This video discredits science in the first 9 seconds. In comparing CAGW scepticism with creationism, and in using the propaganda term "denial", this either shows utter ignorance or disgraceful dishonesty. Either way - shame on the NCSE.
@disquisition73 Universities teach abiogenesis as a, yet unconfirmed, hypothesis. It is not taught as a theory. Evolution by natural selection is a well accepted theory in biology, which is not dependent upon any hypothesis about the origin of the first cell. Do you know the difference between a theory, hypothesis and fact in science? And by the way, there is no such thing as biogenesis denial among professional biologists.
@disquisition73 This is hilarious. By describing someone as an "intellectual boob" for pointing out an ad hominem fallacy, you are employing another ad hominem. Don't you see the irony in that? Oh, and being an anti-intellectual is nothing to brag about.
@disquisition73 I told you how modern biologists use the term "abiogenesis" and you respond with an ad hominem argument against John Bernal, the person who coined the term. Do you understand why your argument is a fallacy and why it contributes nothing to our present day understanding of the word? I just looked at the video on your channel and it's just a generic creationist propaganda piece. It misidentifies the hypothesis of abiogenesis as a theory. Know the difference.
@disquisition73 Modern biologists don't consult Websters dictionary to define their terms. Abiogenesis is not defined as spontaneous generation in modern science. Your assertion that all mutations are bad is also false. Whether or not a mutation is beneficial, deleterious or neutral depends upon the environment. Webbed fingers & toes are beneficial to an aquatic creature but deleterious to a land-dwelling predator. Are you getting your facts from some creationist website?
@disquisition73 Do you have any idea of what spontaneous generation is? It's an old discounted belief that complex organisms are constantly being generated in their mature form today. It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or abiogenesis (which is about the first primitive cells emerging billions of years ago). I've already explained the difference to you. There is no need for modern biologists to "get around spontaneous generation" because it is irrelevant.
@disquisition73 Biogenesis is about the origin of new organisms from preexisting organisms after life has already occurred. Abiogenesis is about the emergence of the first life forms (primitive single celled organisms), which is a hypothesis distinct from evolution. Spontaneaous generation is about complex organisms spontaneously appearing today in mature form. Your conflation of the terms: biogenesis, abiogenesis & spontaneous generation is ridiculous.
@disquisition73 What? You say that "the religion of evolution is faith in the model of how spontaneous generation may have occured..."? First of all, there is no scientific theory of spontaneous generation to begin with. You must be referring to abiogenesis, This is a hypothesis distinct from the well evidenced theory of evolution by natural selection. Anyway, abiogenesis deals with the emergence of the first life forms - not with the spontanaous appearance of mature forms today.
@disquisition73 I should rephrase, how do you know that something didn't change within the gene code? Again you say it but I without a study I don't see how you can say it absolutely did not happen. Haha It wouldn't be easy to change a snakes temper through natural selection but I wouldn't say it's impossible but I haven't tried. I see what you mean by mean and tame though tame is just something we want when domesticate. interestingly a "mean" fox can still come from a tame mother but not likely
@kingofthekit I would also argue that in breeding whether human or animal that parts of the gene code could change from Father to son as the father, unlike the mother, continuously reproduces sperm and drastic changes to the father, I think, could have an effect on the gene code though I'm unaware of a study to show that. As far as I know they are identical copies of the original from the time of puberty.
@kingofthekit to clarify, no changes in the father's gene code just in the genes brought by the sperm. Again no studies to back it up but until then I think it's possible.
@disquisition73 How can we be sure that is just natural selection that occurred? It's easy to SAY that the fox study I mentioned before is just natural selection but without a study to shows the untamed foxes had all the genes for the physical changes then we can't determine it natural selection just yet. Like you said though, if the genes are there then I would completely agree.
@disquisition73 trolling much? if you are so sure about your scientific understanding then please publish the paper and research you have done. easy, real easy unless you are talking shite that is?
@disquisition73 Spont. gen. is seen when domesticating Foxes. German breeders of foxes have done research for 30 years picking only foxes that demonstrate tame attributes. After only a few generations the foxes spontaneously start to show new physical attributes like floppy ears and/or fluffy white tipped tails. change in mental state leads to changes in appearance. millions of years, changing environment, mental dispositions it could occur naturally without a doubt. easy and I'm not a scientist
@marsCubed Your talking about data that has been refuted in the last few days. The models are wrong and have been all along. I'm not endorsing doing nothing for the environment but to lay blame at the feet of man has only ever stacked up with those models and they, time and again been shown to be wrong. Now we have data to verify that.
@Adirtybird, "Or prof John Christie. Both are world renown peer lauded experts who state that the ipcc's models are bullshit."
John Christy is an IPCC author. His opinion on climate sensitivity has been falsified by findings of climate scientists who work in that area, an area where he has no expertise. Christy is one of the 3% of climate scientists who disagree with the consensus position. He's most famous for arguing the atmosphere wasn't warming when in fact his equipment wasn't working.
@marsCubed Ok i watched that and it only validated that the temp is rising???? We all know that, but nothing to add to your claim that co2 is the cause.
@Adirtybird CO2 is the main 'driver' of temperature.
Without CO2, Earth would be an ice ball. CO2 is only a small part of the atmosphere.. think of it as a drop of 'red ink' in a tank of transparent water.. it means IR light is absorbed, thus water can melt etc. ie it drives Earth temp.
denial via Solar/cosmic rays & CO2 lag is nonsense.
watch?v=pAx6j625iy4
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
Scientists who did the actual research say denial is junk.
deflection, denial stooges, sites based in oil/corp states.
@marsCubed Would they be the scientist from east Anglia or from the IPCC who are today eating humble pie as we are now told from nasa and the met office that we have had no warming since 1997????. 30k temp stations world wide show a decline not increase. I think your AGW bubble just burst.
@marsCubed "Skepticism is healthy, however the denial lobby have no evidence now."
Sceptics don't need evidence. They seek evidence.
The climate hysterics are the ones that need evidence, but have none. The hockey stick has been proved a lie (whatever you say). Even Mann's colleagues say it was terrible science (read the leaked emails). The models were all proved wrong 15 years ago. There is no evidence for CAGW at all.
@marsCubed "CO2 is the main 'driver' of temperature."
Hahahaha
That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on the net, in 16 years debating. I started by debating creationists, so there is stiff competition.
@marsCubed Skeptic scientists themselves have just shown Christie and Lindzen's main points wrong."
What skeptics? Not only is the BEST project fatally flawed but Muller, who ran it, was a fake sceptic. He was always a true believer.
However even if some sceptics become convinced, what about all the apostates? Far more people (including me) have changed from believing the hypothesis of CAGW to be possible or probable to realising it is junk science.
I noticed that not one of the deniers cites even so much as a single bit of verifiable research done to prove their statements. Sounds more like religion than science to me.
I am a firm believer in the idea that while climate change runs through natural cycles of cool/warm, since the industrial age began, mankind has exacerbated that warming trend and made things worse. we can't change the cycles of the Earth, but we can change how we affect those cycles.
I would support Climate Change as a science if I were able to see an analysis between a 'Natural' gulf coast hurricane and a 'man-made' one. I keep hearing man-made c02 creates violent hurricanes. I would like to see the analysis.
@Explitiv3 writes, "How can anyone deny James Hansen's 1988 failed predictions?"
Hansen presented three predictions, where his most likely prediction was validated. Your post here is illustrative of the need for good science education since you're obviously perusing content whose publishers lied to you by either removing that scenario or distorting the prediction relative to actual results which confirmed it. A good science education would have you capable of selecting good sources only.
@randomxnp writes, "What of Hansen's predictions have ever come about?"
Part 1 of 2:
If you are referring to his 1988 paper he presented to Congress, back when the models were in their infancy, and the one most misrepresented by denalists, his most likely scenario was about 10% off [1].
Even if he were wrong, one scientist being wrong in 1988 does't justify denying climate physics and the climate science community's empirical findings.
1) Realclimate "Updates to model-data comparisons"
@MikeHeath1 So he was right, but not actually right and even if he was wrong ...
Sorry, sounds unconvincing.
Had it not been for Hansen's exaggeration of the importance of his 1988 work then the hypothesis of CAGW would never have gained the political backing that set up the only positive feedback yet proven in AGW: between pseudo-scientists grasping for cash and politicians looking for support.
Try the URL bit . ly / wGnYnP (take out spaces). He was maybe 2-300% out.
I do not deny any physics. I am denying net positive feedback for which there is no evidence whatever, and which is unheard of in stable systems. Assuming positive feedback is, ironically, based on climate being so stable only human activity has affected temperature.
I make a hesitant hypothesis of negative feedback, for which there is some evidence albeit inconclusive, and which is usual in stable systems.
So why do you think temperature has positive feedback?
@randomxnp writes, What of Hansen's predictions have ever come about? Oh, except his prediction that he could make a fortune out of this scam."
Part 2 of 2
I find it ironic you project the motivations of the leaders of the denialist community onto a great scientist. Here's the Koch brothers funded Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels misrepresenting Dr. Hansen's 1988 paper and testimony to Congress:
SkepticalScience: "Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1 [and Part 2]
@randomxnp You've been duped by propaganda,and parrot it like a Scientology cult member. It's as obviously fake as "professional" wrestling to all of us who haven't fallen for big oil's manipulation of the gullible.
