New Study -Turns out the Earth is at about it's coldest point of the last 485 million years

[MDC 7,121]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

No one has made that argument.  Good job with your straw man. 

Is there any other way to interpret Ray’s post? I’m all ears.

[jonmx 2,424]

3 minutes ago, IndyColtsFan said:

MAGAturds:

Well, let's just march right up as close as we can to the point of no return instead of accepting the concrete scientific data and doing something about it now.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is well known the 2-degree tipping point was pulled out of the butt of the IPCC chair with zero scientific backing.   You are such a dumfuk.  Seriously, STFU you are clueless on this topic. 

[Strike 5,185]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

you can go on and on say that " once we pass a certain point of no return, we will never be able to lower the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere".

 

Good, let me know when you start, because neither your quote or link state that. 

You're really reaching but technically you got me there.  What they have said is that after we reach the point of no return recovery will be impossible.  That's why we have to cut fossil fuels by massive amounts in just a short period of time.   Are you disputing that characterization of what we've been told as well?  But the article says there is a direct correlation between CO2 and global warming:

Quote

“Carbon dioxide is really that master dial,” Tierney said. “That’s an important message … in terms of understanding why emissions from fossil fuels are a problem today.”

I get that you and people like @TimHauck like to play semantic games but  why don't you just look at the larger point and not do that? 

[MDC 7,121]

5 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Sure, but the liars want to tell us that the earth was perfectly stable until man came along.  

There are climate scientists out there saying the earth was hospitable to man throughout its entire history until we ruined it?

Okay bud. 

[jonmx 2,424]

8 minutes ago, MDC said:

There are climate scientists out there saying the earth was hospitable to man throughout its entire history until we ruined it?

Okay bud. 

That was the theory.  Did you ever see the hockey stick theory.  And for years the rhetoric about global te.perstures is thst these were the highest temperatures ever.   It was 20 years before they started to add 'recorded' to the rhetoric.  

[TrailGuy 552]

14 minutes ago, jonmx said:

If you have 485,000,0000 data points on how the earth behaves, only an absolute buffoon would say to ignore it and keep pushing this outright lie of a 2 degree tipping point which is the fear-mongering to drive draconian policies on how we live.   Keep bootlicking. 

How many of those 485M years have humans lived on Earth?  Have you thought about that?

Maybe you're thinking about this wrong.  Climate change is not a threat to Earth.  It's a threat to humans.  Humans weren't here for almost the entire 485M year span when the earth was warmer.  If it gets that warm again, we won't be here again.

Look at the past 100 years.  The science is undeniable.  Unless you are a moron like yourself.

[RLLD 4,143]

46 minutes ago, MDC said:

The fact that the earth was warmer before humans were around doesn’t have any bearing on whether human activity contributes to warming. I’m not a big environmental guy but you’re making a facile argument here.

Agreed.  Let's expand this.  Given that humans were not around during this time, what drove that temperature increase?  Let me help you just a little here, because you rarely answer honestly.....we cannot be sure what caused it, there were likely a multitude of factors....

We can't blame humans of course.  There were no special interest organizations nor corrupt politicians seeking to exploit to derive money back then.  So the pretense of such trite nonsense will not be available.  But we DO have that kind of instance today, so those in the elite levels of finance happily push this narrative since they can enjoy even greater wealth consumption at the expense of the lower classes.

[MDC 7,121]

8 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Agreed.  Let's expand this.  Given that humans were not around during this time, what drove that temperature increase?  Let me help you just a little here, because you rarely answer honestly.....we cannot be sure what caused it, there were likely a multitude of factors....

None of which has anything to do with whether manmade emissions are a factor today.  

I hope that helps, but based on your long rich history of waffling and facile emotion driven arguments, I’m sure it won’t.  

[purdygood 333]

9 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

How many of those 485M years have humans lived on Earth?  Have you thought about that?

Maybe you're thinking about this wrong.  Climate change is not a threat to Earth.  It's a threat to humans.  Humans weren't here for almost the entire 485M year span when the earth was warmer.  If it gets that warm again, we won't be here again.

Look at the past 100 years.  The science is undeniable.  Unless you are a moron like yourself.

I thought the Earth was 6,000 years old.  The Bible wouldn't lie.

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

None of which has anything to do with whether manmade emissions are a factor today.  

I hope that helps, but based on your long rich history of waffling and facile emotion driven arguments, I’m sure it won’t.  

Wrong.  The first step, an important one, is the cessation of this pretense that it purely "man made"....because of course it is not.  This tactic is not new or innovative..... governments and business have been exploiting people for decades through the fake "emergency".  Humans are likely part of it, and way down the list of factors

So be a little less gullible and a little more suspicious

[TrailGuy 552]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Wrong.  The first step, an important one, is the cessation of this pretense that it purely "man made"....because of course it is not.

