Getting hot yet?

Prove that moron lo.
I have a better idea. If you disagree with the scientific data then you disprove it.

A Volcano Eruption Can Emit More CO2 Than All Humanity. Why Worry? | Principia Scientific Intl. (principia-scientific.com)

A Volcano Eruption Can Emit More CO2 Than All Humanity. Why Worry?

Published on February 12, 2020

Written by John Walker
We should care about global warming and global cooling, no matter the cause.

But that does not mean we should make draconian changes in global economic, political and energy policies based upon the unproven hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 are leading to apocalyptic global warming. There simply is NO proof of this hypothesis.
1689856776867.png
 
Last edited:
Werbung:
Might I remind you that approximately 300 active volcanoes around the world at the one time. Over many years that number has declined by hundreds yet the climate is still warming and can be proven by science and data available to everyone. It's only idiot godbotherers like you that don't encourage facts. Republican religious lies seem to suffice for that.
Scientists have not explained how the earth has been warming for thousands of years while volcanoes have been becoming dormant. Not only that but scientists have not adequately detailed how temperature fluctuations in history reflect our recent rise in temperature over the last decade compared to cooling periods of past decades.

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal? | New Scientist

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

By David L Chandler

16 May 2007
 
I have a better idea. If you disagree with the scientific data then you disprove it.

A Volcano Eruption Can Emit More CO2 Than All Humanity. Why Worry? | Principia Scientific Intl. (principia-scientific.com)

A Volcano Eruption Can Emit More CO2 Than All Humanity. Why Worry?

Published on February 12, 2020

Written by John Walker
We should care about global warming and global cooling, no matter the cause.

But that does not mean we should make draconian changes in global economic, political and energy policies based upon the unproven hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 are leading to apocalyptic global warming. There simply is NO proof of this hypothesis.
View attachment 5603


no, you made the claim, you prove it.

this says "can", not "did' moron.

god yo're stupid. lol
 
Scientists have not explained how the earth has been warming for thousands of years while volcanoes have been becoming dormant. Not only that but scientists have not adequately detailed how temperature fluctuations in history reflect our recent rise in temperature over the last decade compared to cooling periods of past decades.

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal? | New Scientist

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

By David L Chandler

16 May 2007


well,the fact that it has been "far warmer in the past" doesn't mean that the effects to TODAY's warming won't hurt us, moron.

"lincoln was assassinated in the past, therefore today's presidents shouldn't worry" <- right wing moron logic. lol

god you're stupid.
 
well,the fact that it has been "far warmer in the past" doesn't mean that the effects to TODAY's warming won't hurt us, moron.

"lincoln was assassinated in the past, therefore today's presidents shouldn't worry" <- right wing moron logic. lol

god you're stupid.
Anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-Constitutional freedoms word leaders are using the global warming scare to break down non-conforming nations and make them subject to the new globalist governing world order, and that will hurt us far more than any rise in temperatures ever will.
 
Anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-Constitutional freedoms word leaders are using the global warming scare to break down non-conforming nations and make them subject to the new globalist governing world order, and that will hurt us far more than any rise in temperatures ever will.

prove it will hurt us more
 
Scientists have not explained how the earth has been warming for thousands of years while volcanoes have been becoming dormant. Not only that but scientists have not adequately detailed how temperature fluctuations in history.
Your problem is you don't read anything which goes against your religion which is suspicious of everything which could be a left wing conspiracy. Sound familiar.
reflect our recent rise in temperature over the last decade compared to cooling periods of past decades.

Again, if you read anything you would find that statement is another Christian lie.
Only last week earth experienced it's hottest world wide temperature ever.

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal? | New Scientist

Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

By David L Chandler

16 May 2007
New Scientist, Scientific American, and so on are not peer reviewed. They are not journals of science, but of science reporting. Nature magazine on the other hand advertises itself as a journal of first publication for significant results.
It reports on science only and has inputs from individuals who are sympathetic the the owners cause.
Surprise surprise, it now has some religious right wing input. How convenient.
 
New Scientist, Scientific American, and so on are not peer reviewed. They are not journals of science, but of science reporting. Nature magazine on the other hand advertises itself as a journal of first publication for significant results.
It reports on science only and has inputs from individuals who are sympathetic the the owners cause.
Surprise surprise, it now has some religious right wing input. How convenient.

Unlike the Bible, the peer review of scientific articles has a long history of lies, errors, fudged facts, manipulated data, wrong conclusions, misrepresentations, flawed reasoning, inconsistent judgments and so forth. Ironically, just today I read about another failure in the peer review system dating back at least 20 years. The President of Stanford has just announced he will step down over the mistakes he made on several of the more than 200 peer-reviewed papers he wrote. He knew the info he submitted was wrong but did not take steps to correct them until after researchers discovered the 'errors.'

Stanford President Resigns After Report Finds Flaws in his Research - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Following months of intense scrutiny of his scientific work, Marc Tessier-Lavigne announced Wednesday that he would resign as president of Stanford University after an independent review of his research found significant flaws in studies he supervised going back decades.
 
