Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Burkey]

So 'facts' that back up your opinion are 'true facts' and those that don't are a conspiracy funded by 'Al Gore facts'. You do know how incredibly silly you sound

It seems you and a certain other well known moron with his 'alternative facts' that change to suit their delusions are pretty similar.

Did it rain or not ?

No, that’s not how it works.
“Facts“ come from media sources and bloggers who would never lie to him in order to further the business interests of the owners.

Scientists across the globe however, are all in on a conspiracy that was designed to oppress the people.
It all started in 1896. That’s when the conspiracy was first invented by Svante Arrhenius. As a physicist and Nobel prize winner, he didn‘t even need all those fancy equations and experiments to prove his point.

You can actually see the depth of the research our mate has done on the matter.
Gems like the atmosphere of Mars and water vapour as a primary driver of climate change clearly highlight the level of scrutiny he’s applied to the claims being made, and a broader understanding of science in general.

You have much to learn.

Gotta hand it to Arrenhius though. What a visionary he was to predict that most people would be travelling by motor vehicle many years after his scam was unleashed.
Karl Benz had applied for his patent on a vehicle powered by a gasoline engine only ten years earlier.

Good on Arrhenius for getting the conspiracy started nice and early, so that we could still be having this debate more than a century later.

Sponsored

 

[Reddirocket27]

No, I understood your point quite well.
The problem is, you’re doing it backwards. You’re trying to pretend that we’ve always understood the relationship between CO2 and global temp and that the ”geocentrists” are going to overturn the “accepted idea”.

For all but the last fraction of human history, we didn’t have a clue about any of this. The discovery is the same as Galileo’s discovery. It overturns what was assumed (without evidence).

Even when presented with the evidence, you continue to push back against it, just like the church did.

People didn’t understand the truth. Some were content in their ignorance, others asked questions about how the world works, did investigation and revealed answers to the questions that the people before them hadn’t even bothered to ask.

I see one guy here who is particularly averse to asking questions. He also keeps concluding that causes are “natural” (As if to infer that supernatural causes exist?) He would make for a terrible scientist.

”Why is the sky blue?”
”Oh man, that’s just natural”

”Why does it rain?”
”Dude, it’s all just part of the natural cycle”

SMH

This. There's no way to know, specific and repeatable CO2 levels from anything older than maybe 100 years.

 

[Gregs24]

This. There's no way to know, specific and repeatable CO2 levels from anything older than maybe 100 years.

Firstly, I don't think you understand irony!

Secondly, there are specific and repeatable CO2 level data from ice cores going back around 800,000 years. Lots of data here that will confirm and answer many of the questions and arguments that some on here don't want to hear or ask.

Ice core basics (antarcticglaciers.org)

Climate Change (antarcticglaciers.org)

 

[Burkey]

This. There's no way to know, specific and repeatable CO2 levels from anything older than maybe 100 years.

Erm..,,scientists will disagree with you. And, they
have the evidence. Where is your evidence that it can’t be done?

 

[Burkey]

Firstly, I don't think you understand irony!

Secondly, there are specific and repeatable CO2 level data from ice cores going back around 800,000 years. Lots of data here that will confirm and answer many of the questions and arguments that some on here don't want to hear or ask.

Ice core basics (antarcticglaciers.org)

Climate Change (antarcticglaciers.org)

Probably because learning new concepts is hard. Much easer to just stick to what you already believe. Doesn’t even require any knowledge whatsoever.

 

[CJJon]

It only goes back to 1880 and stops at 2000. That is too small of a sample.

Crichton, in his book, explained this.

Good grief...

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/crichton-thriller-state-fear

Crichton was a scientific fraud and a science fiction writer (a good one).

Do you not see how ridiculous it is that you cite a book written by a science fiction writer? Do you know that the book has been thoroughly debunked by legit experts in the field?

...or do you also think that dinosaurs can be cloned by DNA found in a mosquito trapped in amber?

 

[CJJon]

Read the book, he started out trying to prove it was real and came up with the opposite.

Bullshit. Do you really think he was actually starting out to write a book that proves what has already been proved? Does that sound like a fascinating read to you? You think that would make the best sellers list? LMAO

He knew full well what he was doing from chapter one and only the gullible would think otherwise.

 

[sk47]

This. There's no way to know, specific and repeatable CO2 levels from anything older than maybe 100 years.

Hello; I do not recall you posting on this thread. If you have I forgot. But if you are new to the thread let me explain the treatment you will receive for daring to post something three of the common posters do not like.
They will use various forms of put downs against you. They will claim you do not understand science and/or do not have the smarts to understand science.
If you bother to try to discuss points with them they will rarely actually engage in a worth wile discussion. Lots of links will be thrown at you.
It is very likely a statement or comment you make will be twisted into a very different direction than you intend.

