Global Warming. Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.

[ding]

You are so wrong it's not even funny. Do you honestly not know how climate operates? Do you think the ONLY thing that drives climate is CO2 concentration? I'm sorry to hear that. You don't appear to know much of anything in technical detail. After talking to you for this long I'm relatively certain you couldn't post a scientifically robust, technically detailed response to anything if you were forced to by law. I've certainly never seen you discuss ANYTHING in technical detail. Not once yet. I look forward to the day it happens. But right now you are just out of your depth.

You can't help but make this personal, can you?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

There you go again making it personal.

I'm actually TRYING to get you to post something technical and detailed.

But that isn't your thing.

I know a lot of educated people like yourself hate talking tech but it is curious why you so readily abandon technical details in a technical topic you CLEARLY have some thoughts on.

Why is your understanding of all of this so simplistic?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You can't help but make this personal, can you?

I am sorry to hear you think CO2 is the ONLY driver for climate. I don't know how you propose to make any technical points on a topic you are so WOEFULLY ill prepared to discuss.

I wish you luck.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm sure that set of sentences makes sense to you. But I'm bored with you now. Please take some time to learn the topic.

You said, "Given that the earth is in balance with incoming energy it does"

Feel free to run away instead of explaining why this, "The elevation gets higher and higher"
matters even a tiny bit.

 

[ding]

I'm actually TRYING to get you to post something technical and detailed. But that isn't your thing. I know a lot of educated people like yourself hate talking tech but it is curious why you so readily abandon technical details in a technical topic you CLEARLY have some thoughts on. Why is your understanding of all of this so simplistic?

No. You are attacking me personally.

 

[ding]

I am sorry to hear you think CO2 is the ONLY driver for climate. I don't know how you propose to make any technical points on a topic you are so WOEFULLY ill prepared to discuss. I wish you luck.

Again... a warmer world will be a wetter world. A warmer and wetter world will be a greener world. A warmer, wetter, greener world is conducive for life. Life will thrive.

 

[Crick]

Again... a warmer world will be a wetter world. A warmer and wetter world will be a greener world. A warmer, wetter, greener world is conducive for life. Life will thrive.

Now that is fucking PROFOUND

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No. You are attacking me personally.

I am hoping to have a technical conversation with an engineer. So far you have not provided anything of technical detail.

Look at any one of my posts. There is a statement and supporting discussion. I go into technical details and often provide citations.

 

[Crick]

No. You are attacking me personally.

It looked to me as if he accurately and objectively described your behavior and made a simple inquiry. Where was the personal attack?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Again... a warmer world will be a wetter world. A warmer and wetter world will be a greener world. A warmer, wetter, greener world is conducive for life. Life will thrive.

If the earth was one single homogenous climate and it was completely controlled by the greenhouse gases you would have a point.

Given that the current earth is nothing even remotely like that makes your point meaningless.

Perhaps you can outline your "model planet" where there are no other factors that impact climate and cause variability across the globe to hypothesize your ideas. But for the time being I'll stick with the actual EARTH.

Let me put it this way:

If I say the AVERAGE height of a kindergarten kid is 40" and children grow over time. The average height of a high school kid is 68". Do you HONESTLY think that all the children grew at EXACTLY THE SAME RATE? Of course you don't. That would be the most ignorant thing anyone could think. In fact there may even be someone in that class who didn't grow more than a few inches!

That's what we are talking about here. The global average temperature is what is increasing but LOCALLY some places will get warmer and wetter and some places will get cooler and drier.

That's how climate works.

I have already outlined one example which you do not wish to address, but it is quite real and explains everything I'm trying to say to you.

So may I ask why you are acting as if the earth is a super-simple system with a coherent global climate that is the same everywhere?

 

[Redfish]

If you are unwilling to act as if you have read ANYTHING on this topic then I am unable to discuss anything with you.

Do not waste people's time learning stuff you should already know before trying to "debate" it.

this topic is like abortion, everyone has opinions and most are inflexible to hearing the other side. None of us knows the truth about climate, whether man is affecting it or not. What we have are theories put forth by people with an agenda or who have been paid to reach a certain conclusion. Repeat: NO ONE KNOWS IF MAN IS CHANGING EARTH'S CLIMATE OR NOT, NO ONE!!!!!