Only if you don't believe in science.

[MDC 7,121]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Wrong.  The first step, an important one, is the cessation of this pretense that it purely "man made"....because of course it is not. 

An argument that no one is making.  

[RLLD 4,143]

10 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

Only if you don't believe in science.

Science is about questioning, so if you want to pretend that science is firm and final, then you do not actually understand the term.

[Baker Boy 1,687]

4 hours ago, avoiding injuries said:

Thus, why it was switched from Global Warming to Climate Change. Biggest Scam the World has ever seen, surpassing Covid by a landslide. 

Actually, it was switched from Man-Made Global Warming.  Anyone that believes that eliminating fossil fuels will significantly lower the temperature of the earth is a fool.

[Mike Honcho 5,093]

54 minutes ago, Strike said:

You're really reaching but technically you got me there.  What they have said is that after we reach the point of no return recovery will be impossible.  That's why we have to cut fossil fuels by massive amounts in just a short period of time.   Are you disputing that characterization of what we've been told as well?  But the article says there is a direct correlation between CO2 and global warming:

I get that you and people like @TimHauck like to play semantic games but  why don't you just look at the larger point and not do that? 

Yeah, that's a semantic technicality----in parlance you can understand, GTFOH 

[RLLD 4,143]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

An argument that no one is making.  

Well, we all know that is not true....    But I have seen people do what you did here as well when cornered after making the assertion.

CO2 produced by human activities is the largest contributor to global warming.

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.

So they sell people on fear, standard tactic, and then business/government says they have the solution, and then billions of dollars later.....sometimes decades, we suddenly discover that it was not true....lather rinse repeat.

So the climate constantly changes, but oh no....we have to spend billions that benefit politicians and oligarchs RIGHT NOW.   So they sell us on this human-driven climate change, and of course someone has to get rich from fighting it..

I wish people were not so gullible.....

[TrailGuy 552]

6 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Science is about questioning, so if you want to pretend that science is firm and final, then you do not actually understand the term.

But you're gonna tell me that there is no question with regards to what a woman is, right?

[Baker Boy 1,687]

6 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Science is about questioning, so if you want to pretend that science is firm and final, then you do not actually understand the term.

Science doesn’t have the answers. It guesses, tests, and guesses again.

The Four Corners of Deceit are government, academia, science, and the media. 

[RLLD 4,143]

2 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

But you're gonna tell me that there is no question with regards to what a woman is, right?

Non Sequitor

[MDC 7,121]

Just now, RLLD said:

Well, we all know that is not true....    But I have seen people do what you did here as well when cornered after making the assertion.

CO2 produced by human activities is the largest contributor to global warming.

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.

So they sell people on fear, standard tactic, and then business/government says they have the solution, and then billions of dollars later.....sometimes decades, we suddenly discover that it was not true....lather rinse repeat.

So the climate constantly changes, but oh no....we have to spend billions that benefit politicians and oligarchs RIGHT NOW.   So they sell us on this human-driven climate change, and of course someone has to get rich from fighting it..

I wish people were not so gullible.....

The titles of both your links (“largest contributor”, “main driver,”) suggest that manmade emissions aren’t the only cause of climate change. I’d also like to once again point out that the earth getting hot years before man has absolutely nothing to do with whether man has any impact on climate today, to bring it back to where you were originally wrong. 

HTH but again - it won’t.  

[TrailGuy 552]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

Non Sequitor

You can't even spell non sequitur never mind understand what it means.

[RLLD 4,143]

1 minute ago, TrailGuy said:

You can't even spell non sequitur never mind understand what it means.

Is that it? I mean, I presume you have more, perhaps another straw man?   C'mon, dont end it there.....

[Sean Mooney 1,937]

6 minutes ago, MDC said:

The titles of both your links (“largest contributor”, “main driver,”) suggest that manmade emissions aren’t the only cause of climate change. I’d also like to once again point out that the earth getting hot years before man has absolutely nothing to do with whether man has any impact on climate today, to bring it back to where you were originally wrong. 

HTH but again - it won’t.  

It won't....he is spending all day licking the wounds I inflicted on him last week and he still hasn't recovered. RLLD has had a rough few weeks here getting his azz kicked all over the forum. 

[HellToupee 1,583]

4 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Tim, you have zero rights pointing fingers at other people regarding this. You are the king of misinformed and misunderstanding. Just sit down and watch from the gallery. 

Respectfully, of course.

