Let's not let facts spoil a good narrative.
The beauty of all of this is that WHEN it becomes obvious that the planet is not heading for a super greenhouse state - and it will eventually be proven that it isn't - the same people who are arguing that we are will be the ones who tell us that they knew all along that we weren't.
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
We have been in an ice age for the past 2.7 million years. The planet is uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation. At no other time in the earth's history was it so configured for the planet to become colder. The same conditions which led to the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet still exist today.
Talk to me when you can tell me what those conditions are and explain why they led to the transition to an ice house planet.
What's your degree in?
Engineering. What's yours in?
So you know better than all those scientists and NASA?
I know what this means and why it is this way.
View attachment 508451
View attachment 508452
Do you?
I bet the people at NASA would laugh at you. Smart people follow their lead.
I get a lot of my data on past climates from NASA.
Maybe you should study the earth's climate for yourself.
I have, I agree with everything the scientists say.
You have no idea what the scientists say other than CO2 is bad. There isn't one thing you understand about any of this.
They have no empirical evidence. All they have are flawed models which have proven to be inaccurate. The only experiment that was done shows that CO2 does not cause appreciable back radiation. The evidence from the geologic record shows that CO2 does not drive climate change, it reinforces climate change. Our current temperature is 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles. Our present sea level is 26 ft below the last interglacial cycle. And we are literally in the middle of an ice age and are 120 ppm away from extensive continental glaciation that would put 3,000 meters of ice over all of Canada, parts of the US NE and Midwest and parts of Europe and Asia wiping out everything in it's path and displacing a quarter of a billion people.
Scientists agree that global warming from human activity is a thing. You don't agree. Guess who is more likely to be right?
SOME scientists believe such, because they are getting paid to say such.
Duh!
We teach science basics in school in hopes that average citizens will know and understand enough of science to protect themselves from misuse and also to know if those they elect to make decisions also know enough to decide wisely and correctly.
Would you agree that mixing ammonia and bleach is a good formula for a super cleaning solution?
I think that you're nuts if you think you know better than scientists and NASA.
I think you are nuts if you think they are infallible or always correct.
Also, I'd wager you either flunked or barely passed any science courses you took (if any).
I've a large background in technical applications in aerospace and the energy and manufacturing fields.
Have fun mixing the ammonia and bleach, but don't inhale.
Meanwhile, I go on proof that can be replicated in the lab, not opinion.
He clearly has no idea what is right or wrong, he just uses the education/authority, consensus fallacies as his basis for why he believes in them.
It is why he doesn't know what to debate on as he is ignorant of the details.
I should tell NASA to come here and get the truth from you 2 yahoos and stop playing around.
You mean the same NASA that launched the Challenger against the recommendation of the solid fuel booster manufacturer? That NASA?
Says Mr Perfect.
The solid fuel booster manufacturer perfectly predicted what would happen and NASA ignored it.
So then everything they've ever said or will say is bogus.
Just things they are biased about which gets in the way of their objectivity. That's why you shouldn't blindly follow anything or anyone.
Because you know better? Btw, what colour is the sky in your world?
I already explained why, dummy.
The facts are that we are in the middle of an ice age with the planet uniquely configured for bipolar glaciation which has led to more frequent and more drastic temperature changes. We are still 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles so our present temperature is still within the normal range. Those are the facts.
So why doesn't NASA/scientists in the field agree with you?
The field/working scientists do.
It's the political hacks at the top who spew your crap.
Prove it or stfu.
Typical Leftist~Socialist~communist agenda, "If you don't agree with me you have no right to speak"
Thank you Goebbels.
He can't prove what he claims. I win.
The oxygen isotope curves that you admitted you didn't know what they were is your proof, dummy.
I must have stumbled into the Mensa thread. How many Nobels do you have? I bet more than 1.
One does not need to belong to Mensa to know the reasons why the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. It's been well documented. No one disputes it. The question is why you don't know it.
One does not need to belong to Mensa to know that our present temperature is still 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles. It's been well documented. No one disputes it. The question is why you don't know it.
One does not need to belong to Mensa to know that if our present temperature is 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles then we are still within the normal temperature range of interglacial cycles. It's called using logic. No one can dispute it. The question is why you don't know it.
That's not even the point. It's about how humans are adding noxious gases to the atmosphere, at what rate, and what's that's doing to the planet. What you're talking about is irrelevant.
Which specific humans?
What specific "noxious gases"?
What Ding is talking about is directly relevant since it relates to temperatures and climatic conditions.
You on the other hand display lack of knowledge or grasp of the subject. Just another troll getting off on seeing his/her/its words on the screen.
He's talking about the overall temp, among other things. That's irrelevant to what humans are doing to the atmosphere.
The foundation for the hypothesis of Anthropogenic (human caused) Climate Change (ACC) often defined also as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is that the whole atmosphere is warming due to a slight increase of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) content(percentage) and it's temporary heat(IR) retention.
At @400 ppm(dry) (ppm=Part Per Million)('dry' = not accounting for water vapor content) for CO2, that expresses as 400/1,000,000; which reduces down to 1/2,500. The nonsense/non-science of ACC~AGW is that the one part (CO2) transfers its heat to the other 2,499 parts (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, etc.), raising their collective temperature as well.
Most middle school students whom have passed their basic math and general science classes should see the fallacy of this concept.
