Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Rejected by who, exactly? Who is it that rejected the theory?

The theory was actually accepted by the 1860s, they simply had no explanation for it. But by that time they already understood that the planet was constantly evolving, with marine fossil beds being found at altitudes over a mile high in mountain ranges. And the strata of the Grand Canyon, showing multiple different environments having existed in Arizona in eons past.

You are seriously deluded if you think that the concept was "rejected".

Hell, the first proposal of "Gondwana" dates all the way back to 1885, and the Tethys ocean was named in 1893. With geologists actively refuting the claims of mathematicians like Lord Kelvin. Claiming the planet was at least billions of years old, as opposed to the claims of Lord Kelvin based on thermodynamics of cooling that the planet was less than 10 million years old.

So tell us, who exactly "rejected" continental drift? Other than those like Lord Kelvin, who might as well be a Young Earth Creationist when all things are considered.

But if you want to be technical, what was rejected early on was yet another theory of "Continental Drift" that had no real instigation, cause, or driving force. That was by Alfred Wegener in 1912. He proposed that they simply "creeped" on their own, and then would randomly drift apart.

Yes, geologists rejected that because it was no different than what they had before, nothing driving it other than they moved on their own. They already knew that the continents moved, but wanted an explanation as to how and why. That would not come until the 1950s with the discovery of the undersea ridged in the Atlantic and Pacific, and realizing that there were plates involved, that were growing and being subducted under each other.

 

This is now your favorite way of crying and running away, we see, becaues you can't debate the sceince. Yes, you are making that very, very obvious.

So, what's next, asking for references about the round earth? That's essentially what you're doing. Pardon us for knowing the basics that you don't know.

There is the credibility matter. We've shown for many years we can always back up what we say, while deniers have diplayed am equally long history of parroting whatever fraud they here on the mainstream media, or what they get from TheParty. We look at independent science, they only look at political spin.

But since you asked...



https://skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

My guess is that you'll now run by attacking the source, ignoring the fact that they source all of their data to peer-reviewed papers.[/QUOTE]

 

The geology community. Wegener's theory was rejected because he had no mechanism for continents plowering through the mantle.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Wegener
---
Wegener’s theory of continental drift won some adherents in the ensuing decade, but his postulations of the driving forces behind the continents’ movement seemed implausible. By 1930 his theory had been rejected by most geologists, and it sank into obscurity for the next few decades, only to be resurrected as part of the theory of plate tectonics during the 1960s.
---

The other stuff you described? Not the theory of continental drift.

 

And what exactly are you even trying to claim by vomiting up this image?

That cosmic rays are causing the warming?

This is what I mean, you are simply vomiting up stuff and not actually proposing anything. You are simply screaming at the clouds.

 

Because that was already known. Even he admitted he did not create the theory, and he referenced multiple geologists in past decades and centuries that had observed the exact same thing.

He simply proposed that they crept on their own, with no other outside force driving them. That is what was rejected, not that they drifted at all, that was already accepted. And his postulations were proven wrong, that they did not simply "creep" but plate tectonics in action.

Because Wegener did not postulate plate tectonics at all, nor the driving force behind it. But he did not create the belief the planet and continents changed and moved, he simply popularized it. And his really simple explanation was wrong and that is what was rejected. That the continents simply moved, like birds or fish migrating.

You really don't seem to understand this much at all, do you?

And funny, I even explicitly referenced Wegener and why he was rejected. Yet you still bring it up yet again.

 

I gave you the reference. I can give you a different one, just to see what excuse you use to deny it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png



You deny such data, so you are correctly classified as a "denier".

Out of pity, I ignored that post of yours, because it was so dang stupid. You claimed to have busted me, even though the graph showed I was correct. You have this hilarious habit of faceplanting and declaring victory.

Why do you think those never happened? You're sounding crazier and crazier.

I get it. You're helpless when it comes to debating what we actually say and the actual data, and you know it, so you see "make crap up" as being your only viable alternative. Lord knows you're not allowed to be honest. Your religion forbids that.

I just did. You contantly deny basic reality. It's not complicated.

I do understand your anger. I contradicted your cult's sacred scriptures, and that enrages you, so you're declaring jihad.

It comes down to this -- the actual science backs us up and contradicts you. No matter how angry you get, no matter what sleaze you pull, no matter how many conspiracy cranks you cite, that won't change.

 

Check it out. You're so addled by rage, and you've been personally attacking me so often, you've forgotten what you just posted. Yeah, that makes you look good.

Post #2041 here. You said me not specifically citing it meant I was being dishonest. So I cited it.

So, show some class. Admit I was right and apologize.

That the cosmic ray theory of climate is wrong, being how that theory says increasing cosmic rays should decrease temperature. The chart showed how cosmic rays are increasing, and temperature is increasing, so the theory is wrong.

That's what was being talked about, if you had cared to read it. I was discussing the science. You jumped into to deflect from the science discussion with a personal attack.

You're now focusing entirely on attacking me, and deliberately disrupting discussions of the topic to do so. That puts you in the "troll" category.

 

In order to pull of the condescending act, you have to not be clueless.

That's why you fail so hilariously when you try.

Now, I can pull it off, because I'm really smart.

Look up Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, and try to understand how it applies to you.

 

It’s absolutely true. No warming in the last eight years.

 

500 billion tons of CO2 (not to mention 75 billion tons of methane) into the atmosphere but no warming? According to WRM every molecule of CO2 resulted in incremental warming. Please explain.

 

As I expected, your'e trying to peddle the fudgy-fake satellite model, and discarding the actual temperature data, something that only a pseudoscience devotee would do.

