/2025 at 2:56 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Why not?

They're able to measure volcanic emissions.  And they know how much carbon we are Emitting.

It's a direct correlation.

What about all the forest fire emissions?   What about all the dead animals and dead vegetation across the millions of acres of Canada?  Do you believe they can measure all the emissions from all that?

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What about all the forest fire emissions?   What about all the dead animals and dead vegetation across the millions of acres of Canada?  Do you believe they can measure all the emissions from all that?

The forest fire situation seems to be increasing now so it was probably less of a factor from before.

They can measure carbon in the atmosphere, and determine the relationship between that and temperature.  It's purely a mathematical exercise to determine that.

Volcano emissions are pretty constant ( why wouldn't they be ? ) and the fact that people submit this as a factor indicates that they're not familiar with the large body of work over many years.  ( Assuming they're not being purposely deceptive. )  There's a small line at the bottom in purple that indicates volcanic activity.  

Source:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

 

[Deluge]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, it MIGHT.  Maybe lower your defense shields a bit...

You bring it out of people, Mike. I mean your demeanor makes you seem pleasant as a light summer breeze, but you're no less extreme than the next climate cultist - that's what pisses people off. 

Maybe you should step away from rabid leftism and explore other options. They're rare, but they're out there. 

Sort of like this guy:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/

 

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1. You bring it out of people, Mike. I mean your demeanor makes you seem pleasant as a light summer breeze, but you're no less extreme than the next climate cultist - that's what pisses people off. 

2. Maybe you should step away from rabid leftism and explore other options. They're rare, but they're out there. 

3. https://www.drroyspencer.com/

 

1. Well your comments on me are noted.  I didn't post to goddess, I don't think, I responded to her post.
2. Rabid leftism would be nationalization of industry, banning of private capital and so on.  Since that died, as a concept, over the last 30-50 years it became harder for people to rail against "the left" so they made it about social change.  I don't see how social change can be politicized on a party level since everyone agrees with freedom and it's just the details to be worked out.
3.I heard of him before, some kind of climate denialist.  I don't have the job to shoot down every incorrect theory, the system itself does that quite well.

[Deluge]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well your comments on me are noted.  I didn't post to goddess, I don't think, I responded to her post.
2. Rabid leftism would be nationalization of industry, banning of private capital and so on.  Since that died, as a concept, over the last 30-50 years it became harder for people to rail against "the left"

3. so they made it about social change.  I don't see how social change can be politicized on a party level since everyone agrees with freedom and it's just the details to be worked out.

4.I heard of him before, some kind of climate denialist.  I don't have the job to shoot down every incorrect theory, the system itself does that quite well.

1. 

2. That doesn't change the agenda. Most, if not ALL, democrats want just that so the threat is still here in everyone's faces. 

3. The left's idea of social change is a threat to national security and the moral fiber of this country in general. It's best to banish that shit to the underworld - or just stamp it out completely. 

4. Sounds a helluva lot more than just a simple denier. He speaks to what we're seeing every f*cking day, which is nothing.  

Edited August 20, 2025 by Deluge

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, Deluge said:

 1. That doesn't change the agenda.
 2. Most, if not ALL, democrats want just that so the threat is still here in everyone's faces. 
 3. The left's idea of social change is a threat to national security and the moral fiber of this country in general.
It's best to banish that shit to the underworld - or just stamp it out completely. 
 4. Sounds a helluva lot more than just a simple denier. He speaks to what we're seeing every f*cking day, which is nothing.  

1. I said ... it DIED.  Would your agenda change if you died ?  Mine would.
2. Most if not all DEMOCRATS want actual Communism ?    That's an outrageous statement.  Even Hillary Clinton has stated that SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE won't happen: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/ So, you're just wrong on that.
3. I usually have you on IGNORE, with due respect, so I'm not familiar with your positions.  But if what you say is true then yes you should work to ban the Democratic party and democracy in general for the USA in case people ever stupidly re-elect them.
4. I am not going to contract your personal perspective, ie. you see nothing every day.  

