Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

  I would love to make communism, socialism, marxism and wokeism ALL illegal in this country.  

Ok there it is thanks.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

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.

 

 

Love that you think writing subroutines for algorithms means something to me

 

Are you familiar with linear regression?  Have you participated in this process?

Keep in mind we're dealing with predictions in the physical world, so faking isn't easy to do.

 

[Deluge]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

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

We don't give a shit about estimations. If you moonbats want to f*ck with the economy then we're going to need a helluva lot more than just estimations. 

The best thing you can do right now is have a SOLID alternative already up and running - and I don't mean those bullshit "eco-friendly" cars. We're talking something that was made in ZERO emissions environments with ZERO emissions vehicles, because we all know how fragile the environment is - I mean, the whole thing could go POW at anytime, like a global powder keg! 

If you can't do that, then I suggest you f*ck off. 

[Nationalist]

14 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?  

 

 

Am i to assume you have never heard of due diligence?

[Michael Hardner]

37 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Am i to assume you have never heard of due diligence?

For which point?

Banning Democrats?

Model creation?

 

[Nationalist]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

For which point?

Banning Democrats?

Model creation?

 

Modeling.

I dont wanna ban Democrats. That would be silly IMO.

However...I do think a few belong in jail.

Edited August 21, 2025 by Nationalist

[Legato]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Love that you think writing subroutines for algorithms means something to me

 

Are you familiar with linear regression?  Have you participated in this process?

Keep in mind we're dealing with predictions in the physical world, so faking isn't easy to do.

 

 Yet here you are making assertions about something which you have no knowledge.

"best fit" does not make an absolute physical or fairy tale.

[Michael Hardner]

35 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Modeling.

Well, testing is part of modeling. And then there's peer review. 

All of this done on a large scale, with hundreds of papers involving thousands of individuals. 

I guess that would be due diligence. It's built into the process.

29 minutes ago, Legato said:

 Yet here you are making assertions about something which you have no knowledge.

"best fit" does not make an absolute physical or fairy tale.

How do you know I have no knowledge? 

Is your writing of subroutines relevant? Honest question. 

As I pointed out in my last post, this process is open and practically impossible to fake.

[Nationalist]

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, testing is part of modeling. And then there's peer review. 

All of this done on a large scale, with hundreds of papers involving thousands of individuals. 

I guess that would be due diligence. It's built into the process.

Not particularly. 

Mike you've already admitted the "institutions" are feeding us garbage. Yet you sit there enjoying the stench.

Pick a lane.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Not particularly. 

Mike you've already admitted the "institutions" are feeding us garbage. Yet you sit there enjoying the stench.

Pick a lane.

Yes, I indicated that institutions misinform us. But not every institution and not in every case. 

It's not hard to figure that out. 

If you can explain how an open process, which is engaged in across the globe by thousands of people has been corrupted, that would help. 

These conversations tend to drift into conspiracy theory, for which I have zero time.

[Goddess]

54 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

All of this done on a large scale, with hundreds of papers involving thousands of individuals. 

Exactly.

All getting paid by.......who?

And what happens to their funding if they find........there is no crisis?

Very few in any profession are brave enough to bite the hand that feeds them.

Worth an hour of your time, if for no other reason than to maybe understand where some of us are coming from:

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Exactly.

1. All getting paid by.......who?

2. And what happens to their funding if they find........there is no crisis?

3. Very few in any profession are brave enough to bite the hand that feeds them.

4. Worth an hour of your time..

1. Paid by an uncountable number of governments, research groups, universities, private interests. And this is across the globe. 

2. If they find there's no crisis, they become instantly famous and their reputation soars. 

3. Based on what? Where did you hear this? I've only seen it asserted by people who think climate change as a hoax.  Only a few scientists have tried to say this, and I don't believe it. 

4. What you don't understand is that I'm the one who decides what my time is worth. If I thought you might change your mind, or I might from watching this, then I would give it an hour. Hour. Unfortunately, I've already wasted too many hours on YouTube, cranks, and discussing with people on here who wouldn't never believe that it's not a grand conspiracy. You're a nice lady but I'm not giving You that time.

[robosmith]

On 8/20/2025 at 10:29 AM, 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.

Actually the isotope of the Carbon atoms tell all.

