Zone1 Global Warming Denial vs IQ Denial

Hector12 said:
The Washington Post

This July 4 was hot. Earth’s hottest day on record, in fact.​

imrs.php

By Leo Sands
Updated July 5, 2023 at 9:53 a.m. EDT

Tuesday was the hottest day on Earth since at least 1979, with the global average temperature reaching 62.92 degrees Fahrenheit (17.18 degrees Celsius), according to data from the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction.

As a result, some scientists believe July 4 may have been one of the hottest days on Earth in about 125,000 years, due to a dangerous combination of climate change causing global temperatures to soar, the return of the El Niño pattern and the start of summer in the Northern Hemisphere.

In the United States, 57 million people were exposed to dangerous heat on Tuesday, according to The Washington Post’s extreme heat tracker. At the same time, China was gripped by a sizzling heat wave, the Antarctic is hotter than usual during its winter, and temperatures in the north of Africa reached 122F, Reuters reported.

Click to expand...
You start this thread with scientific bullshit and a political agenda bullshit joined in by your choir and then continue your elitist nonsense.
No data supporting your claims from you or your choir, so here is some to chew on.
O18_500K.gif

Note this goes back even more than 125,000 years and shows then and times past when it was warmer.

Global climate change, or flux which is constantly changing to either warmer or cooler is how those ice ages or glacials occur.

Fools like you want to manipulate the atmosphere to fix a situation that isn't dangerous or a crisis status and in process increase the risk of setting off the next ice age.
Fools like you are a danger to humankind and need to stop your emission of CO2 immediately!
 
Last edited:
mamooth said:
That's the "I'm too stupid to understand it, so it must be a hoax!" fallacy.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for you to prove how one part of CO2 at two degrees F warmer than the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere; Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argo, etc. will also absorb that heat and increase their temperature by two degrees F.

A math refresher for you and the other gorebot ACC/AGW minions;

400ppm(part per million) express also as;
400/1,000,000
reduces to;
4/10,000
or
1/2,500
 
Stryder50 said:
Still waiting for you to prove how one part of CO2 at two degrees F warmer than the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere;
Click to expand...
No. You're the one denying the basic physics of the past century, so it's up to you to prove your case. We're the round-earthers, you're the flat-earther.

The military thinks CO2 has those properties. You know, the military that needed to research such things so that IR seeker heads would work.

Is it your contention that the US military and all world militaries are part of the plot?
 
Stryder50 said:
You start this thread with scientific bullshit and a political agenda bullshit joined in by your choir and then continue your elitist nonsense.
No data supporting your claims from you or your choir, so here is some to chew on.
Click to expand...
A wildly dishonst presentation, being that it leaves off the last few centuries.

I kind of feel bad for you. You only know what your masters spoonfeed you, so you have no idea of how totally wrong you are about everything.

Here's the actual record. Are you going to claim the red spike is natural?

Marcott.png
 
Hector12 said:

Climate change​


In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its effects on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels.[2][3] Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.[4] Greenhouse gases absorb some of the heat that the Earth radiates after it warms from sunlight. Larger amounts of these gases trap more heat in Earth's lower atmosphere, causing global warming.

Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common.[5] Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss.[6] Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes.[7] Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct.[8] Even if efforts to minimise future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries. These include ocean heating, ocean acidification and sea level rise.[9]

View attachment 801951

View attachment 801952

en.wikipedia.org

Climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Asshat!
Your baseline started about 4.5 BILLION years ago.
50 years worth isn't a pimple on a gnat's ass by comparison.
 
vegas giants said:
The scientific community disagrees with you
Click to expand...
SOME of the "scientific community disagrees with" me, because they are government funded to advance the case for ACC/AGW.
Other scientists, honest ones, agree with me.

People like you can't even frame the case correctly

You are trying to prove the hypothesis that the bulk of current "climate change" is human caused hence you should be correctly saying "anthropogenic climate change"(ACC) or "anthropogenic global warming"(AGW).

You fail to notice that while we so-called "deniers" reject ACC/AGW we do accept NATURAL climate change/global warming~cooling. Seems you ACC/AGW sham-scam hucksters are deniers of natural process in play for 4.5 billion years.
 
Stryder50 said:
SOME of the "scientific community disagrees with" me, because they are government funded to advance the case for ACC/AGW.
Other scientists, honest ones, agree with me.

People like you can't even frame the case correctly

You are trying to prove the hypothesis that the bulk of current "climate change" is human caused hence you should be correctly saying "anthropogenic climate change"(ACC) or "anthropogenic global warming"(AGW).

You fail to notice that while we so-called "deniers" reject ACC/AGW we do accept NATURAL climate change/global warming~cooling. Seems you ACC/AGW sham-scam hucksters are deniers of natural process in play for 4.5 billion years.
Click to expand...
Very few agree with you

AGW consensus is very strong in the scientific community

Deny that
 
vegas giants said:
Very few agree with you

AGW consensus is very strong in the scientific community

Deny that
Click to expand...
Present actual numbers on that "consensus" versus the full size of the scientific community globally.
Otherwise, just another of your lies.
Meanwhile;
And about 400 years ago the scientific community of that era disagreed with Galileo.
Consensus (mob opinion) is not real science, but it is science by politics.
en.wikipedia.org

Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Stryder50 said:
Present actual numbers on that "consensus" versus the full size of the scientific community globally.
Otherwise, just another of your lies.
Meanwhile;
And about 400 years ago the scientific community of that era disagreed with Galileo.
Consensus (mob opinion) is not real science, but it is science by politics.
en.wikipedia.org

Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Happy to

climate.nasa.gov

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming

Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
climate.nasa.gov climate.nasa.gov
 
vegas giants said:
Happy to

climate.nasa.gov

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming

Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
climate.nasa.gov climate.nasa.gov
Click to expand...
A small percentage of the total global scientific community, and look like ones chasing government funding only available for pro ACC/AGW stances.

But if you believe them and that CO2 is the danger, than you will personally stop emitting CO2 immediately, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Is it time for a universal pronoun?

< Previous Thread

Will the Chinese destroy the U.S. power grid? 90% casualties in the first 6 months ........

Next Thread >

Similar threads

H
The Bell Curve
Replies
13
Views
380
JBG
JBG
Foxfyre
A Balanced View of Climate Change
12 13 14
Replies
265
Views
3K
ding
ding
Weatherman2020
Private Jets Headed To Global Warming Conference “Literally Frozen On Runway”
Replies
13
Views
453
Orangecat
Orangecat
Sunsettommy
Does The Climate-Science Industry Purposely Ignore A Simple Aspect of Strong El Niño Events That Causes Long-Term Global Warming?
2
Replies
39
Views
984
Crick
Crick
Andylusion
Critique of Kath Hochul's housing plan.
Replies
18
Views
305
Andylusion
Andylusion

Latest Discussions

Lakhota
Hope Hicks: ‘We look like domestic terrorists’ on January 6
7 8 9
Replies
163
Views
847
struth
S
crossbody
2 new COVID variants called 'FLiRT' are spreading in the U.S. What are the symptoms?
Replies
9
Views
28
westwall
westwall
J
Words with Double Letters A-Z
136 137 138
Replies
3K
Views
36K
ActionJackson
ActionJackson
QuickHitCurepon
What Rhymes
41 42 43
Replies
841
Views
34K
ActionJackson
ActionJackson
SurferH2O
What was in the documents that Judge Eileen Cannon declassified and unredacted? Breakdown Video
Replies
8
Views
58
justoffal
justoffal
View more…

Forum List

Back
Top