Climate is not the disaster. Calling it consensus is the disaster.

Robert W

Former Democrat but long term Republican.
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2022
Messages
24,299
Reaction score
11,803
Points
1,138
Here is an excellent education about this topic. Scientists met to discuss this topic. And they had speakers who were not scientists. So learn from a non scientist.

 
Here is an excellent education about this topic. Scientists met to discuss this topic. And they had speakers who were not scientists. So learn from a non scientist.


Your panel had a blurb that was embedded:

change.PNG

That's from the U.N., part of a longer dialogue that states that the human caused greenhouse raised the temp of the "globe" by 1.5C since the 1800's. This is ridiculous considering that there simply is not enough heat energy coming from the sun to heat the Earth 1.5C in just 150 years.

Climate change is a doomed group-think, like lemmings marching to the sea.
 
Your panel had a blurb that was embedded:

View attachment 971742
That's from the U.N., part of a longer dialogue that states that the human caused greenhouse raised the temp of the "globe" by 1.5C since the 1800's. This is ridiculous considering that there simply is not enough heat energy coming from the sun to heat the Earth 1.5C in just 150 years.

Climate change is a doomed group-think, like lemmings marching to the sea.
Correct in your points., That blurb was inserted by the non scientific YouTube people.
 
Correct in your points., That blurb was inserted by the non scientific YouTube people.
Perhaps my error was my allowing an ambiguity.

My first statement was that the blurb was embedded. No argument there. The second statement was that it was from the U.N.. That could be misleading as it suggested that the U.N. did the embedding which was not true. It was the YouTube morons that did the embedding after they got it originally from the ill informed hapless ones at the U.N.
 
They achieve consensus by not including dissenting opinions.
They achieve consensus by dismissing dissenting opinions.
They achieve consensus by ridiculing dissenting opinions.

That's not science. That's politics.
 
Here a professor explains dissent.
 
For 6,000 weather stations ... a "once in a thousand years" event occurs 6 times per year ... on average ... and that's without any change to climate ... and that's why the headlines every other month ... that's perfectly normal average weather ...
 
Here is an excellent education about this topic. Scientists met to discuss this topic. And they had speakers who were not scientists. So learn from a non scientist.


False of course.

The consensus Of the evidence and of the scientists are both overwhelming.
 
False of course.

The consensus Of the evidence and of the scientists are both overwhelming.

So you admit there's no cause-and-effect ... what evidence is there that carbon dioxide has super-natural radiative powers? ... 125 ppm is a tiny amount of mass, so it has a tiny effect on temperature ...

Consensus doesn't replace a calculated solution ... do the math, and post your results please ...
 
Because you don't know ... consensus is your religion ... your dogma ...
I am not a scientist. Neither are you, which means your pathetic theater is worthless.

Publish some science, or stop pretending you read a blog and outsmarted the scientific community.

That's free advice.
 
I am not a scientist. Neither are you, which means your pathetic theater is worthless.

Publish some science, or stop pretending you read a blog and outsmarted the scientific community.

That's free advice.

You should take your own advice then ... go back to why you're thinking of mirrors and lotion again ...
 
Back
Top Bottom