Enjoy your day.

To add: Single Payer Healthcare is present in most Western Capitalist economies.  So, Hillary Clinton is not even a socialist.
.

Edited August 20, 2025 by Michael Hardner

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The forest fire situation seems to be increasing now so it was probably less of a factor from before.

They can measure carbon in the atmosphere, and determine the relationship between that and temperature.  It's purely a mathematical exercise to determine that.

Volcano emissions are pretty constant ( why wouldn't they be ? ) and the fact that people submit this as a factor indicates that they're not familiar with the large body of work over many years.  ( Assuming they're not being purposely deceptive. )  There's a small line at the bottom in purple that indicates volcanic activity.  

Source:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

 

The problem is since forest fires, dead animals and vegetation are vast across the world, it is impossible to say what things emit a given amount of CO2.  It is also impossible to determine what percentage of all that man emits with fossil fuels.  Those are things that anybody should understand are impossible to determine.

Now there is also the varying radiation from the sun, sun spots, explosions on the sun surface, radiation from outer space which all contribute to global warming.  

The bottom line it is impossible to say man is causing any significant global warming or contributing to climate change. It is just too complex a universe to know. 

Man-made climate change is pure speculation because many people have the notion that since man has an intellect, invents technological society that he must somehow be the culprit that causes climate change.  No proof; just false assumptions.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The problem is since forest fires, dead animals and vegetation are vast across the world, it is impossible to say what things emit a given amount of CO2.  It is also impossible to determine what percentage of all that man emits with fossil fuels.  Those are things that anybody should understand are impossible to determine.

Now there is also the varying radiation from the sun, sun spots, explosions on the sun surface, radiation from outer space which all contribute to global warming.  

The bottom line it is impossible to say man is causing any significant global warming or contributing to climate change. It is just too complex a universe to know. 

Man-made climate change is pure speculation because many people have the notion that since man has an intellect, invents technological society that he must somehow be the culprit that causes climate change.  No proof; just false assumptions.

Well it's nice to agree with you on something. 

@Michael Hardner...and he's correct. One can "extrapolate" but such extrapolation is meaningless because all factors are never included in any model.

Thus financially punishing people is what it looks like...

Mean and baseless.

[Deluge]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I usually have you on IGNORE, 

It's best to keep me on ignore, Mike, as I treat left-wing propaganda like the trash it is.  

Edited August 20, 2025 by Deluge

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

1. The problem is since forest fires, dead animals and vegetation are vast across the world, it is impossible to say what things emit a given amount of CO2.   

What do you mean 'to say' ?  Do you mean to 'estimate' or to 'determine exactly' ?  Because you only need a fairly accurate estimate for large-scale models.

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

 

@Michael Hardner...and he's correct. One can "extrapolate" but such extrapolation is meaningless because all factors are never included in any model.

 

That's not how models work.  You don't need to include every factor in a model, only significant ones.  

 

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

It's best to keep me on ignore, Mike, as I treat left-wing propaganda like the trash it is.  

Good on you.  Best of luck banning the Democrats as well.

Cheers.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

That's not how models work.  You don't need to include every factor in a model, only significant ones.  

That is how it works. Especially when one decides to not include all factors.

[Deluge]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Good on you.  Best of luck banning the Democrats as well.

Cheers.

Who said anything about banning? I'm here to bash democrats, not ban them.  

[Legato]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's not how models work.  You don't need to include every factor in a model, only significant ones.  

 

Only the factors that substantiate the claimants claims are allowed.

These so called "models" suffer from purposeful GIGO.

Now please show us where the sky has fallen, it should be on goggles maps somewhere.

On 8/19/2025 at 7:25 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Well, it MIGHT.  Maybe lower your defense shields a bit...

Why should she, you always have yours raised high.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

That is how it works. Especially when one decides to not include all factors.

Explain how a model would include ALL factors.

34 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Who said anything about banning? I'm here to bash democrats, not ban them.  

"The left's idea of social change is a threat to national security"

 

And you don't want to BAN them?  

