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. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I knew you couldn't go point for point with your fake claims. Thanks for confirming that.

    I quoted the summary part of each point of your data to prove they did not support your flat earth theory that humans are the primary source of climate change. "Likely" is not a fact its a theory. Basic 5th grade reading level education would have helped you there.

    No Legal there is no more. If there was you could quote it. Every time I ask for your quotes you link to some study that doesn't support you because you know if you actually quoted your sources they would not support you as I proved.

    LOL And what are the "basic facts" Legal? You just love to falsify their conclusions without quoting them.

    It is the hallmark of a failed flat earther theory.

    LOL "almost certainly" is not a fact its a theory. At least you stopped the absolute BS statements in your OP :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
    Badaboom, BaghdadBob and BuckyBadger like this.
  2. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,360
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Global warming protagonists are very quick to blame any weather/temperature anomaly -- up, down, left, right, heavy, or light -- on CO2 induced global warming. Unfortunately this is little correlated to science. What makes anyone think that a high temperature in the Antarctica has any significant cause from increased CO2 gases? How much CO2 is in the atmosphere above Antarctica and how has it changed? There are about 130 stations that measure CO2 concentration, most in the northern hemisphere, and only one that is considered #1 -- in Hawaii. I know of none in the Antarctica. Antarctica atmosphere gets near zero anthropological CO2 emissions. The preponderance of CO2 emissions is in the northern hemisphere and despite the ballyhooing of "well mixed" by the advocates northern hemisphere atmosphere does not cross the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) into the southern hemisphere. Secondly, even of there was significant CO2 concentration, Antarctica emits much less infrared radiation that could be trapped by the CO2 and further warm the atmosphere. The chance that the record high 65 degree temp is a result of CO2 emissions is close to zero.
     
    guavaball, BaghdadBob and BuckyBadger like this.
  3. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Heh, have fun going for point for point with the quotes you wanted.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/are-humans-causing-or-contributing-global-warming
    https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-change-science/causes-climate-change_.html
    https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_en
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-causes/
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/causes-of-climate-change
    https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/climate-change/
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  4. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You are the one that can't prove it and you lack the data to convince us otherwise. Bring something solid to the table.

    Why do you think humans are causing it to rain?
     
    Dispondent likes this.
  5. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said I think humans are causing the rain. Or Waves. Or Clouds.

    Now, feel free to stop dodging the same two questions I have asked you half a dozen times now.

    Why does the fact that glaciers melted millions of years ago mean that humans are incapable of melting glaciers today?

    If you dont want to answer that question, then please answer the following: Do you think it is possible that you will ever be convinced that humans are almost certainly responsible for most of the current warming trend?
     
  6. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it's not my favorite foreign interloper! How are you doing? If you keep pushing disinformation like that I might accidentally mistake you for a Russian.

    Its never been about what junk data you can provide, it's about the inability to apply that junk data in a comparable fashion to earth's billions of years of climate history...
     
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  7. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you think the cause and affect would change? Glaciers melted millions of years ago and they melt today.

    Before humans: Glaciers formed and melted.
    Humans present: Glaciers formed and melted.

    What do you deduce from this statement? If all human life was removed from the planet, would glaciers form and melt?

    Why or why not?

    If I take a blowtorch to a block of ice, am I responsible for the glaciers melting?

    The scientific community has to provide enough data to prove that humans are the major factor and hold the responsibility for climate change. Right now, humans pollute and that is causing major harm to the environment but no data so far proves that humans are the main resource of global climate change, or whatever you call it nowadays. When funding runs out or data proves the present theory incorrect, Al Gore or another left wing stooge will change the focus to pad his wallet.

    As science evolves, many of their theories become obsolete or are proved wrong. This very well could be one of them. Besides, they pander for money and use sales skills to do so. In other words, they create an immediate need and convince others they need to buy into it right now.
     
    Dispondent likes this.
  8. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    She is mourning the loss of the American firefighters that flew down there to save her country from the arsonists that set it on fire. Oh wait, she is busy posting her opinion on this forum.
     