@ndrthrdr1 Nope. You are the one falling for big oil's propaganda. Do you not realise they pay more to climate alarmism than scepticism? You have fallen for the lies of the frustrated multi-billion-dollar-a-year alarmists that their opponents, who don't even have 1% of their funding, are buying the argument.
@ndrthrdr1 I am a science graduate. Earth Sciences. That is why I don't fall for the pseudo-science of the alarmists, by my own assessment, not by anyone else's manipulation. You don't understand anything they tell you, so you naively believe them. You are the gullible one.
@randomxnp Climatologists know that the environment is changing due to human activity. Some guy claims to have expertise in the field and that the vast majority of Climatologists are wrong.
You're not fooling anyone but yourself. Your lack of ability to recognize this make you a poster child for those duped by big oil.
Keep on driving and polluting. You're not smart Anouilh to be part of the solution, and your claims of superior education and intellect are laughable.
@Dodger481 You're as gullible as random is. When all of the polar ice is gone in the summers, you'll be saying "No problem!" because you'll still be the same gullible people.
You seem focused on NCSE videos. Gee, I wonder why.
@ndrthrdr1 You are the one denying reality, and from a reply made to me that you appear to have deleted I think I know why. You don't think you are qualified to judge, so you simply believe the self-professed judges.
I infer this from your claiming that if I haven't studied anything called "climate science" then I am not qualified to judge.
Think more of yourself. Look into the evidence. Use what you know of scientific practice, learn more, use common sense. Don't rely on faith
@ndrthrdr1 "You aren't intelligent enough to understand science"
The University of Cambridge disagreed in granting me a degree.
"Let me guess ... you also believe that you have an invisible superhuman friend with "powers" ... Better stick with religion ... You can't handle reality. "
I am an atheist. You are the one pushing religion. CAGW has every aspect of a religion, including a demand for faith and persecution of heretics and apostates.
@randomxnp Bullshit. You've been conned, and as the polar ice continues to melt and record highs continue to stack up, you will continue to look more gullible. You claim a Cambridge education. Bullshit again.
@ndrthrdr1 Which pole? Antarctic ice has been increasing as temperatures decrease. Overall polar ice has no net trend.
How can you claim bullshit on the education of someone you have never met? I can assure you mine includes Cambridge. I was a natsci, if you want to look up what that means.
@ndrthrdr1 It is rather comical to see you have no actual argument. Childish bluster is the best you can manage. Even Peter Gleick manages more than that, and he is rather a pedestrian intellect.
Record highs continue to stack up. Hmmmmm. Do you know how many records there are? Do you know how odd it would be not to continue to find record highs, even if climate was stable? Do you not know that Earth was in a Little Ice Age shortly before thermometers became commonplace?
@buugiman78 I said we have no evidence that ALL of the temperature rising is caused by human activity. I don't agree that humanity is the only single factor that influences world climate and to claim so is disshonest. And please don't try to put words in my mouth because I'm not a moron that believes his civilization's activity has no effect on the world what so ever, but also I'm not a moron who believes it it the only factor in the systems of the panet as well...
@jeremyhansen100 Wow some believe numbers that don't add up. The upward warming trend began before 1900 ???? A warmer climate is know to have 1/3rd of negative impact verses a cold shift that has higher water levels increasing radiative effect. Hmmm hope you don't mind me laughing at you for not realizing that it's cyclic and foolish to think we can change it.
@Adirtybird First off I know warming started before 1900, I used 1900 to base the statistic, it makes the math easier. Now, imagine that you are in a WORLD wide ice age lasting tens of thousands of years. Now, imagine that you're in the opposite, but it is only 1/3 as devastating. I highly doubt you can picture yourself in a tropical paradise. Just think about. it life has slowly adapted it's self to the specific area that it's found. It doesn't take much to mess it all up.
@xephyr1000 and @rg0057 - and thus, I suggest that there are many religious people out there who can get on board with science and solving global warming but who would characterise themselves as some form of creationist (eg one who accepts evolution but with divine guidance or intervention). My suggestion is that the tone of this video makes it difficult to share with this group, and I found that disappointing given the importance of the topic.
@xephyr1000 and @rg0057 - I could argue the point aspects of proof, but instead I'll restate my original point which you have perhaps missed. I think that many climate change deniers are also evolution deniers, are also science deniers. I think that these people on the whole want a war between science and religion, because they have the numbers, while science only has the facts(!). The theism vs theism debate is fascinating, but to stop global warming we need to deal with one denial at a time.
I have an idea for a new religion, lets call the leaders 'scientists' they can preach to us about the end of the world and tell us to buy new 'green' things, tell us how evil we are by nature for driving petrol powered cars. But we can find redemption in the hybrid cars and fair trade coffee. On a serious note can we let scientists do research and politicians do politics or create a new class the politist or the scientician to preach at us :)
oo, I had this on my motorcycle, fuel left in the float chamber forms a kind of gunk/scum, you have to take the carb apart and thourly clean the jet and pin.
did you see how that last guy thanked you before insulting you, its all they know how to do when they cant deal with the message.
@GuyThreepwoody I work with a gardening charity and asked the mechanic about your problem, hes what he said, there is a small O ring at the base of the pin in the float chamber itself, if that gets dry, it can split and its fairly common for that to happen, the engine will then flood after about 20 mins, sounds familiar doesnt it? To get at it, you need to remove the float chamber cover and look between the two floats, the pin and O ring leading up to the jet should be there.
I wish this video was more circumspect around the term creationism, as creationism can be broad enough to include acceptance of settled science such as evolution. To my mind much of the anti climate change sentiment comes from a projection of mistrust of scientists that stems from the fear that they are trying to take God away from us. Science should be and is fairly neutral on that topic of God. If "anti-evolution" or similar had replaced "creationism" I could have shared this more easily.
@fuzzyBSc Neutral?? celeb scientists like Hawking, Dawkins, Krauss make a living publishing books and touring campuses specifically refuting God and preaching atheist faith to impressionable college kids.
They don't like to bring up that 'scientists' also ridiculed the creation of the Universe- declaring a proven 'static' universe.... Until one of those silly theists discovered the Big Bang for them...
I say put intellectual fashion aside and look at the facts
@GuyThreepwoody What is taught in science class is a question of science alone. It's about the process of science, and of the established results that this process have produced to date.
Science may have something to say about religion through its non-confirmation of religious predictions, and the application of occam's razor. However physics, chemistry, biology, and other branches of science are as I say generally neutral towards the supernatural. It's had to prove something doesn't exist.
@rg0057 "if you can prove that some algorithms don't end, you can save people from trying to characterize how each one ends.
You missed my point. If I were to claim that gods don't exist, that is a POSITIVE CLAIM. I am claiming to know that gods don't exist, thus the onus would be for me to provide my evidence that supports this claim. If I just said I don't BELIEVE they exist, there is no claim. If a theists says they BELIEVE, there's still no claim. If they said GOD EXISTS = Claim
@fuzzyBSc cobblers, you have to make a distinction between scientific method, scientists, and gov't curriculums - 3 different things.
I was taught that CO2 is a vital nutrient which makes Earth green, now kids are taught that it's a dirty pollutant which destroys the environment
Hard to prove something that doesn't exist? you mean the Multiverse? String theory? M Theory? AGW? total lack of evidence is okay dokay for fashionable scientists as long as it fits a certain ideology-
@GuyThreepwoody ^^ total lack of evidence is okay dokay for fashionable scientists as long as it fits a certain ideology ^^
Don't be silly. Theories are dismissed or modified whenever an experiment on a testable hypothesis yields contradicting results. I'd rather pursue questions that seemingly can't be answered than live with answers that definitely must not be questioned.
@GuyThreepwoody I didn't say "prove something that doesn't exist", I said "prove something doesn't exist". To prove something doesn't exist generally involves a search everywhere that finds no instances of it, which can sometimes be done algorithmically but is difficult in the general case. It's hard to prove leprechauns don't exist, for example - they might just be hiding really really well! It's easy to prove something does exist, just find one instance of it.
@fuzzyBSc sorry- misread that! so I get the point- and it also applies to Multiverse, M theory , string theory, which enjoy the distinction of 'theory' and serious consideration with zero evidence, or quite possibly the chance to ever get any.
They are not superior to ID in evidence or logic in any way, unless you can name one. They are simply more intellectually fashionable- just as when scientists mocked a creation event, claiming a 'static' Universe- till a theist dicovered the Big Bang...
@GuyThreepwoody I agree on the subjects of multiverse, M theory, and string theory. They have yet to graduate to the level of science in that they have not made testable predictions. Science, like evolution, adds information through a filtering process. Any old crap can go in, and it might look good for a while... but it is the repeated filtering process where different hypotheses make different testable predictions where one is verified and the other if falsified that separates true from false.
I wonder why it gets s damn hot in the city... Oh wait... maybe the fact that there is so little vegetation and so much black asphalt and pavement absorbing the heat... hmmm. Has anyone tried studying that? I mean, im not saying it makes total sense, but we have massive cities around the world which trap heat in them, possibly heating up the atmosphere around it? Im my opinion that would contribute to warming more than CO2.
@astro15 yes but you dont have large cities with asphalt and pavement in the arctic and on these vanishing islands. Local temperatures and climate change are not the same thing.
@astro15 That's where all the measured increase in surface temp comes from. More scientific & reliable satellite data shows little or no warming- current anomally is around (point).12 of a degree above ave for the last 32 years!...
