The COVID19 SCAMdemic... California Nears $8 Gallon Gas - Biden Sends Zelenskyyy $61 Billion

[anotero]

I agree with your investigational spirit, but I will say that the warming/expanding of the Sun is most definitely not the most significant factor causing the Earth to warm this significantly. Experts have estimated that the warming/expanding Sun has contributed to at most roughly 0.1C of the warming we've observed. The sun will gain 1% luminosity over the course of 1 billion years. It's definitely warming/expanding, but not at the rate to account for the full warming we've observed over the past century and change. Is it down to the natural swing of cold and warm periods the Earth sees? Maybe. Is it greenhouse gases and human pollution? Like you said, maybe. I think there's strong evidence that it is, but like you say, we haven't been able to definitively prove this hypothesis.

I wonder what explanation adepts of global warming/anthropogenic climate change have for the Roman climatic optimum.

 

[npace]

You're doing exactly what you claim others are doing. There is no doubt our massive increase in green house gasses is the cause, not the sun expanding. Politians say stupid shot like that, not actual scientists.

I'm not doing anything, other than posting in a thread where people claim to know more than they do (that includes you, btw). There is doubt, that's the whole point. I openly admit that I don't know the answers, and that it is possible that your reasoning is correct. Actual scientists admit that they don't know the answers. It is not, however, proven that the increase in green house gasses is causing the warming. The sun has been observed expanding, for much longer than NOAA has been studying climate change, and some scientists believe that the sun's radiation is the single greatest contributor to the warming of the earth. The earth's atmosphere retains heat, so the effect grows at an exponential rate. I'm not going to delve into the math about exponential rates and how the current heat cycle is coinciding with GHG emissions. I know it's these inconvenient facts that get in the way of your narrative. Sorry I pointed it out.

 

[anotero]

You're doing exactly what you claim others are doing. There is no doubt our massive increase in green house gasses is the cause, not the sun expanding. Politians say stupid shot like that, not actual scientists.

How can you be such a moron? There's no doubt for you, yet there's no consensus between scientisys. Is your rabid ass smater than actual experts that spend decades studying the world?

 

[anotero]

I'm not doing anything, other than posting in a thread where people claim to know more than they do (that includes you, btw). There is doubt, that's the whole point. I openly admit that I don't know the answers, and that it is possible that your reasoning is correct. Actual scientists admit that they don't know the answers. It is not, however, proven that the increase in green house gasses is causing the warming. The sun has been observed expanding, for much longer than NOAA has been studying climate change, and some scientists believe that the sun's radiation is the single greatest contributor to the warming of the earth. The earth's atmosphere retains heat, so the effect grows at an exponential rate. I'm not going to delve into the math about exponential rates and how the current heat cycle is coinciding with GHG emissions. I know it's these inconvenient facts that get in the way of your narrative. Sorry I pointed it out.

You don't stand a chance reasoning with gretafan.

 

[npace]

I agree with your investigational spirit, but I will say that the warming/expanding of the Sun is most definitely not the most significant factor causing the Earth to warm this significantly. Experts have estimated that the warming/expanding Sun has contributed to at most roughly 0.1C of the warming we've observed. The sun will gain 1% luminosity over the course of 1 billion years. It's definitely warming/expanding, but not at the rate to account for the full warming we've observed over the past century and change. Is it down to the natural swing of cold and warm periods the Earth sees? Maybe. Is it greenhouse gases and human pollution? Like you said, maybe. I think there's strong evidence that it is, but like you say, we haven't been able to definitively prove this hypothesis.

But that's just it, there is no evidence that any of these things are or are not the greatest contributor. And if you look deeper, government (big money) funded scientists are the ones stating that it is human pollution. Other explanations are being tossed aside for a political agenda, because politicians know that they can use the phrase "according to experts". Its a logical fallacy called appeal to authority, even when the reality is there is no consensus. But it works, just ask GTIfan99.

 

[npace]

You don't stand a chance reasoning with gretafan.

I realized that when he started calling me a denier. Literally proved my original point without realizing it.

 

[zrickety]

Sigh....you do realize that this was an "open public hearing" where the whack-jobs came out of their holes to try to prove their points. This is not official FDA data and most of the numbers are made up by the "presenters" - those loons that finally got a chance to get their 15 seconds of fame.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[zrickety]

I'm not doing anything, other than posting in a thread where people claim to know more than they do (that includes you, btw). There is doubt, that's the whole point. I openly admit that I don't know the answers, and that it is possible that your reasoning is correct. Actual scientists admit that they don't know the answers. It is not, however, proven that the increase in green house gasses is causing the warming. The sun has been observed expanding, for much longer than NOAA has been studying climate change, and some scientists believe that the sun's radiation is the single greatest contributor to the warming of the earth. The earth's atmosphere retains heat, so the effect grows at an exponential rate. I'm not going to delve into the math about exponential rates and how the current heat cycle is coinciding with GHG emissions. I know it's these inconvenient facts that get in the way of your narrative. Sorry I pointed it out.

Don't be sorry. Apologizing to a turd has little effect.

 

[zrickety]

Can we all agree that giving the government more money for carbon tax is not going to fix a damn thing???
These damn, dirty electric cars and windmills NEVER offset the pollution used to create them. The green energy scam is just another a boon for Chinese batteries made with materials conveniently located in Afghanistan.

 

[zrickety]

FDA meeting keeps on giving. Vaccine risks outweigh benefits for children. This is why they can't approve, data 'not favorable.'

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1438935548664688643

 

[zrickety]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1439272766188912644

 

[zrickety]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1439254963872571401

 

[zrickety]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1439215057624354817

 

[anotero]

Can we all agree that giving the government more money for carbon tax is not going to fix a damn thing???
These damn, dirty electric cars and windmills NEVER offset the pollution used to create them. The green energy scam is just another a boon for Chinese batteries made with materials conveniently located in Afghanistan.

The only real green energy known to man is nuclear energy. And it's so good, it can blow wind and solar out of the water. And wind and solar guys know this and hate it.

 

[torga]

But that's just it, there is no evidence that any of these things are or are not the greatest contributor. And if you look deeper, government (big money) funded scientists are the ones stating that it is human pollution. Other explanations are being tossed aside for a political agenda, because politicians know that they can use the phrase "according to experts". Its a logical fallacy called appeal to authority, even when the reality is there is no consensus. But it works, just ask GTIfan99.

Fair point about most human-caused climate change studies being funded by governments. But also in fairness, most of the studies that contradict anthropomorphic climate change tend to be funded by the corporations that are doing most of the pollutant emitting that the other side of the coin accuses of being the cause of climate change.
I'm talking about non-human-caused studies that I've personally read. So that of course leaves the door open for studies that don't have conflicts of interest. It's been a while since I've really dug into this.