    BaghdadBob and Dispondent like this.
  9. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But you said they are responsible for forming and melting glaciers. Wouldn't it be easier for humans to make it rain? Or to form all the clouds?
     
  10. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not a climate change denier here, or someone who denies man's influence (i.e., not a physics denier), but we should be careful pointing to cases like the above. We open up the science deniers to "But it was really cold in Texas today" arguments.
     
  11. dbldrew

    dbldrew Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    AWG is the only correct term for man's CO2 emissions.
     
  12. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL Not a problem. Proving your links don't match your claims is fun :D

    Of course you don't quote the conclusions but I can! :D

    In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

    LOL So once again its another theory. No numbers to support their claim. Only a conclusion they can't be sure about because the numbers don't exist.

    Let's keep going!

    And what a shocker once again you don't quote their conclusions because it doesn't back up your flat earther theory


    Yes, human activities have increased the abundance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, which a large majority of climate scientists agree is the main reason for the 1.5°F (0.85°C) rise in average global temperature since 1880.


    So once again we have an opinion without the factual data to support it. Just like you Legal! :D

    Next!

    And here is another "extremely likely" theory without the factual data to support it

    Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.[2]

    This is why you keep losing Legal. "likely" and "points to" are not factual conclusions. They are theories.


    Aaaaand wait for it, another theory!

    The world's leading climate scientists think human activities are almost certainly the main cause of the warming observed since the middle of the 20th century.

    LOL Once again "almost certainly" is a theory not a fact Legal. :)

    LOL This one is really bad. It not only has no facts to back it up like the others, it claims its theory must be right because.....well they say so!

    The average temperature of the Earth is rising at nearly twice the rate it was 50 years ago. This rapid warming trend cannot be explained by natural cycles alone, scientists have concluded. The only way to explain the pattern is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans.

    Once again no numbers proving their theory and most importantly they admit they cannot account for all factors for climate change making their theory as worthless as yours.

    hahaha here is your 95% source claim huh Legal.

    When looking at all the evidence, there is a large scientific consensus that humans are the leading cause of climate change. In their latest report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated with over 95% certainty that human activity is the main cause of global warming.

    No numbers provided of course, simply another "feeling" that this is true. Pathetic yet so predictable. Let's hope this last one is better but I doubt it. :D

    This one is even worse since it doesn't even pretend to have the science behind it but points to another report claiming it does. So let's look!

    Well the full report keeps failing the download. Almost like they don't want you to read it :D

    Let's look at their technical summary for politicians which should tell you something right there lol

    Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system

    So no claims humans are the primary source of climate change and no data to support it.

    Strike 3 Legal your theory is out. :)

    You and the flat earthers that support you rely on thoery not fact. On hunches not actual data to support your conclusions about CO2 and human interference.

    But even they are smart enough to never, not a single time claim it is a fact humans are the primary source of climate change.


    Now let's look at actual science destroying the fallacy of the CO2 claim and that humans are the primary source.


    Firstly, our planet is presently in an interglacial period within an ice age. Interglacial periods usually last for around 10,000 years, followed by glacial periods of around 100,000 years. Since the present interglacial period has already been going for 10,500 years, history would suggest we are overdue for a new glacial period.

    Secondly, since the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been many times higher in the past than today, peaking during the Cambrian Period 500 million years ago at 7,000 parts per million – around 18 times higher than the present – it is clear that the industrialisation of mankind is not the main cause of increasing levels of carbon dioxide.

    Thirdly, since the late Ordovician Period around 450 million years ago, when CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher at 4,400 parts per million, was an ice age, it is clear that high concentrations of carbon dioxide do not cause catastrophic global warming.


    In other words, the fact that high levels of carbon dioxide occur naturally and do not cause the planet to fry, totally negates the claims of the global warmers that mankind’s CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic climate change.

    In addition, Dr Renwick claims that the relationship between carbon dioxide and warming is linear – “twice as much CO2 emitted equals twice as much eventual warming” – but this is not correct. The relationship is logarithmic, which means that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide will have a progressively smaller warming effect, not a larger one.