Antarctica is seeing colder temps with record sea ice extent routinely- much further away from dense northern landmass etc
That's why global warmers always refer to land measurements to make their case.
airport weather stations can be 5-7 d above real temps.
I love people who call creationists blind followers but then when someone states that they are open to evaluate information about climate change as it comes, they name-call. That isn't the method of science. Yes, there are many things that may point to CO2 causing climate change, but there are other things that point to areas that still need more studying.
And just in case no one has noticed, this is a topic that has become highly politicized, thus corrupt in many areas.
Recently I didn't believe in anthropomorphic global warming. I'll tell you all what convinced me:
1) I realized that environmentalists are NOT claiming that we're changing the overall composition of the earth, which made no sense. We're releasing carbon from underground, where it's been safely locked away. That made more sense.
2) I was exposed to people who admitted that there are some exaggerators who simply take pleasure pointing fingers at humanity. In spite of this, the facts prevail.
We don't need to worry about future generations, just remain fixated on a utopian afterlife. Sarcasm aside, as a member of NCSE, I thank you for expanding your scope against anti-science dogmatic crap.
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT Well, it's never too late! You can join and donate online. Seriously, we have lost some members over this, and new members joining and supporting us FOR the CC initiative would be very helpful.
Well, you just got a new one. A lot of the creationism/ID "research" and "latest breaktroughs" are pretty much directly imported from USA to other countries so these things matter on both sides of the Atlantic.
It's the same mantras that they keep repeating here, but luckily to a much smaller audience.
@GuyThreepwoody Where'd you get that list of "10's of thousands of qualified independent scientists"? It sounds like something I'd pull out of my ass when I want to invent a statistic.
Also, you are lacking superior knowledge if you think excess CO2 is a good thing and it only plays a MINOR role in global warming.
You must get your research data from FOX "News".
I give you credit for quoting a wikipedia pamphlet, though. Did you also bother researching Airborne Fractions of vapors and gases?
@TheKainMan Petition project to name just one, has over 30k- a concensus that utterly dwarfs 'climatologists' in qualification and numbers. but science is about not having to take anyone's word for it, don't let anyone tell you you're not smart enough to figure this out, you are
Most plants evolved with FAR higher CO2 levels
Cambrian period 7000 ppm
most still prefer 1200-1500 ppm
Ordivician ICE age >4000 ppm
only causal correlation ever observed: CO2 levels lag temp by 8-900 years
@GuyThreepwoody Yes, most plants evolved with higher CO2 levels, but that was a very long time ago. Life today is adapted to the levels of CO2 which had been present today, and the RAPID CHANGE of CO2 has been destructive in every ecosystem. That's what you're conveniently overlooking.
@GuyThreepwoody Are you freaking kidding me? The Oregon Petition project? That's the best you've got? A shady document full of mostly duplicated and faked signatures? It was, without a doubt, payed for by corporate mongers. Get a clue, the PP is the Fox News of science.
Before you go on stating how many ppms CO2 was at ages ago to show how it affects global warming, research the Sun's correlation to global temperatures. The Sun was colder, and the high CO2 levels kept the temp at present levels.
@GuyThreepwoody If you ever have children, I hope they don't hate you for helping destroy their only environment. They should; I know I do. Greed is the only possible reason for you and your ilk's continued resistance to the vast amounts of evidence pointing to AGW. You should be ashamed of yourself.
@trog69 I understand believers have a lot of passion, especially as global warming fades into obscurity, but there really never was any science behind it. With so much political power, money and passionate followers like yourself- not much need for science..
I want my childern to grow up in a society where they are free to prosper and enjoy a high standard of living. Ethiopia and Somalia have fantastically low carbon footprints-
it's not a model for prosperity or environmental protection
@GuyThreepwoody You must be tripping on CO2. How did you shift the subject from global warming to economy?
You're the kind of person who would swim in shit if the ones at power would tell you it's prosperous. Are you seriously just spitting out the same old shit about only the good effects of CO2? Did you even bother reading the links I sent you? No? Didn't fucking think so. I know your side of the story, and compared to mine, it's pure utter fucking bullshit.
@TheKainMan OK I'm convinced by your cool calm collected scientific mind!
But seriously-I honestly think you are worrying yourself needlessly, we have real problems to focus on- including environmental ones, a little extra CO2 aint one of them what is it you are so worried about that makes you so upset, what terrible things do you think one or two hundred ppm CO2 are going to do?
@GuyThreepwoody said, "we have real problems to focus on- including environmental ones, a little extra CO2 aint one of them." Really? Go build a home on the coast or go tell that to the people that live on Lohachara island. Better yet tell that to future generations who will have to deal with the rise of diseases that thrive in a tropical climate.
@GuyThreepwoody Senior scientists are noting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections of sea level rise during this century of 18 to 59 centimeters are already obsolete and that a rise of 2 meters during this time is within range.
Deniers just like in evolution like to ignore new data.
@momentofsciencetx 'projections..??!!' you mean like the Himalayas melting in 30 years? how about measurement, observation, outcome prediction- quaint old fashioned science like that? - They predicted accelerating sea level 20 years ago..
meanwhile ZERO acceleration in sea level rise has been measured despite 100 years of increasing CO2- who's denying real data here?
@momentofsciencetx tropical disease kills where there are not economic resources to combat it (Africa) . Prosperity is also by far the best way to reduce population growth-
the common multiplier in all environmental concerns- so I agree the economy should take precedence.
@GuyThreepwoody Yes but even in current times were prosperity is at its greatest there are still many poor in the world. There are still those dying from diseases that have been wiped out here in the US. Climate change can change that. If you believe the economy should take precedence then you should be even more concerned. Example talk to the pumpkin farmers here in Texas.
@GuyThreepwoody Thank you for your honesty. At least you admit that you don't care about carbon emissions because you don't want to do anything that might hamper your excessive usage. Your children might have your rightwing sense of ownership of all you can engorge on, but my kids will know that ignorant greed-heads like you are why we never even tried to alleviate the coming disasters.
@GuyThreepwoody If you do not see any science behind it then you are not looking hard enough - you have to be coveting your eyes and ears not to notice it. May I recommend you watch potholers videos on shaming the diners?
@GuyThreepwoody Another link you forgot to provide can't be pasted, but here's how to get to it: Go to Wikipedia, search for the "Oregon Petition" then click on the 22nd reference. The 21st ref also provides some lovely details. Your Oregon Petition went to shit just now.
But wait, there's more:
skepticalscience com/co2-higher-in-past htm
So when the Sun is dimmer, high CO2 levels keep the Earth warm. Now what happens when you have a brighter Sun AND high CO2 levels, Mr. Scientist?
@TheKainMan high CO2 levels? pre industrial 270 was lowest in history and near starvation levels, contributing to desertification, we have restored a fraction of the nutrient plants buried in the ground for millions of yrs-
385 is not 'high' again Ordovician ice age :4400 ppm
like the petition scientists, don't take my word or Wikis- do the experiment- feed plants CO2 and see . contact the REAL scientists, not gov't 'climatologists' paid for a specific predetermined lucrative conclusion
@GuyThreepwoody I mean, for fucks sake, there really is a dumbass for every situation.
I'm not gonna stress out how much of an ignorant fool you are, I left you viable scientific links to do research for yourself. If you can't do that, I'm not changing your diapers, you mentally underdeveloped man-child.
@GuyThreepwoody 4400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would be great - if we evolved in an environment with that level of CO2. "Setting back the clock" from current levels to that level would be grossly, magnificently disruptive. Even anywhere near. We aren't worried about all life on earth dying. We're worried about the food chain being knocked out - because *we're* at the top of it. It's a valid concern.
@speedysavant well, we are never going to achieve 4400 ppm - consider that while CO2 emissions have risen exponentially- atmos. levels have only done so in a gradual linear fashion- Also the GH effect diminishes logarithmically - so very little direct effect is ever achieved. This is not controversial- that’s why GW has always depended on those infamous ‘feedback loops’ as exist only in computer sims- never observed in the real world.
@speedysavant also- the plants at the base of our planet's food chain loves 3 things above all- CO2, warmth and water. If we were doing something to reduce all 3, we might have something to worry about.
@GuyThreepwoody Trees and plant only take in so much CO2 then they begin to release stored CO2 when the atmosphere is enriched. Your argument is a kin to saying my body loves water so don't worry about drowning in it.
@momentofsciencetx plants thrive on CO2, is the point- it's plant food- that's why- over millions of years they stripped this nutrient out of the atmosphere- burying it forever, from >7000 ppm to 270 ppm- a near starvation level. They still prefer 1200-1500-
we are only helping restore a tiny fraction back to them- mother nature would not thank us for everyhting- but restoring CO2?- definitely
@GuyThreepwoody Mate, you cant argue with these people, their minds are closed and they poke their fingers in their ears and say lalalalala. The irony is how their attitude has cost them them the public support they crave so much. They think that by constantly screaming about climate change people will listen, but histry jsut proves if you try to stuff your ideas down someones throat, they fight you. Dont bother to engage, they are the new creationists.
@Shofoxy I think most people are intelligent, well meaning & interested in the truth etc- and at some point will conceed that the science is a little shaky...but the real brick wall you always ultimately hit- is that believers usually like the 'solutions' so much- they have no desire to scrutinize the problem? from global warming to climate change to 'green jobs' the driving political ideology is the only thing that remains unchanged!