So let me respond to your post in my manner. The very best data is gotten from direct measurement in real time. The value of the data depends on the instrument used and the skill of the person using the instrument. We people have had good instruments for a while. Not sure from memory when all instruments became standardized to the point people anywhere in the world can have faith in some other persons data. It has been a while. Maybe in a big stretch 300 years for a few instruments such as telescopes, but much more recent to have the kind of standards needed. Anyway much will depend on how a person looks at it. So your comment of 100 years is reasonable when talking about direct measures of data, at least to me.

That data can be had for older time periods is also correct. This is more indirect data. Tree rings and ice cores may be among the better sources for the more recent times. When you go back beyond the ice cores the data can have lots of gaps. By gaps I mean perhaps hundreds or thousands of years between data points. Enough time to pretty much hide the entire modern era in some cases.

Anyway if you are new to the thread, welcome. Some of us will be civil.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Afraid you missed the point or chose to act so. Of course the authorities of that time are not quite the same as today.
Another analogy I like to use is when someone tries to tell me the 2nd amendment of the USA means we should only be allowed single shot muzzle loaders since that was what the founding fathers had. I contend that if modern weapons had been around they would have had them. They had the most high tech available for the time.

My point was that the majority in charge had a view they favored. It just also happened it was a time when religion and government were pretty much the same thing. So yes any authority of the time had a religion component.
I have seen and read of how in todays setups some figure a modification of what is called "science" has become a belief system of sorts, but that was not my point either.

Anyway the point I was making is the truth does not necessarily lie in a consensus. It can if the consensus is about the truth. Truth can also be had by an individual with the correct idea today just as a very few with telescopes many years ago. I am not arrogant enough to think I can personally outdo a slew of paid scientists. I can look thru the literature and published data and see for myself. I use to be a decent shade tree mechanic partly because I could figure out a mechanical system. Not so good at the modern stuff, but I am still learning.

I just want to point out that you never really miss an opportunity to take a slight jab at "the other side".

"...or chose to act so."

I stopped reading a few words after so there might be a few more subtle pokes that I don't care to read.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; I do not recall you posting on this thread. If you have I forgot. But if you are new to the thread let me explain the treatment you will receive for daring to post something three of the common posters do not like.
They will use various forms of put downs against you. They will claim you do not understand science and/or do not have the smarts to understand science.
If you bother to try to discuss points with them they will rarely actually engage in a worth wile discussion. Lots of links will be thrown at you.
It is very likely a statement or comment you make will be twisted into a very different direction than you intend.

So let me respond to your post in my manner. The very best data is gotten from direct measurement in real time. The value of the data depends on the instrument used and the skill of the person using the instrument. We people have had good instruments for a while. Not sure from memory when all instruments became standardized to the point people anywhere in the world can have faith in some other persons data. It has been a while. Maybe in a big stretch 300 years for a few instruments such as telescopes, but much more recent to have the kind of standards needed. Anyway much will depend on how a person looks at it. So your comment of 100 years is reasonable when talking about direct measures of data, at least to me.

That data can be had for older time periods is also correct. This is more indirect data. Tree rings and ice cores may be among the better sources for the more recent times. When you go back beyond the ice cores the data can have lots of gaps. By gaps I mean perhaps hundreds or thousands of years between data points. Enough time to pretty much hide the entire modern era in some cases.

Anyway if you are new to the thread, welcome. Some of us will be civil.

More passive aggressive nonsense.

 

[Reddirocket27]

186 pages of nonsense. Every automotive manufacturer is going electric, and quickly. The sooner you understand this, the sooner you'll live a happier life. Namaste'.

 

[Reddirocket27]

Erm..,,scientists will disagree with you. And, they
have the evidence. Where is your evidence that it can’t be done?

Their evidence is what, carbon dating? No living human is more than 125ish years old, and factual historical evidence comes from written observations. As we know from the bible, the way something is documented doesn't mean it's factual. ;-)

 

[CJJon]

Their evidence is what, carbon dating? No living human is more than 125ish years old, and factual historical evidence comes from written observations. As we know from the bible, the way something is documented doesn't mean it's factual. ;-)

This is nonsensical.

 

[Reddirocket27]

This is nonsensical.

So is the bible, but here we are.

 

[CJJon]

So is the bible, but here we are.

Are you equating bible stories with the currently accepted evidence regards climate change?

Sponsored