And it's been understood those cycles should have earth slowly cooling now, yet earth is warming quickly. Can you point out where I've done this? If you can't debate what I actually say, you should just say that. Really? AOC made the exact claim she wanted a socialist ideological takeover under the guise of protecting the environment? Please link us to that story, and be sure to copy the exact quote from AOC. If you didn't just fake it all, that shouldn't be a problem. Ooh, namecalling. The partisan hatred is strong in you. Thanks for further proving my point, which is that to you, this is entirely about politics. To us, it's entirely about science. Because you say so? That may play well with emotion-based thinkers such as yourself, but reason-based people like us require evidence. Because Bush and the Republicans wanted to downplay the problem. Did your political cult withhold that information from you? Interesting. Perhaps you should ask them why they withhold so much information from you. Yes, you're right, reality really is a liberal conspiracy. One good thing about being part of the rational side is that since all the hard data agrees with us, we never have to invoke conspiracy theories to explain why reality doesn't agree with us. Then obviously, they can't be the cause of the recent fast warming. Thanks for settling that. Now that we've determined the current fast warming is not part of a natural cycle, what is causing it? You deny observed reality, hence you're a denier. Going all uber-PC on me in an attempt to censor my speech isn't going to work. I'll just keep pointing it's standard behavior for cultists to claim the evil outside world is attacking the cult. And a majority of the USA supports it. So either you live in a nation that's already socialist, or your definition of socialism is a mite peculiar. Your CultoftheHolyIceAge has been predicting that imminent ice age nonstop for over 40 years now. The promised HolyIceAge never arrives, yet your zeal is undiminished. The purity of your faith is admirable.
Do you feel that? Do you feel evolution too? Do you see them happening? Or, do you believe those who tell you so such that your personal observations and tests are irrelevant ?
I'm just being honest. I don't feel them. I don't see them, and I don't consider either idea plausible. Human contributions to atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures are neither significant or detrimental. And - chance is not a creative force. Random mutations cannot accumulate into functional complexity. From my point of view, the emperor has no clothes. Before I leave this world, I want to establish, quite firmly, that while I was here, I called BS on the above ideas.
well, all you need to do is present any evidence at all to support any of the things you asserted above. So far, you entire argument in the face of documented empirical evidence has been to say "nuh uh".
We do not live in a climatologically optimum time period. Our plants are starving. Human beings will benefit from rising atmospheric CO2 well through 1200ppm and even as high as 1600ppm. Human beings would benefit from global temperatures 7-9 degrees F. higher then they are now. The net benefits to rising CO2 and rising global temperatures would quite easily off-set the changes that climate change always brings. The climate always changes. We seem to be living in a time when the changes are a net benefit to humanity. We live in a relatively cold time period. For more than 90% of Earth's history, there was no ice at all anywhere. We are technically in an "ice age" because we have water on Earth that has been frozen for an "age". We live in an interglacial period of time of an ice age. Our plants are starving. All agriculturally significant plants are retarded in environments having atmospheric CO2 levels below 1200ppm. They stop growing at 300ppm and die at 250ppm. Our plants are starving. To support an ever increasing human population, we need atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures to increase. For human beings to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it, we need global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 to increase. Increases in these environmental factors would be a net benefit to humanity well up through CO2 at 1200-1600 ppm and global temperatures as warm as they were during the Roman, or even the Phoenician, high periods - which were 7-9 F. higher then they are now. Human contributions to atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures are neither significant or detrimental.
You clearly have closed your mind and made it up, and you have established it quite clearly. In reality it does not matter as the world will do what it will regardless and likely your opinion and mine will not even be a footnote in the final chapter of this story. It is of course quite interesting to watch individuals ignore obvious data and happenings in order to keep their pre-conceived mindset from feeling threatened.
Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations, features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echo-locate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture.
You are expecting someone who cannot grasp things he sees with his own eyes to understand natural complexity and genetic variables?
One extreme example of this results from the fact that if a person has sickle-cell anemia, they can't get malaria. The anemic condition blocks effects of the malaria parasite. I don't remember the exact mechanism but its in the literature. I remember that it was due to the deformation of the blood cells caused by sickle cell - hence the name. A person with sickle-cell is likely to survive into their reproductive years. But a person was less likely to survive if they contracted malaria in their childhood. So sickle-cell anemia gave one a reproductive advantage in areas where malaria was a serious threat to survival - Africa. Amazing.