    In their 2004 report, Why logarithmic, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Huang and Shahabadi also note that the “logarithmic equations for calculating the radiative forcing of CO2 are given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…”

    The IPCC explains: “For carbon dioxide, parts of the spectrum are already so opaque that additional molecules of carbon dioxide are even less effective, the forcing is found to be logarithmic in concentration.”

    Essentially, this means that doubling or even tripling the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere would not appreciably change the warming effects of the CO2 levels we currently have, since the ability of CO2 to trap heat declines logarithmically, reaching a point of significantly reduced future effect. This is the reason why carbon dioxide levels have been so much higher during past geological eras, without causing runaway greenhouse warming.

    Since the logarithmic relationship between carbon dioxide and warming is such a fundamental point, it is indeed astonishing, that man-made global warming theories have not been unilaterally discredited on that basis alone. What it means is that the claims that the planet will reach a tipping point, where temperatures will skyrocket because of increasing levels of carbon dioxide, are simply not credible and are revealed as ideological scaremongering. It shows that it is politics that is driving this debate, not science.

    In fact, last year Christiana Figueres, then head of the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted as much by saying that their goal was not to save the world from ecological collapse but to destroy capitalism: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

    To ensure their threats of climate collapse dominate the debate and that opponents are intimidated into silence, proponents of man-made global warming claim the science is settled and that there is a consensus amongst scientists that the earth is on the cusp of an ecological disaster – unless we follow their agenda.

    But in stating that “Almost 100 per cent of scientists are certain that global warming is human-induced”, Dr Renwick appears to have overlooked some important initiatives that contradict his claims.

    Back in 2009, over 100 brave scientists allowed their names to be published by the US-based Cato Institute in newspaperadvertisements opposing President Obama’s claims that combating climate change was urgent and that the science was beyond dispute. The ad stated, “We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”

    By 2010, the number of scientists prepared to be publicly named as opposing the sort of views held by Dr Renwick and others had grown to over 1,000. Each appeared in a report to the US Senate: “More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President Al Gore.” The report included many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who had turned against the organisation and its agenda. It also noted that over 1,000 dissenting scientists, was more than twenty times the number of UN scientists (52) who had authored the media-hyped 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

    In addition to those specific initiatives, a total of 31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, signed the petition run by the Global Warming Petition Project, to publicly demonstrate that the scientific community in the US rejected claims that the science around man-made global warming was either “settled”, or that a “consensus” existed.

    In spite of what Dr Renwick and others might wish for, the reality is that there is no consensus and the science is far from settled.

    In light of this, it is indeed unfortunate that successive New Zealand governments have bought into global warming propaganda – with Labour introducing their bureaucratic Emissions Trading Scheme in 2008, and National not only expanding it, but also announcing in May’s Budget that the subsidies will be removed over the next three years, forcing New Zealand families to pay more for power and the cost of goods in general.

    Fortunately however, there are signs that the cosy international consensus could be crumbling. The new British Prime Minister Theresa May is understood to be more sceptical about global warming than her predecessor. US Presidential candidate Donald Trump thinks the whole thing is a rort. And with Britain departing the European Union, there are signs of squabbling amongst member nations over who will pick up the shortfall in climate compensation to developing countries.

    Meanwhile, real scientists are worried that the sun’s on-going lack of sunspots is a sign that global cooling is on the way.

    In June US meteorologist Paul Dorian reported that the sun had gone completely blank for the second time that month. He feared the lack of sunspot activity could signal the arrival of a cold snap similar to the Maunder Minimum – otherwise known as the Little Ice Age – which started in 1645 and continued until 1715.

    Right now the El Nino – a naturally occurring oceanic cycle that produces warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures – which has been keeping New Zealand’s weather unseasonably warm, is now fading and it is expected to be replaced by a La Nina, which will produce colder-than-normal temperatures. Since warmer seas emit more carbon dioxide, and colder seas absorb more, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere may start to fall.

