Global warming, myth or reality?

  • Advertisement
  • Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    I have a question that is puzzling me, what is exactly the problem of the climate change model, for those who are saying that it’s not true.

    PS: if you believe that “climate change” is a new word for “global warming” because in some areas temperatures are going down, kindly dont answer my question.
     
    Last edited:
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Our current cycle has started around 11000 years ago, and our current levels of CO2 emissions have pushed back the next global cooling which was supposed to happen 1500 years from now to 100000-500000 years from now. So the effects of global warming will be felt on earth for a long, long time.
    "was supposed to happen 1500 years from now to 100000-500000 years from now" - I am not sure I got it right. You say "was", but I think you actually mean "future". Am I wrong?

    The earth's temperatures have been steadily rising over the past 150 years and they have been the highest on record consistently, all of that has already been discussed at length in this thread, feel free to go to the first page and read a bit.
    "temperatures have been steadily rising over the past 150 years" - two point to make.
    1. 150 is number of years when we actually started measuring and recording temperatures. Process could've been much longer than that.
    2. 150 years ago there much fewer humans than today and human activity was not as "active" :) as today. Cannot write Global Warming off for anthropogenic interference.

    In regards to your previous reply, I asked you for an accredited scientific source denying anthropogenic climate change, you failed to provide one and instead talked about a Google search with a premaid conclusion! I'm actually certain most of the sources you found that denied the existence of anthropogenic climate change are blog posts, forum posts, or opinion pieces in right wing newspapers, not a single accredited scientist among them.
    Simple Google search gives to Wiki page with great many names on it.
    However, note that potentially there could be many more who chose to remain silent due to hostile attitude toward their point of view.

     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    "was supposed to happen 1500 years from now to 100000-500000 years from now" - I am not sure I got it right. You say "was", but I think you actually mean "future". Am I wrong?
    1500 years from now usually means future no? What's so hard to understand


    "temperatures have been steadily rising over the past 150 years" - two point to make.
    1. 150 is number of years when we actually started measuring and recording temperatures. Process could've been much longer than that.
    2. 150 years ago there much fewer humans than today and human activity was not as "active" :) as today. Cannot write Global Warming off for anthropogenic interference.
    please go to the front page and look at the numbers. Even if that is when we started measuring the temperature how would you characterize the steady rise? Or the fact that the past 10 years or so have consistently been the highest recorded?

    Regarding your second point, what do you think anthropogenic means? You're almost on the verge of being a self aware wolf lol!

    Anthropogenic:
    adjective
    1. (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity.


    Simple Google search gives to Wiki page with great many names on it.
    However, note that potentially there could be many more who chose to remain silent due to hostile attitude toward their point of view.

    Good job on providing a list of widely discredited scientists ?
     
    Last edited:
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    1500 years from now usually means future no? What's so hard to understand
    "1500 from now" could go in any direction and use of "was supposed to happen" always indicates the past.

    So, instead of giving me assholish reply why didn't you try to clarify the original sentence instead.

    Now, since we are talking about predicting future, then I want to point out to you that we are not even capable of predicting path and power of hurricane Dorian 24 hours prior to it's actual appearance. So, let's not take all claims about future too seriously.

    please go to the front page and look at the numbers. Even if that is when we started measuring the temperature how would you characterize the steady rise? Or the fact that the past 10 years or so have consistently been the highest recorded?
    You did not understand my reply - 150 years ago is when we started recording, but nobody can claim to know how temperatures were rising 250 years ago, the time that long predates human technical age.

    Regarding your second point, what do you think anthropogenic means? You're almost on the verge of being a self aware wolf lol!

    Anthropogenic:
    adjective
    1. (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity.
    Well, that's exactly what I meant to say: 150 years ago temperature rise was not related to human activity - clearly Global Warming was Mother Nature's doing then and I see no reason to blame humans for the same today.

    Good job on providing a list of widely discredited scientists ?
    Great way to kill conversation - "discredit" what you do not like to hear.

    OK, lets have a challenge - pick any scientist's name from the list that I provided and show how s/he was discredited.
    Must warn you in advance - majority does not rule in science.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    "1500 from now" could go in any direction and use of "was supposed to happen" always indicates the past.

    So, instead of giving me assholish reply why didn't you try to clarify the original sentence instead.