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Legato said:

Only the factors that substantiate the claimants claims are allowed.

These so called "models" suffer from purposeful GIGO.

Now please show us where the sky has fallen, it should be on goggles maps somewhere.

Why should she, you always have yours raised high.

No models predicted the sky falling.

Explain how all factors are to be included in a model.

[Goddess]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

since everyone agrees with freedom and it's just the details to be worked out.

I disagree with this, very much so.

The last few years prove me right.  Far too many were far too willing to trade freedom for an imaginary safety.  Keep trading it away with every "crisis" they dream up and we never get it back.  Not without bloodshed.

The "conspiracy theorists" predicted climate lockdowns and well, here we are.  It's begun.

 

[Legato]

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No models predicted the sky falling.

Explain how all factors are to be included in a model.

The people who interpret the models did/do.

Step 1. Design an algorithm, input incomplete data, process that data.

Step 2. Output incomplete data with massive flaws.

or

Step 1. Design an algorithm to produce a desired result, only input the data that produces the desired result.

Step 2. The sky if falling, the models say so.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I disagree with this, very much so.

The last few years prove me right.  Far too many were far too willing to trade freedom for an imaginary safety.  Keep trading it away with every "crisis" they dream up and we never get it back.  Not without bloodshed.

The "conspiracy theorists" predicted climate lockdowns and well, here we are.  It's begun.

 

What?  What Climate lockdown?

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Legato said:

The people who interpret the models did/do.

Step 1. Design an algorithm, input incomplete data, process that data.

Step 2. Output incomplete data with massive flaws.

or

Step 1. Design an algorithm to produce a desired result, only input the data that produces the desired result.

Step 2. The sky if falling, the models say so.

You are speaking very vaguely and pretending that climate models aren't scrutinized.

I don't think that you know the subject.

And you didn't answer my question: how exactly are you supposed to include ALL factors?

 

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Explain how a model would include ALL factors.

"The left's idea of social change is a threat to national security"

 

And you don't want to BAN them?  

 

 

I want to dismantle wokeness and put its adherents in prison if that's what it takes. 

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

I want to dismantle wokeness and put its adherents in prison if that's what it takes. 

Why are you tiptoeing around this? 

It sounds like you want to ban them. Why don't you just say that you want to? 

I mean, it's a threat. You believe it. So, are you afraid people will think ill of you or something?  If something is a threat, you should address it. 

 

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Why are you tiptoeing around this? 

It sounds like you want to ban them. Why don't you just say that you want to? 

I mean, it's a threat. You believe it. So, are you afraid people will think ill of you or something?  If something is a threat, you should address it. 

 

Dude, there's no tiptoeing. I go after behaviors first, always. I go after agendas and ideologies first, always. I would love to make communism, socialism, marxism and wokeism ALL illegal in this country. There wouldn't be a need to ban anyone because all that shit would be illegal. 

Edited August 21, 2025 by Deluge

[Legato]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are speaking very vaguely and pretending that climate models aren't scrutinized.

I don't think that you know the subject.

And you didn't answer my question: how exactly are you supposed to include ALL factors?

 

Well sunshine I used to write sub-routines for algorithms, so stuff that one. Your lack of knowledge on this subject is evident, hence the vague comment.

If some factors are missing from any data input, the output will be, not maybe, flawed. It just takes more work to collate all the data.

It's easy to create parameters to force a model to output the data you want even if that data 100% incorrect.

 

 

[Aristides]

On 8/20/2025 at 3:13 AM, blackbird said:

What about all the forest fire emissions?   What about all the dead animals and dead vegetation across the millions of acres of Canada?  Do you believe they can measure all the emissions from all that?

They can certainly estimate forest fire emissions. Fires are a temporary double whammy in that not only do they put a bunch of carbon into the air, you lose the carbon sink until the forest grows back. However, as long as the forest grows back they are part of a natural cycle.

Deniers still don't seem to understand the difference between a natural carbon cycle where things grow and die vs digging up carbon that has been stored in the earths crust for millions of years and injecting it into the atmosphere