    If the mini-ice age, that has been predicted by a number of scientists around the world resumes, political leaders may well rue the day when they allowed themselves to be persuaded by global socialists that implementing decarbonisation policies was a good idea. And the media might also wish they had lived up to their own code of ethics and allowed those like Bryan Leyland, who are brave enough to speak out, to state their case in order to protect the public from the impact of a perverse policy prescription that is doing far more harm around the world than good.


    https://www.technocracy.news/countering-fallacy-global-warming/

    Now I'll watch as you quote everything together, address none of the shortcomings of your own data and attack my evidence without quoting any of it.

    Prove me wrong.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
    BaghdadBob and dbldrew like this.
  13. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As an initial matter, I am going to break this post up into two posts because it is getting ridiculous. I am also going to remove the sentence breaks between each line to make the post shorter and easier to manage.

    I have to imagine that you are able to understand the concept of a footnote or a citation. So why do you intentionally pretend that those conclusions do not provide data to back up their claims when they make reference to peer-reviewed articles and journals elsewhere in the article?

    For example, in your first refutation of the article from NASA, you say "No numbers to support their claim" and yet the VERY NEXT SENTENCE after the conclusion you quoted says,

    I see numbers to support their claim. Why can't you?

    Similarly, how much of a moron do you think the people reading your post must be to argue that their "Conclusions do not support your claim" and then to immediately quote the conclusion as saying, "Yes, human activities have increased the abundance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, which a large majority of climate scientists agree is the main reason for the 1.5°F (0.85°C) rise in average global temperature since 1880."

    In what ****ing universe does that statement not support the argument? Oh, I know. It's the universe of Guavabull who appears to think that a conclusionary statement is only supportive if that one sentence also includes the data used to justify the conclusion.

    And you repeat that bit of a fallacy time and time again when you say things like, "Likely is not a fact, it is a theory." No ****. It is a theory based on the evidence previously cited and further elaborated on in the rest of the article.

    I will give you a real simple analogy. Let us pretend that we are arguing over whether the Sun will rise tomorrow. I tell you that I think the sun will rise tomorrow and I point you to a study that analyzes the composition of the Sun, the data we have on that type of Star from other systems, delves into the physics underlying fission and gravity, and the report concludes with a sentence of, "It is highly likely that sun will rise tomorrow." That is a study which supports my argument even if the conclusionary statement includes the word "likely."

    Can you say with absolute certainty that the Sun will rise tomorrow? If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that the best you can do is to argue that it is extremely or almost certainly likely because you can not know the future. If you wanted to find evidence to support your theory that the Sun would not rise tomorrow, do you honestly believe that you could point to a study with the conclusionary statement of "It is highly likely that the sun will rise tomorrow" and think, "I found my support because they can only say that it is likely!"

    That is precisely what you are trying to do here. You look at conclusionary statements, note the fact that they say phrases like "likely," "extreme confidence," and "95% certainty" and then you say, "Ya see? Those statements don't support you - they are worthless."
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  14. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would love to.
    ....Still waiting. But I am not going to tell you that I am worried about Global Cooling because I am secretly collecting that Sweet, Sweet Air Conditioning Lobbying Money (tm).

    If you have to say that something is "clear," then it is probably not clear. And here is a perfect example. They use a false choice fallacy to argue that because it is impossible for humans to have been the cause of CO2 concentration hundreds of millions of years ago, thus it is not possible for humans to be the cause of CO2 concentration today. It is the same mistake that @BuckyBadger continues to make. When there are a whole host of potential causes for an outcome, the mere fact that "X" potential cause could not have caused the event millions of years ago does not mean that it is impossible for "X" to be the cause today.

    Cancer has been around for thousands of years, long before the invention of the Cigarette. And yet, we know that smoking Cigarettes increases your chance of cancer today.

    Again, if you have to use the word "clear," then it is probably not very clear.