    Now, since we are talking about predicting future, then I want to point out to you that we are not even capable of predicting path and power of hurricane Dorian 24 hours prior to it's actual appearance. So, let's not take all claims about future too seriously.
    That's a lot of words you're using in order to say absolutely nothing! Go Google "1500 years from now" since you love googling so much and let me know what it tells you lol!



    You did not understand my reply - 150 years ago is when we started recording, but nobody can claim to know how temperatures were rising 250 years ago, the time that long predates human technical age.
    150 years ago there was less people and human activity was lower, that's exactly what you said and we know that the temperature has been steadily rising for the past 150 years see any correlation?

    These are your exact words btw ?:

    "150 years ago there much fewer humans than today and human activity was not as "active" :) as today."

    And by the way, you do know we can assess temperatures that long predate human history right? And that we are definitely not limited to the past 150 years when it comes to temperature analysis anyway!

    Since you love Wikipedia so much as well, here's the temperature record for the past 1000 years!
    Temperature record of the past 1000 years - Wikipedia

    So you see we actually do know what temperatures were like 250 years ago.


    Well, that's exactly what I meant to say: 150 years ago temperature rise was not related to human activity - clearly Global Warming was Mother Nature's doing then and I see no reason to blame humans for the same today.
    Actually all evidence, observable data and logic dictates that it's not "mother nature" that's responsible for the rise in temperatures in the past 150 years but human beings, feel free to disagree though I know how much you love being wrong lol!


    Great way to kill conversation - "discredit" what you do not like to hear.

    OK, lets have a challenge - pick any scientist's name from the list that I provided and show how s/he was discredited.
    Must worn you in advance - majority does not rule in science.
    You think you're my first rodeo? I already bothered looking up about 5 of them earlier in the thread, all were widely discredited! And no majority does not rule in science as previously explained, empirical evidence and observation does, which is exactly why some of these "scientists" were discredited
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    That's a lot of words you're using in order to say absolutely nothing! Go Google "1500 years from now" since you love googling so much and let me know what it tells you lol!





    150 years ago there was less people and human activity was lower, that's exactly what you said and we know that the temperature has been steadily rising for the past 150 years see any correlation?

    These are your exact words btw ?:

    "150 years ago there much fewer humans than today and human activity was not as "active" :) as today."

    And by the way, you do know we can assess temperatures that long predate human history right? And that we are definitely not limited to the past 150 years when it comes to temperature analysis anyway!

    Since you love Wikipedia so much as well, here's the temperature record for the past 1000 years!
    Temperature record of the past 1000 years - Wikipedia

    So you see we actually do know what temperatures were like 250 years ago.




    Actually all evidence, observable data and logic dictates that it's not "mother nature" that's responsible for the rise in temperatures in the past 150 years but human beings, feel free to disagree though I know how much you love being wrong lol!




    You think you're my first rodeo? I already bothered looking up about 5 of them earlier in the thread, all were widely discredited! And no majority does not rule in science as previously explained, empirical evidence and observation does, which is exactly why some of these "scientists" were discredited
    Please concentrate: "pick any scientist's name from the list that I provided and show how s/he was discredited"
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    Please concentrate: "pick any scientist's name from the list that I provided and show how s/he was discredited"
    Sallie Baliunas

    The claim that atmospheric data showed no warming trend was incorrect, as the published satellite and balloon data at that time already showed a warming trend (see satellite temperature record). In later statements Baliunas acknowledged the measured warming in the satellite and balloon records, though she disputed that the observed warming reflected human influence.[16]

    Baliunas contends that findings of human influence on climate change are motivated by financial considerations: "If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."[17][18] She does not address the countervailing financial considerations of the energy companies that fund some of her collaborators, including Willie Soon who received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[19]


    ^^ from her Wikipedia page, didn't look very far, just the link you so happily provided! paid shill who manipulated her data in order to force her wrong conclusions

    Want me to continue with someone else from your list?

    Edit: you can add Willie soon to that list as well, there's a whole page on their controversy ?!

    Soon and Baliunas controversy - Wikipedia

    Enjoy the read
     
    Last edited:
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Sallie Baliunas

    The claim that atmospheric data showed no warming trend was incorrect, as the published satellite and balloon data at that time already showed a warming trend (see satellite temperature record). In later statements Baliunas acknowledged the measured warming in the satellite and balloon records, though she disputed that the observed warming reflected human influence.[16]

    Baliunas contends that findings of human influence on climate change are motivated by financial considerations: "If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it."[17][18] She does not address the countervailing financial considerations of the energy companies that fund some of her collaborators, including Willie Soon who received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[19]


    ^^ from her Wikipedia page, didn't look very far, just the link you so happily provided! paid shill who manipulated her data in order to force her wrong conclusions

    Want me to continue with someone else from your list?

