World to end in 2030.

[Woodznutz]

Not in my mind. Evolution isn't based upon computer models. It's based upon the fossil record. What is climate science based upon?

They see what they want to believe in the fossil record.

"If I hadn't believed it I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes."

 

[ding]

They see what they want to believe in the fossil record.

"If I hadn't believed it I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes."

In evolution they study the past using evidence from the geologic record.

In climate science they skip over studying the geologic record because the geologic record doesn't support their narrative. The earth's climate fluctuates - especially over the past 3 million years - and never once because of CO2. So why aren't they discussing the causes of previous climate fluctuations as possible causes of the recent warming trend? It's not like there haven't been warming trends in the past. And if CO2 wasn't responsible for those warming trends then why are they dismissing natural causes in the current warming trend especially without any discussion or reason why? Their logic is literally we know CO2 should cause the planet to warm so we don't have to consider anything else. There's a reason they include the urban heat island effect and use low variability solar output datasets in their models... it's the only way they can get the results to match their bias.

 

[Stryder50]

Why do so many scientists believe in AGW? They have graphs and charts that seem to support their position as well. Jes' sayin'.

Seems there's more fund$ available if researching ACC and AGW with a lean towards doom and gloom than if research was "everything's normal, nothing of alarm here folks".

 

[Woodznutz]

In evolution they study the past using evidence from the geologic record.

In climate science they skip over studying the geologic record because the geologic record doesn't support their narrative. The earth's climate fluctuates - especially over the past 3 million years - and never once because of CO2. So why aren't they discussing the causes of previous climate fluctuations as possible causes of the recent warming trend? It's not like there haven't been warming trends in the past. And if CO2 wasn't responsible for those warming trends then why are they dismissing natural causes in the current warming trend especially without any discussion or reason why? Their logic is literally we know CO2 should cause the planet to warm so we don't have to consider anything else. There's a reason they include the urban heat island effect and use low variability solar output datasets in their models... it's the only way they can get the results to match their bias.

Do the hot/cold periods correspond to the geologic record that reveals the dying of entire ecosystems followed by the sudden rise of another? If so it would follow the "ruin/restoration" pattern revealed in the Bible, in which case there is nothing we can do about it.

 

[Stryder50]

Do the hot/cold periods correspond to the geologic record that reveals the dying of entire ecosystems followed by the sudden rise of another? If so it would follow the "ruin/restoration" pattern revealed in the Bible, in which case there is nothing we can do about it.

Do you have any examples of "the dying of entire ecosystems followed by the sudden rise of another?" to present so as to show this isn't a bunch of methane coming out your backside?

 

[Woodznutz]

Do you have any examples of "the dying of entire ecosystems followed by the sudden rise of another?" to show this isn't a bunch of methane coming out your backside?

No methane, just CO2.

That's what the geologic record indicates. New species occurring with no evidence of having evolved.

 

[ding]

Do the hot/cold periods correspond to the geologic record that reveals the dying of entire ecosystems followed by the sudden rise of another? If so it would follow the "ruin/restoration" pattern revealed in the Bible, in which case there is nothing we can do about it.

Not likely. I'm talking about non-orbital forcing when CO2 lagged temperature.

 

[Stryder50]

No methane, just CO2.

That's what the geologic record indicates. New species occurring with no evidence of having evolved.

Your flatulence is CO2?

I think you mean to say the "fossil record" and such tends to be a bit spotty. Most living things decompose back to basic elements when they die, which become nutrients for the new living things.

For former living things to become a fossil, they need to be encased completely in something, like the mud of a landslide for example, to keep the microbes and worms from decomposing the body of the flora or fauna.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why do so many scientists believe in AGW? They have graphs and charts that seem to support their position as well. Jes' sayin'.

Why do so many scientists believe in AGW?

Because they don't understand ... they can only believe ... what makes you think the typical scientist has any training in fluid mechanics, other than that chapter in their first-year physics textbook? ...

This is the logical fallacy of "appealing to authority" ... I know near-Earth asteroid observers know all there is to know about Asteroid Attacks, doesn't mean they know anything about Climate Catastrophe ... why would a chemist or biologist even care what the adiabatic lapse rate is? ...

Sounds like you're just repeating what you've been told ... and you're not really checking if the people you're listening to are liars or not ... and as I've pointed out above, you don't seem to be even checking these claims against the basic Laws of Nature ... obviously, you don't understand what these scientists are saying, how do you know what they believe? ...

They have graphs and charts that seem to support their position as well.

Another logical fallacy ... "proof by graph" ... I'm sorry, correlation ≠ causation, especially when there is no correlation ... it's very easy to tweek and bend these charts and graphs into anything you want them to be ... just be selective with your sample pool ... c.f. the Monty Hall puzzle ... statistics don't lie but liars use statistics ... something every scientist knows by heart ...

=====

Looks like your debate style is to make a claim and demand someone prove you wrong ... now that I've provided you with this proof, will you withdraw your claims? ...