    First off, we have no idea what the climate was like 450 million years ago outside of some vague markers. You don't know about wildfires or droughts or floods or anything like that, do you? Similarly, there is zero reason to believe that the the climate from 450 million years ago would not be a catastrophic climate change if it were recreated today. Almost none of the currently living plants or animals lived 450 million years ago and they certainly did not evolve or learn to thrive in that type of climate.

    The problem underlying the point here is that they create a strawman of the threat posed by AGW. The threat is not that "the planet will fry." The planet will be just fine if it fries. The threat is that "almost all of the currently living plants and animals are not suited to live and thrive in a frying planet."


    This extent of this portion appears to be, "Yes, increasing CO2 causes global warming [pro-tip: That cuts against your position], but only up to a certain point." I see no attempt at predicting when that point can be reached except to some vague reference of how it used to be thousands of points higher and yet the climate was not...something? All we know about that period from 450 million years ago is that some plants and animals did live and thrive in that time period. It was not any of the currently existing plants and animals. Humans are incredibly sensitive creatures and we evolved in a very specific type of climate. We barely survived the Ice Age when it was -4.5 degrees Celsius cooler than it is currently. Do you really want to live in a climate where it is 22 Degrees Celsius Warmer?

    This portion is not devoted, at all, to debunking CO2 as a cause for global warming or that humans are the cause, but instead attempts to attack the notion that there is no consensus around climate change.

    It is wrong. Your article was written in 2016 and includes the phrase "there are signs that the cosy international consensus could be crumbling."

    This is a study from 2019.

    Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

    Again, this does nothing to address CO2 as a cause of climate change or humans as a cause of climate change. It only posits that, maybe, the Sun will decrease its intensity in the near future and we will go into an ice age.

    And to that, I say, "Please do." Because if the sun decreases its activity and cools down, then humans will have a cushion wherein they can actually start to address climate change. But if it is wrong, if the sun is not going to weaken or if it gets stronger, then we are definitely in trouble.

    But you'll never convince NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, the UN, or any other recognized group of national or international collection of Scientists like the National Academy of Sciences or the European Academy of Arts and Sciences to publicly address the threat of global cooling because, as @Thirty6BelowZero will tell you, they are all collecting that Sweet, Sweet, Air Conditioning Lobbying Money (tm).
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  15. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The world just had it's warmest January since they began keeping weather records.Over 2 degrees higher on average than ever before.
     
    MrTLegal likes this.
  16. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pure comedy. You keep repeating the same nonsense and think you are presenting facts.

    We do know what the climate was like 450 million years ago. We have a good idea what CO2 and O2 levels were like too and what creatures walked the earth.

    It's called Geology.

    BTW, glaciers were being formed and were melting back then too. Because you don't seem to get it. :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  17. BestViewedWithCable

    BestViewedWithCable Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    48,288
    Likes Received:
    6,966
    Trophy Points:
    113


    check this out, great video
     
    SiNNiK and BuckyBadger like this.
  18. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL Exactly as I predicted. You just can't address each of your failures one by one can you.

    Because they don't to support your worthless theory. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

    Because its worthless numbers when you cannot point to overall CO2 levels and run a comparison AND break down human based CO2 production vs natural AND prove CO2 is the primary source of climate change. None of that happened anywhere in those quotes and its critical for your argument. How do you keep missing this?

    Seriously Legal are you really that hard up every single thing has to be explained to you to support your own fake theories?

    Humans increasing CO2 do NOT conclude that is the primary source for climate change Legal. Even they don't claim that. All they can do is claim its a theory or a hunch by selected scientists.

    Let's review again for your worthless theory to be true you must have

    #1 Factual evidence CO2 is the primary source of climate change. You don't.
    #2 Factual evidence humans are the primary source of CO2. And you still don't.

    Therefore legal you cannot prove your worthless theory that humans are the primary source. For God's sake why is such basic sentence structure so hard for you to recognize when your own links do not claim its a fact only "highly likely" without explaining why they can't be sure.

    That should have been the first clue but for you these folks can do no wrong so why ask questions? Why not blindly accept their theories without having all the facts? That's your belief system in a nutshell.

