Nature accomplished what Science couldn't accomplish

We all understand that. Again, do you understand all the equations? CO2 and temperatures have been going up and down for millenniums.

 

Shop me that 100%. By the way, anytime someone says all or 100% of none or zero percent, there is good reason to doubt what they are saying.

 

You claim to know it . . . then demonstrate that you don't. We know, thanks to scientific observation, that the current warming trend is primarily due to greenhouse gases and that we have contributed significantly to the presence of those gases. Do you understand this or not?

 

Good question? The fossil record suggest that ice ages have begun with CO2 levels pushing 1500ppm. We are currently at about 420. We are in the midst of what we call an interstitial - a period between major ice ages. Please note ice ages suck big brass balls famine disease starvation and death on an unimaginable scale. Warm periods on the other hand have produced world wide golden ages.

 

You do realize, according to many experts we have, for several years past the point on no return in the inevitable. So why not just reduce the rhetoric to "WE TOLD YOU SO" and start preparing for the worst? Why waste time and what little time you/we all have sitting on your duff typing useless warning when you could be out enjoying REAL LIFE stuff.. Well unless living life on a political forum has been your life long dream, and if so, carry on

 

I don't claim to know it. I do know that we have been lied to. They claim 97% of scientists agree on man made global warming. There is no such study. I know that temperatures have been going up and down for millenniums. I know that we tend to disbelieve relatively short range forecasts, but we believe forecasts of years and decades in advance. I don't disbelieve in in man made global climate change, but neither do I swallow it hook line and sinker.

I have stated this before, but I will repeat it.

I believe man has an influence on the weather and climate. Most likely that impact is warming because their are few ways that his influence could cool the weather. I believe we should reduce carbon based fuels with the use of reusable energy. I do not believe in crash efforts because I don't believe we completely understand what we are doing. I want to see it as they become economically viable. Too many bad decisions. For example we killed nuclear energy even though it about the only true carbon zero energy source.

 

Carbon is necessary to sustain life, let's ban it! The earth would be so happy and no one would be around to know.

 

That's absurd. There is a database. 100% of peer reviewed studies done in the last 15 years (I think it's 20, but I'm not sure... 15 I'm sure) uphold the fact that Global Warming is real and caused by human activity.

If you didn't know that, now you know it. And it may be the last opportunity you have to accept facts on your own, rather than being forced by multiple events that leave you no choice.

 

Even if such a thing existed, it is absurd to call that proof. Proof would be that a large survey where scientists are asked the question whether they believe in man made global warming and the ability to accurately forecast the results.

Not some artificial sample based on peer reviewed papers. That procedure automatically adds a bias into the results.

 

So what do you suggest we do? These 100% of scientists agree but they never suggest a solution. Do you not find that odd? Do you not find it odd that the non scientist politicians have all the answers of what we should do? Are you for the green new deal?

 

Dude, you're repeating a talking point that was "all the rage" 15 years ago. Now it just makes people look .... uhmmm.... "uninformed" (can't use the word I actually have in mind without getting in trouble with the mods). But... anyway... stop it. It's embarrassing!

 

LOL, the science is "in" eh?

 

Rarely does one see nonsense of this magnitude. What scientists believe is absolutely irrelevant in Science. Only thing that matters in Science is what they can prove. And the only way to "prove" things that exists is by producing peer-reviewed studies. Science is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship of peer-reviewed studies.

You need to cut this short. You don't even know how Science works. Waaay over your head.

 

Get back into the Paris Agreement. Today!

 

Are you claiming that there is no peer reviewed publications which questions the science? Do you believe there has been no publications which quesitoned the science which was refused a peer review because the the reviewers were biased? And at the same time, you are claiming that what science believes is irrelevant. At least get your story consistent.

 

Man you are gullible. I have been on jobs that are close to being finalized and I show up to do the initial start up for the equipment that I specialize in. I have seen these super educated engineers that probably draw up the blueprints screw up so bad that I walk away not certifying the equipment because in my mind they are stupid. They are so smart because they passed a test in college and I am stupid because I am a workerbee. Get real. Drill for oil in my back yard if necessary.

 

That's exactly what I said. Not in the last 15 years... probably 20.

You need to either read again what I wrote or write again what you wrote. The above sentence make no sense.

 

You claimed what scientists think make no difference. Then you say the publications require peer review. Exactly what do you think a peer review is? When they wrote those equations there are numerous coefficients which try to account for relative impacts of various factors such as what is the impact on CO2 when the the CO2 itself contributes to vegetation growth and more CO2 increases vegetation growth which converts CO2. . Then there is the relative impact of the effect of water vapor which is a much more effective green house gas. They don't have a computer big enough to handle all the variables, so there are numerous assumptions which must be evaluated.

 

What the devil are you talking about? What do engineers have to do with anything I wrote?-

 

Scientists, engineers, the educated smart people. Especially the ones in government aren't as smart as you think. You may have heard: Those that can, do. Those that can't work for the government. I have seen it first hand. Do you work for the government?

 

I don't have to "think". i know exactly what it is. So? Peer reviewed publications don't publish what scientist "think". They only publish what they prove. Peer reviewers make sure that they are actually proving what they claim they prove before they are published. And now, we have post-publication peer-reviewers, who do the same. Which is basically all the experts in the field who read the article. If they demonstrate that there are methodological errors, or errors in the data, or deviations from established science that are unaccounted for, the study is withdrawn from the database.

Unless you can show me credentials as a PhD in Climatology or related field, and a peer reviewed study you participated in, I have no interest in the rest of your post.

 

How would you feel if you found out that you were duped on this? Serious question! Why do you think so many don't agree with the scam? Do you even ever wonder?

 

Oh... I see. You were just attacking educated people in general.

Not interested.... And it has nothing to do with my post.

 

Read my sig below. If you have anything of interest to contribute that is not a nutty worldwide conspiracy theory, go for it! I've heard them all.

 

Why didn't you quote my whole post?