@GuyThreepwoody totaly agree, but they cant see that, all they will do is sling insults at you for daring to challenge them. The general public is already sick of their claims, as you said, himalayas melting, sea rising ect, especially as they are usualy retracted the next year or even week, in my own lifetime, they have claimed we are headed to an ice age, then global warming, now I think its ice age again, but who can keep track.
@GuyThreepwoody hehe, I do, if its a two stroke, have you tried cleaning the spark plug? or better yet, try it with a brand new one. Incedently, does it make a strange noise just before it cuts out?
@Shofoxy It's a 4 stroke- old Sears lawn tractor, it dies very suddenly after 15 mins or so of running fine. then re-starts only after completely draining the float bowl with a foot pump! so I was thinking it's fuel related- but replaceing the spark plug won't hurt...
@GuyThreepwoody sorry, hit the wrong button, I had this on my motorcycle, fuel left in the float chamber forms a kind of gunk/scum over time, you have to take the carb apart and thourly clean the jet and pin. You may want to clean the fuel filter and replace the fuel competly if its been idle for a time.
did you see how that last guy thanked you before insulting you, its all they know how to do when they cant deal with the message.
The only real evidense we have is that it's getting warmer. But if that warming is anthropogenetic... that's a whole different story. Some part of it - most definetly is caused by our activities but not all of it!
@hekata5 Since you are talking about evidence I would assume it's only fair to ask for evidence in support of your claim that we don't have evidence that the current warming is anthropogenic.
@Thunderf00t a couple years ago I found myself in detention for disproving my science teacher (I'll call him Mr. B) Mr. B was refuting evidence that climate change was real and instead claimed it was the earth's natural cycles. so I did my own research over a couple weeks, compiled data from websites, and cited all my sources.
@FogiTofu He then went on calling me an idiot and assigned me detention for 2 hours after school during which time I was told to write down repeatedly on a large sheet of paper "Global warming is a myth."
@Thunderf00t Oh dear another lost greenie.... water vapour makes up 80% of our GHG yet those you believe "IPCC" only account 20% within their models and when they increase it to 80% the co2 myth falls apart. And as for the IR forcing, I would suggest you look and Prof Richard Lindzens current papers. They prove without doubt that what the IPCC and their funding starved collaborators are telling us about radiation capture is wrong. Look for yourself.
@Adirtybird H2O 0- 4% of our atmosphere, CO2 .036%, CH4 .00017%, N2O .00003%, O3 .000004%. Altogether you have around 4.036204%. That's not a lot, right. That's a rise of about 30% from from 1900, at 2.82%. Not much. This little shift has rose .4*c in 100 yrs and predicted to be 4*c in the next. Not much. 100000 yrs a volcano changes the temp by around -4*c, started the ice age. If you want to go around giving you argument from authority go ahead, just don't get mad when people laugh at you.
Climate change denial is on the rise because the evidence is debunking global warming. When there is no evidence there will be no denial of the BS.
Dodger481 3 days ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 3 days ago
This video discredits science in the first 9 seconds. In comparing CAGW scepticism with creationism, and in using the propaganda term "denial", this either shows utter ignorance or disgraceful dishonesty. Either way - shame on the NCSE.
randomxnp 5 days ago
"NCSE is expanding its mission to "..shoot itself in the foot
Spudtion 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great video! Check out my "The Shara Ashley Show: Non-Winter!" video on my page. I talk about something similar!
Sharaashleyz 3 weeks ago
@disquisition73 Universities teach abiogenesis as a, yet unconfirmed, hypothesis. It is not taught as a theory. Evolution by natural selection is a well accepted theory in biology, which is not dependent upon any hypothesis about the origin of the first cell. Do you know the difference between a theory, hypothesis and fact in science? And by the way, there is no such thing as biogenesis denial among professional biologists.
prschuster 3 weeks ago
@disquisition73 This is hilarious. By describing someone as an "intellectual boob" for pointing out an ad hominem fallacy, you are employing another ad hominem. Don't you see the irony in that? Oh, and being an anti-intellectual is nothing to brag about.
prschuster 3 weeks ago
@disquisition73 I told you how modern biologists use the term "abiogenesis" and you respond with an ad hominem argument against John Bernal, the person who coined the term. Do you understand why your argument is a fallacy and why it contributes nothing to our present day understanding of the word? I just looked at the video on your channel and it's just a generic creationist propaganda piece. It misidentifies the hypothesis of abiogenesis as a theory. Know the difference.
prschuster 3 weeks ago
@disquisition73 Modern biologists don't consult Websters dictionary to define their terms. Abiogenesis is not defined as spontaneous generation in modern science. Your assertion that all mutations are bad is also false. Whether or not a mutation is beneficial, deleterious or neutral depends upon the environment. Webbed fingers & toes are beneficial to an aquatic creature but deleterious to a land-dwelling predator. Are you getting your facts from some creationist website?
prschuster 3 weeks ago
@disquisition73 Do you have any idea of what spontaneous generation is? It's an old discounted belief that complex organisms are constantly being generated in their mature form today. It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution or abiogenesis (which is about the first primitive cells emerging billions of years ago). I've already explained the difference to you. There is no need for modern biologists to "get around spontaneous generation" because it is irrelevant.
prschuster 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@disquisition73 Biogenesis is about the origin of new organisms from preexisting organisms after life has already occurred. Abiogenesis is about the emergence of the first life forms (primitive single celled organisms), which is a hypothesis distinct from evolution. Spontaneaous generation is about complex organisms spontaneously appearing today in mature form. Your conflation of the terms: biogenesis, abiogenesis & spontaneous generation is ridiculous.
prschuster 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
prschuster 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
prschuster 3 weeks ago
@disquisition73 What? You say that "the religion of evolution is faith in the model of how spontaneous generation may have occured..."? First of all, there is no scientific theory of spontaneous generation to begin with. You must be referring to abiogenesis, This is a hypothesis distinct from the well evidenced theory of evolution by natural selection. Anyway, abiogenesis deals with the emergence of the first life forms - not with the spontanaous appearance of mature forms today.
prschuster 3 weeks ago
@disquisition73 I should rephrase, how do you know that something didn't change within the gene code? Again you say it but I without a study I don't see how you can say it absolutely did not happen. Haha It wouldn't be easy to change a snakes temper through natural selection but I wouldn't say it's impossible but I haven't tried. I see what you mean by mean and tame though tame is just something we want when domesticate. interestingly a "mean" fox can still come from a tame mother but not likely
kingofthekit 3 weeks ago
@kingofthekit I think "wild" and "domesticated" is more accurate to use than "mean and tame"
kingofthekit 3 weeks ago
@kingofthekit I would also argue that in breeding whether human or animal that parts of the gene code could change from Father to son as the father, unlike the mother, continuously reproduces sperm and drastic changes to the father, I think, could have an effect on the gene code though I'm unaware of a study to show that. As far as I know they are identical copies of the original from the time of puberty.
kingofthekit 3 weeks ago
@kingofthekit to clarify, no changes in the father's gene code just in the genes brought by the sperm. Again no studies to back it up but until then I think it's possible.
kingofthekit 3 weeks ago
@disquisition73 How can we be sure that is just natural selection that occurred? It's easy to SAY that the fox study I mentioned before is just natural selection but without a study to shows the untamed foxes had all the genes for the physical changes then we can't determine it natural selection just yet. Like you said though, if the genes are there then I would completely agree.
kingofthekit 4 weeks ago
@disquisition73 dirty troll
vgrasomni 4 weeks ago
@disquisition73 If you think evolution is impossible based on a google search then you sir are a fucking moron.
Adirtybird 4 weeks ago 2
@disquisition73 trolling much? if you are so sure about your scientific understanding then please publish the paper and research you have done. easy, real easy unless you are talking shite that is?
shandcunt 4 weeks ago 2
@disquisition73 Spont. gen. is seen when domesticating Foxes. German breeders of foxes have done research for 30 years picking only foxes that demonstrate tame attributes. After only a few generations the foxes spontaneously start to show new physical attributes like floppy ears and/or fluffy white tipped tails. change in mental state leads to changes in appearance. millions of years, changing environment, mental dispositions it could occur naturally without a doubt. easy and I'm not a scientist
kingofthekit 4 weeks ago
@disquisition73 What are you talking about ???? AGW or mans origins???
Adirtybird 1 month ago
@marsCubed Your talking about data that has been refuted in the last few days. The models are wrong and have been all along. I'm not endorsing doing nothing for the environment but to lay blame at the feet of man has only ever stacked up with those models and they, time and again been shown to be wrong. Now we have data to verify that.
Adirtybird 1 month ago
@Adirtybird Or prof John Christie. Both are world renown peer lauded experts who state that the ipcc's models are bullshit.
Adirtybird 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Adirtybird, "Or prof John Christie. Both are world renown peer lauded experts who state that the ipcc's models are bullshit."
John Christy is an IPCC author. His opinion on climate sensitivity has been falsified by findings of climate scientists who work in that area, an area where he has no expertise. Christy is one of the 3% of climate scientists who disagree with the consensus position. He's most famous for arguing the atmosphere wasn't warming when in fact his equipment wasn't working.
MikeHeath1 1 month ago
@Adirtybird Skeptic scientists themselves have just shown Christie and Lindzen's main points wrong.
watch?v=gWPWr00k3FQ
The IPCC's findings were confirmed by Skeptics scientists themselves, even funded by denial conservatives and oil corps.
