Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Excellent consistency.You just admitted that progs believe truth is nothing more than symptom of the Dunning-Kreuger effect.
Pick 5 years. Pick 100 years. Pick 1,000 years. Pick 100,000 years. Pick 1 million years.
What it is, over geological time, which is hundreds of millions and billions of years, the earth has experienced quite a bit of climate. It moves about, it's complex, it varies; always has, always will. Man, geologically, has not been around for very long. So if you take the climate when man has been about, the alarmists are shitting themselves, because they are looking at a snap shot of the planet.
Now, alarmists claim the earth is too warm and we'll evaporate if average temps hit 3c higher and 440ppm co2 is catastrophic. Now, can you tell me if that's right? The Cretaceous period was 2,400+ ppm co2, 4c higher, plants and dinosaurs flourished. The Quaternary period hit over 8,000ppm co2, glaciation and life continued.
So I'm all ears. The stuff alarmists claim does not tally with past evidence, yet, we're doomed. Can you explain why their agenda does not match reality?
As to your question; the Sahara used to be a temperate forest, Scott of Antarctica had found fossilized tree samples. Co2 is only a tiny bit of the puzzle, too complex to resolve it with tax and changing my car, but, you know best.
The rate at which humans are putting GHGs into the atmosphere and thus the rate at which humans are raising the planet's temperature is the most critical factor of all. It is that rate which precludes biological adaptation. It is that rate that precludes geological factors from buffering some of those changes. It is that rate that makes the cost of holding off catastrophic changes insurmountable.90% of Earth ice on Antarctica
7% on Greenland
If you cannot figure out climate change yet, consider this....
LAND MOVES tectonically
rate at which humans are putting GHGs into the atmosphere
www.nbcnews.com
The rate at which humans are putting GHGs into the atmosphere and thus the rate at which humans are raising the planet's temperature is the most critical factor of all. It is that rate which precludes biological adaptation. It is that rate that precludes geological factors from buffering some of those changes. It is that rate that makes the cost of holding off catastrophic changes insurmountable.
The rate at which humans are putting GHGs into the atmosphere and thus the rate at which humans are raising the planet's temperature is the most critical factor of all. It is that rate which precludes biological adaptation. It is that rate that precludes geological factors from buffering some of those changes. It is that rate that makes the cost of holding off catastrophic changes insurmountable.
No, at a certain point in the future, if the Chinese think it's real, it could get very political if/when they decide to move/buy the Russia Far East:Global warming is climate science. Only idiot Republicans think it's got anything to do with politics.
There was an inland sea from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.This is just pathetic.
Science went out with journalism here in America, it was "canceled." Global Warming is 100% politics and 0% science. That is why this topic is here.
There is a question the warmers cannot answer, the media will not ask, and the politicians pushing algore's fraud want censored. Fox will not ask it. Ted Cruz will not ask it. Why, because it flat out destroys the argument that Co2 causes climate change... and hence the credibility of the entire "news" media and the liars behind the fraud.
The warmers want you to believe Co2 is the driving variable behind Earth climate change. IT is not. The data never supported that conclusion. What causes Earth climate change is precisely what the past million years of Northern Hemisphere history tells us....
What did North America (NA) look like 1 million years ago?
T
All of Canada down through Indiana was covered in mile plus think ice 1 million years ago, the "North American Ice Age" (notice it is continent specific).
Now, in the first image, Greenland is frozen a million years ago ..... but was it?????????
"Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green
The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
IN PLAIN ENGLISH
During the Past 1 million years, Greenland FROZE while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of Co2 in the atmosphere
WHY?
WHAT CAUSED THAT?
Not one of the people here or in DC pushing algore's fraud can answer that. Clearly, the atmosphere did not cause it. Hence, Co2 had nothing to do with it....
So I ask, everyone here, before we bilk the taxpayer out of trillions more for algore's fraud, why do not we insist these thieving fudge baking liars answer that question before one more dime is spent on their phony theory and their anti-american fascist agenda....
That has absolutely nothing to do with AGWThere was an inland sea from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
That has absolutely nothing to do with AGW
What does that have to do with AGW, asshole?Yup. The epieric sea that used to cover the interior of the US was later filled in by erosion of the Appalachians as well as uplift.
What does that have to do with AGW, asshole?
Did I mention anything about that? You're not exchanging posts with some other poster, dumbass.It was in response to another post about the epieric sea in the mid continent of the US.
What is your malfunction?
Did I mention anything about that? You're not exchanging posts with some other poster, dumbass.
I didn't say a thing about any epieric sea, so what the fuck are you agreeing with? Go tell your other poster, moron, not me.I was agreeing that the mid-continent sea has nothing to do with climate change. It was what was called an epieric sea and was later filled in by uplift and the infilling from the erosion of the Appalachians.
Why are you attacking me? What is wrong with you?
I didn't say a thing about any epieric sea
, so what the fuck are you agreeing with? Go tell your other poster, moron, not me.
It doesn't matter what an epieric sea is. It still have nothing to with AGW. That's why I asked you what it had to do with AGW.YOU WERE RESPONDING TO ANOTHER POSTER WHO NOTED THAT AT ONE TIME THERE WAS A SEA IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT IS NOW THE USA.
You fuckin' idiot, that's what a fuckin' epieric sea is!
You need help, my friend. You really need help fast.
It doesn't matter what an epieric sea is. It still have nothing to with AGW.
That's why I asked you what it had to do with AGW.
If you want to look at this and then tell us there's no warming going on, we can't stop you. But anyone with two neurons to rub together fully understands how overwhelmingly full of shit you are.SUB HUMANS parrot lies
Are you vaccinated 8 times yet....
There is NO WARMING in the ACTUAL DATA, just in the FUDGE....
Key claim against global warming evaporates
Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.
satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.
Co2 went up. The two and only two measures of atmospheric temps showed NO WARMING....
What would Crick do???
FUDGE BOTH DATA SERIES with uncorrelated "corrections"
Co2 does NOTHING
