Canadian Climate Change Denier Gets Schooled
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
We'll that clinches it.
Good ol Otto lives 10 minutes from a city. Is 10 minutes outside of Wichita the frontier too?
Actually, the far north is an area that holds some of the most damning evidence in support of the warming trend. Changes in ice pack behavior are being observed within a single generation. These people are reading science books, they're watching what is happening in front of them and drawing conclusions from that.
Go OTTO!
What a depressed clown you are.
He went to the mat with that one.
As I have stated a few times on here before;
We are currently in an inter-glacial phase of an ice age that began about 37 million years ago. For most of the earth's history, it has been warmer and wetter than it is now. The principal engine affecting climate is the sun, not carbon dioxide. Other geological forces (rarely included in the computer models that catastrophists are so fond of quoting) include the changing shape of continents and of the sea floor, tectonic plate movement, the opening and closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth’s orbit, supernova eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation, ocean currents and the chemistry of air, just to name a few. You could add in the immense, but unquantified, role of methane-producing insects like termites. Attributing climate change to carbon dioxide alone ignores all these planetary influences.«
.
We are currently in an inter-glacial phase of an ice age that began about 37 million years ago. For most of the earth's history, it has been warmer and wetter than it is now. The principal engine affecting climate is the sun, not carbon dioxide. Other geological forces (rarely included in the computer models that catastrophists are so fond of quoting) include the changing shape of continents and of the sea floor, tectonic plate movement, the opening and closing of sea ways, changes in the Earth’s orbit, supernova eruptions, comet dust, impacts by comets and asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation, ocean currents and the chemistry of air, just to name a few. You could add in the immense, but unquantified, role of methane-producing insects like termites. Attributing climate change to carbon dioxide alone ignores all these planetary influences.«
.
All long term. In the short term we are almost at average for the history of civilized man after climbing out of the coldest point on civilized man's history.
When they say "on record" It's subterfuge. The "record" goes back to only 120 years ago.
When they say "on record" It's subterfuge. The "record" goes back to only 120 years ago.
Correct. One of the most disturbing aspects of the Global warming/climate change mantra is that there are "scientists" out there that are making this claim that the debate is over, its all settled and everyone should just accept it. This is not science, it only serves to shut down opposing concepts to favour one's own preferred view. Scientific concepts should not be biased, and should in fact demand that opposing concepts be brought forward to challenge and improve it.
Gallileo was tried, convicted and jailed for heresy for putting forward the concept that the earth was not the center of the universe, that it actually orbited the sun with the other planets. Another powerful scientific research tool is the concept of learning from our past mistakes. You obviously don't subscribe to this concept.
Isn't it a concern though, that opposition to the thought that we are altering the state of our planet for the worse is delaying what might just prove to be essential action?
97% of 33% is 32. A whopping grand total of 33% of ALL scientists whose studies involve the climate in one or another capacity responded. Doing the math, something I know you have particular problems with, it works out to 32% of scientists involved in climate studies agree that humans are the primary driver of climate change.
The math is undeniable. No matter how many times you do the calculation, the answer will always be the same. However, to make the claim "the science is settled" when it comes to AGW is a dangerous claim indeed. Science is rarely settled. We are always learning new things that challenge what we thought we knew. Recent experiments (that have been repeated) at the Hadron supercollider are demonstrating that our understanding of physics and the models we use might very well be wrong. Which means everything we think we know about physics may need to be rethought. That would also include every single global warming model.
For 3 Billion a year we can set the temperature lower anything we choose. High altitude dispersement of SO2 from commercial airlines is enough to do the trick IF CO2 were an issue.
The reality is our atmosphere is at the mercy of the magnetosphere.
No magnetosphere means no atmosphere.
With the magnetosphere changing (diminishing, holes and moving) at a mind blowing pace it's no wonder there has been climate change.
It's Grade 6 Science.
How did they manage to lose 3%?
The earth's magnetic field impacts climate//Viewzone
Forget global warming, worry about the Earth's MAGNETOSPHERE | Daily Mail Online
It is concerning...if you buy into the hysteria. Misguided urgency is often the enemy of progress.
It's all a scam to get us to pay for Evil Corps O&G division selling cheap and super abundant NG globally.
