Scientists Prove Warmer Eras Prior to Industrial Age, Disproves AGW

[Montrovant]

I'm not sure how the Earth being warmer 3 million years ago disproves that mankind may be causing warming now. Does manmade global warming mean only warming that is greater than it has been at any point in the past?

Regardless of whether humanity is contributing to the warming of the planet, the fact that it was warmer 3 million years ago neither proves nor disproves the idea.

If CO2 was as high 3 million years ago, how did it get that high? Maybe man isn't causing the rise of CO2 now but some natural phenomena is.

Mark

That might be. My point was that the level of CO2 3 million years ago doesn't prove whether or not man is contributing to it now.

but it does prove no big deal.

How does it do that? Maybe it's no big deal for the planet, but it could be a big deal for humanity.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not sure how the Earth being warmer 3 million years ago disproves that mankind may be causing warming now. Does manmade global warming mean only warming that is greater than it has been at any point in the past?

Regardless of whether humanity is contributing to the warming of the planet, the fact that it was warmer 3 million years ago neither proves nor disproves the idea.

But it does disprove the idea that it’s going to be catastrophic for the environment and cause mass extinctions of many species, which is what the fear mongers are peddling in order to get more control over people’s lives. The globalists could care less about the environment, they just want to use the issue to push their Agenda.

Does it? What if there were mass extinctions 3 million years ago when the planet warmed? Also, the distribution of life on the planet is quite different now than it was 3 million years ago, that could influence how strong an effect global warming has on the planet's life, regardless of the source of that warming.

The only thing this study seems to disprove would be the idea that the sort of warming we're seeing today is unprecedented.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

he biggest take away from this article- climate science is NOT settled. If it were, how are they making new discoveries.

That's nonsensical and too general. We just discovered a new, extinct species related to humans. That doesn't mean evolution as the orogin of species is not settled fact,or that its not settled fa t that all primates share a common ancestor..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Lol, so now we know for a FACT that while humans were still evolving into higher life forms, the Earth was warmer and had more CO2, along with the note that Mars and Earth seem to h ave the same warming/cooling cycles.

If AGW can be falsifiable, meaning it is real science and not psuedo science, then this should do it.

But we all know it is a secular religion and has nothing to do with science and never did.

Nolte: Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax

Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.

Yes, you read that correctly, three million — million — years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today…

Three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols.​

But then again, maybe Mamoth farts were worse than cars?

roflmao

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, your thread is completely bogus.
3 million years ago there was no political agenda, no redistribution of wealth.
So back then there was no man made global climate change.
Fast forward to today, we have a drive to globalization and redistribution of wealth to the
dictators of third world countries. A push to get rid of the last superpower in the world.
So...today we have man made climate change.

See.....I think you now can see the err in this bogus made up fake news story.

Haha....crackpot nonsense....

 

[BuckToothMoron]

he biggest take away from this article- climate science is NOT settled. If it were, how are they making new discoveries.

That's nonsensical and too general. We just discovered a new, extinct species related to humans. That doesn't mean evolution as the orogin of species is not settled fact,or that its not settled fa t that all primates share a common ancestor..

Well there are many who would argue evolution is not the origin of species. Since I am not one of them, we will go with your line of reasoning. This newly discovered extinct species upsets the previous models of human evolution, does it not? Therefore the evolutionary science is not settled. It doesn’t mean evolution is false, it means what we previously knew or thought was wrong or at least incomplete. Similar to global warming. We all acknowledge that climate is in a state of perpetual change, but the causes and amounts of change is the unsettled part.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well there are many who would argue evolution is not the origin of species

So what? They are wrong, and all the evidence stands against them. Who gives a shit what arguments they can contrive? The truth of evolution is an empirical matter, not a philosophical matter.

This newly discovered extinct species upsets the previous models of human evolution, does it not?

No. Nothing about any known lineage precludes the existence of as yet unknown branches from that lineage.

And you are comparing apples to oranges anyway. Nothing is going to upend the known facts of solar input and the greenhouse effect. Just as finding a new humanlike species that existed 50,000 years ago isnt going to suddenly mean modern humans may have existed 60 million years ago. There is no magical mechanism that is going to make heat disappear. And while there may be a currently unknown mechanism that tosses more heat into space at some point in the future, acknowledging this is not good reason not to act on what we know.

We all acknowledge that climate is in a state of perpetual change, but the causes and amounts of change is the unsettled part.

That is just not correct. The cause of our current climate change is very well known. That's the scientific consensus: it's (almost certainly, as that is how scientists speak) caused by our emissions. All the evidence agrees.

