New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Settled Science

Boca

Governor
Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.

Well, that settles it alright....since humans weren't around three million years ago.
 
Last edited:

EatTheRich

President
Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.

Well, that settles it alright....since humans weren't around three million years ago.
Settles what?
 

Nostra

Governor
Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.

Well, that settles it alright....since humans weren't around three million years ago.
If you go further back, CO2 levels were 10X higher than they are today.

The Cult is a farce
 

EatTheRich

President
Here is a link on how the temperature is adjusted to match the Global Warming Narative.
Scientists don’t control the temperature. The reason their measurements show a trend of temperature rise is because nature shows a trend of temperature rise.
 
Scientists don’t control the temperature. The reason their measurements show a trend of temperature rise is because nature shows a trend of temperature rise.


Scientists don’t control the temperature. They don't? But that is exactly what you libs say we need to do to stop climate change! If the temperature cannot be controlled, what the hell is all the talk about raising taxes on energy and erecting more wind turbines about? Oh wait, we know the answer to that. It's about controlling people, forcing them to give up their private property rights to do something that cannot really be done.
Thanks for admitting that pal.
 

EatTheRich

President

Scientists don’t control the temperature. They don't? But that is exactly what you libs say we need to do to stop climate change! If the temperature cannot be controlled, what the hell is all the talk about raising taxes on energy and erecting more wind turbines about? Oh wait, we know the answer to that. It's about controlling people, forcing them to give up their private property rights to do something that cannot really be done.
Thanks for admitting that pal.
They don’t control the way temperature responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. But as a society we can control the levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
 

EatTheRich

President
They don't control the temperature.............just the data. And they have been busted manipulating the data.
Several audits, including blind ones where only numerical data was provided and the meaning of the values was obscured, have found otherwise.
 
They don’t control the way temperature responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. But as a society we can control the levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
They don’t control the way temperature responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. But as a society we can control the levels of greenhouse gas emissions.
Green house gases has been thoroughly debunked for some time now. The real culprit, if you can call it that, is ocean water temperatures, and those are directly impacted by underwater volcanos we are just now discovering. They are also cyclical, as El Ninos and La Nina variances demonstrate.
There is no such thing as settled science. Every scientific field merely awaits the next discovery.
 

EatTheRich

President
Green house gases has been thoroughly debunked for some time now. The real culprit, if you can call it that, is ocean water temperatures, and those are directly impacted by underwater volcanos we are just now discovering. They are also cyclical, as El Ninos and La Nina variances demonstrate.
There is no such thing as settled science. Every scientific field merely awaits the next discovery.
Greenhouse warming is one of the most accepted theories in science, with over 100 years of excellent experimental validation. It is based on simple physics principles that you could test at home with a simple experiment and is the only accepted explanation why the Earth is not as cold as the moon. It is also the basis for the extremely accurate advance predictions of global warming that is a huge departure from any reasonable probability distribution inferred from decades of direct measurement and thousands of years of very good proxy measurements. Abandoning the theory of greenhouse warming would require almost completely rewriting physics, chemistry, and astronomy from the ground up.
 

Drumcollie

Ending Racism with or without Hillary
Greenhouse warming is one of the most accepted theories in science, with over 100 years of excellent experimental validation. It is based on simple physics principles that you could test at home with a simple experiment and is the only accepted explanation why the Earth is not as cold as the moon. It is also the basis for the extremely accurate advance predictions of global warming that is a huge departure from any reasonable probability distribution inferred from decades of direct measurement and thousands of years of very good proxy measurements. Abandoning the theory of greenhouse warming would require almost completely rewriting physics, chemistry, and astronomy from the ground up.
Hmmm...Water vapor.
 
Greenhouse warming is one of the most accepted theories in science, with over 100 years of excellent experimental validation. It is based on simple physics principles that you could test at home with a simple experiment and is the only accepted explanation why the Earth is not as cold as the moon. It is also the basis for the extremely accurate advance predictions of global warming that is a huge departure from any reasonable probability distribution inferred from decades of direct measurement and thousands of years of very good proxy measurements. Abandoning the theory of greenhouse warming would require almost completely rewriting physics, chemistry, and astronomy from the ground up.
Hogwash. Michael Mann's (erroneous) hockey stick graph didn't appear until 2001.
And remember the global cooling announcement made by Time Magazine in June of 1974?
More than 100 years of research? BS, Rich. All of it.
 

EatTheRich

President
Link please?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/investigation-of-noaa-climate-scientists-finds-bupkis/?amp=1
Hogwash. Michael Mann's (erroneous) hockey stick graph didn't appear until 2001.
And remember the global cooling announcement made by Time Magazine in June of 1974?
More than 100 years of research? BS, Rich. All of it.


Scientists understood that greenhouse warming existed long before 1974. But they also understood that aerosol emissions had a cooling effect, and a majority thought this cooling effect would overwhelm the warming effect of greenhouse gases. Since then, the evidence has poured in that this minoroty’sassptions were incorrect, and scientists have been convinced that the met effect will be warming. But the basic fact that greenhouse gases trap heat was understood decades before. Likewise, Mann’s graph ... made possible by the development of computer systems and field research needed for proxy studies ... did not establish the fact of greenhouse warming. It merely visually illustrated the magnitude of the warming that had already taken place.
 
Greenhouse warming is one of the most accepted theories in science, with over 100 years of excellent experimental validation. It is based on simple physics principles that you could test at home with a simple experiment and is the only accepted explanation why the Earth is not as cold as the moon. It is also the basis for the extremely accurate advance predictions of global warming that is a huge departure from any reasonable probability distribution inferred from decades of direct measurement and thousands of years of very good proxy measurements. Abandoning the theory of greenhouse warming would require almost completely rewriting physics, chemistry, and astronomy from the ground up.
Designer Hallucinations

Useful as a scare story, but an honest greenhouse analogy would require a dome locking the whole planet inside it. The atmosphere is too porous, unless you want to present an even scarier image of an interlocking polymer, like plastic, sealing us all inside as we fry to a crisp.
 
Top