Quote

Fossil fuel combustion introduces CO₂ into the atmosphere that is depleted in carbon-14 (¹⁴C) and enriched in carbon-12 (¹²C). Since ¹⁴C is radioactive and decays with a half-life of 5,700 years, and fossil fuels are millions of years old, they contain virtually no ¹⁴C. The observed decrease in the ratio of ¹³C to ¹²C (¹³C/¹²C) and the depletion of ¹⁴C in atmospheric CO₂ directly indicate that the added carbon comes from fossil fuels, which are "light" carbon-12 sources. 

 

How the Isotopes Are Used

Scientists use the unique isotopic signatures of ¹³C and ¹⁴C to identify the sources of CO₂ in the atmosphere. 

 

• Carbon-14 (¹⁴C):

  • Absence in fossil fuels: Fossil fuels are ancient organic materials whose ¹⁴C has completely decayed away. 
     
  • Atmospheric depletion: When fossil fuel CO₂ is released, it is devoid of ¹⁴C. This 14C-depleted CO₂ mixes with the atmosphere, lowering the atmospheric ¹⁴C concentration. 
     
  • Tracer for emissions: By measuring the reduction in ¹⁴C (expressed as Δ¹⁴C) in air samples, scientists can quantify the contribution of fossil fuel emissions. 
     
• Carbon-13 (¹³C):

  • Preferential uptake of ¹²C: Plants, the source of fossil fuels, preferentially take up lighter ¹²C during photosynthesis. 
     
  • Depletion in fossil fuels: Consequently, fossil fuels are richer in ¹²C and depleted in ¹³C compared to other carbon sources. 
     
  • Atmospheric shift: The addition of ¹³C-depleted CO₂ from fossil fuel burning leads to a decrease in the overall atmospheric ¹³C/¹²C ratio. 
     

The Combined Evidence

The simultaneous decrease in atmospheric ¹³C/¹²C and the depletion of ¹⁴C provides strong, independent evidence that the increased CO₂ in the atmosphere originates from the combustion of fossil fuels, a signature that aligns with increased human economic activity and industrial processes. 

 

 

 

On 8/20/2025 at 12:08 PM, Nationalist said:

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.

Only because you're both ignorant about how CO2 from fossil fuel burning is different. LMAO

[robosmith]

16 hours 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.

 

That's a new one. Who is being "locked down" due to climate change and who is doing the locking?

16 hours 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.

^TROLLegato LYING.

[Nationalist]

44 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, I indicated that institutions misinform us. But not every institution and not in every case. 

It's not hard to figure that out. 

If you can explain how an open process, which is engaged in across the globe by thousands of people has been corrupted, that would help. 

These conversations tend to drift into conspiracy theory, for which I have zero time.

Ok...

Who pays for these half-baked models and projections?

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

Dude, there's no tiptoeing. I go after behaviors first, always. I go after agendas and ideologies first, always.

Too bad you can't do BOTH FIRST. Duh

6 hours ago, Deluge said:

I would love to make communism, socialism, marxism and wokeism ALL illegal in this country.

But only if you get to decide what is what, right?

Because you sound EXACTLY like a FASCIST DICTATOR. AKA Trump sending the uncharged/unconvicted to a gulag in El Salvador. 🤮

 

[Deluge]

28 minutes ago, robosmith said:

1. Too bad you can't do BOTH FIRST. Duh

2. But only if you get to decide what is what, right?

Because you sound EXACTLY like a FASCIST DICTATOR. AKA Trump sending the uncharged/unconvicted to a gulag in El Salvador. 🤮

 

1. Why robohate? I'm not an abortion loving psychopath like you - I actually like people. People can be great if the option to be woke, or communist, or socialist isn't constantly waved in their faces. 

2. That's right because my moral compass works, and you don't have one. It's why you support nation ending bullshit like open borders and guidance from Planned Parenthood. 

[Michael Hardner]

56 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Who pays for these half-baked models and projections?

I answered goddess: funding comes from lots of sources.  Governments, universities... Lots of sources.

And the models are accurate, from what I have seen in the past.  You have to look at the aggregate models, over time.  I did it a few years ago.

 

[Legato]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I answered goddess: funding comes from lots of sources.  Governments, universities... Lots of sources.

And the models are accurate, from what I have seen in the past.  You have to look at the aggregate models, over time.  I did it a few years ago.

 

(HorizonLength^2 - MeasuredCurvature) / (ObserverHeight * DistanceToHorizon)=??

Lets say the was a computer model that used a sub-routine to calculate the above expressions.

If you accidently input a zero for measured curvature the output would signify a flat earth.

A simple mistake in inputting data can result in a wildly inaccurate outcome.

