Scientists Prove Warmer Eras Prior to Industrial Age, Disproves AGW

[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.

Hey Boseaphus………...did you go to any higher learning establishments?

Well then, if you did, you would know that CONSENSUS is NOT how science works!

Does 2 + 2 = 4? Does 3 + 3 = 6? That is FACT! It is PROVEN SCIENCE! Now, if it was CONSENSUS, we would have a chunk of people who would say it is NOT true! And that is EXACTLY what we have in the scientific community today, people who say that your scientists have NOT proved it out, as none of their models work.

Now you can try and change how the scientific community proves/disproves things all you want to bolster your argument. But the fact is-------------> under THEIR OWN RULES, your side isn't even close to proving your theory. If you think you are, then you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about proving/disproving scientific assumptions, and if that is the case, NONE of us would be surprised-)

Excellent post!

For those who believe that AGW is in fact proven, go thru the scientific method and you’ll discover, by the rules of science, it is in fact not proven.
They haven’t passed step 3. Sorry.

• Step 1: Make observations.
• Step 2: Formulate a hypothesis.
• Step 3: Test the hypothesis through experimentation.
• Step 4: Accept or modify the hypothesis .
• Step 5: Development into a law and/or a theory

 

[daveman]

How do you not feel embarrassed by repeating the "consensus" bullshit?

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. The most comprehensive studies considered all the published climate science. And yes, the consensus is overwheloming. In fact, it's so overwhelming that the percetage of studies concluding anything contradicting accepted climate theories is 0%.

Translation: the denier retards have no evidence on their side and are not producing any.

It's weird how I don't see any links in your post.

Meanwhile, climate "science" has proven it's not above stacking the deck.

 

[daveman]

Any scientist who says "The science is settled!" is not a real scientist.

The science is settled. It is settled because the scientists who know whereof they speak say so.

How do you not feel embarrassed by repeating the "consensus" bullshit?

[...]Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming

Ah, noted authority on climate science, American Thunker. Who guessed?

Hilarious.

Circular logic is not logic at all. There's a whole great big world outside your little bubble.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

So you did fail the second grade didnt you, god damn science and history tells us a warmer planet more C02 the plants and animals grew HUGE...............

bet you don't know why Eskimos have a snub nose do you?????????

 

[Montrovant]

The population of the earth is the highest in history. We live near everywhere and live in more potentially dangerous zones in big numbers. We even live in areas purposely/artificially that may not be good. So if Florida had a million people several decades ago and say twenty million people now will there be a difference in cause and affect? So there is a difference between climate change and weather. And then there is not. Progs make things up as they go along. Florida is supposedly be a third the size now.

The past few decades, a lot of environmentalists have said we should execute millions of humans to "save the planet".

Define "a lot."

 

[RealDave]

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

"Gee, I wonder how CO2 could be that high" siad the uneducated asshole.

 

[daveman]

The population of the earth is the highest in history. We live near everywhere and live in more potentially dangerous zones in big numbers. We even live in areas purposely/artificially that may not be good. So if Florida had a million people several decades ago and say twenty million people now will there be a difference in cause and affect? So there is a difference between climate change and weather. And then there is not. Progs make things up as they go along. Florida is supposedly be a third the size now.

The past few decades, a lot of environmentalists have said we should execute millions of humans to "save the planet".

Define "a lot."

Here are 5 leaders of the environmental movement.

Texas Distinguished Scientist of 2006, University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka

Okay, so not a lot.

But people listen to them. People take them seriously.

 

[Montrovant]

The population of the earth is the highest in history. We live near everywhere and live in more potentially dangerous zones in big numbers. We even live in areas purposely/artificially that may not be good. So if Florida had a million people several decades ago and say twenty million people now will there be a difference in cause and affect? So there is a difference between climate change and weather. And then there is not. Progs make things up as they go along. Florida is supposedly be a third the size now.

The past few decades, a lot of environmentalists have said we should execute millions of humans to "save the planet".

Define "a lot."

Here are 5 leaders of the environmental movement.

Texas Distinguished Scientist of 2006, University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka

Okay, so not a lot.

But people listen to them. People take them seriously.

Only one of those actually talked about killing people off to reduce population.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well then, if you did, you would know that CONSENSUS is NOT how science works!

I'm not arguing that the consensus is why it is true. I was arguing that there is consensus. The preponderance of the mutually supportive evidence is why there is consensus. I thought that was obvious, but I spelled it out, just for you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, but no one wants to bankrupt the economies of the Western world for evolution.

Okay, drama queen.

 

[Olde Europe]

Only one of those actually talked about killing people off to reduce population.

Actually, none did. Pianka talked about how nature would - and in some form will - deal with a species that seriously overgrows nature's carrying capacity. A quick research will inform you on that, and also that "louderwithcrowder" and "prepperfortress" are click-bait generators for hysterical goofs - certainly not acceptable as sources.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well heres the thing.....

These bozos say "the science is decided". But then, why do they routinely go rigging the data?

The other thing is, climate change is an exceedingly fringe issue for voters. Always has been and the reason is, people really dont care. Very few people are moved to climate change action so it's a hugely peripheral issue.....look at the response to the concept of something like the Green New Deal. An immense collective yawn by the public.

Any scientist who says "The science is settled!" is not a real scientist.

Okay, but scientists are content to refer to some theories as facts. For instance, evolution.

Yes, but no one wants to bankrupt the economies of the Western world for evolution.