Different methods, more date & published online.
Skepticism is healthy, however Deniers are misled fools, swindlers or nuts.. a bunch of corp lobby sites.
Humans now produce 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes (previous biggest source).. look it up.
marsCubed 1 month ago
@marsCubed Ok i watched that and it only validated that the temp is rising???? We all know that, but nothing to add to your claim that co2 is the cause.
Adirtybird 1 month ago
@Adirtybird CO2 is the main 'driver' of temperature.
Without CO2, Earth would be an ice ball. CO2 is only a small part of the atmosphere.. think of it as a drop of 'red ink' in a tank of transparent water.. it means IR light is absorbed, thus water can melt etc. ie it drives Earth temp.
denial via Solar/cosmic rays & CO2 lag is nonsense.
watch?v=pAx6j625iy4
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24
Scientists who did the actual research say denial is junk.
deflection, denial stooges, sites based in oil/corp states.
marsCubed 1 month ago
@marsCubed Would they be the scientist from east Anglia or from the IPCC who are today eating humble pie as we are now told from nasa and the met office that we have had no warming since 1997????. 30k temp stations world wide show a decline not increase. I think your AGW bubble just burst.
Adirtybird 1 month ago
@Adirtybird You just burst your own bubble.
watch?v=gWPWr00k3FQ again.
Skeptic scientists, even funded by conservative deniers. examined NASA & East Anglia data. All now published online.
Their conclusion; complete agreement with the IPCC, same big 'hockey stick' increase in warming found.
deniers were found to be wrong.
Skepticism is healthy, however the denial lobby have no evidence now.
watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
Second half details some of the denial, far-right 'libertarian' (corp lobby) links.
marsCubed 1 month ago
@marsCubed "Skepticism is healthy, however the denial lobby have no evidence now."
Sceptics don't need evidence. They seek evidence.
The climate hysterics are the ones that need evidence, but have none. The hockey stick has been proved a lie (whatever you say). Even Mann's colleagues say it was terrible science (read the leaked emails). The models were all proved wrong 15 years ago. There is no evidence for CAGW at all.
randomxnp 5 days ago
@marsCubed "CO2 is the main 'driver' of temperature."
Hahahaha
That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on the net, in 16 years debating. I started by debating creationists, so there is stiff competition.
randomxnp 5 days ago
@marsCubed Skeptic scientists themselves have just shown Christie and Lindzen's main points wrong."
What skeptics? Not only is the BEST project fatally flawed but Muller, who ran it, was a fake sceptic. He was always a true believer.
However even if some sceptics become convinced, what about all the apostates? Far more people (including me) have changed from believing the hypothesis of CAGW to be possible or probable to realising it is junk science.
randomxnp 5 days ago
@raptorcat61 Are you serious or do you have selective hearing. Look up prof Richard lindzen
Adirtybird 1 month ago
I noticed that not one of the deniers cites even so much as a single bit of verifiable research done to prove their statements. Sounds more like religion than science to me.
I am a firm believer in the idea that while climate change runs through natural cycles of cool/warm, since the industrial age began, mankind has exacerbated that warming trend and made things worse. we can't change the cycles of the Earth, but we can change how we affect those cycles.
raptorcat61 1 month ago
I would support Climate Change as a science if I were able to see an analysis between a 'Natural' gulf coast hurricane and a 'man-made' one. I keep hearing man-made c02 creates violent hurricanes. I would like to see the analysis.
Explitiv3 1 month ago
@Explitiv3 "I keep hearing man-made c02 creates violent hurricanes"
That is a lie, don't worry. Hurricane energy is at rather low levels historically.
randomxnp 5 days ago
How can anyone deny James Hansen's 1988 failed predictions?
Explitiv3 1 month ago
@Explitiv3 writes, "How can anyone deny James Hansen's 1988 failed predictions?"
Hansen presented three predictions, where his most likely prediction was validated. Your post here is illustrative of the need for good science education since you're obviously perusing content whose publishers lied to you by either removing that scenario or distorting the prediction relative to actual results which confirmed it. A good science education would have you capable of selecting good sources only.
MikeHeath1 1 month ago 2
@MikeHeath1 What of Hansen's predictions have ever come about? Oh, except his prediction that he could make a fortune out of this scam.
randomxnp 5 days ago
@randomxnp writes, "What of Hansen's predictions have ever come about?"
Part 1 of 2:
If you are referring to his 1988 paper he presented to Congress, back when the models were in their infancy, and the one most misrepresented by denalists, his most likely scenario was about 10% off [1].
Even if he were wrong, one scientist being wrong in 1988 does't justify denying climate physics and the climate science community's empirical findings.
1) Realclimate "Updates to model-data comparisons"
MikeHeath1 3 days ago
@MikeHeath1 So he was right, but not actually right and even if he was wrong ...
Sorry, sounds unconvincing.
Had it not been for Hansen's exaggeration of the importance of his 1988 work then the hypothesis of CAGW would never have gained the political backing that set up the only positive feedback yet proven in AGW: between pseudo-scientists grasping for cash and politicians looking for support.
Try the URL bit . ly / wGnYnP (take out spaces). He was maybe 2-300% out.
randomxnp 3 days ago
@MikeHeath1
Part 2:
I do not deny any physics. I am denying net positive feedback for which there is no evidence whatever, and which is unheard of in stable systems. Assuming positive feedback is, ironically, based on climate being so stable only human activity has affected temperature.
I make a hesitant hypothesis of negative feedback, for which there is some evidence albeit inconclusive, and which is usual in stable systems.
So why do you think temperature has positive feedback?
randomxnp 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@randomxnp writes, What of Hansen's predictions have ever come about? Oh, except his prediction that he could make a fortune out of this scam."
Part 2 of 2
I find it ironic you project the motivations of the leaders of the denialist community onto a great scientist. Here's the Koch brothers funded Cato Institute's Patrick Michaels misrepresenting Dr. Hansen's 1988 paper and testimony to Congress:
SkepticalScience: "Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1 [and Part 2]
MikeHeath1 3 days ago
These issues are vitally important. I'm a member of NCSE. Thirty five bucks a year to actually help is a bargain.
ndrthrdr1 1 month ago
Comment removed
randomxnp 5 days ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 5 days ago
@randomxnp You've been duped by propaganda,and parrot it like a Scientology cult member. It's as obviously fake as "professional" wrestling to all of us who haven't fallen for big oil's manipulation of the gullible.
ndrthrdr1 4 days ago
@ndrthrdr1 Nope. You are the one falling for big oil's propaganda. Do you not realise they pay more to climate alarmism than scepticism? You have fallen for the lies of the frustrated multi-billion-dollar-a-year alarmists that their opponents, who don't even have 1% of their funding, are buying the argument.
randomxnp 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@randomxnp said " Do you not realise they pay more to climate alarmism than scepticism?"
Right. Big oil wants to fool people into thinking that we should burn less fossil fuels so they make a fortune on their reduced sales.
Can you hear yourself?
ndrthrdr1 3 days ago
@ndrthrdr1 I am a science graduate. Earth Sciences. That is why I don't fall for the pseudo-science of the alarmists, by my own assessment, not by anyone else's manipulation. You don't understand anything they tell you, so you naively believe them. You are the gullible one.
randomxnp 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@randomxnp Climatologists know that the environment is changing due to human activity. Some guy claims to have expertise in the field and that the vast majority of Climatologists are wrong.
You're not fooling anyone but yourself. Your lack of ability to recognize this make you a poster child for those duped by big oil.
Keep on driving and polluting. You're not smart Anouilh to be part of the solution, and your claims of superior education and intellect are laughable.
ndrthrdr1 3 days ago
@randomxnp
You have nailed the cliamte change scam, keep spreading the facts.
Dodger481 3 days ago
@Dodger481 You're as gullible as random is. When all of the polar ice is gone in the summers, you'll be saying "No problem!" because you'll still be the same gullible people.
You seem focused on NCSE videos. Gee, I wonder why.
Your denial of reality doesn't change reality.
ndrthrdr1 3 days ago
@ndrthrdr1 You are the one denying reality, and from a reply made to me that you appear to have deleted I think I know why. You don't think you are qualified to judge, so you simply believe the self-professed judges.
I infer this from your claiming that if I haven't studied anything called "climate science" then I am not qualified to judge.
Think more of yourself. Look into the evidence. Use what you know of scientific practice, learn more, use common sense. Don't rely on faith
randomxnp 2 days ago
@ndrthrdr1 "You aren't intelligent enough to understand science"
The University of Cambridge disagreed in granting me a degree.
"Let me guess ... you also believe that you have an invisible superhuman friend with "powers" ... Better stick with religion ... You can't handle reality. "
I am an atheist. You are the one pushing religion. CAGW has every aspect of a religion, including a demand for faith and persecution of heretics and apostates.
What do you know of reality?
randomxnp 3 days ago
@randomxnp Bullshit. You've been conned, and as the polar ice continues to melt and record highs continue to stack up, you will continue to look more gullible. You claim a Cambridge education. Bullshit again.
ndrthrdr1 3 days ago
@ndrthrdr1 Which pole? Antarctic ice has been increasing as temperatures decrease. Overall polar ice has no net trend.