I don't know anyone claiming the Milankovitch Cycles should be cooling the Earth. Interglacial periods normally last 12,000 to 20,000 years and our current interglacial is 11,700 years old. I think we'll be long dead before we see another glaciation. Am I wrong? I thought you are of the belief that global warming is an existential threat to mankind? Correct me if I'm wrong about that because if you are more rational than "The end is near" cult I'm glad to have another rational person on our side. Three words: Green New Deal". Sure, let's hear about science from the left wing side of the isle who would never politicize science. The left, who don't believe in scientific fact, consensus, that life begins at conception; that there is no single medical reason for late term abortions; that there is no difference between men and women; that there are more than two genders; and that there is a 97% consensus of climatologists. All wrong scientifically. You have no evidence. Only theories, conjecture, computer models and mathematical formulas. None of that is proof. That's not science. Wrong. They changed it because of the pause. They predicted out of control global warming and since it hasn't warmed in the last 20 years they now say Climate Change because it's not warming. Hard data agrees with you? The #hoax global warming is fake. Someone said Greenland ice is melting, so I posted a NASA story about Greenland Glaciers growing. Then they explained that it was an anomaly based on cooler ocean temperatures...but wait, I thought the ocean temperatures are rising??? Y'all can't keep your lies straight. What fast warming? We are in a pause! Temperatures haven't risen! So you can name call people "deniers" but I can't make fun of Senator Camel Hairs? We are skeptics, as all scientists should be, not conforming to popular cultural beliefs. Really? A majority of people want to go completely carbon free, no cars, no planes in 12 years? Show me! Cult? Cult? Like a doomsday end of the world cult? Nobody's predicting an ice age. That's a long process that takes a millennium. Your side is the only one making predictions that the world is coming to an end!
The normal cycle is a fast warmup after an ice age, then a slow cooldown into the next ice age. The fast warmup ended 6000-8000 years ago. The trend has been slow cooling every since. Almost nobody is of that belief. I'm not of that belief, I've never met anyone of that belief, none of the scientists have that belief. It's a strawman your side uses to get the base hysterical, and to avoid talking about the issues. You said AOC had specifically stated she wanted a socialist ideological takeover under the guise of protecting the environment. I asked for specific quotes. You won't provide any. You seem unable to back up your claim. As you're not going to admit you made up a story there based on the propaganda of your political cult, let's move on. My point is proven. We rational people keep trying to talk about the science without any politics. You keep trying to make the discussion entirely about politics. It's quite clear who's politicizing the science here. As sperm and egg are alive, you bizarre belief there is very obviously wrong. Your science and reason appears to be poor across the board. https://www.forbes.com/sites/marsha...-be-distracted-by-the-name-game/#51d752805088 --- The terminology shift has political ties. It is well-known by those that have done the research that President George W. Bush's administration preferred the term "climate change" over "global warming." I was an Earth system scientist at NASA during this administration so I am very familiar with how things were unfolding at the time. A political strategist wrote a memo in 2002 urging Republicans to use the term "climate change" because it was less scary than "global warming." --- Your cult's conspiracy theory is contradicted by the facts, therefore it is wrong. The strength of your belief in it does not change that. Flat-earthers tell me the round earth is a hoax. They even believe it. They're still wrong, because the evidence says they're wrong. The same goes with you. And as nobody ever predicted every glacier would retreat every year, your post was a red herring. You could have read the article you referenced. It explained it. You clearly chose to not read it and keep yourself ignorant. Your cult approves. This fast warming. "The Pause", having never existed, was a denier propaganda ploy. Your own source there only states there was a slowdown in warming. Again, Flat-earther use all your lines. Like you, they have to make excuses as to why all the data contradicts them. That's not part of the Green New Deal. I'm talking about the real thing, not the stories that your cult tells about it. Think of your education here as a start to your deprogramming.
