Stryder50
Platinum Member
"guilt by comparison fallacy" is what we see in ACC/AGW claim that one part CO2 is causing heat rise in 2,499 parts of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, etc.
Zone1 Global Warming Denial vs IQ Denial
- Thread starter Hector12
- Start date
mamooth
Diamond Member
That's the "I'm too stupid to understand it, so it must be a hoax!" fallacy.
Stryder50
Platinum Member
You start this thread with scientific bullshit and a political agenda bullshit joined in by your choir and then continue your elitist nonsense.The Washington Post
This July 4 was hot. Earth’s hottest day on record, in fact.
By Leo Sands
Updated July 5, 2023 at 9:53 a.m. EDT
Tuesday was the hottest day on Earth since at least 1979, with the global average temperature reaching 62.92 degrees Fahrenheit (17.18 degrees Celsius), according to data from the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction.
As a result, some scientists believe July 4 may have been one of the hottest days on Earth in about 125,000 years, due to a dangerous combination of climate change causing global temperatures to soar, the return of the El Niño pattern and the start of summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
In the United States, 57 million people were exposed to dangerous heat on Tuesday, according to The Washington Post’s extreme heat tracker. At the same time, China was gripped by a sizzling heat wave, the Antarctic is hotter than usual during its winter, and temperatures in the north of Africa reached 122F, Reuters reported.
No data supporting your claims from you or your choir, so here is some to chew on.
Note this goes back even more than 125,000 years and shows then and times past when it was warmer.
Global climate change, or flux which is constantly changing to either warmer or cooler is how those ice ages or glacials occur.
Fools like you want to manipulate the atmosphere to fix a situation that isn't dangerous or a crisis status and in process increase the risk of setting off the next ice age.
Fools like you are a danger to humankind and need to stop your emission of CO2 immediately!
Last edited:
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Still waiting for you to prove how one part of CO2 at two degrees F warmer than the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere; Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argo, etc. will also absorb that heat and increase their temperature by two degrees F.
A math refresher for you and the other gorebot ACC/AGW minions;
400ppm(part per million) express also as;
400/1,000,000
reduces to;
4/10,000
or
1/2,500
mamooth
Diamond Member
No. You're the one denying the basic physics of the past century, so it's up to you to prove your case. We're the round-earthers, you're the flat-earther.
The military thinks CO2 has those properties. You know, the military that needed to research such things so that IR seeker heads would work.
Is it your contention that the US military and all world militaries are part of the plot?
mamooth
Diamond Member
A wildly dishonst presentation, being that it leaves off the last few centuries.
I kind of feel bad for you. You only know what your masters spoonfeed you, so you have no idea of how totally wrong you are about everything.
Here's the actual record. Are you going to claim the red spike is natural?
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Asshat!Climate change
In common usage, climate change describes global warming—the ongoing increase in global average temperature—and its effects on Earth's climate system. Climate change in a broader sense also includes previous long-term changes to Earth's climate. The current rise in global average temperature is more rapid than previous changes, and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels.[2][3] Fossil fuel use, deforestation, and some agricultural and industrial practices increase greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane.[4] Greenhouse gases absorb some of the heat that the Earth radiates after it warms from sunlight. Larger amounts of these gases trap more heat in Earth's lower atmosphere, causing global warming.
Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common.[5] Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss.[6] Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes.[7] Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct.[8] Even if efforts to minimise future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries. These include ocean heating, ocean acidification and sea level rise.[9]
View attachment 801951
View attachment 801952
Climate change - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Your baseline started about 4.5 BILLION years ago.
50 years worth isn't a pimple on a gnat's ass by comparison.
vegas giants
Gold Member
- Oct 11, 2016
- 347
- 114
- 178
- Banned
- #188
The scientific community disagrees with you
vegas giants
Gold Member
- Oct 11, 2016
- 347
- 114
- 178
- Banned
- #190
Shhhhhhhh
Climate Change - NASA Science
NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.
climate.nasa.gov
Stryder50
Platinum Member
SOME of the "scientific community disagrees with" me, because they are government funded to advance the case for ACC/AGW.
Other scientists, honest ones, agree with me.
People like you can't even frame the case correctly
You are trying to prove the hypothesis that the bulk of current "climate change" is human caused hence you should be correctly saying "anthropogenic climate change"(ACC) or "anthropogenic global warming"(AGW).
You fail to notice that while we so-called "deniers" reject ACC/AGW we do accept NATURAL climate change/global warming~cooling. Seems you ACC/AGW sham-scam hucksters are deniers of natural process in play for 4.5 billion years.
vegas giants
Gold Member
- Oct 11, 2016
- 347
- 114
- 178
- Banned
- #192
Very few agree with you
AGW consensus is very strong in the scientific community
Deny that
Stryder50
Platinum Member
And about 400 years ago the scientific community of that era disagreed with Galileo.
Consensus (mob opinion) is not real science, but it is science by politics.
Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia
vegas giants
Gold Member
- Oct 11, 2016
- 347
- 114
- 178
- Banned
- #194
And who is the current Galileo? LolAnd about 400 years ago the scientific community of that era disagreed with Galileo.
Consensus (mob opinion) is not real science, but it is science by politics.
Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia
Stryder50
Platinum Member
Present actual numbers on that "consensus" versus the full size of the scientific community globally.
Otherwise, just another of your lies.
Meanwhile;
And about 400 years ago the scientific community of that era disagreed with Galileo.
Consensus (mob opinion) is not real science, but it is science by politics.
Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia
vegas giants
Gold Member
- Oct 11, 2016
- 347
- 114
- 178
- Banned
- #196
Happy toPresent actual numbers on that "consensus" versus the full size of the scientific community globally.
Otherwise, just another of your lies.
Meanwhile;
And about 400 years ago the scientific community of that era disagreed with Galileo.
Consensus (mob opinion) is not real science, but it is science by politics.
Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...
climate.nasa.gov
Stryder50
Platinum Member
One contender;
Don Easterbrook
Don Easterbrook - Wikipedia
Don Easterbrook - CO2 Coalition
co2coalition.org
There are others such as here;
Home - CO2 Coalition
co2coalition.org
vegas giants
Gold Member
- Oct 11, 2016
- 347
- 114
- 178
- Banned
- #198
Well maybe there is one guy out there with a flat earth theory too. He's Galileo!!! LolOne contender;
Don Easterbrook
Don Easterbrook - Wikipedia
Don Easterbrook - CO2 Coalition
There are others such as here;
Home - CO2 Coalition
Stryder50
Platinum Member
A small percentage of the total global scientific community, and look like ones chasing government funding only available for pro ACC/AGW stances.Happy to
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...
But if you believe them and that CO2 is the danger, than you will personally stop emitting CO2 immediately, right?
One contender;
Don Easterbrook
Don Easterbrook - Wikipedia
Don Easterbrook - CO2 Coalition
There are others such as here;
Home - CO2 Coalition
This sock puppet is even more boring than his original identity. To the ignore pile it goes.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
-
Where can I find a single women with no pets or kids????- Started by fbj
- Replies: 9