    No Legal. Even they do not say its a fact. They say "highly likely" which does not replace an actual conclusion. You in your zeal think that's good enough because you cannot stand anyone who doesn't worship at the idol of man being the primary source of climate change even when your own articles at best claim its "likely"

    LOL That isn't even a correct analogy because we aren't determining whether something will happen but if something is happening based on a primary factor!

    Jesus Christ you can't even muster up a comparable analogy. A real analogy for what we are actually talking about would be to look at a lawn dying and saying the sun is the primary factor for the grass dying. Unless you can rule out lack of water, pollution, mold, and every other factor that could contribute to a lawn dying your conclusion is worthless.

    This lack of thought on your part is incredibly disturbing when you cannot even get a comparable analogy right when drawing conclusions.
     
    BaghdadBob and BuckyBadger like this.
  19. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still waiting for what? Can't you simply read?

    What a shocker you are dodging the history of the planet and its contribution to factoring climate change. Another perfect example of denying the reality of planet history for idology.

    No Legal. When your worthless thoery is that CO2 is the primary cause of climate change and I can give you actual data in the past it was 18 times higher than the present
    then your theory is completely shot and you don't have the guts to admit it.

    LOL Another false analogy what a shocker. We are talking about CO2 levels you are claiming are the primary source of climate change. If they were 18 times higher than the present no human contribution could possibly be that large making your worthless theory about humans being the primary source of climate change through CO2 worthless but of course like always you will never admit it.

    Again, if you have to use the word "clear," then it is probably not very clear.

    LOL No they are using your worthless claim that an increase in CO2 is the primary source of climate change while you ignore the reality that it has been 12 to 17 times the concentration in the past history of the planet when the temperature was actually cooler.

    Your theory is literally blown apart since CO2 levels have been far higher in the past.

    You just want to run for the hills every time someone points out the reality that CO2 in the present isn't even close to levels of earth's past making your theory its the catalyst for climate change 100% worthless.



    No its pointing out the science community is not in lock step with your worthless theory.

    LOL Once again you can't even read your own article. All it stated was that scientist papers they reviewed (not all scientists Legal if you could read you would know that) conclude that earth has warmed at some point in the last 100 years.

    They do NOT support your worthless conclusion that humans are the primary source of climate change or that CO2 is the primary source of climate change.

    How can you be so easily misled when it takes just a few sentences from your own article to prove that?

    Once again you are caught not reading your own links and ignoring the history of the planet for your failed dogma.

    Face reality Legal. If the Earth's past CO2 levels have been 14 to 17 times higher than they are now and increase by humans that doesn't even cover .1% of that difference cannot be the primary cause for climate change especially when you can't even prove CO2 levels are the primary cause in the first place.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
    BaghdadBob and BuckyBadger like this.
  20. BuckyBadger

    BuckyBadger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    11,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe TLegal has been watching Lord of the Rings and thinks man can form and melt glaciers with the wave of a wand. lol
     
    SiNNiK and guavaball like this.
  21. guavaball

    guavaball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    12,203
    Likes Received:
    8,501
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It has been hard for me to find someone who constantly doesn't read the very links they claim support them over and over again.
     
  22. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What they also don't mention is that "Esperanza Base" is NOT "the entirety of Antarctica".

    The temperature of Esperanza Base says nothing about the temperature of Smyley, for example...

    They falsely equate that one location to ALL of Antarctica.
     
  23. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    69 DEGREES today in Antartica!!!!On February 14.
     
    guavaball likes this.
  24. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you start a discussion with this bit of idiocy, I just decided to stop reading.

    We are done. Go take your complaints to NASA, NOAA, and every other group recognized group of National or International Scientists. I am sure you have much more luck convincing those in the actual big league.
     
  25. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Got a link? No? Then how about you finally answer the questions you keep dodging:

    Why does the fact that glaciers melted millions of years ago mean that humans are incapable of melting glaciers today?

    If you dont want to answer that question, then please answer the following: Do you think it is possible that you will ever be convinced that humans are almost certainly responsible for most of the current warming trend?
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020

Share This Page