Exactly right.....the climate crusaders collectively miss that whole point. Its fascinating. They keep talking about the science like the rest of the world resides on 10 North of the local hospital. AGW theory has been such a dud in the real world.....its a banner to take a bow in front of for the climate obsessed. For 20 years now. An internet hobby.

Nobody wants to be paying 10% of their net income on energy.....d0y.

And they know they are l0sing too.....the anger and misery in their posts. Yuk.....yuk!

You wonder why these people havent moved the ball a single yard? Look at RealDave.....when your head explodes the moment you start looking silly during the debate, nobody takes you seriously! That's the problem with these people.....all credibility is lost when you pivot to Jim Jones mode. They do it all the time! And we get to do all the wiNNinG!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Here is a cute little ditty pro-AGW

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

How do you not feel embarrassed by repeating the "consensus" bullshit?

Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming

The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 - 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."​

There is a consensus that man's burning fossil fuel is the main factor in the slight warming we've seen in the past 150 years. There are various differences of opinion about the future effects and certainly no consensus on the catastrophic predictions other than most scientist believe thy will not occur until the later part of the century or even next century.

 

[imawhosure]

Well then, if you did, you would know that CONSENSUS is NOT how science works!

I'm not arguing that the consensus is why it is true. I was arguing that there is consensus. The preponderance of the mutually supportive evidence is why there is consensus. I thought that was obvious, but I spelled it out, just for you.

Preponderance of evidence, or consensus, does not a proven theory make. Therefore, anyone who suggests/and/or insists the science on this question is settled, is only doing so because it fits their agenda...………..you know, kinda like Trump was a Russian agent, and all of you KNEW he colluded, lol.

This is why people like YOU; and if ya don't know who that is, go look in the mirror...………..have exactly ZERO credibility. You claim that things that are later proven to be FALSE, are actually true. You claim that things that are unproven, actually are. And then, when your narrative falls apart, you start a new one, rinse and repeat.

While you don't want my advice, I will give it anyway--------->if you said------------->if this is true, it could be terrible, we need to demand they look into it further...………...now that makes sense.

But to come along, claim it is true and that it is settled science, that makes you a joke...………...because anyone who has had anything to do with scientific studies knows INSTANTLY you are full of crap as a Thanksgiving turkey!

And I am being nice. Most other Conservatives would hammer you mercilessly for your misguided, totally inaccurate statements.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

AGW is about as much settled fact as the Evolution THEORY. Still waiting for see the missing link.

 

[badger2]

Skeptics are too lazy to climb high enough to see temperature changes in action, where species are migrating (in altitude [italics]) such as California, and in latitude (Saami reindeer breeders noticing barn owls arriving, and there is no word for barn in their language).

 

[BlindBoo]

AGW is about as much settled fact as the Evolution THEORY. Still waiting for see the missing link.

The consensus on the future is not about settled facts. It more about probabilities or likelihood statements. They're playing odds makers, or Bookies.

For instance:

Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:

• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

 

[imawhosure]

AGW is about as much settled fact as the Evolution THEORY. Still waiting for see the missing link.

The consensus on the future is not about settled facts. It more about probabilities or likelihood statements. They're playing odds makers, or Bookies.

For instance:

Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:

• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

So now, MMGW is akin to Las Vegas, and we should bet TRILLIONS on your side of the table, cause YOU HAVE A FEELING, lol.

Tell you what------------------>your new spokesperson, her majesty AOC, has stated SUCCINTLY that we will be in dire trouble in 12 years. So tell you what--------------->MMGW by everyone who buys this new religion has stated....………….this has been happening for DECADES.

So using THEIR logic, if 12 years and we are all going to be kaput, we should see deterioration rather quickly. Within 2 or 3 years, we should see a marked difference, which will prove your point! But if it doesn't, as usual, your side will be proven...…….again as...……….HOAXERS, and why would any of us be surprised-)

 

[BlindBoo]

AGW is about as much settled fact as the Evolution THEORY. Still waiting for see the missing link.

The consensus on the future is not about settled facts. It more about probabilities or likelihood statements. They're playing odds makers, or Bookies.

For instance:

Likelihood Statements
The terminology here for likelihood statements generally follows the conventions used in the IPCC assessments, i.e., for the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result:

• Very Likely: > 90%,
• Likely: > 66%
• More Likely Than Not (or Better Than Even Odds) > 50%

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

So now, MMGW is akin to Las Vegas, and we should bet TRILLIONS on your side of the table, cause YOU HAVE A FEELING, lol.

Tell you what------------------>your new spokesperson, her majesty AOC, has stated SUCCINTLY that we will be in dire trouble in 12 years. So tell you what--------------->MMGW by everyone who buys this new religion has stated....………….this has been happening for DECADES.

So using THEIR logic, if 12 years and we are all going to be kaput, we should see deterioration rather quickly. Within 2 or 3 years, we should see a marked difference, which will prove your point! But if it doesn't, as usual, your side will be proven...…….again as...……….HOAXERS, and why would any of us be surprised-)

Yeah kind of like bookies. Most scientist agree that it is very likely the increase in CO2 attributable to man is the cause of the few degrees of warming we've observed so far. As the time of the predictions expands there is just less certainty as to what will happen.

I also think that most scientist agree it very likely that AOC is an alarmist and not a scientist who is trying to capitalize on a layman's minimal understanding of the issue. As is your claim of it all being a hoax. I'm guessing Not Very Likely or > 10%