Alright, here's your chance. Humans are NOT causing climate change. Change my mind...

[jc456]

except the climate didn't change. If it had, then adding trees wouldn't have done what you wrote. In fact, I'd say the tree itself is the most important element here. not man.

The trees cut themselves down? ... with chainsaws? ... okay, boomer ... whatever ...

trees fall all the time when rotten, they become diseased by bugs and insects. Shit lightning can cause fires, has nothing to with humans. are you saying there was no underbrush? Nothing else green? dude if planting a tree restored some weather, ok I can deal with that, but climate? nope. plant a tree in a desert and let's see what happens.

 

[Rocko]

The assertion is yours to approve, granpa.

Not true. That would be asking him to prove a negative.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I care a great deal about things that matter. But you are one person whose mind was made up before you ever saw any facts. I doubt you or any of the deniers on this board would change their mind if their god told them in person that AGW was real. So there is no point in discussing things with you or the many other fools here. But there ARE people on this board who are actually on the sidelines; who ARE actually curious about the science and what it says; whose minds are open to critical, objective evaluation and learning. You're just not one of them.

People don't sit on the sidelines of a POLITICAL forum to learn about climate.

Be gone fool

 

[Crick]

So you're telling us you want to learn about climate change? The resources available to you are multitudinous and you've been hearing about them right here for years. To my knowledge, there are no actual climate scientists participating in this forum so, I think this is not where someone looking for accurate, objective would actually go. I think they would go to

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

AR6 will be out July of this year.

 

[whitehall]

Government scientists predicted a new ice age back in the 60's and they rolled with the flow up to the time when a democrat presidential candidate lost the election. Al Gore had no background in science but the radical left saw MMGW as a lucrative political issue and the Nobel Prize people saw the extortion possibilities and awarded Gore ....something...oh yeah the peace prize for suckering Uncle Sam into a quarter century political scam.

 

[jc456]

So you're telling us you want to learn about climate change? The resources available to you are multitudinous and you've been hearing about them right here for years. To my knowledge, there are no actual climate scientists participating in this forum so, I think this is not where someone looking for accurate, objective would actually go. I think they would go to

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

AR6 will be out July of this year.

Nothing new

 

[ReinyDays]

except the climate didn't change. If it had, then adding trees wouldn't have done what you wrote. In fact, I'd say the tree itself is the most important element here. not man.

The trees cut themselves down? ... with chainsaws? ... okay, boomer ... whatever ...

trees fall all the time when rotten, they become diseased by bugs and insects. Shit lightning can cause fires, has nothing to with humans. are you saying there was no underbrush? Nothing else green? dude if planting a tree restored some weather, ok I can deal with that, but climate? nope. plant a tree in a desert and let's see what happens.

I'm well aware of forest ecology ... where I live was nothing but forest before humans arrived ... 5,000 square miles of trees don't all fall down at the same time ... nor does fire plough the ground every year ... underbrush? ... no, generally farmers don't let the underbrush to grow in their fields ... why are you even asking? ...

Look up "transpiration" ... now compare, if you will, a lush tropical forest to a pasture full of cattle ... which has the most leaf surface area? ...

Yes, this effects weather ... and it effects the averages of this weather ... that's what climate is, average weather ... maybe you weren't aware of the terrible famine in that area 50 years ago ...

 

[jc456]

except the climate didn't change. If it had, then adding trees wouldn't have done what you wrote. In fact, I'd say the tree itself is the most important element here. not man.

The trees cut themselves down? ... with chainsaws? ... okay, boomer ... whatever ...

trees fall all the time when rotten, they become diseased by bugs and insects. Shit lightning can cause fires, has nothing to with humans. are you saying there was no underbrush? Nothing else green? dude if planting a tree restored some weather, ok I can deal with that, but climate? nope. plant a tree in a desert and let's see what happens.

I'm well aware of forest ecology ... where I live was nothing but forest before humans arrived ... 5,000 square miles of trees don't all fall down at the same time ... nor does fire plough the ground every year ... underbrush? ... no, generally farmers don't let the underbrush to grow in their fields ... why are you even asking? ...

Look up "transpiration" ... now compare, if you will, a lush tropical forest to a pasture full of cattle ... which has the most leaf surface area? ...

Yes, this effects weather ... and it effects the averages of this weather ... that's what climate is, average weather ... maybe you weren't aware of the terrible famine in that area 50 years ago ...

what comes first, climate and then trees or trees and climate? the old chicken or the egg scenario. yeah yeah I was merely pointing out that nature takes out trees. The fact that the trees were gone did not change the climate. Just didn't. It may have changed a weather pattern here or there, but somehow the original trees got there ahead of man. And per your post replant returned some rain. I highly doubt if you planted trees in a desert one would all of the sudden see rain more frequently. Otherwise why wouldn't we do that as a people? The climate there was unchanged, it supported trees and still supports trees. I highly doubt temperatures changed at all through the seasons. the one main one that is. Don't get me wrong, we've learned as a people to replace trees now where we forest. It's a beautiful thing. but it doesn't change climate to cut them down.

 

[TNHarley]

I care a great deal about things that matter. But you are one person whose mind was made up before you ever saw any facts. I doubt you or any of the deniers on this board would change their mind if their god told them in person that AGW was real. So there is no point in discussing things with you or the many other fools here. But there ARE people on this board who are actually on the sidelines; who ARE actually curious about the science and what it says; whose minds are open to critical, objective evaluation and learning. You're just not one of them.