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

this topic is like abortion, everyone has opinions and most are inflexible to hearing the other side. None of us knows the truth about climate, whether man is affecting it or not. What we have are theories put forth by people with an agenda or who have been paid to reach a certain conclusion. Repeat: NO ONE KNOWS IF MAN IS CHANGING EARTH'S CLIMATE OR NOT, NO ONE!!!!!

Incorrect. YOU may not know and you probably don't understand the science, but there are a very large number of experts who actually do have a much better idea of what is going on.

One should never confuse their own ignorance of a topic with the state of knowledge in that topic.

 

[Redfish]

You are incorrect. But given that you have no science to support your position that shouldn't be a surprise.

Science? Science is not finite, it is always changing. real scientists put forth a hypothesis and then run tests to verify or disprove it. AGW is a THEORY, nothing more. The earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for millions of years, man has never had anything to do with it, and short of nuclear war, never will. Man is polluting the air and water but there is no proven link between pollution and climate. Why don't you libs attack the real problem of pollution instead of worshiping algore and his theory of AGW?

 

[Redfish]

You can't help but make this personal, can you?

its what libs do on every topic, they cannot help themselves

 

[Redfish]

Incorrect. YOU may not know and you probably don't understand the science, but there are a very large number of experts who actually do have a much better idea of what is going on.

One should never confuse their own ignorance of a topic with the state of knowledge in that topic.

OK, then how did human activity cause the warming cycles that occurred before there were humans?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Science? Science is not finite, it is always changing. real scientists put forth a hypothesis and then run tests to verify or disprove it. AGW is a THEORY, nothing more.

There is so much wrong with your sentence there. You clearly don't know how the word "Theory" is used in science. I am sorry, but you didn't even hit the low bar.

The earth has been warming and cooling in cycles for millions of years,

ANd the ONLY reason YOU know about that is from the same research that tells us that the current warming is largely due to humans.

man has never had anything to do with it, and short of nuclear war, never will.

When you make a "universal negative" claim you have lost on grounds of logic. No one can support a universal negative claim.

Man is polluting the air and water but there is no proven link between pollution and climate. Why don't you libs attack the real problem of pollution instead of worshiping algore and his theory of AGW?

We have been. It's usually cconservatives who vote against regulations to stop pollution. This is my daily reality as an R&D chemist. You wouldn't understand.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

OK, then how did human activity cause the warming cycles that occurred before there were humans?

Natural forcings. Solar, ocean currents, location of landmasses, even greenhouse gas levels.

The key is that none of the "natural" forcings (which are EXTENSIVELY discussed in all the literature) line up with the current warming. The sun is not in a proper part of its cycle to cause warming, the ocean currents are not changing independent of the warming (so not driving the warming) etc.

Human activity, however CAN account for the warming we've seen.

THis set of graphs shows that:

The data doesn't make any sense until you invoke "anthropogenic" factors (human activity).

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

its what libs do on every topic, they cannot help themselves

So far I'm the ONLY one posting actual science. Feel free to post some science if you want to try.

 

[Redfish]

There is so much wrong with your sentence there. You clearly don't know how the word "Theory" is used in science. I am sorry, but you didn't even hit the low bar.



ANd the ONLY reason YOU know about that is from the same research that tells us that the current warming is largely due to humans.



When you make a "universal negative" claim you have lost on grounds of logic. No one can support a universal negative claim.



We have been. It's usually cconservatives who vote against regulations to stop pollution. This is my daily reality as an R&D chemist. You wouldn't understand.

enjoy your fantasy, I am done with you, I refuse to waste my time with indoctrinated fools. Go worship your algore statue, kiss his feet, then ask him why florida is not under water and why the polar ice is still here.

 

[Redfish]

So far I'm the ONLY one posting actual science. Feel free to post some science if you want to try.

are you posting science like Fauci was posting science? Happy Wuhan lab day, moron.