How can you claim bullshit on the education of someone you have never met? I can assure you mine includes Cambridge. I was a natsci, if you want to look up what that means.
randomxnp 3 days ago
@randomxnp Antarctic ice has decreased at record rates every one of the last ten years. Do your parents know that you're using their computer?
Unless natsci stands for climatology major, and we both know that it doesn't, you're simply claiming lack of expertise in climate science.
ndrthrdr1 3 days ago
@ndrthrdr1 It is rather comical to see you have no actual argument. Childish bluster is the best you can manage. Even Peter Gleick manages more than that, and he is rather a pedestrian intellect.
Record highs continue to stack up. Hmmmmm. Do you know how many records there are? Do you know how odd it would be not to continue to find record highs, even if climate was stable? Do you not know that Earth was in a Little Ice Age shortly before thermometers became commonplace?
randomxnp 3 days ago
@buugiman78 I said we have no evidence that ALL of the temperature rising is caused by human activity. I don't agree that humanity is the only single factor that influences world climate and to claim so is disshonest. And please don't try to put words in my mouth because I'm not a moron that believes his civilization's activity has no effect on the world what so ever, but also I'm not a moron who believes it it the only factor in the systems of the panet as well...
hekata5 1 month ago
It is sad that these scientists have to spend their time fighting these spreaders of ignorance but I am so glad they are :)
EliteDoomer 1 month ago
Theres no reasoning with these Vampires.....a little bit later....Im not trying to demonize them!
LOL Alex sounds like Glenn Beck.
EarlFaulk 1 month ago
Heh- fuckin Alex Jones.
spekonaspek 1 month ago
@jeremyhansen100 Wow some believe numbers that don't add up. The upward warming trend began before 1900 ???? A warmer climate is know to have 1/3rd of negative impact verses a cold shift that has higher water levels increasing radiative effect. Hmmm hope you don't mind me laughing at you for not realizing that it's cyclic and foolish to think we can change it.
Adirtybird 1 month ago
@Adirtybird First off I know warming started before 1900, I used 1900 to base the statistic, it makes the math easier. Now, imagine that you are in a WORLD wide ice age lasting tens of thousands of years. Now, imagine that you're in the opposite, but it is only 1/3 as devastating. I highly doubt you can picture yourself in a tropical paradise. Just think about. it life has slowly adapted it's self to the specific area that it's found. It doesn't take much to mess it all up.
jeremyhansen100 1 month ago
@xephyr1000 and @rg0057 - and thus, I suggest that there are many religious people out there who can get on board with science and solving global warming but who would characterise themselves as some form of creationist (eg one who accepts evolution but with divine guidance or intervention). My suggestion is that the tone of this video makes it difficult to share with this group, and I found that disappointing given the importance of the topic.
fuzzyBSc 1 month ago
@xephyr1000 and @rg0057 - I could argue the point aspects of proof, but instead I'll restate my original point which you have perhaps missed. I think that many climate change deniers are also evolution deniers, are also science deniers. I think that these people on the whole want a war between science and religion, because they have the numbers, while science only has the facts(!). The theism vs theism debate is fascinating, but to stop global warming we need to deal with one denial at a time.
fuzzyBSc 1 month ago
There is global warming. OK that's a fact shown by data! What I'm still not convinced by is human impact on it. I think it might be over estimated.
vatreniboris 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vatreniboris "What I'm still not convinced by is human impact on it. I think it might be over estimated."
Also a matter of fact. Check out the videos on the greenman3610 channel. He includes references so you don't have to take his word for anything.
acutube50 1 month ago
I have an idea for a new religion, lets call the leaders 'scientists' they can preach to us about the end of the world and tell us to buy new 'green' things, tell us how evil we are by nature for driving petrol powered cars. But we can find redemption in the hybrid cars and fair trade coffee. On a serious note can we let scientists do research and politicians do politics or create a new class the politist or the scientician to preach at us :)
rhinoboy111 1 month ago
@rhinoboy111 I like that! - Politific scienticians?
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
oo, I had this on my motorcycle, fuel left in the float chamber forms a kind of gunk/scum, you have to take the carb apart and thourly clean the jet and pin.
did you see how that last guy thanked you before insulting you, its all they know how to do when they cant deal with the message.
Shofoxy 1 month ago
@Shofoxy I think I can extract the jet without taking off the carb- the threads are stripped where the carb attaches- so it's held on with JB Weld!
So I'm going to take your advice on that this morning- we got >2 ft of snow and I'm pretty well snowed in!
which pin though- the one on the float?
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody I work with a gardening charity and asked the mechanic about your problem, hes what he said, there is a small O ring at the base of the pin in the float chamber itself, if that gets dry, it can split and its fairly common for that to happen, the engine will then flood after about 20 mins, sounds familiar doesnt it? To get at it, you need to remove the float chamber cover and look between the two floats, the pin and O ring leading up to the jet should be there.
Shofoxy 1 month ago
@Shofoxy Thank you very much, that sounds right- since it needs drained & will only restart on zero throttle. Looks like a rebuild kit is needed...
I did that a few years ago but they recently hiked the amount of ethanol in the gas here which seems to play havoc with older fuel parts-
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Hope you get it fixed, good luck! :)
Shofoxy 1 month ago
I wish this video was more circumspect around the term creationism, as creationism can be broad enough to include acceptance of settled science such as evolution. To my mind much of the anti climate change sentiment comes from a projection of mistrust of scientists that stems from the fear that they are trying to take God away from us. Science should be and is fairly neutral on that topic of God. If "anti-evolution" or similar had replaced "creationism" I could have shared this more easily.
fuzzyBSc 1 month ago
@fuzzyBSc Neutral?? celeb scientists like Hawking, Dawkins, Krauss make a living publishing books and touring campuses specifically refuting God and preaching atheist faith to impressionable college kids.
They don't like to bring up that 'scientists' also ridiculed the creation of the Universe- declaring a proven 'static' universe.... Until one of those silly theists discovered the Big Bang for them...
I say put intellectual fashion aside and look at the facts
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody What is taught in science class is a question of science alone. It's about the process of science, and of the established results that this process have produced to date.
Science may have something to say about religion through its non-confirmation of religious predictions, and the application of occam's razor. However physics, chemistry, biology, and other branches of science are as I say generally neutral towards the supernatural. It's had to prove something doesn't exist.
fuzzyBSc 1 month ago
@fuzzyBSc - that is, It's hard to prove something doesn't exist. It's hard to prove a negative.
fuzzyBSc 1 month ago
@fuzzyBSc Its also unnecessary to prove a negative. The ONUS is on the one making a positive claim for existence.
xephyr1000 1 month ago
@xephyr1000 , that's not true either. If you can prove a negative, you can save other people a lot of time wasted on trying to find positive examples.
For example, if you can prove that some algorithms don't end, you can save people from trying to characterize how each one ends.
Proofs (positive or negative) should rely on the smallest/fewest/unoriginal assumptions.
Onus is on the claim with the most complexity.
rg0057 1 month ago
@rg0057 "if you can prove that some algorithms don't end, you can save people from trying to characterize how each one ends.
You missed my point. If I were to claim that gods don't exist, that is a POSITIVE CLAIM. I am claiming to know that gods don't exist, thus the onus would be for me to provide my evidence that supports this claim. If I just said I don't BELIEVE they exist, there is no claim. If a theists says they BELIEVE, there's still no claim. If they said GOD EXISTS = Claim
xephyr1000 1 month ago
@fuzzyBSc , that's not true. I can quite easily prove that 0 is not 1.
If I add 0 to itself, I get itself.
If I add 1 to itself, I get a different number.
Therefore 0 is not 1.
rg0057 1 month ago
@fuzzyBSc cobblers, you have to make a distinction between scientific method, scientists, and gov't curriculums - 3 different things.
I was taught that CO2 is a vital nutrient which makes Earth green, now kids are taught that it's a dirty pollutant which destroys the environment
Hard to prove something that doesn't exist? you mean the Multiverse? String theory? M Theory? AGW? total lack of evidence is okay dokay for fashionable scientists as long as it fits a certain ideology-
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody ^^ total lack of evidence is okay dokay for fashionable scientists as long as it fits a certain ideology ^^
Don't be silly. Theories are dismissed or modified whenever an experiment on a testable hypothesis yields contradicting results. I'd rather pursue questions that seemingly can't be answered than live with answers that definitely must not be questioned.
TLCTugger 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody I didn't say "prove something that doesn't exist", I said "prove something doesn't exist". To prove something doesn't exist generally involves a search everywhere that finds no instances of it, which can sometimes be done algorithmically but is difficult in the general case. It's hard to prove leprechauns don't exist, for example - they might just be hiding really really well! It's easy to prove something does exist, just find one instance of it.
fuzzyBSc 1 month ago
@fuzzyBSc sorry- misread that! so I get the point- and it also applies to Multiverse, M theory , string theory, which enjoy the distinction of 'theory' and serious consideration with zero evidence, or quite possibly the chance to ever get any.
They are not superior to ID in evidence or logic in any way, unless you can name one. They are simply more intellectually fashionable- just as when scientists mocked a creation event, claiming a 'static' Universe- till a theist dicovered the Big Bang...
