nothing reply anything you want

[Next Best Thing]

The low-iq democrat sheep are able to distinguish between legitimate and bullshit science by listening to what Joy Reid tells them.

If it isn't science denial it's racism.

[brasil]

Originally Posted by Flair4Drama

https://co2coalition.org/facts/for-m...er-than-today/

I know I should not bother responding to this. The same argument was made to me by my dentist about 20 years ago. I did not bother to argue with him, since he had a drill in my mouth at that time.

In the absence of a drill, let me point out that:

1.Your graphs are not wrong. But what some of the readers of this thread may not understand (or choose to ignore) is that those graphs represent millions of years of climate change based on non-human events. (Indeed humans were not even around for almost all of that time.)

2. Climate scientists are, of course, not oblivious of these historical cycles. I don't know why you seem to think they are.

3. What is happening over the last 60 years or so is an ahistorical acceleration of planet warming. In other words, based on the historical trends summarized in the graphs you have posted, the planet should not be warming at any where near the rate it is now.

4. The cause is easily identified as the greenhouse gases effect. (I'm not going to insult your intelligence by going into an explanation of that. If in doubt, consult other sources.)

5. Greenhouse gases are caused by burning fossil fuels, oil and gas most prominently among them.

The global warming that is happening today is not a gradual warming over millions of years, as was the case in past cycles. It is a rapidly occurring disaster with identified human causes.

If we go back to sleep for another 40 years (or even 10) without doing something about it, we will wake up to a rather uncomfortable world.

[JONBALLS]

rrRight

[JONBALLS]

rrRight

[Unique_Carpenter]

So... humans are actually Boglodites devouring the plant?? /s

[Unique_Carpenter]

[rooster]

Originally Posted by brasil

I know I should not bother responding to this....

1.Your graphs are not wrong....

First sentence is true. And the denial following it was certainly predictable.

But your point about the graphs...gotta disagree. You give these geniuses and their naive, gaslighting arguments too much credit.

The graph is a piece of shit.

First, the "timeline" shown on the bottom is not linear, i.e. the space given to the "Icehouse" period of 3.64 million years is roughly the same amount of physical space given to the "Ordovician" period of 73 million years. That is just plain bad scientific technique. It distorts the timeline physically and makes the "Icehouse" time period look longer than it really is.

It is completely misleading and shows data out of context that proves nothing. But hey...it sure looks kewl, right?

The second problem is where this turd comes from. The "CO2 Coalition" a garbage, junk science site that even the Marshall Institute ended up disavowing. The CEO is a former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, which gave them much of their funding. No biases or influences there, though, I'm sure.

In their "analysis" of the graph, the site uses simplistic language and misrepresentation to take advantage of how little the general public knows about climate....and hard science in general. Despicable. But all too common these days.

Plain and simple, this is not a peer reviewed, vetted article.

If you submitted this in your High School Earth Science class, you would probably get a "D" grade.

You boyz been suckered again. But yer dug in so far now that there ain't no fuggin way yer gonna admit it.

It's getting really old.

And boring.

.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by brasil

I know I should not bother responding to this. The same argument was made to me by my dentist about 20 years ago. I did not bother to argue with him, since he had a drill in my mouth at that time.

In the absence of a drill, let me point out that:

1.Your graphs are not wrong. But what some of the readers of this thread may not understand (or choose to ignore) is that those graphs represent millions of years of climate change based on non-human events. (Indeed humans were not even around for almost all of that time.)

2. Climate scientists are, of course, not oblivious of these historical cycles. I don't know why you seem to think they are.

3. What is happening over the last 60 years or so is an ahistorical acceleration of planet warming. In other words, based on the historical trends summarized in the graphs you have posted, the planet should not be warming at any where near the rate it is now.

4. The cause is easily identified as the greenhouse gases effect. (I'm not going to insult your intelligence by going into an explanation of that. If in doubt, consult other sources.)

5. Greenhouse gases are caused by burning fossil fuels, oil and gas most prominently among them.

The global warming that is happening today is not a gradual warming over millions of years, as was the case in past cycles. It is a rapidly occurring disaster with identified human causes.

If we go back to sleep for another 40 years (or even 10) without doing something about it, we will wake up to a rather uncomfortable world.

there is no global warming happening. and greenhouse gasses are not only due to emissions. deforestation causes this at high levels.

the so called hockey stick graph was based on flawed data and in some cases fabricated data.

so .. be careful here .. trick question coming up ..

should we eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere?

[brasil]

Originally Posted by rooster

First sentence is true. And the denial following it was certainly predictable.