    Edit: you can add Willie soon to that list as well, there's a whole page on their controversy ?!

    Soon and Baliunas controversy - Wikipedia

    Enjoy the read
    I checked the references for the above.

    16 - cannot be found.
    17 - cannot be found.
    18 - Argues in defense of anti-global warming point "A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century. "
    18 - Looks more like hit peace than science.

    Perhaps you could find anywhere how Dr. Baliunas is debating her views with peers who hold opposite views.

    In any event where ever I looked I did not find any successful "discrediting".

    Frankly, the only way to discredit "denials of man-made Global Warming" is to absolutely prove "man-made Global Warming" and
    at this point science does not go farther than speculations and speculations are not science.
     
    Last edited:
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    I checked the references for the above.

    16 - cannot be found.
    17 - cannot be found.
    18 - Argues in defense of anti-global warming point "A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century. "
    18 - Looks more like hit peace than science.

    Perhaps you could find anywhere the Dr. Baliunas debating her views with peers who hold opposite views.

    In any event where ever I looked I did not find any successful "discrediting".

    Frankly, the only way to discredit "denials of man-made Global Warming" is to absolutely prove "man-made Global Warming" and
    at this point science does not go farther than speculations and speculations are not science.
    Lmao at 18, that's her talking in her own defense! You know those 200 studies she mentioned? Most of the scientists involved in them came out against her, her methodology and her manipulation of data along with her partner! This scandal literally ended with half the editors where she published her bullshit article resigning lol!
    Did you even check the controversy link where all the scientists whose research she used came out against her for drawing the wrong conclusions?

    Anyway I'm no longer interested in this futile discussion as you are basically arguing only to reinforce your own views, they don't matter to me! They're wrong now and they will still be wrong no matter how many times you quote me with your nonsense, so you keep them!

    Just as a side note: science actually does go further than "speculations". There is no actual speculation regarding this particular subject there's only cold hard empirical data and observable evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change. Just because you choose to ignore it for the sake of advancing the theories of and advocating paid shills from petroleum companies who manipulate their own data and research in order to advance their lies , doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    We're done here
     
    Muki

    Muki

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    epedep

    epedep

    New Member
    Ok fall colors are late by a couple of weeks here in America. Something's been off with the peak for several years and I've known it for a long while.
     
    ّTelefon Kasse

    ّTelefon Kasse

    Member
    Ok fall colors are late by a couple of weeks here in America. Something's been off with the peak for several years and I've known it for a long while.
    wait until the sun starts to rise from the west​
     
    Last edited:
    ّTelefon Kasse

    ّTelefon Kasse

    Member
    Global warming is not a myth
    to be honest the words are also wrong/misleading
    it's called Gobal Pollution
    the rate of vegetation to carnivors has become unbalanced
    and that is due to heavy urbanization​
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    french astrophysicist and public figure Aurélien Barrau slams the renewable energy lobby taking a dump on the cost vs efficiency of solar and wind power and advocating for research on nuclear power.
    talk is in french

     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    Global warming is not a myth
    to be honest the words are also wrong/misleading
    it's called Gobal Pollution
    the rate of vegetation to carnivors has become unbalanced
    and that is due to heavy urbanization​
    urbanization is nothing compared with the vast areas used for food crops both for humans and cattle, those are the real problem
     
    ّTelefon Kasse

    ّTelefon Kasse

    Member
    urbanization is nothing compared with the vast areas used for food crops both for humans and cattle, those are the real problem
    Not really, I disagree, because it is not logical ... earth existed for a long time and vegetation has no role in global pollution.
    on the contrary, the more vegetation you have, the more the oxygen density and the better the climate becomes.
    The urbanization and industrialization is destroying the ozone layer which is a diaphragm between earth (solid surface) and the sun
    rays .. this diaphragm, unfortunately thanks to human pollution (space exploration also included) has become perforated.

    Due to this, sun rays which should usually be filtered by this diaphragm which was the case for thousands of years, are now able to
    access/penetrate and reach the solid surface of earth.
    Aren't you feeling, that year after year, the planet is becoming hotter and hotter and unbearable in summer?

    For example, did you know that it's been my 17th year that I'm not able to wear winter clothes ? I do wear summer clothes in winter too​
     
    Last edited:
    Top