Global warming, myth or reality?

proIsrael-nonIsraeli

proIsrael-nonIsraeli

Legendary Member
Lmfao! your hobby is population genetics? That makes you totally qualified to disagree with 97% of scientists ?

Yes science is not a democracy, when all observable evidence points to a theory being true, it's held as true! Take the same advice I gave others in this thread and educate yourself!
"disagree with 97% of scientists" - science has nothing to do with popular vote.
Jiordano Bruno was autodafe-ed by proponents of geocentric model and he was not only in minority, he has alone and he was right and 99.999% were wrong.
 
  • Advertisement
  • AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    What point? The basic fact that I'm a scientist while you're an engineer who should know better than to disagree with scientific evidence? Or that you called everyone on here a scientist when it's incredibly obvious by their posts they have absolutely no idea wtf they are talking about or why they hold the position they hold?

    Yes you have to educate yourself if you don't know enough about a subject instead of just blindly trusting politically motivated sources and writing random nonsense, even going so far as to dismiss all scientific sources which once again, is incredibly disappointing for a stem major!
    What scientific sources, dear?
    Many "scientists" point to arctic ice melting as proof of global warming.
    Thing is, they're only relying on data from 1953.

    No one measured arctic ice prior to that. How do we know it didn't reach lower levels in the past? And how did scientists conclude it is melting faster than before? Their data only dates back to 1953! What a load of bollocks.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I think global warming is real.

    I also think that some people have politicized the issue, and the "solutions" they suggest are worthless.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    "disagree with 97% of scientists" - science has nothing to do with popular vote. Jiordano Bruno was autodafe-ed by proponents of geocentric model and he was not only in minority, he has alone and he was right and 99.999% were wrong.
    Please refer to the sources provided earlier in this thread and the definition of a scientific theory. Regarding anthropogenic climate change all evidence points to it being true, that is why there is a scientific consensus on the matter, it is not a democracy!

    If you want to prove it false, feel free to look for evidence to the contrary, plenty before you have tried.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    I'll ask you the same question I asked lvv, what do 97% of scientists have to gain by lying about anthropogenic climate change? (Keep in mind that I'm just going along with your hypothesis here) It's really the other way around with oil companies burying climate reports for years and paying scientists exorbitant amounts of money in order to lie and falsify evidence! If you want to talk about political motivation, follow the money and the interests of the richest!
    "what do 97% of scientists have to gain by lying about anthropogenic climate change?"

    1. politics.
    2. money.
    3. fear to be alone.
    4. ...
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    I think global warming is real.

    I also think that some people have politicized the issue, and the "solutions" they suggest are worthless.
    "I think global warming is real" - that very well could be, but the question still remains to be answered whether it is man made or natural occurrence.
     
    Resign

    Resign

    Well-Known Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    What point? The basic fact that I'm a scientist while you're an engineer who should know better than to disagree with scientific evidence? Or that you called everyone on here a scientist when it's incredibly obvious by their posts they have absolutely no idea wtf they are talking about or why they hold the position they hold?

    Yes you have to educate yourself if you don't know enough about a subject instead of just blindly trusting politically motivated sources and writing random nonsense, even going so far as to dismiss all scientific sources which once again, is incredibly disappointing for a stem major!
    I don't think you're a scientist
    because if you were you'd know that your 'scientific' sources are worthless
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    "what do 97% of scientists have to gain by lying about anthropogenic climate change?"

    1. politics.
    2. money.
    3. fear to be alone.
    4. ...
    That's not how science works! Researchers care about finding the truth, not about being alone! Feel free to follow the money though and see where there's more money to be gained, is it anthropogenic climate change denial or the other way around.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    I don't think you're a scientist
    because if you were you'd know that your 'scientific' sources are worthless
    Yes I'm sorry you know more than nasa, skeptical science, Phys.org and all published articles in accredited scientific journals combined ?
     
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    "I think global warming is real" - that very well could be, but the question still remains to be answered whether it is man maid or natural occurrence.
    Considering CO2 levels were five times higher during the dinosaur age, millions of years before man, I think all signs points to global warming being a natural, not a man-made, phenomenon.
     
    True Palestinian

    True Palestinian

    New Member
    Lmfao! your hobby is population genetics? That makes you totally qualified to disagree with 97% of scientists ?

    Yes science is not a democracy, when all observable evidence points to a theory being true, it's held as true! Take the same advice I gave others in this thread and educate yourself!
    You should've stopped writing at "yes" ?

    I don't expect this nonsense from you. The current climate change is because of humans, NOT past changes.

    Most of the Earth's past changes in climate were because of greenhouse gases (notably methane and carbon dioxide). When they were reduced, climate cooled. When they were increased, climate warmed. This association between climate change and greenhouse gases is a basic concept.

    When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the resulting change in climate was highly disruptive for life and caused mass extinctions (e.g. end of Permian, Triassic, and mid-Cambrian periods). The symptoms of these events -- big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification -- are all happening today with human-caused climate changed.
    4,200 years ago, there was a brutal and swift period of global warming, this period of aridity saw the collapse of the Akkadian Empire, the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC). This is known as the "4.2 kiloyear event". Here's a map showing the areas affected by drought (in black) and the areas affected by flooding (grey):



    So we have three options:

    1/ Greenhouse effect (which you described).

    2/ The Akkadians, the Egyptians and the Indians used too many humvees.

    3/ We don't really understand the processes through which abrupt aridification and cooling come about.

    Considering the reliability of "scientific consensus" and the short time span covered by the temperature record, I'll go for the 3rd option.

    I could also mention the 5.9 and the 8.2 kiloyear events, I could also put this in the context of the Saharan pump theory and start talking about how Arabia and the Sahara were green and lush places or how the Gulf was a large oasis during the pleistocene. There's no shortage of similar events that show how little we really know of the way climate works.
     
    Last edited:
    AtheistForYeezus

    AtheistForYeezus

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    "I think global warming is real" - that very well could be, but the question still remains to be answered whether it is man made or natural occurrence.
    It seems that @Isabella already has a definite answer, contrary to 100% of scientists.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    It seems that @isballa already has a definite answer, contrary to 100% of scientists.
    Changed my mind, I'm not biting anymore! Keep your silly beliefs. I have better things to do with my time than to keep explaining basic science for someone who doesn't want to learn.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Agree. Or it could be a mix of both.
    If you think about it the answer "could be mix of both" actually means "man cannot stop it even if man will cease to exist tomorrow", whih bring us to next fact - global warming begun about 20,000 years ago and at that time Homo Sapiens did not even exist at all.

    Now, to answer you other question - "you got do the research".

    I quickly ran this query @ Google "global warming is it man made or natural" and got practically equal number pros and cons.

    Granted, in many cases they were the reprints/references of each other, but it still means that there are 2 different opinions and we are far from consensus.
     
    Top