But your point about the graphs...gotta disagree. You give these geniuses and their naive, gaslighting arguments too much credit.

The graph is a piece of shit.

First, the "timeline" shown on the bottom is not linear, i.e. the space given to the "Icehouse" period of 3.64 million years is roughly the same amount of physical space given to the "Ordovician" period of 73 million years. That is just plain bad scientific technique. It distorts the timeline physically and makes the "Icehouse" time period look longer than it really is.

It is completely misleading and shows data out of context that proves nothing. But hey...it sure looks kewl, right?

The second problem is where this turd comes from. The "CO2 Coalition" a garbage, junk science site that even the Marshall Institute ended up disavowing. The CEO is a former CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, which gave them much of their funding. No biases or influences there, though, I'm sure.

In their "analysis" of the graph, the site uses simplistic language and misrepresentation to take advantage of how little the general public knows about climate....and hard science in general. Despicable. But all too common these days.

Plain and simple, this is not a peer reviewed, vetted article.

If you submitted this in your High School Earth Science class, you would probably get a "D" grade.

You boyz been suckered again. But yer dug in so far now that there ain't no fuggin way yer gonna admit it.

It's getting really old.

And boring.

.

What Rooster is pointing out is of course true. The graphs are not accurate. When I wrote that "the graphs are not wrong", I was referring to the fact that there have been cycles of warming and cooling throughout history even before humans came along. The graphs do illustrate that, however, inaccurate they are in depicting the duration of the different cycles. The takeaway point is that human activity is heating up the planet in a few years that took millions of years to achieve in other periods.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by brasil

What Rooster is pointing out is of course true. The graphs are not accurate. When I wrote that "the graphs are not wrong", I was referring to the fact that there have been cycles of warming and cooling throughout history even before humans came along. The graphs do illustrate that, however, inaccurate they are in depicting the duration of the different cycles. The takeaway point is that human activity is heating up the planet in a few years that took millions of years to achieve in other periods.

wrong. but since you like incorrect graphs .. you'll love this one





according to this graph the temperature will rise globally over 5 degrees by 2000


what year is it now?


2024. been waiting 24 years. still no spike. this graph is a "key" piece of the climate lie.

[Flair4Drama]

In all fairness to Walz, he clearly didn’t have the questions in advance

[rooster]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

there is no global warming happening. and greenhouse gasses are not only due to emissions. deforestation causes this at high levels.

the so called hockey stick graph was based on flawed data and in some cases fabricated data.

so .. be careful here .. trick question coming up ..

should we eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere?

Thanck you for (attempting to) participate. You don't wanna continue this, trust me.

Same goes fer alla you wanna be rocket surgeons. If you don't understand concepts like "Consensus Opinion"...and "Peer Reviewed" research...and if you think that one or two examples of bad science delegitimize all of it...you would be well advised to let this dumb part of this threAd die. You've been warned. Even prayers from osd will not help if you disregard...

.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Rooster,
Here's a thought, what will happen once the oil runs out?
Granted, probably go back to coal.
But for local transport, I'm glad I have horses, even if there is a methane issue.

OK, humor aside, yes the humans have done more damage in a hundred yrs than ever before

[rooster]

How's the foal?

.

[jimxbeam]

Roo has it right. You don't wanna go there with your specious claims.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

there is no global warming happening.

Not true. The overwhelming consensus of scientists supports global warming. And "consensus" is not a weasel word. Science functions by repeated experimental tests of "The Truth." Ideas that stand up to repeated tests are viewed as "The Truth." Not what is published on Breitbart, The National Review, or Fox News. And those tests must continue, as better experiments are done.

You might be interested in knowing that the first paper describing global temperature change based on CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere was published by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Estimates of global temperature change from his model are pretty accurate.

the so called hockey stick graph was based on flawed data and in some cases fabricated data.

Also not true. Michael Mann's primary data and the temperature proxies that support those data have been repeated again and again, and have been supported by peer-reviewed research published in reputable journals.

so .. be careful here .. trick question coming up ..

should we eliminate all CO2 in the atmosphere?

There is something called the Global Carbon Cycle that controls all carbon, including CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth's crust, and in the oceans. The CO2 that human activity puts in the atmosphere is a small fraction of the total, but it is the part that causes the problem.

Now, I am sure that the usual suspects will post pages of rebuttal based on their favorite sources, and most the ECCIE Brain Trust will pile on with their opinions.

But science, although consensus driven, is not democratic. An incorrect claim by a nobody is not given any standing in the universe of peer-reviewed science. That is just the way it is.