 

[Stryder50]

If you examine my cholesterol reference you'll see why CO2 is the culprit. Arterial clogs are made up of several substances, but cholesterol is the only one that medical science can (has chosen to) deal with, thus cholesterol is the culprit in CAD (coronary artery disease).

Water vapor is likely the biggest culprit causing atmospheric warming. And the warmer it gets the more water vapor it can hold. But because science can't do anything about that they have chosen CO2 as the culprit (we produce lots of it by burning fossil fuels).

But perhaps CO2 is a catalyst in that it warms the atmosphere up just enough to hold a bit more water vapor, which begins a cascading effect up there of yet more water vapor and thus rising temperatures.

So you did not understand the math or science in post #153.

I think this subject is out of your league.

 

[ReinyDays]

They see what they want to believe in the fossil record.

"If I hadn't believed it I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes."

Actually ... we find the same evidence in AKC* records ... and there was an important experiment in Russia conducted during the Cold War ... if you have an alternate theory that explains these results, please post a link so all of us can be enlightened ...

The Bible doesn't discuss biochemistry ... but it does discuss charity ... I think Jesus would be fine with us burning fossil fuels to provide refrigeration to the 1.6 billion of our fellow brothers and sisters who have none right now ... kinda breaks my heart the damn heathen are withholding such for their own greed ... and don't forget to nail Jesus to the cross ... again ...

* = sorry, American Kennel Club ... they have over 100 years of breeding data ...

 

[Stryder50]

Pimping the ACC/AGW scam~hoax is "big business" of a sorts. Lots of money to be made, in form of jobs with NGOs, grants for "research", hustling expensive "green energy", etc. Most of this money is from guv'mints, a.k.a. taxpayers. Just a sampling of some of the scam enterprises;

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change​

Agenda 21 .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform​

Agenda 21 - Wikipedia​

What is UN Agenda 21? - The Post Sustainability Institute​

COP26: Together for our planet | United Nations​

2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference - Wikipedia​

What is COP26? | Institute for Human Rights and Business​

COP26: Key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in ...​

What is Cop26 and why does it matter? The complete guide ...​

 

[ReinyDays]

Pimping the ACC/AGW scam~hoax is "big business" of a sorts. Lots of money to be made, in form of jobs with NGOs, grants for "research", hustling expensive "green energy", etc. Most of this money is from guv'mints, a.k.a. taxpayers. Just a sampling of some of the scam enterprises;

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change​

Agenda 21 .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform​

Agenda 21 - Wikipedia​

What is UN Agenda 21? - The Post Sustainability Institute​

COP26: Together for our planet | United Nations​

2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference - Wikipedia​

What is COP26? | Institute for Human Rights and Business​

COP26: Key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in ...​

What is Cop26 and why does it matter? The complete guide ...​

Did you forget the Bonneville Power Administration? ... what kind of nasty fucks charge 5.3 ¢/kW-hr for completely carbon-neutral electricity? ... the nerve ...

 

[Stryder50]

Did you forget the Bonneville Power Administration? ... what kind of nasty fucks charge 5.3 ¢/kW-hr for completely carbon-neutral electricity? ... the nerve ...

Wish I could get that rate. I live in Washington state and we are about third lowest at nearly double that. This chart shows rates per state in USA and some pay much more than 5.3;

Electricity Rates (Updated April 2024) — Electric Choice

Compare electricity rates, plans, and providers for your home or business. Find the best rate available to you!

www.electricchoice.com

 

[MisterBeale]

Interesting that the video was pulled from MSN. . .

 

[MisterBeale]

A Study Predicts Record Flooding In The 2030s, And It's Partly Because Of The Moon

Researchers say high tide flooding in U.S. coastal regions will become more frequent in the mid-2030s because of climate change, amplified by a routine wobble in the moon's orbit.

www.npr.org

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems there's more fund$ available if researching ACC and AGW with a lean towards doom and gloom than if research was "everything's normal, nothing of alarm here folks".

They pay well in support of the narrative.

 

[Woodznutz]

Your flatulence is CO2?

I think you mean to say the "fossil record" and such tends to be a bit spotty. Most living things decompose back to basic elements when they die, which become nutrients for the new living things.

For former living things to become a fossil, they need to be encased completely in something, like the mud of a landslide for example, to keep the microbes and worms from decomposing the body of the flora or fauna.

Mostly, so is yours if your digestion is good. Your poop will have very little odor if your digestion is good as well. (Probably TMI, but good to know if you ever want to get serious about your health.)

Explainer: The chemistry of farts

We usually see flatulence as funny or embarrassing - but its chemistry is intimately entwined with our health

www.chemistryworld.com

If most critters decompose the 'evolutionary' fossil record would be spotty at best.

 

[Stryder50]

Mostly, so is yours.

Explainer: The chemistry of farts

We usually see flatulence as funny or embarrassing - but its chemistry is intimately entwined with our health

www.chemistryworld.com

If most critters decompose the 'evolutionary' fossil record would be spotty at best.

Which it is. Rather spotty and likely incomplete, it's not a full "record".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Which it is. Rather spotty and likely incomplete, it's not a full "record".

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



And these:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471