Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MrTLegal, Feb 10, 2020.

  1. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So global warming caused by humans is just a theory that you support. :)
     
    guavaball likes this.
  2. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ...Yes.

    And I support that theory because it is backed up by the data, the science, and the conclusions from nearly every relevant expert on the planet.
     
  3. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and there you have it, it's just a theory with no actual proof to back it up. Case dismissed.
     
    guavaball likes this.
  4. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    because it is backed up by the data, the science, and the conclusions from nearly every relevant expert on the planet.
     
  5. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You just said it was a theory so it doesn't have any actual proof. If they had proof, it wouldn't be a theory now would it. :)
     
    guavaball likes this.
  6. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you trying to troll?

    There is literally zero requirement for the definition of a theory to include some notion that it lacks proof. In fact, it is true that nearly every single theory in existence has some proof to back it up. The fact that a theory is supported by proof does not suddenly transform that theory into something new until waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the line.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
  7. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just pointing out all you have is a theory with no actual proof. After all of this time, it just shows I was right and you finally admitted it.

    Theory is a guess or speculation. it lacks actual proof or it would not be a theory.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
    guavaball likes this.
  8. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are the only person on this planet who defines "theory" as "lacks proof."

    The theory of human induced Climate Change is backed up by the data, the science, and the conclusions from nearly every relevant expert on the planet.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
  9. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now you want to argue that theory is not speculation or a "guess"??

    LOL
     
    guavaball and hawgsalot like this.
  10. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you trolling?

    Definition of theory

    1: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
     
  11. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113

    It's not even a theory because he claimed it was proven. Its just a flat earthers belief :)
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  12. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What part of that post proves 5% of CO2 is the primary source of climate change legal?
     
  13. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You did not read the post. Nor did you read the article.

    Stop failing.
     
  14. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No I read your flat earthers belief on humans being the primary source of climate change and used your own article again you. :)

    And of course once again you cant provide the proof to your belief despite an open invitation.
     
  15. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He switched from claiming this was a fact to admitting it was a theory now he wants to argue what theory really means. He states this as a fact in his opening statement:

    Global Warming is very real and humans are the most significant cause.

    In post #12 he responds with this in regards to China and India:

    Both do more to address climate change than we do.

    In the end, he finally got around to admitting it is a theory but a lot of people, including scientists, support the theory. Al Gore supported the theory that Polar Bears would be extinct by now backed up by "scientists" with very accurate data and scientific models. Reality: Polar Bears are still here. :)

    Some fun "scientific facts" from the first Earth Day back in 1970. All of these well educated "scientists" and professors made these claims:

    1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

    2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

    3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

    4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

    5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

    6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

    7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

    8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

    9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

    10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

    11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

    12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

    13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

    14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

    15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

    16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

    17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

    18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

    https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

    Guess what? They were all wrong. lol

    Until scientists bring actual proof to the table and can confirm without a doubt that humans are causing global warming or climate change or whatever hoaxed up name they are giving it nowadays, it's still just a theory. Same as Mayans thinking God's made the sun rise, or the earth was flat and ships will fall off the edge or aliens run the world or <insert theory>

    I hope they keep looking into earth's climate as it is worthy to study. So is Geology and Anthropology and even weather forecasting.It's harmful when it turns to fear mongering and a political exercise to raise money and defraud taxpayers out of their money. There are enough kooky scientists and professors that need to be smiled at and disregarded while real work can be done on the environment.
     
    guavaball likes this.
  16. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I provided you the proof, you failed to bother reading or quoting anything more than the one part of one sentence that you felt - wrongly - justified your previously held beliefs.

    Here is the material - again:
    Here is the other link:

    How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
     
  17. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You ask that scientists bring "actual proof," and I am curious whether you can even identify a hypothetical example of what "actual proof" looks like to you? @guavaball has failed on that basic request many times over, and I imagine that you will just respond by asking me a question instead of making a declarative statement that is anymore definitive than saying something like "real data" or "hard facts," but I'll wait and see.
     
  18. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, it is a fact that the Earth is warming and that humans are the most significant cause. It is also a theory supported by data, science, and the conclusions from nearly every relevant expert on the planet.
     
  19. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I find it the height of idiocy to look at statements from 40+ years ago and then think, "You see? Those folks were wrong, so that means these other people who made a statement 45 years later must also be wrong."
     
  20. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Define "climate change".
     
    guavaball and BuckyBadger like this.
  21. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I refuse to engage any further with someone who believes it is impossible to define climate change, determine global average temperature, and thinks the only way to prove AGW would be to take a new planet and remove all CO2 from the upper atmosphere first.
     
  22. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct. (I wouldn't say "Earth's climate", as Earth has numerous climates, but otherwise correct).

    The Sun is what heats the Earth. The Sun is the energy source. AGW Proponents are attempting to create energy out of nothing. They don't like thermodynamics very much.
     
    guavaball and BuckyBadger like this.
  23. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They were very well educated and "respected" scientists too. :)

    Yet, they were all wrong. Seems to be a common theme about their theories.

    No it's not, it's just a theory that has yet to be proven. Life on other planets is a theory that has not been proven either.

    Define "climate change".
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
    guavaball likes this.
  24. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, that chart merely consists of made-up numbers. It is meaningless.

    Let's have some fun. To start off with, since the whole Earth is rather vast, let's have you tell us all what the current temperature of West Virginia is.
     
    guavaball likes this.
  25. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Another astute observation.

    I'd argue that the numbers are complete made-up bogus to begin with, but even if one were to accept them, you very astutely point out that it only covers 115 years... What about all the time prior to that?? (whether one believes in a thousands years old Earth or a billions of year old Earth).
     

Share This Page