U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2019, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Long Island
34,550 posts, read 14,496,568 times
Reputation: 7428

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Originalist View Post
You use Skeptical Science as your "expert knowledge base" the problem is they are not skeptics of science while claiming that skepticism of science is healthy. They contradict themselves right out of the gate.


Scientists are claiming that we should be in a cooling phase for the last 6,000 years. They also claim that humans over the last 150 years are mostly to blame for global warming. If this is all true, why did the oceans start rising over 2000 years ago?


Our climate goes up and down. It's actually called Natural Oscillation. There is no determinable pattern it just happens. There are too many variables to forecast the global temperature next year let alone a decade, century, millennia from now. That's why all of the models fail miserably. For scientists to perpetuate that they can predict the climate with certainty and then to take taxpayers money in the form of grants is such a Ponzi scheme!


When it all falls apart and the earth starts cooling, they'll simply turn their sign around and start predicting man-made cooling because of man-made warming. There's nothing in the rules that says scientists have to be honest. They are, after all, only human.
The question remains why is it warming over the last century and if it is natural oscillation as you claim then what was the physical phenomena that caused the temperature to rise, its not just natural unless you can point to a cause. You can't.


Skeptical Science is an excellent source for information, what is your source.

Last edited by Goodnight; 08-27-2019 at 06:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2019, 07:00 PM
 
5,928 posts, read 2,189,352 times
Reputation: 7474
It's so simple even a 6th-grader can explain it:


CO2 vs Temperature


Cause, meet Effect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 09:39 PM
 
537 posts, read 235,562 times
Reputation: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Iím betting you canít offer one iota of science to explain why we are warming in the last 100 years other than blind faith.
I have no need or desire to argue with you. As I posted; Scientists say, 5 ice ages. We're at the tail end of the last one as they know it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 09:53 PM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,892 posts, read 14,380,796 times
Reputation: 6734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Iím betting you canít offer one iota of science to explain why we are warming in the last 100 years other than blind faith.
we have been warming (not steady/smooth) for the last 16000 years since the peak of the last major ice age

we are 12-18'f COOLER than the average of the last 8 interglacial periods

every interglacial period has had stretches of fast warmth (fast meaning 100 years (give or take50))

even NASA shows that Mann's hockystick is bs
https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...000/ast20oct_1


see thumbnails for interglacial temp ranges
Attached Thumbnails
Meteorologist's Post on FB Goes Viral: He Shreds Climate Deniers, Challenges Them to "Put Up or Shut Up"-temperature_interglacials.gif   Meteorologist's Post on FB Goes Viral: He Shreds Climate Deniers, Challenges Them to "Put Up or Shut Up"-ice_ages2.gif  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
31,304 posts, read 32,175,774 times
Reputation: 12814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
The question remains why is it warming over the last century and if it is natural oscillation as you claim then what was the physical phenomena that caused the temperature to rise, its not just natural unless you can point to a cause. You can't.


Skeptical Science is an excellent source for information, what is your source.
Actually it was cooling for over 4,000 years until the start of the industrial age, then it began to warm....

https://www.google.com/search?q=glob...jgMRC_M:&vet=1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 09:58 PM
 
9,124 posts, read 2,689,236 times
Reputation: 6168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Greg Fishel, respected meteorologist, wrote a rant of Facebook criticizing people who question the science behind climate change, telling them to “put up or shut up.”
He's a moron.

Any intelligent or conscious climate scientist would know that the rest of us MUST question the climate "science" we are fed because the people who feed it to us are the world's biggest liars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 10:00 PM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,892 posts, read 14,380,796 times
Reputation: 6734
Quote:
Originally Posted by movedintime View Post
I have no need or desire to argue with you. As I posted; Scientists say, 5 ice ages. We're at the tail end of the last one as they know it.
actually 15-19 ice ages.(glacial periods)...and corresponding interglacial periods
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 10:04 PM
 
5,928 posts, read 2,189,352 times
Reputation: 7474
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
we have been warming (not steady/smooth) for the last 16000 years since the peak of the last major ice age

we are 12-18'f COOLER than the average of the last 8 interglacial periods

every interglacial period has had stretches of fast warmth (fast meaning 100 years (give or take50))

even NASA shows that Mann's hockystick is bs
https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...000/ast20oct_1

see thumbnails for interglacial temp ranges



See this thread and the referenced paper on why the current AGW is different from natural warming and cooling cycles:

Unique climate change has no natural cause
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 10:12 PM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,892 posts, read 14,380,796 times
Reputation: 6734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
See this thread and the referenced paper on why the current AGW is different from natural warming and cooling cycles:

Unique climate change has no natural cause
and the opening line kills the reference

Quote:
ďEuropean and US scientists have cleared up a point that has been nagging away at climate science for decades: not only is the planet warming faster than at any time in the last 2,000 years, but this unique climate change really does have neither a historic precedent nor a natural cause.Ē
since the last ice age peaked about 16000 years ago, the FACT is that the earth is just coming out of the glacial period, and common sence says WARMING HAPPENS during an interglacial period


so chicano's thread was debunked by himself in he opening post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2019, 05:26 AM
 
2,831 posts, read 942,279 times
Reputation: 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey View Post
I don't need Greg Fishel to ask simple questions that anyone claiming to have a valid scientific theory should be able answer off the top of their head without a ridiculous appeal to authority.

The manner in which measurements are taken and the level of confidence that can be placed in those measurements is fundamental to any theory involving a relatively small temperature change.

The fact that these measurements were not collected in all the places where warming is now alleged to have occurred is my first clue that the Ts aren't crossed.
The "appeal to authority" is not ridiculous. In fact it is the whole crux of my (and Fishel's) argument: All of you armchair scientists on this forum are not qualified to judge whether AGW theory is valid. You are not qualified to assess the level of confidence in their measurements and whether it is sufficient. I have a PhD in Biochemistry, and I am not qualified to judge anything about climate science. When the vast majority of experts in the field agree on AGW theory, I don't assume they are right, but I assume they are far more likely to be right than a bunch of yahoos on City Data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top