A Climate Hero.

[Crick]

Think she's abu?

I think Westwall is ding.

 

[ding]

I think Westwall is ding.

There's only one me.

 

[Crick]

There's only one me.

That's what any sock-user would say.

 

[ding]

That's what any sock-user would say.

Don't know what to tell you. Believe whatever you need to believe.

 

[haveatit]

Clearly you have never read a history book. The planet has been much warmer for most of its existence. There have been two times when the planet was much warmer when mankind was able to write histories that we can actually read. The Roman Warming period, and the Medieval Warming Period.

Both times society and culture flourished.

Why do you hate science, and ignore history?

I have seen two estimates of when the Earth was this warm. One said 3 million years ago and another said around 125,000 years ago. So choose your poison.

 

[haveatit]

You’re an idiot.

Care to tell me why? Or is slinging insults the best you can do.

 

[haveatit]

That mankind has no effect on climate. It is simply beyond our ability, no matter how much the anti science religious cult people would like you to believe.

I could show you loads of graphs that say the opposite. But against your global warming denier cult it would probably do no good.

 

[haveatit]

No, there isn't. What there is are lots of opinion pieces, and tons of crappy computer models. Computer models are NOT evidence.

Which global warming creating energy company pays you. Also, computer models have improved. Not that it matters. Because most of the evidence comes from direct observation. By actual scientists out in the field who know what they're talking about.

 

[westwall]

I have seen two estimates of when the Earth was this warm. One said 3 million years ago and another said around 125,000 years ago. So choose your poison.

Seventy five percent of the Earths history the global temperature has been significantly warmer than it is today. The mammals that we enjoy today evolved during the paeleocene-eocene thermal maximum when global temps were a minimum of 9 degrees warmer than today. Those are called facts. There have been multiple times that the temps have been far warmer during the last 12,000 years that make up our current holocene time frame.

• Baltic Ice Lake stage. This covers the deglaciation to ca. 11,550 cal year BP (calendar years before present)
• Yoldia Sea stage. This covers ca. 11,700–10,700 cal year BP (a brackish water basin in the first part of this stage and freshwater basin during the second; some studies place the end of the Yoldia Sea stage at 11,100 cal year BP)
• Ancylus Lake stage. A freshwater basin ca. 10,700–9500 cal year BP
• Littorina Sea stage. A brackish water basin, ca. 9500 cal year BP to present (Hyvärinen et al. 1988; Björck 1995, 1999; Andrén 2003; Andrén et al. 2002; Heinsalu and Veski 2007; Zillén et al. 2008). From colonisation by freshwater molluscs, the Limnea Sea has been dated at 4400 cal year BP and located in northern Estonia (Saarse and Vassiljev 2010).

Climate Change During the Holocene (Past 12,000 Years)

This chapter summarises the climatic and environmental information that can be inferred from proxy archives over the past 12,000 years. The proxy archives from continental and lake sedimentsSediments include pollen, insect remnants and isotopic...

link.springer.com

 

[westwall]

I could show you loads of graphs that say the opposite. But against your global warming denier cult it would probably do no good.

No, you can show me climate model creations. Those are not data. What you can't present is empirical data to support your claim because it simply doesn't exist.

 

[westwall]

Which global warming creating energy company pays you. Also, computer models have improved. Not that it matters. Because most of the evidence comes from direct observation. By actual scientists out in the field who know what they're talking about.

Ahhhh, yes. The eternal cop out. No one pays me. Unlike the global warming fraud pushers who get paid millions to push the fraud, I get nothing.

Next.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No, you haven't. But nice try fakey.

LOL. Would you like me to point you to, oh, let's say, 10 times I cited actual science? How about 20?

Then you can do the same.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No, you can show me climate model creations.

Ah hahahahahahahah! Doof doesn't know what a model is and how integral they are in all of science! LOL.

Those are not data. What you can't present is empirical data to support your claim because it simply doesn't exist.

Wow...it's like you would actually KNOW anything about data or science. LOL.

 

[westwall]

LOL. Would you like me to point you to, oh, let's say, 10 times I cited actual science? How about 20?

Then you can do the same.

Go away fakey, we all know you are a fraud. Just go away and come back as another sock. This one failed.

 

[BackAgain]

Care to tell me why? Or is slinging insults the best you can do.

I’m guessing it’s genetic. I don’t explain idiocy or imbecility to idiots and imbeciles.

 

[ding]

So if you deny human caused global warming, you are either stupid or evil. How do you like themmaples.

I guess I'm evil then.

Although I don't deny the impact that the urban heat island effect and deforestation has on temperature (i.e. albedo). I just disagree on how they quantify the impact CO2 has. So maybe I'm just bad and not evil.

 

[ding]

Are you as sure as Wynn Bruce was convinced that it is a reality?

Yes, but I don't see what setting myself on fire would accomplish. I put up with all kinds of foolishness.

 

[ding]

Which global warming creating energy company pays you. Also, computer models have improved. Not that it matters. Because most of the evidence comes from direct observation. By actual scientists out in the field who know what they're talking about.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I guess I'm evil then.

Well you’re creepy as fuck. That’s for sure

Although I don't deny the impact that the urban heat island effect and deforestation has on temperature (i.e. albedo).

At least you acknowledge that humans can have an effect on climate

I just disagree on how they quantify the impact CO2 has. So maybe I'm just bad and not evil.

Or just really stupid.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If you aren't here to discuss the subject matter then you shouldn't be here