By the way,who taught you the climate always changes? Simple question.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Well there are many who would argue evolution is not the origin of species

So what? They are wrong, and all the evidence stands against them. Who gives a shit what arguments they can contrive? The truth of evolution is an empirical matter, not a philosophical matter.

This newly discovered extinct species upsets the previous models of human evolution, does it not?

No. Nothing about any known lineage precludes the existence of as yet unknown branches from that lineage.

And you are comparing apples to oranges anyway. Nothing is going to upend the known facts of solar input and the greenhouse effect. Just as finding a new humanlike species that existed 50,000 years ago isnt going to suddenly mean modern humans may have existed 60 million years ago. There is no magical mechanism that is going to make heat disappear. And while there may be a currently unknown mechanism that tosses more heat into space at some point in the future, acknowledging this is not good reason not to act on what we know.

We all acknowledge that climate is in a state of perpetual change, but the causes and amounts of change is the unsettled part.

That is just not correct. The cause of our current climate change is very well known. That's the scientific consensus: it's (almost certainly, as that is how scientists speak) caused by our emissions. All the evidence agrees.

By the way,who taught you the climate always changes? Simple question.

Not sure of your education or background, but pretty certain it isn’t science.

You started the comparison of evolution to climate change, and then accused me of comparing apples and oranges. WTF?

First you stated that a new species related to humans has been discovered, and then you argue this doesn’t change evolutionary models. Your must have quite the flexible jaw, because you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

As for the scientific consensus- there are plenty of credible detractors. The liberals use the consensus argument to squelch the debate when they can’t defend their models. Watch this video and tell me the science is settled about AGW.

 

[theHawk]

I'm not sure how the Earth being warmer 3 million years ago disproves that mankind may be causing warming now. Does manmade global warming mean only warming that is greater than it has been at any point in the past?

Regardless of whether humanity is contributing to the warming of the planet, the fact that it was warmer 3 million years ago neither proves nor disproves the idea.

But it does disprove the idea that it’s going to be catastrophic for the environment and cause mass extinctions of many species, which is what the fear mongers are peddling in order to get more control over people’s lives. The globalists could care less about the environment, they just want to use the issue to push their Agenda.

Does it? What if there were mass extinctions 3 million years ago when the planet warmed? Also, the distribution of life on the planet is quite different now than it was 3 million years ago, that could influence how strong an effect global warming has on the planet's life, regardless of the source of that warming.

The only thing this study seems to disprove would be the idea that the sort of warming we're seeing today is unprecedented.

When the planet warms up life flourishes. When the planet is in an ice age that is when life barely ekes out an existence. The planet getting warmer means more tropical areas and current frozen hell holes would be able to be habitable.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not sure how the Earth being warmer 3 million years ago disproves that mankind may be causing warming now. Does manmade global warming mean only warming that is greater than it has been at any point in the past?

Regardless of whether humanity is contributing to the warming of the planet, the fact that it was warmer 3 million years ago neither proves nor disproves the idea.

But it does disprove the idea that it’s going to be catastrophic for the environment and cause mass extinctions of many species, which is what the fear mongers are peddling in order to get more control over people’s lives. The globalists could care less about the environment, they just want to use the issue to push their Agenda.

Does it? What if there were mass extinctions 3 million years ago when the planet warmed? Also, the distribution of life on the planet is quite different now than it was 3 million years ago, that could influence how strong an effect global warming has on the planet's life, regardless of the source of that warming.

The only thing this study seems to disprove would be the idea that the sort of warming we're seeing today is unprecedented.

When the planet warms up life flourishes. When the planet is in an ice age that is when life barely ekes out an existence. The planet getting warmer means more tropical areas and current frozen hell holes would be able to be habitable.

All life is not going to flourish with rising temperatures. Perhaps it leads to a greater amount of life, but those species which might die out due to increasing global temperatures will find little comfort in that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You ignored my question.

You started the comparison of evolution to climate change, and then accused me of comparing apples and oranges.

Correct. Because you are trying to imply that this find is somehow unsettling to the fundamental climate theories, when it is not. Just as a new humanlke species does nothing to unsettle the fundamental facts of evolution or even of human lineage. That's the apples to oranges comparison. And I could use the theory of electromagnetism to make the same point, instead of evolution.

First you stated that a new species related to humans has been discovered, and then you argue this doesn’t change evolutionary models.

No, I argued that it does not unsettle the basis of the theory. You are being too simple. No, it does not affect the fact that all humans share an african ancestor. No, we are not suddenly wondering if humans existed 10 million years ago.

And no, this discovery about past climate does not unsettle agw theory, which states that mankind's emissions have caused the current, rapid, observed warming.

As for the scientific consensus- there are plenty of credible detractors.