This post needs the good posting emoji.

[TrailGuy 552]

13 hours ago, Strike said:

Plus, we have AI now which can solve anything.  

There is a Hurricane headed towards Florida.  I'm looking forward to watching how AI turns this thing  around and sends it back to Africa.

[HellToupee 1,583]

12 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

There is a Hurricane headed towards Florida.  I'm looking forward to watching how AI turns this thing  around and sends it back to Africa.

I’m old enough to remember how the moonbats were claiming Haliburton( Cheney) had a weather machine 

[Fnord 2,051]

This thread. I mean, really. I just can't. Defending the "climate change is a hoax" movement with THIS article, which very clearly states the opposite. 

I get where the deniers are coming from and even agree with some of the rationale, but you all are NOT helping yourselves here.

[Mike Honcho 5,093]

40 minutes ago, TrailGuy said:

There is a Hurricane headed towards Florida.  I'm looking forward to watching how AI turns this thing  around and sends it back to Africa.

Probably with a black sharpie and maybe a few nukes. 

[nobody 2,557]

2 hours ago, MDC said:

The fact that the earth was warmer before humans were around doesn’t have any bearing on whether human activity contributes to warming. I’m not a big environmental guy but you’re making a facile argument here.

How do they know for a fact humans are causing changes to the climate?

These are the same types of people that knew we needed three weeks to flatten the curve, and said that you couldn't spread covid if you got the jab so I don't have a lot of faith in this cadre of pseudo-scientists.

The main driver of the temperature is going to be the sun, and it's a giant uncontrolled nuclear reaction.  Do we even know what a 50 degree change in the sun's temperature would do to earth's temperature, and how do we know the sun's temp has changed over the last 200 or 300 years?  We can't even measure the sun's temperature accurately.  Why do we think we can predict climate change without that key input? 

I guess the engineer in me is thinking that if someone came to me with this flimsy of evidence, I would tell them I need more before making an investment.

[nobody 2,557]

The first step in understanding climate change is to develop a way to measure the temperature very accurately of the most dominant influence of our climate which is the sun.

If we can't measure that and then characterize climate change relative to that dominant variable which is probably a 200 to 1000 year task, everything else we're doing is taking stabs in the dark.  You don't invest your entire economy into solutions to a problem you don't even understand.

This really should be common sense.

[nobody 2,557]

Let me tell you a story.

We had an issue with some part.  We couldn't figure out what the issue was.  We brought in power supply experts, signal integrity experts, SW experts, ASIC design experts, PWB process experts.

You'll never guess what happened:

• The power supply expert said the power supply was the issue and it needed to be redesigned
• The signal integrity expert said the layout was causing signal integrity issues and it needed to be redesigned
• The SW experts said the SW was likely inducing some race condition and had to be redesigned
• The PWB expert said the process wasn't good enough and had to be redesigned

You know how we ended up fixing the problem?  We removed a capacitor from a clock line so a delta-sigma ADC wouldn't see so much hysteresis.

Moral of the story: A guy with a hammer will think every problem is a nail.

We're asking a bunch of climate scientists (the chiropractors of the scientific community) to drive policy decisions.  So here's what I ask.  When we did the same thing with epidemiologists and COVID, If you didn't object to the lockdowns past the first couple of months of COVID and you bought into the slogan "SCIENCE!" kindly shut the fock up and sit the fock down.  You are not equipped to understand the application of science or make policy decisions.

[Strike 5,185]

God damn Delta-Sigma ADC.  Those things are always causing problems. 

[Sean Mooney 1,937]

Look you can't ask a multiple choice question and then not give us a chance to answer....

[nobody 2,557]

Sorry, that sounds more complex than it is.

Delta meaning difference.  Sigma meaning summation, so take a difference from some reference and then sum the results over some time like 100 milliseconds before converting it from analog to digital.

[TheNewGirl 1,342]

3 hours ago, IndyColtsFan said:

MAGAturd morons eschew science that doesn't fit their politics and fossil-fuel lust.

I love my gas-guzzling pickup truck but understand we have to gradually ween ourselves off fossil fuels because they fock up the planet and will run out some day.

Let's not forget about how lithium is a hazardous material and we haven't figured out a great way to dispose of all of these batteries. Not to mention every ton of lithium that is mined causes up to 15 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, uses massive amounts of water to mine, and creates mineral waste that we have NO idea what to do with. . And...there is a LOT of push back to mine it here in the US...so there is another avenue for us to NEVER be energy efficient. 

We're basically told to "not put them in the trash" as they are highly combustible and can cause fires. 

But hey. Buy electric.  