Multiply that with trillions of processing cycles. Add to that constantly changing variables the accuracy you speak of is heavily suspect.

 

[Nationalist]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I answered goddess: funding comes from lots of sources.  Governments, universities... Lots of sources.

And the models are accurate, from what I have seen in the past.  You have to look at the aggregate models, over time.  I did it a few years ago.

 

Governments - invested in man made CC.

Universities - invested in man made CC.

Lots of sources...like the WHO...George Soros and his merry band of NGOs.

What I've seen in the past, is attempt after attempt to scare the sh1t outta the people so much that they willingly watch on while inflation reduces them financially. None of said predictions or models have been anywhere near accurate.

Me thinks you been had Mike.

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, Legato said:

(HorizonLength^2 - MeasuredCurvature) / (ObserverHeight * DistanceToHorizon)=??

Lets say the was a computer model that used a sub-routine to calculate the above expressions.

If you accidently input a zero for measured curvature the output would signify a flat earth.

A simple mistake in inputting data can result in a wildly inaccurate outcome.

Multiply that with trillions of processing cycles. Add to that constantly changing variables the accuracy you speak of is heavily suspect.

 

Yes, that's true. But if even one competent peer reviewed your code, the accident would be caught. 

I worked for a major Canadian transportation company when they instituted code reviews on my team.  Support issues went down exponentially. 

Be assured that the models are tested criticized and adjusted on a large scale, on a global scale.

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Governments - invested in man made CC.

Universities - invested in man made CC.

Lots of sources...like the WHO...George Soros and his merry band of NGOs.

What I've seen in the past, is attempt after attempt to scare the sh1t outta the people so much that they willingly watch on while inflation reduces them financially. None of said predictions or models have been anywhere near accurate.

Me thinks you been had Mike.

But what you're talking about is true for anything that the prevailing wisdom follows.

They're doing it for AI now. 

Give me an example where the entire world wasted billions on something that was guaranteed to be a sham, and they did it for decades. Willingly. 

I don't think there is one.

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, that's true. But if even one competent peer reviewed your code, the accident would be caught. 

I worked for a major Canadian transportation company when they instituted code reviews on my team.  Support issues went down exponentially. 

Be assured that the models are tested criticized and adjusted on a large scale, on a global scale.

But what you're talking about is true for anything that the prevailing wisdom follows.

They're doing it for AI now. 

Give me an example where the entire world wasted billions on something that was guaranteed to be a sham, and they did it for decades. Willingly. 

I don't think there is one.

The Afghan war.

You been had and your assurances dont mean much.

[Legato]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, that's true. But if even one competent peer reviewed your code, the accident would be caught. 

I worked for a major Canadian transportation company when they instituted code reviews on my team.  Support issues went down exponentially. 

 

What???? The code is not the problem , it's the erroneous input.

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

The Afghan war.

You been had and your assurances dont mean much.

Well, how about all wars ?  But is that a good comparison ?

I mean war is about going after a perceived threat, not a scientifically provable one.

The Americans hated Afghanistan for awhile, then they didn't care.  Same with Iraq, Vietnam, and others.

Israel and Palestine, that conflict has more staying power.  Is one side or the other scamming someone ? 

Not sure if this comparison works in the same way.  

I'm just thinking out loud here.

13 minutes ago, Legato said:

What???? The code is not the problem , it's the erroneous input.

Oops, my bad.  I misread what you wrote.

 

Well, yes, data errors happen and they happen often.  But they're also corrected and reviewed, and again they feed a predictive model.  So although your analogy is correct in theory, in practice it doesn't compare IMO.

Edited August 21, 2025 by Michael Hardner

[Nationalist]

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, how about all wars ?  But is that a good comparison ?

I mean war is about going after a perceived threat, not a scientifically provable one.

The Americans hated Afghanistan for awhile, then they didn't care.  Same with Iraq, Vietnam, and others.

Israel and Palestine, that conflict has more staying power.  Is one side or the other scamming someone ? 

Not sure if this comparison works in the same way.  

I'm just thinking out loud here.

Which is part of the problem. All we can prove scientifically is that the average global climate has increased a couple degrees. Past that, we enter into conjecture. Which is why the scientific community had to tell politicians to cool it with the scare tactics. There exists no crisis. What exists...is maybe longer crop growing seasons. And that's about it.

As to the war example I gave...interesting how institutional forces can sway and weave public opinion...eh?

Edited August 21, 2025 by Nationalist