No, there aren't. Again, this is an empirical matter, not a philosophical matter. And the survey of all published science of the last 20+ years shows that 0% of it concludes anything contradicting agw theory.

In other words, these detractors are producing and have NO EVIDENCE. So no, their detraction is most certainly not credible.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When the planet warms up life flourishes.

And who taught you that?

 

[theHawk]

When the planet warms up life flourishes.

And who taught you that?

Natural history. You should try studying actual science some time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Natural history.

No, sorry,the past, plants, nonhuman animals, and rocks don't talk or write. Let's try again. Was it a book? A professor?

 

[skookerasbil]

I'm not sure how the Earth being warmer 3 million years ago disproves that mankind may be causing warming now. Does manmade global warming mean only warming that is greater than it has been at any point in the past?

Regardless of whether humanity is contributing to the warming of the planet, the fact that it was warmer 3 million years ago neither proves nor disproves the idea.

But it does disprove the idea that it’s going to be catastrophic for the environment and cause mass extinctions of many species, which is what the fear mongers are peddling in order to get more control over people’s lives. The globalists could care less about the environment, they just want to use the issue to push their Agenda.

Does it? What if there were mass extinctions 3 million years ago when the planet warmed? Also, the distribution of life on the planet is quite different now than it was 3 million years ago, that could influence how strong an effect global warming has on the planet's life, regardless of the source of that warming.

The only thing this study seems to disprove would be the idea that the sort of warming we're seeing today is unprecedented.

Yeah well gonna have to roll the dice and hope for the best because nobody showing any interest in forking over their wallet to combat something imaginary. Now....maybe it's not imaginary to you and some other climate crusaders, but most in the public could not possibly yawn any bigger when it comes to climate change action.....we know this!

This story simply increases the hordes of people who have become skeptics over the last 10 years.

 

[skookerasbil]

You ignored my question.

You started the comparison of evolution to climate change, and then accused me of comparing apples and oranges.

Correct. Because you are trying to imply that this find is somehow unsettling to the fundamental climate theories, when it is not. Just as a new humanlke species does nothing to unsettle the fundamental facts of evolution or even of human lineage. That's the apples to oranges comparison. And I could use the theory of electromagnetism to make the same point, instead of evolution.

First you stated that a new species related to humans has been discovered, and then you argue this doesn’t change evolutionary models.

No, I argued that it does not unsettle the basis of the theory. You are being too simple. No, it does not affect the fact that all humans share an african ancestor. No, we are not suddenly wondering if humans existed 10 million years ago.

And no, this discovery about past climate does not unsettle agw theory, which states that mankind's emissions have caused the current, rapid, observed warming.

As for the scientific consensus- there are plenty of credible detractors.

No, there aren't. Again, this is an empirical matter, not a philosophical matter. And the survey of all published science of the last 20+ years shows that 0% of it concludes anything contradicting agw theory.

In other words, these detractors are producing and have NO EVIDENCE. So no, their detraction is most certainly not credible.

But where is there any evidence that AGW is a public concern?

Climate crusaders cant quite connect the dots on this dynamic. There is AGW science but it has not transcended anywhere beyond it's own field......except for a few people who tend the the hysterical.

 

[Wyatt earp]

When the planet warms up life flourishes.

And who taught you that?

Uhm in the second grade that you obviously failed.............

 

[airplanemechanic]

How many Honda Civics were spewing out carbon based emissions several million years ago?

From what I hear, quite a few. The damn things last forever. I think I was behind one this morning on the interstate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When the planet warms up life flourishes.

And who taught you that?

Uhm in the second grade that you obviously failed.............



View attachment 255351

Sorry, the second grade doesnt talk or write. Was it a book? A professor? A teacher?

Ok guys, i will answer for you: it was scientists. The same biologists that endorse the scientific consensus on climate change. The same climate scientists that endorse the consensus on climate change.

So, essentially, you uneducated slobs are implying that the very scientists who taught us everything we know about that are now lavboring under the ignorance of their own discoveries and their own fields of science.

How do you do this and not feel embarrassed of yourselves?

 

[Flash]

The biggest flaw in this silly AGW scam is that it can't be proven that man made levels of CO2 emissions results in any measurable climate change. There is a very weak correlation between industrial era CO2 levels and an possible warming but that it far from being meaningful scientific proof. That is why the idiots make up data and none of their predictions ever happens.

The CO2 levels have been lower and the earth warmer. The CO2 levels have been higher and the earth cooler. Data also indicated that increased CO2 levels lags warmer eras.

It is a big scam and these stupid Moon Bats have fallen for it. Not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The biggest flaw in this silly AGW scam is that it can't be proven that man made levels of CO2 emissions results in any measurable climate change.

100% wrong. But thanks for stopping by.