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody I agree on the subjects of multiverse, M theory, and string theory. They have yet to graduate to the level of science in that they have not made testable predictions. Science, like evolution, adds information through a filtering process. Any old crap can go in, and it might look good for a while... but it is the repeated filtering process where different hypotheses make different testable predictions where one is verified and the other if falsified that separates true from false.
fuzzyBSc 1 month ago 2
I wonder why it gets s damn hot in the city... Oh wait... maybe the fact that there is so little vegetation and so much black asphalt and pavement absorbing the heat... hmmm. Has anyone tried studying that? I mean, im not saying it makes total sense, but we have massive cities around the world which trap heat in them, possibly heating up the atmosphere around it? Im my opinion that would contribute to warming more than CO2.
astro15 1 month ago
@astro15 yes but you dont have large cities with asphalt and pavement in the arctic and on these vanishing islands. Local temperatures and climate change are not the same thing.
momentofsciencetx 1 month ago
@astro15 The asphalt only acts like a capacitor: It stores a lot of heat, but it doesn't get rid of it.
cdiac . ornl . gov/pns/faq . html
TheKainMan 1 month ago
@astro15 That's where all the measured increase in surface temp comes from. More scientific & reliable satellite data shows little or no warming- current anomally is around (point).12 of a degree above ave for the last 32 years!...
Antarctica is seeing colder temps with record sea ice extent routinely- much further away from dense northern landmass etc
That's why global warmers always refer to land measurements to make their case.
airport weather stations can be 5-7 d above real temps.
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
I love people who call creationists blind followers but then when someone states that they are open to evaluate information about climate change as it comes, they name-call. That isn't the method of science. Yes, there are many things that may point to CO2 causing climate change, but there are other things that point to areas that still need more studying.
And just in case no one has noticed, this is a topic that has become highly politicized, thus corrupt in many areas.
astro15 1 month ago
@astro15 the science and evidence has long been there before it got politicized.
momentofsciencetx 1 month ago
Recently I didn't believe in anthropomorphic global warming. I'll tell you all what convinced me:
1) I realized that environmentalists are NOT claiming that we're changing the overall composition of the earth, which made no sense. We're releasing carbon from underground, where it's been safely locked away. That made more sense.
2) I was exposed to people who admitted that there are some exaggerators who simply take pleasure pointing fingers at humanity. In spite of this, the facts prevail.
pburto 1 month ago
We don't need to worry about future generations, just remain fixated on a utopian afterlife. Sarcasm aside, as a member of NCSE, I thank you for expanding your scope against anti-science dogmatic crap.
ThorGoLucky 1 month ago
**deniers**
IKillBabyKittensLOL 1 month ago
Haha, Al Gore must be crying.
FutileExistence 1 month ago
Why does the National Conspiracy for Supporting Evolution care about climate change?
;-)
Seriously speaking, it's nice to see that NCSE is able to expand its mission.
Now I almost feel ashamed for not donating yet. :-)
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 1 month ago
@doGoNsIylbaborPerehT Well, it's never too late! You can join and donate online. Seriously, we have lost some members over this, and new members joining and supporting us FOR the CC initiative would be very helpful.
EugenieScott 1 month ago
@EugenieScott
Sad to hear about losing members.
Well, you just got a new one. A lot of the creationism/ID "research" and "latest breaktroughs" are pretty much directly imported from USA to other countries so these things matter on both sides of the Atlantic.
It's the same mantras that they keep repeating here, but luckily to a much smaller audience.
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 1 month ago
I am in the UK, fox news, would be a joke if it wasn't taken seriously by the gullible. Its a bid like our Daily mail/express newspapers.
SOAS007 1 month ago
don't waste your time, ppl will not give a f**k till it's right on our doorstep.
sonovagod 1 month ago
Comment removed
lsynno 1 month ago
This was about time!!! Go NCSE! You are most welcome!
buugiman78 1 month ago 7
God will save us. We don't have to do anything c:
MrJoekick4ss 1 month ago
@MrJoekick4ss if you're trolling...whatever. if however you are serious, remember that next time you get sick...give the doctor a miss.
uknowispeaksense 1 month ago
@uknowispeaksense I used sarcasm but forgot the *sarcasm* at the end of it.
MrJoekick4ss 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The more people have become educated on this, the more skeptical they are,
including 10's of thousands of qualified independent scientists who now consider global warming scientifically illiterate nonsense.
This versus a remaining handful of discredited gov't institutions, journalists, celebs etc.
The greehouse effect is mainly controlled by water vapor, other factors influence climate- solar cycles, Milankovic cycles etc
CO2 is actually what makes Earth green!
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The more people have become educated on this, the more skeptical they are,
including 10's of thousands of qualified independent scientists who now consider global warming scientifically illiterate nonsense.
This versus a remaining handful of discredited gov't institutions, journalists, celebs etc.
The greehouse effect is mainly controlled by water vapor, other factors influence climate- solar cycles, Milankovic cycles etc
CO2 is actually what makes Earth green!
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
The more people have become educated on this, the more skeptical they are,
including 10's of thousands of qualified independent scientists who now consider global warming scientifically illiterate nonsense.
This versus a remaining handful of discredited gov't institutions, journalists, celebs etc.
The greehouse effect is mainly controlled by water vapor, other factors influence climate- solar cycles, Milankovic cycles etc
CO2 is actually what makes Earth green!
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Where'd you get that list of "10's of thousands of qualified independent scientists"? It sounds like something I'd pull out of my ass when I want to invent a statistic.
Also, you are lacking superior knowledge if you think excess CO2 is a good thing and it only plays a MINOR role in global warming.
You must get your research data from FOX "News".
I give you credit for quoting a wikipedia pamphlet, though. Did you also bother researching Airborne Fractions of vapors and gases?
TheKainMan 1 month ago 5
@TheKainMan Petition project to name just one, has over 30k- a concensus that utterly dwarfs 'climatologists' in qualification and numbers. but science is about not having to take anyone's word for it, don't let anyone tell you you're not smart enough to figure this out, you are
Most plants evolved with FAR higher CO2 levels
Cambrian period 7000 ppm
most still prefer 1200-1500 ppm
Ordivician ICE age >4000 ppm
only causal correlation ever observed: CO2 levels lag temp by 8-900 years
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Yes, most plants evolved with higher CO2 levels, but that was a very long time ago. Life today is adapted to the levels of CO2 which had been present today, and the RAPID CHANGE of CO2 has been destructive in every ecosystem. That's what you're conveniently overlooking.
pyrespirit 1 month ago 4
@pyrespirit Again, most plants STILL prefer 1200-1500 ppm, several times our level, that's why CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to promote growth-
It also makes plant far more drought resistant as well as growing faster-
trees and plants are already growing faster and healthier due to our CO2-
what 'destruction' are you referring to?
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Are you freaking kidding me? The Oregon Petition project? That's the best you've got? A shady document full of mostly duplicated and faked signatures? It was, without a doubt, payed for by corporate mongers. Get a clue, the PP is the Fox News of science.
Before you go on stating how many ppms CO2 was at ages ago to show how it affects global warming, research the Sun's correlation to global temperatures. The Sun was colder, and the high CO2 levels kept the temp at present levels.
TheKainMan 1 month ago
@TheKainMan Look them up and contact them yourself, they won't bite.
nice guess, but I'm afraid not- no correlation bewteen CO2 and temps- other than the 800-900 year lag for higher temps to release more CO2
This alone tells us the opposite doesn't happen to any significant degree-
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody The combination of an older Sun, who's temperature is rising, and the CO2 levels back then would cook the planet.
Stop doing one-sided research and look at what the opposition has to say.
Secondly, like @pyrespirit said, plants in those times were adapted at higher CO2 levels. Not surprising most of them are now extinct.
TheKainMan 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody If you ever have children, I hope they don't hate you for helping destroy their only environment. They should; I know I do. Greed is the only possible reason for you and your ilk's continued resistance to the vast amounts of evidence pointing to AGW. You should be ashamed of yourself.
trog69 1 month ago
@trog69 I understand believers have a lot of passion, especially as global warming fades into obscurity, but there really never was any science behind it. With so much political power, money and passionate followers like yourself- not much need for science..
I want my childern to grow up in a society where they are free to prosper and enjoy a high standard of living. Ethiopia and Somalia have fantastically low carbon footprints-
it's not a model for prosperity or environmental protection
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody You're using CO2 levels to define living standards? I'm sorry, I can't help myself, but how idiotic is that?
espere net / Unitedkingdom / water / uk_watexpgreenhouse htm
Just one experiment.
TheKainMan 1 month ago
@TheKainMan Look up any list of prosperity and carbon emissions, pretty clear correlation, US, western Europe etc at the top, Africa at the bottom-
booming economies like India and China are also booming in CO2 production-
no need for a computer sim or fudged data to see that correlation!
restricting/ taxing CO2 would hurt the economy- the poorest mostly-
while transferring wealth and power to politicians- not new.
I don't think you are an idiot, you seem reasonably intelligent to me
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody You must be tripping on CO2. How did you shift the subject from global warming to economy?
You're the kind of person who would swim in shit if the ones at power would tell you it's prosperous. Are you seriously just spitting out the same old shit about only the good effects of CO2? Did you even bother reading the links I sent you? No? Didn't fucking think so. I know your side of the story, and compared to mine, it's pure utter fucking bullshit.
TheKainMan 1 month ago
@TheKainMan OK I'm convinced by your cool calm collected scientific mind!
But seriously-I honestly think you are worrying yourself needlessly, we have real problems to focus on- including environmental ones, a little extra CO2 aint one of them what is it you are so worried about that makes you so upset, what terrible things do you think one or two hundred ppm CO2 are going to do?
