Why I stopped debating Climate Science with Science denialists...

I am sure something was farting back then.

 

.....so does Biden......

 

Sure we can.

We directly measure the stratospheric cooling, the increase in downwelling backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas emission bands. There are no natural explanations for such things. They are smoking guns for the human origin of the warming.

Plus, we know the "natural forces" are trying to slowly cool the earth. What we're seeing now is the opposite of the "natural cycle".

Natural cycles have causes. Just saying "It's a natural cycle!" without naming the cause is equivalent to invoking invisible fairy magic. It's what you're doing. It's the opposite of science.

 

Those who can discuss the science, do.

Those who can't, they go off on insane paranoid political rants, which are usually projections of what they want to do themselves.

 

Ahhhhh! Was that an attempt at wit?

 

And can you demonstrate this?

 

I could say “why not isn’t that what the denialists do? “ but that is not what the science does

 

Where did you come up with such a crazy belief?

Needless to say, since you base your religion on such an incorrect belief, you religion leads to very bad outcomes.

Yeah, yeah. You can't debate against what we actually say and believe, so you make up some crazy strawmen that nobody actually believes, and then declare how that makes your opponents crazy. Boring.

Go on. Show us any government that ignores any aspect of flood control except for CO2. If you're not making up a crazy story, that should be easy for you.

 

Okay tell me what part of “global average” is hard to understand?


This is a combo of cherry picking and conspiracy theory

 

Paleoclimate reconstructions are almost always regional. Try again.

 

Scientists are human and do human things. Throwing in "science" does not necessarily make anything true. Not believing everything that someone call science does not make them denialists. They are skeptics and that is one of the fundamental principles of science. Question. Question. Question until it is established science. AGW is far from established science.

 

Your claim is false, and has been thoroughly debunked.

 

The data are the data, and as noted elsewhere paleoclimate reconstructions are nearly always regional.

 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/rm...ged-and-prescribed-fires-reduce-fire-severity

There are less fires because we try to put them all out. Native Americans practiced prescribed burning. Fires were more common, smaller, and less likely to kill trees because they burned cooler and farther below the canopy. Since we reversed the conditions that kept forests healthy they have accumulated excess fuel and now we are paying the price.

Yes, fires are always worse when temperatures are higher and relative humidity is lower. But the main driver of larger, more destructive fires is our mismanagement. Anthropogenic, yes. CO2 AGW driven? Not so much.

We have also changed tree species percentages and distribution by logging. This logging and subsequent effects have disrupted the natural relationship between pine beetles and forests. This has led to more frequent and more severe infestations that now kill whole forests instead of just old unhealthy trees in the past before fire suppression and logging. Again, anthropogenic, but not CO2 driven.

Problems that have root causes that aren’t related to atmospheric CO2 can’t be solved by reducing atmospheric CO2.

 

Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. . . . .
Global trends in wildfire and its impacts ... - Journals
royalsocietypublishing.org
https://royalsocietypublishing.org › doi › rstb.2015.0345


by SH Doerr · 2016 · Cited by 562 — Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have ...

 

That doesn't prove anything. It could be just a coincidence. You guys continue to avoid talking about the fact that we cannot do anything about it, even if it is manmade.

 

Please provide the facts I’ve misrepresented.

You are welcome to present evidence anything I’ve posted is incorrect or not based firmly in evidence itself.


Show me what I’ve pooched for 50 years. Be specific and use evidence instead of more fallacy.

Everything I’ve posted is the conclusions of peer reviewed studies. The critique of the 1985 predictions that were not correct is based on current IPCC scenarios.

You are deflecting by failing to substantiate your argument. I’ve provided data from the IPCC to support my argument. If you have better evidence for warming scenarios than the IPCC please provide it.

But you won’t. Be a you have no evidence. Just fallacy.

 

The weakness of the AGW argument made manifest:

Do We Really Know That Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cause Significant Climate Change?
October 24, 2023/ Francis Menton

• 
  It’s by far the most important scientific question of our age: Do human emissions of CO2 and other such “greenhouse gases” cause significant global warming, aka “climate change”?
  
  
• Based on the belief that an affirmative answer to that question is a universally accepted truth, our government has embarked on a multi-trillion dollar campaign to transform our economy by, among other things, eliminating hydrocarbon fuels from electricity generation (without any demonstrated workable plan for the replacement), outlawing the kinds of vehicles we currently drive, suppressing fossil fuel extraction, banning pipeline construction, making all your appliances work less well, and much more.
  
  
• Express any doubt about the causal connection between human activities and climate change, and you could very well get labeled as a “climate denier,” fired from your academic job, demonetized by Google or Facebook, or even completely ostracized from polite society.
  
  
• But is there actually any real proof of the proposition at issue? In fact, there is not.

READ MORE

 

Peer reviewed studies I’ve posted all over PF. Years of formal education on human physiology. Decades of experience with human and other species physiological responses to different temperatures. Years of formal education on plant physiology. Decades of experience with plant physiological responses to varying temperatures.

Mostly peer reviewed studies though.

You just posted an appeal to the stone fallacy. Neat.

Everything I’ve posted in this thread about warming comes straight out of the IPCC reports.

First use PF quote function and quote me saying governments ignore any aspect of flood control except for CO2.

I have already shown my evidence that the IPCC scenarios are more accurate than those from 1985. If you believe the IPCC is in error and that 1985 level emissions can cause 1000-1200 ppm atmospheric CO2 and several degrees rise in temp Celsius by the year 2100 go ahead and post the evidence that leads you to believe that.

Oh, you won’t. You can’t. Because I’ve posted facts and you are posting nothing but fallacy.

 

"A new study out of Norway is exactly what was needed to shut down the climate alarmists. Its findings show that man has not set fire to his home planet.

Right from the top, in the abstract not 10 lines into the study, the authors get to the point.

“Using theoretical arguments and statistical tests we find,” the researchers say, “that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be strong enough to cause systematic changes in the temperature fluctuations during the last 200 years.”

In other words, our words, the greenhouse effect is so weak that it should be sidelined as an argument. . . . ."


New Study From Norway a Rebuke To Climate Zealots
Issues & Insights



Just-published research Norway's government blows up everything you thought you knew about the climate 'crisis.' Read More

 

Tell me what the actual value for global temperature actually means. What scientific value does it have? Its questionable calculation is laughable.

 

Yes.

https://today.tamu.edu/2021/06/14/a...al-66-million-years-of-carbon-dioxide-levels/

 

Riiiiight
An unpublished “preprint” (no peer review) discussion paper written in Nordic

Says it all really

 

Yeerrsss and this means what, because no one is disputing that CO2 levels have changed in the past

 

Oh! Bless! Another demand for me to spoon feed you

Tell you what - how about you go look it up for yourself and you tell ME