Well we had a fast warm up (14,500 years ago) then a sudden cool down (14,000 years ago) then a small blip up then down then up and then the Younger Dryas Cooling for a couple of thousand, THEN the interglacial period began about 11,700 years ago. But then the warming seems a little slower over hundreds of years. Then it oscillates in a random pattern. Doesn't look like a slow cooling trend to me. But as you can see, temperatures fluctuate wildly, naturally. I think the rates of increasing temperatures shows quite a steep inclination which was of course was natural so to say, assuming it's true our rate of increase is steep, but not unprecedented. Want to know what caused the blip at the end of the last glaciation? Look up the Younger Dryas impact. Not everything is caused by the Milankovitch Cycles. There are many variables as I've said. Right. We have 12 years according to AOC: That would be you! Just watch while you yourself, in your own words, conflate the difference between a human being (a fertilized egg) versus a human reproductive cells (gamete): They are alive but they are only cells. They are not unique human beings as a fertilized egg will become. I'll take your word for that. It's not important. What cult conspiracy theory? I think it is the left that thinks we have to fix climate change. I say no. Don't do anything. Technology will advance so fast in the coming years the whole debate will be a moot point. You seem to be the flat farther in this scenario. You think man made global warming is warming the planet beyond it's capacity to adjust naturally. I read the article I posted in full. It claimed the ocean is cooling which seems to dispute the current consensus. Google proves you wrong again. Ditto.
Sometimes, ignorance can be cute. In this case, no. It is ironic though watching would be communist radicals coveting a creation made by the preeminent capitalists of our time...
So all of the world's scientists are part of a US socialist conspiracy. Did you see Santa this year too?
Alex Jones agrees with you. Of course he just admitted that he's psychotic and that makes him believe the things he does.
I also happen to share the same opinion that Matt Taibi does. He clearly isn't Alex Jones. I wonder how that changes your calculus... Probably won't though. You do love your sacred cows...
Natural selection is not evolution; it is extinction by degrees. Darwinism (evolution) is random. It is based solely upon random mutations accumulating into functional complexity. I call BS. Chance is not a creative force. There is absolutely no way that random mutations can accumulate into functional complexity.
Looks like you're using a Greenland ice sheet temperature plot. Not accurate. Better to use a global plot, which shows it clearly. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/ So, you were unable to show any climate scientists using your "existential threat" terminology. I'm glad we settled that, as now we can settle down and discuss the science. Not really what she said, and not relevant. She's a politician. Not relevant to your logic failure. Life already existed. Since life was already there, it can't begin. No, that's your strawman. I'd never use such terminology. I'd point out that "beyond its capacity to adjust naturally" is meaningless handwaving. The earth is not sentient. It doesn't "adjust" for the convenience of life. It just goes where the physics pushes. No, it doesn't say that. It says one area of the ocean is cooling. That's an entirely different thing from what you're claiming. Nothing you quoted said that all glaciers have to retreat every year. No matter how fervently you believe in "The Pause", the data still says it never existed.
Now real scientific data from Greenland ice sheet is not accurate data? Then we have to use a graph which suits your argument from questionable sources which itself admits the results are debatable proxy data and modeling? Just reading the replies makes this report laughable. The silly straight up hockey stick at the end of the graph is most notable. Like it didn't cool between 1930 and 1970's. In your world, proof is not proof, and direct quotes on video are not direct quotes. How does my logic fail? Because I make a distinction between cellular life and human life? Obviously, not all spermatozoa become a fully developed human being. You brought up flat earthers. And the you refuse to accept established science, whether it's Greenland ice sheet temperatures or Milankovitch Cycles. Now you can't even acknowledge that the earth has it's own natural climate forcing. Mankind is not powerful enough to control the weather or climate. That would take energy on a scale which we are not capable of to overwhelm nature. I think it's obvious that what ever I say, you'll take up an opposing viewpoint and what ever evidence I provide you'll say it's wrong.
It's one single spot on the planet, instead of an average, so it's a cherrypick. As it represents the whole planet, it's a much better representation. And that average includes the Greenland spot. So basically, because the full data contradicts your theory, you're refusing to use the full data. Deliberately discarding the best data in favor of inferior partial data is mark of pseudoscience, and you're doing it. This is one reason why it's so good to be part of the rational side. We don't have to discard inconvenient data. If the data contradicts our science, we simply change our science to match the data. A wildly false claim on your part, on both accounts. I keep talking about that forcing, which the science says is now towards slow cooling. Because the natural cycle is the opposite of what's observed, what's observed is clearly not part of the natural cycle. That's nice. Mankind, however, is obviously powerful enough to influence the climate, because the data says it's happening now. I think what you said there is another excuse to run from the data.
For those of you who a tired of this silly debate, watch this video of The Global Warming Swindle. He already admitted that AGW is not an existential threat. So why are we still debating?