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody said, "we have real problems to focus on- including environmental ones, a little extra CO2 aint one of them." Really? Go build a home on the coast or go tell that to the people that live on Lohachara island. Better yet tell that to future generations who will have to deal with the rise of diseases that thrive in a tropical climate.
momentofsciencetx 1 month ago
@momentofsciencetx
Actually, sea levels have been rising since the last glacial maximum >18,000 years ago...
In 2007, IPCC notes “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003
(IPCC) concluded that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected
Yes, how terrifying! If you were an ant standing on the waters edge for a year, it would be clear up to your knees by now!
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Senior scientists are noting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections of sea level rise during this century of 18 to 59 centimeters are already obsolete and that a rise of 2 meters during this time is within range.
Deniers just like in evolution like to ignore new data.
momentofsciencetx 1 month ago
@momentofsciencetx 'projections..??!!' you mean like the Himalayas melting in 30 years? how about measurement, observation, outcome prediction- quaint old fashioned science like that? - They predicted accelerating sea level 20 years ago..
meanwhile ZERO acceleration in sea level rise has been measured despite 100 years of increasing CO2- who's denying real data here?
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@momentofsciencetx tropical disease kills where there are not economic resources to combat it (Africa) . Prosperity is also by far the best way to reduce population growth-
the common multiplier in all environmental concerns- so I agree the economy should take precedence.
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Yes but even in current times were prosperity is at its greatest there are still many poor in the world. There are still those dying from diseases that have been wiped out here in the US. Climate change can change that. If you believe the economy should take precedence then you should be even more concerned. Example talk to the pumpkin farmers here in Texas.
momentofsciencetx 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Thank you for your honesty. At least you admit that you don't care about carbon emissions because you don't want to do anything that might hamper your excessive usage. Your children might have your rightwing sense of ownership of all you can engorge on, but my kids will know that ignorant greed-heads like you are why we never even tried to alleviate the coming disasters.
trog69 1 month ago 2
@GuyThreepwoody If you do not see any science behind it then you are not looking hard enough - you have to be coveting your eyes and ears not to notice it. May I recommend you watch potholers videos on shaming the diners?
IKillBabyKittensLOL 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Another link you forgot to provide can't be pasted, but here's how to get to it: Go to Wikipedia, search for the "Oregon Petition" then click on the 22nd reference. The 21st ref also provides some lovely details. Your Oregon Petition went to shit just now.
But wait, there's more:
skepticalscience com/co2-higher-in-past htm
So when the Sun is dimmer, high CO2 levels keep the Earth warm. Now what happens when you have a brighter Sun AND high CO2 levels, Mr. Scientist?
TheKainMan 1 month ago
@TheKainMan high CO2 levels? pre industrial 270 was lowest in history and near starvation levels, contributing to desertification, we have restored a fraction of the nutrient plants buried in the ground for millions of yrs-
385 is not 'high' again Ordovician ice age :4400 ppm
like the petition scientists, don't take my word or Wikis- do the experiment- feed plants CO2 and see . contact the REAL scientists, not gov't 'climatologists' paid for a specific predetermined lucrative conclusion
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody I mean, for fucks sake, there really is a dumbass for every situation.
I'm not gonna stress out how much of an ignorant fool you are, I left you viable scientific links to do research for yourself. If you can't do that, I'm not changing your diapers, you mentally underdeveloped man-child.
TheKainMan 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody 4400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would be great - if we evolved in an environment with that level of CO2. "Setting back the clock" from current levels to that level would be grossly, magnificently disruptive. Even anywhere near. We aren't worried about all life on earth dying. We're worried about the food chain being knocked out - because *we're* at the top of it. It's a valid concern.
speedysavant 1 month ago
@speedysavant well, we are never going to achieve 4400 ppm - consider that while CO2 emissions have risen exponentially- atmos. levels have only done so in a gradual linear fashion- Also the GH effect diminishes logarithmically - so very little direct effect is ever achieved. This is not controversial- that’s why GW has always depended on those infamous ‘feedback loops’ as exist only in computer sims- never observed in the real world.
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@speedysavant also- the plants at the base of our planet's food chain loves 3 things above all- CO2, warmth and water. If we were doing something to reduce all 3, we might have something to worry about.
what are you worried about?
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Trees and plant only take in so much CO2 then they begin to release stored CO2 when the atmosphere is enriched. Your argument is a kin to saying my body loves water so don't worry about drowning in it.
momentofsciencetx 1 month ago
@momentofsciencetx plants thrive on CO2, is the point- it's plant food- that's why- over millions of years they stripped this nutrient out of the atmosphere- burying it forever, from >7000 ppm to 270 ppm- a near starvation level. They still prefer 1200-1500-
we are only helping restore a tiny fraction back to them- mother nature would not thank us for everyhting- but restoring CO2?- definitely
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody Mate, you cant argue with these people, their minds are closed and they poke their fingers in their ears and say lalalalala. The irony is how their attitude has cost them them the public support they crave so much. They think that by constantly screaming about climate change people will listen, but histry jsut proves if you try to stuff your ideas down someones throat, they fight you. Dont bother to engage, they are the new creationists.
Shofoxy 1 month ago
@Shofoxy I think most people are intelligent, well meaning & interested in the truth etc- and at some point will conceed that the science is a little shaky...but the real brick wall you always ultimately hit- is that believers usually like the 'solutions' so much- they have no desire to scrutinize the problem? from global warming to climate change to 'green jobs' the driving political ideology is the only thing that remains unchanged!
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody totaly agree, but they cant see that, all they will do is sling insults at you for daring to challenge them. The general public is already sick of their claims, as you said, himalayas melting, sea rising ect, especially as they are usualy retracted the next year or even week, in my own lifetime, they have claimed we are headed to an ice age, then global warming, now I think its ice age again, but who can keep track.
Shofoxy 1 month ago
@Shofoxy well I'm hoping for warming- like 99.9% of the rest of the planet-
esp. since it's snowing like crazy right now and my snowblower keeps dying- you know anything about small engines? (off topic I know!)
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody hehe, I do, if its a two stroke, have you tried cleaning the spark plug? or better yet, try it with a brand new one. Incedently, does it make a strange noise just before it cuts out?
Shofoxy 1 month ago
@Shofoxy It's a 4 stroke- old Sears lawn tractor, it dies very suddenly after 15 mins or so of running fine. then re-starts only after completely draining the float bowl with a foot pump! so I was thinking it's fuel related- but replaceing the spark plug won't hurt...
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GuyThreepwoody sorry, hit the wrong button, I had this on my motorcycle, fuel left in the float chamber forms a kind of gunk/scum over time, you have to take the carb apart and thourly clean the jet and pin. You may want to clean the fuel filter and replace the fuel competly if its been idle for a time.
did you see how that last guy thanked you before insulting you, its all they know how to do when they cant deal with the message.
Shofoxy 1 month ago
The only real evidense we have is that it's getting warmer. But if that warming is anthropogenetic... that's a whole different story. Some part of it - most definetly is caused by our activities but not all of it!
hekata5 1 month ago
@hekata5 Since you are talking about evidence I would assume it's only fair to ask for evidence in support of your claim that we don't have evidence that the current warming is anthropogenic.
buugiman78 1 month ago
You're a smart guy thunderfoot so why have you allowed yourself to be fooled with this global warming scam?
rasoros 1 month ago
@rasoros You're an idiot. Unless sarcasm.
Sveno0567 1 month ago
@rasoros well, lets see.
1) Do the mass balance on CO2 to work out that the majority of the increase in CO2 in the atmos. in anthropocentric.
2) CO2 absorbs in the IR.
All other factors being equal, the temperature of the earth as a black body will inevitably increase due to the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels.
To argue otherwise would be akin to saying 'all other things being equal, turning a fire on in a room wont increase the temperature.'
This is energy conservation 101.
Thunderf00t 1 month ago 15
@Thunderf00t a couple years ago I found myself in detention for disproving my science teacher (I'll call him Mr. B) Mr. B was refuting evidence that climate change was real and instead claimed it was the earth's natural cycles. so I did my own research over a couple weeks, compiled data from websites, and cited all my sources.
FogiTofu 1 month ago
@FogiTofu He then went on calling me an idiot and assigned me detention for 2 hours after school during which time I was told to write down repeatedly on a large sheet of paper "Global warming is a myth."
FogiTofu 1 month ago
@Thunderf00t Oh dear another lost greenie.... water vapour makes up 80% of our GHG yet those you believe "IPCC" only account 20% within their models and when they increase it to 80% the co2 myth falls apart. And as for the IR forcing, I would suggest you look and Prof Richard Lindzens current papers. They prove without doubt that what the IPCC and their funding starved collaborators are telling us about radiation capture is wrong. Look for yourself.
Adirtybird 1 month ago
@Adirtybird H2O 0- 4% of our atmosphere, CO2 .036%, CH4 .00017%, N2O .00003%, O3 .000004%. Altogether you have around 4.036204%. That's not a lot, right. That's a rise of about 30% from from 1900, at 2.82%. Not much. This little shift has rose .4*c in 100 yrs and predicted to be 4*c in the next. Not much. 100000 yrs a volcano changes the temp by around -4*c, started the ice age. If you want to go around giving you argument from authority go ahead, just don't get mad when people laugh at you.
jeremyhansen100 1 month ago