you should listen to advocates from the point of view of advocacy, not science.
its a simple concept but you can't seem to understand simple points. lol
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Greenie-Weenies Knowledge Base matches CO² Levels...
- Thread starter LittleGreenMan
- Start date
you should listen to advocates from the point of view of advocacy, not science.
its a simple concept but you can't seem to understand simple points. lol
Werbung:
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 26,467
Most global warming propagandists are quacks with no training in atmospheric science and who choose only those professing experts who agree with their own a priori beliefs.
Most are? Prove it liar lol
You are a science *****
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 26,467
Wasn't it you that said Al Gore and all the others who never had any training in atmospheric studies are quacks when it comes to preaching global warming alarmism?
the annoying thing
Well-Known Member
Why don't you go lay down someplace and go to sleep.how does that prove anything? duh.
a tiny amount of a deadly nerve toxin will kill you for example. duh.
"tiny" amounts of things can have impacts. duh.
its amazing how righties insist on proving they are science morons, over and over. lol
You Asked: If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it Drive Global Warming?
Short answer: A little bit goes a long way.news.climate.columbia.edu
CO2 Makes Up Just 0.04% of Earth's Atmosphere. Here's Why Its Impact Is So Massive
Reader question: I heard that carbon dioxide makes up 0.04 percent of the world's atmosphere.www.sciencealert.com
LittleGreenMan
Well-Known Member
Google doesn't steer people to biased content, right? It just gives answers that are always right on the money. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? Wanna buy a bridge?
Last edited:
LittleGreenMan
Well-Known Member
I hate to criticize, but some of those quacks are highly educated atmospheric scientists.
the annoying thing
Well-Known Member
Science is often based on theory and our limited technology.
Science has proven it's self wrong rather often .
Just as the James web telescope has now questioned the age and how the universe formed..
And there are questions that science will never be able to answer.
LittleGreenMan
Well-Known Member
I'm older than dirt, and they have found the end of the universe 4 or 5 times in my lifetime. Every time they break out a new kind of telescope... "Eureka!"
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 26,467
Nobody is above error, including scientists who may be tempted to fudge numbers to fit approved narratives for impure reasons.
you like to think about me sleeping? weird. lol
intelligent people can use google to educate themselves.
you are clearly not in that group lol
i said they aren't scientists, *****. i don't go to them to learn science. duh
but like any advocate, they can be advocates for science. duh.
god you're stupid. lol
LittleGreenMan
Well-Known Member
I have to take issue with "error". That implies that they have merely failed to include enough due diligence to support what they posit. I don't grant them that pretty skirt to hide behind. At best they are whores who will say anything that brings research money in the door. At worse they are whores who will say anything that brings research money in the door. There is a substantial difference between standing behind your research and defending it in the face of other claims and ignoring, for years, the other side of the issue as though the science were settled. In science nothing is settled, ever, for all intents and purposes, especially in this day and age of constant re-assessment and discovery. The proper response should always begin with, "Let me see your data; I will study it closely and respond with why my data is more accurate/applicable." Then and only then the next step is a presentation with side-by-side data and conclusions followed by as public as possible peer review. Hash it out; debate it to death. I haven't seen or heard that. I have heard researchers get blackballed if they don't published "correctly".
Who knows what scientific procedure looks like? 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics ,"for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science", co-winner Dr. John F. Clauser calls climate change a giant hoax and is only the 1st shoe. What's even more important about what he says is all the so-called climate scientists are GUILTY of perpetuating POOR science. Are we to believe that the rest of science is any better as performed in all the same places that have validated the climate hoax; Wuhan wet-market origin; vaccine, lockdown & mask use efficacious; and medicine that doesn't recognize gender dysphoria is a mental illness crying out for counseling?
The Gaia Theory (James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis, 1972) includes the pivotal effects of clouds forming as the sun heats surface waters to some point; those clouds reduce the sun's energy reaching the surface below the clouds, cooling the surface. The difference between Earth and Mars is water. No water, -no media to change solar radiation into heat-reflecting clouds. Clouds exist within a small range and deliver rain to places with little water. No water, -no weather. No weather, only one climate can exist; that being day or night.
Settled science is merely a different way to say that the issue is closed. Only minds can be closed; -science? Never!
Werbung:
LittleGreenMan
Well-Known Member
And, you're an example of that? I rest my case.