Unlike the Bible, the peer review of scientific articles has a long history of lies, errors, fudged facts, manipulated data, wrong conclusions, misrepresentations, flawed reasoning, inconsistent judgments and so forth. Ironically, just today I read about another failure in the peer review system dating back at least 20 years. The president of Stanford has just announced he will step down over the mistakes he made on several of the more than 200 peer-reviewed papers he wrote after researchers discovered the 'errors.'

Stanford President Resigns After Report Finds Flaws in his Research - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Following months of intense scrutiny of his scientific work, Marc Tessier-Lavigne announced Wednesday that he would resign as president of Stanford University after an independent review of his research found significant flaws in studies he supervised going back decades.
Why are you in one minute quoting them as evidence then later post evidence one ift it's contributors is a shonk?
Have you lost your mind?
 
Why are you in one minute quoting them as evidence then later post evidence one ift it's contributors is a shonk?
Have you lost your mind?
Just don't assume every peer reviewed report you read is factual and don't believe that every fact reported will be accepted by biased peer-reviewers.
 
You post and evidence shown indicates I'm right. You fucked up so own it.
This peer reviewed report does not support the less accurate, less scientific, more popular climate change narratives bandied about today by people with low degrees of understanding about climate change issues.

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of thepast 1000 years
Willie Soon1, 2,*, Sallie Baliunas1, 21Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, MS 16, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA 2Mount Wilson Observatory, Mount Wilson, California 91023, USA


ABSTRACT: The 1000 yr. climatic and environmental history of the Earth contained in various proxy records is reviewed. As indicators, the proxies duly represent local climate. Because each is of a different nature, the results from the proxy indicators cannot be combined into a hemispheric or global quantitative composite. However, considered as an ensemble of individual expert opinions, the assemblage of local representations of climate establishes both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period as climatic anomalies with worldwide imprints, extending earlier results by Bryson etal. (1963), Lamb (1965), and numerous intervening research efforts. Furthermore, the individual proxies can be used to address the question of whether the 20th century is the warmest of the 2ndmillennium locally. Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium. ...

Many interesting questions on the geographical nature and physical factors of surface temperature or precipitation changes over the last 1000 yrs. cannot be quantitatively and conclusively answered by current knowledge. The adopted period of 1000 yrs. is strictly a convenience that merits little scientific weight. Climate proxy research provides an aggregate, broad
perspective on questions regarding the reality of Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century surface thermometer global warming. The picture emerges from many localities that both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm epoch are widespread and near-synchronous phenomena, as conceived by Brysonet al. (1963), Lamb (1965) and numerous researchers since. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records, which have been sampled world-wide. Past researchers implied that unusual 20th century warming means a global human impact. However, the proxies show that the 20th century is not unusually warm or extreme.
 
This peer reviewed report does not support the less accurate, less scientific, more popular climate change narratives bandied about today by people with low degrees of understanding about climate change issues.

Proxy climatic and environmental changes of thepast 1000 years
Willie Soon1, 2,*, Sallie Baliunas1, 21Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, MS 16, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA 2Mount Wilson Observatory, Mount Wilson, California 91023, USA


ABSTRACT: The 1000 yr. climatic and environmental history of the Earth contained in various proxy records is reviewed. As indicators, the proxies duly represent local climate. Because each is of a different nature, the results from the proxy indicators cannot be combined into a hemispheric or global quantitative composite. However, considered as an ensemble of individual expert opinions, the assemblage of local representations of climate establishes both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period as climatic anomalies with worldwide imprints, extending earlier results by Bryson etal. (1963), Lamb (1965), and numerous intervening research efforts. Furthermore, the individual proxies can be used to address the question of whether the 20th century is the warmest of the 2ndmillennium locally. Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium. ...

Many interesting questions on the geographical nature and physical factors of surface temperature or precipitation changes over the last 1000 yrs. cannot be quantitatively and conclusively answered by current knowledge. The adopted period of 1000 yrs. is strictly a convenience that merits little scientific weight. Climate proxy research provides an aggregate, broad
perspective on questions regarding the reality of Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period and the 20th century surface thermometer global warming. The picture emerges from many localities that both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm epoch are widespread and near-synchronous phenomena, as conceived by Brysonet al. (1963), Lamb (1965) and numerous researchers since. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records, which have been sampled world-wide. Past researchers implied that unusual 20th century warming means a global human impact. However, the proxies show that the 20th century is not unusually warm or extreme.
Bullshit. You cherry picked the lackeys to fit your narrative.
The fact remains efforts are being made worldwide attempting to stop the rise in temperatures. It doesn't matter what knuckle staggers like you think because your opposition originates from politics if hate and ignorance to facts. Piss off.
 
Werbung:
Bullshit. You cherry picked the lackeys to fit your narrative.
The fact remains efforts are being made worldwide attempting to stop the rise in temperatures. It doesn't matter what knuckle staggers like you think because your opposition originates from politics if hate and ignorance to facts. Piss off.
You can argue against the peer reviewed article if you like but that does nothing to refute the facts.
 
Back
Top