Meanwhile, back in reality ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2023/10/03/september-global-temperature-record-climate/
---
September shattered global heat record — and by a record margin
Temperatures around the world last month were at levels closer to normal for July
---

 

Satellite data is the only reliable way to measure global temperatures. That’s basic stuff. Most of the actual temperature data is corrupted by heat island effects. Regardless using a few thousand temperature sensors and calculating a global average temperature is quite ridiculous.

 

This is the most silly claim someone could make.

China is hugely affected by their pollution. Just look at their cities.

They are rapidly ending the sales of ICE vehicles (like, most gone by the end of the year). They own more clean energy patents than any other country. The manufacture, export and install more clean energy technology than any other country.

What are WE doing??

How can we claim any kind of leadership when we're one of the top per-capita emitters of greenhouse gas?

The years 2016, 2020, 2019, 2017, 2015 & 2022 tied, 2018 & 2021 tied
are the hottest years on record.

2023 is considered to have an 80% lock on being the hottest on record.

 

The Chinese Communist Party has a 100 year plan for global domination. And they are implementing this plan through the use of fossil fuels and selling wind and solar equipment to the western democracies to weaken their economies. You make my point.

The Chinese Communist Party doesn’t care about pollution. And they don’t care about the human rights of individuals. They care about themselves and their plan. Individuals rights are subordinate to their concepts of social Justice/socialism with Chinese characteristics.

China will have no internal combustion engines by the end of the year?

Half of the previous 9 warm periods in the Holocene were warmer than the current global warm period. And no warming in the last 8 years.

Our leadership should be concerned with the well being of the citizens of the United States. Imposing policies which increase the price of fuel and electricity are regressive - low income people and families are most effective. In Germany low income people must decide whether yhey will heat their homes in the winter.

 

That's a lunatic claim.

If I want to know the temperature at the surface next to me, I use an amazing device called a "thermometer", placed at the surface next to me.

What I don't do is measure microwave emissions from across the whole troposphere, and then run it through a convouted model that's chock full o' fudge factors.

That's what you do, so you're not taken seriously. You deliberately throw out the good data and substitute in garbage data, which is a tactic of the pseudoscience fanatic.

Our days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle.

Those who can debate science, do. You can't, so you rely on crazy political rants.

 

“Thermometers” scattered randomly around the globe in urban heat islands is a ridiculous way to attempt to determine a global average temperature (whatever that actually means).

Satellites using high tech methods and instrumentation provide much better coverage and much better accuracy.

The false global warming catastrophic meme is being exploited by the Chinese Communist Party. That’s very clear. And that fact is part of the global warming story.

 

No, you are just spewing absurd and disingenuous personal attacks again.

Right. But that tells you nothing about the temperature anywhere else, let alone everywhere else.

Basic stuff that you consistently get wrong.

You do if you want to know the temperature of the whole troposphere and not just the surface next to you.

Basic stuff that you consistently get wrong.

All competent and honest climate scientists take the satellite temperature data more seriously than the thoroughly contaminated, fudged, biased, modeled, adjusted, interpolated, and falsified garbage surface instrument data.

You deliberately throw out the good data and substitute in garbage data, which is a tactic of the pseudoscience fanatic.

Our days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle.

Those who can debate science, do. You can't, so you rely on crazy personal attacks, fallacies, gaslighting, scaremongering, and nonscience.

 

Ah, the best satellite temperature record agrees that September 2023 was the hottest month on record:

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

The big irony here is that the CO2 narrative, which was on the verge of being conclusively debunked, has been temporarily resuscitated by one of the most dramatic and unexpected increases in solar activity on record.

 

Yeah, you and Trump...

 

Even the Chinese admit CO2 isn’t the main priority. They are ending up with coal powered automobiles basically.

 

Good, good, you finally admitted it's not the surface temperature, but a useless statistic instead.

You do understand that the humans live ON THE SURFACE, and not spread evenly across the troposphere, right?

I also see you had no problem with the multiple fudge factors in your fudgy satellite model. You like your data dripping with tasty fudge.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Just stop. You're killing me. There are no climate scientists of the un-paid-off-sort who pay any attention to the fudgy satellite models.

 

The adjusted data show _less_ warming. And so faceplants your kook conspiracy theory.

And by demanding no adjustments, you're demanding that known errors not be corrected for, which is fraud on your part.

 

Adjusted by whom and by what method. The raw data is no longer available because it’s been manipulated so much.

But regardless attempting to calculate a global average temperature from the mish mash of global thermometers is ridiculous. When I first started educating myself about global warming I couldn’t believe the methodology. And yet very few people ask questions. And where are the error bands on these thermometer temperature measurement systems? And no the error band is not the accuracy specification of the individual temperature transducer.

 

China has very little petroleum but lots of coal. And they refuse to become dependent on OPEC so, as you point out, are using coal fired automobiles.

BTW I read an analysis the other day that concluded the coal is better than natural gas because natural gas production releases methane into the atmosphere?? Maybe the alarmists will start pushing coal?

 

Wind, hydro, solar, nuclear and gas production of electricity have all been advancing in China, adding to about 40% of China's total electricity production. That is a MAJOR change since 2010.

Today, coal is at about 60% and shrinking. Obviously, they need to be shrinking their use of coal.

China is the major exporter of clean energy products. They also lead in their domestic installation of clean energy. As the world leader in clean energy, China's impact is felt around the world as well as at home.

Like the USA, China can not sacrifice their economy for clean energy progress.

Their use of coal is NOT an excuse for the US to fail at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.