Thats a lot of words to tell someone they arent worth discussing things with

 

[jc456]

I care a great deal about things that matter. But you are one person whose mind was made up before you ever saw any facts. I doubt you or any of the deniers on this board would change their mind if their god told them in person that AGW was real. So there is no point in discussing things with you or the many other fools here. But there ARE people on this board who are actually on the sidelines; who ARE actually curious about the science and what it says; whose minds are open to critical, objective evaluation and learning. You're just not one of them.

Thats a lot of words to tell someone they arent worth discussing things with

he can't discuss, he's a dictator, believe him or else. Oh, and anything you say is wrong, no matter what. Amazing shit.

 

[Crick]

I care a great deal about things that matter. But you are one person whose mind was made up before you ever saw any facts. I doubt you or any of the deniers on this board would change their mind if their god told them in person that AGW was real. So there is no point in discussing things with you or the many other fools here. But there ARE people on this board who are actually on the sidelines; who ARE actually curious about the science and what it says; whose minds are open to critical, objective evaluation and learning. You're just not one of them.

Thats a lot of words to tell someone they arent worth discussing things with

I think I made one or two other points along the way. And no one has even attempted to refute me yet.

 

[jc456]

I care a great deal about things that matter. But you are one person whose mind was made up before you ever saw any facts. I doubt you or any of the deniers on this board would change their mind if their god told them in person that AGW was real. So there is no point in discussing things with you or the many other fools here. But there ARE people on this board who are actually on the sidelines; who ARE actually curious about the science and what it says; whose minds are open to critical, objective evaluation and learning. You're just not one of them.

Thats a lot of words to tell someone they arent worth discussing things with

I think I made one or two other points along the way. And no one has even attempted to refute me yet.

your entire point has been refuted, and you ignored the refutes. I supposed you did that to say no one has refuted you. too funny.

 

[ReinyDays]

what comes first, climate and then trees or trees and climate? the old chicken or the egg scenario. yeah yeah I was merely pointing out that nature takes out trees. The fact that the trees were gone did not change the climate. Just didn't. It may have changed a weather pattern here or there, but somehow the original trees got there ahead of man. And per your post replant returned some rain. I highly doubt if you planted trees in a desert one would all of the sudden see rain more frequently. Otherwise why wouldn't we do that as a people? The climate there was unchanged, it supported trees and still supports trees. I highly doubt temperatures changed at all through the seasons. the one main one that is. Don't get me wrong, we've learned as a people to replace trees now where we forest. It's a beautiful thing. but it doesn't change climate to cut them down.

You seem uninformed about the basic geography here ... it is The Sahara that's a desert ... The Sahal is tropical forest ... they are not the same thing ...

You didn't answer my question ... which is an answer in of itself ...

 

[jc456]

what comes first, climate and then trees or trees and climate? the old chicken or the egg scenario. yeah yeah I was merely pointing out that nature takes out trees. The fact that the trees were gone did not change the climate. Just didn't. It may have changed a weather pattern here or there, but somehow the original trees got there ahead of man. And per your post replant returned some rain. I highly doubt if you planted trees in a desert one would all of the sudden see rain more frequently. Otherwise why wouldn't we do that as a people? The climate there was unchanged, it supported trees and still supports trees. I highly doubt temperatures changed at all through the seasons. the one main one that is. Don't get me wrong, we've learned as a people to replace trees now where we forest. It's a beautiful thing. but it doesn't change climate to cut them down.

You seem uninformed about the basic geography here ... it is The Sahara that's a desert ... The Sahal is tropical forest ... they are not the same thing ...

You didn't answer my question ... which is an answer in of itself ...

correct, each region has their own climate. so if a climate can support or not support. if that rule doesn't change, then climate didn't change because trees were chopped down. trees merely were removed. reintroduce trees and damn, they grew.

you asked two questions, which one do you need an answer to?

 

[mamooth]

Here is the know record of our recorded temperatures taken from Ice Cores.

And it stops more than a hundred years before the previous date. Ice cores can't be used to get recent temperatures. It takes many years and layers for the gases to get solidly locked into the ice.

Now, if the graph was extended to the current time, it would show a massive temperature spike. And that destroys your argument.

I'm sure you were deliberately misled there. What does that say about the people who fed you the bogus info? They lied to your face. Are you still going to follow them? The "Fool me once ... " maxim would seem to apply.

 

[jc456]

Here is the know record of our recorded temperatures taken from Ice Cores.

And it stops more than a hundred years before the previous date. Ice cores can't be used to get recent temperatures. It takes many years and layers for the gases to get solidly locked into the ice.

Now, if the graph was extended to the current time, it would show a massive temperature spike. And that destroys your argument.

I'm sure you were deliberately misled there. What does that say about the people who fed you the bogus info? They lied to your face. Are you still going to follow them? The "Fool me once ... " maxim would seem to apply.

post what you got.

 

[mamooth]

post what you got.

Why? You'll just ignore it, scream insults and run, so what's the point? We already know you'll do that.

I educate those willing to learn for free. Dishonest cultists, I charge for my expert tutoring, $50 an hour. If you're interested, I'll let you know where to paypal it up front.

 

[westwall]

Tell you what Grampa, why don't you see if you can change the minds of the tens of thousands of climate scientist around the world who are completely convinced that we are, because compared to their opinions, I don't really give two shits what you think.

You mean the 74?

 

[westwall]

The assertion is yours to approve, granpa.

Actually, it's not. The AGW proponents need to support their theory with empirical data.

To date they have not. Further the climatologists have tried to turn the scientific method on its head by refuting the need for reproducibility and by claiming you have to prove a negative.

All signs of a pseudo science.

 

[StormAl]

That has all the signs of a psuedo argument, but go for it.