[jerryskids 6,557]

4 hours ago, jonmx said:

It tells us that the narrative of the 2-degree tipping point which will doom the entire human population is total BS, and the retarded policies which they push are just money and power grabs.  If they wanted to solve the problem and actually believed the crap they peddled, we would be building nuclear plants as fast as we can.   But we haven't gone there in over 40 years of these effing lying bastards rhetoric.  

Because it is a cult.  The goal of the cult leaders is not to solve the problem, it is to make billions of dollars by scaring their cult members and convincing them that the only solution is the punishment of mankind.  You'll notice none of the climate alarmists like @IndyColtsFan jump at the opportunity to discuss the nuclear issue.

I think that nuclear power is the equivalent of a white male on the intersectionality scale, to climate alarmists.

4 hours ago, IndyColtsFan said:

Let's parrot what a MAGAturd has held up - a Washington Post article that contains alarmist quotes from scientists saying that humans are having an unprecedented effect on global warming.

Actually, it makes more sense that the rate of change vs. the absolute change would be more of a concern.  A high rate of change could be too fast for some plants to adapt, say. But we're talking CO2 change, not temperature change.  Temperature varies too much with weather on a short-term basis. 

BTW, excess CO2 in the past settled in the oceans and reacted with metals to form carbonates like limestone, dolomite, granite, etc.  The earth is a wonderful (mostly) closed loop feedback system.   

[IndyColtsFan 325]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Because it is a cult.  The goal of the cult leaders is not to solve the problem, it is to make billions of dollars by scaring their cult members and convincing them that the only solution is the punishment of mankind.  You'll notice none of the climate alarmists like @IndyColtsFan jump at the opportunity to discuss the nuclear issue.

I think that nuclear power is the equivalent of a white male on the intersectionality scale, to climate alarmists.

Actually, it makes more sense that the rate of change vs. the absolute change would be more of a concern.  A high rate of change could be too fast for some plants to adapt, say. But we're talking CO2 change, not temperature change.  Temperature varies too much with weather on a short-term basis. 

BTW, excess CO2 in the past settled in the oceans and reacted with metals to form carbonates like limestone, dolomite, granite, etc.  The earth is a wonderful (mostly) closed loop feedback system.   

Good ol' Eeyore Jerry making up stuff again. When have I ever been "alarmist" or unwilling to talk about nuclear power? Your MAGAturd-pandering infotainment sources have conditioned you to project and fabricate. 

If I were an alarmist, I wouldn't be driving a Ford F150. But mankind-caused climate change is scientifically proven.

I'm for slowly easing off fossil fuels as we ease into alternative energy sources such as wind, wave, geothermal and even nuclear. Butt-ugly West Texas is covered with wind turbines. They're also being placed offshore where the wind almost never stops blowing. MAGAturds throw out a pic of a dead bald eagle next to a wind turbine and want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and end that energy source. Common sense, knowledge and facts beat ignorance and blind politics. Give it a whirl sometime, Jerryore!

 

[jerryskids 6,557]

2 minutes ago, IndyColtsFan said:

Good ol' Eeyore Jerry making up stuff again. When have I ever been "alarmist" or unwilling to talk about nuclear power? Your MAGAturd-pandering infotainment sources have conditioned you to project and fabricate. 

If I were an alarmist, I wouldn't be driving a Ford F150. But mankind-caused climate change is scientifically proven.

I'm for slowly easing off fossil fuels as we ease into alternative energy sources such as wind, wave, geothermal and even nuclear. Butt-ugly West Texas is covered with wind turbines. They're also being placed offshore where the wind almost never stops blowing. MAGAturds throw out a pick of a dead bald eagle next to a wind turbine and want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and end that energy source. Common sense, knowledge and facts beat ignorance and blind politics. Give it a whirl sometime, Jerryore!

 

If you had common sense, knowledge, and facts about wind vs. nuclear, you would know that they are two completely different things.  Wind will never be anything more than an ancillary source to a major power grid with the technology we have.  Nuclear has been in place for like 50 years as just such a source, yet we continue to eschew it.

Thoughts on the cult reference?  I see you skipped that.  Why do we do what I just explained, if not that?

As usual, you missed my point in your attempt at yet another Eeyore reference.  You are as bad as seafoam with his "liberals are so stupid."    

[MDC 7,121]

3 hours ago, nobody said:

How do they know for a fact humans are causing changes to the climate?

I never said they do. I was objecting to the stupid argument that if it was hotter before man, pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere isn’t having an effect on the environment today. 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

6 hours ago, IndyColtsFan said:

He didn't even read the first paragraph:

The sharp uptick toward the end of the graph shows what humans are doing.

lol what a tard