- Joined
- Jul 24, 2023
- Messages
- 1,157
- Reaction score
- 565
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Hop Ritter is just pointing out the OP quoted a 27 year old study.Based on science or popularity?
Hop Ritter is just pointing out the OP quoted a 27 year old study.Based on science or popularity?
He seems like a climate doomsday believer. I've been told way too many lives to ever believe in that horseshit ever again.Hop Ritter is just pointing out the OP quoted a 27 year old study.
Follow the Science?
This white paper from the Library of Science shows that not all scientists are “all in” on global warming.
Much like many were not “all in” regarding Covid.
Global warming is nothing more than arm waving fear peddling. It’s about control which is an important objective among cults.
I found this quote to be significant
“Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do.”
———————————-
Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening - PMC
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I know nothing of the sort, you have not supported your claim!This is a lie. As you know.
Why haven’t you published your paper yet, disproving the entire scientific community? You keep running from this question for some reason![]()
That’s a lieI know nothing of the sort,
That’s a lie as well.you have not supported your claim!
At some point in time, surely not in our lifetimes. Natural warming and cooling trends take hundreds of years to develop and wane.
The most recent significant cooling trend was the Younger Dryas, began around 12,800 years ago and ended around 11,700 years ago.
It was accompanied by glacier advance and lowering of the regional snow line, leaving behind a layer of rock debris dated to this period of cooling.
Whether or not Earth will undergo another natural cooling trend like Dryas is doubtful IMO.
In the early days of our star, the sun was much cooler. At one point Venus was thought have oceans and a atmosphere much like ours that lasted for millions of years.
Now its about 900 degrees on the surface composed of 97% CO2 with a little bit of Nitrogen mixed in. Warming all but destroyed the once vibrant planet.
How would you know if something were disproved, if you cannot define the initial claim?That’s a lie
That’s a lie as well.
Why haven’t you published your paper yet, disproving the entire scientific community? You keep running from this question for some reason![]()
Well, curious about this "study" I decided to do some fact-checking...Follow the Science?
This white paper from the Library of Science shows that not all scientists are “all in” on global warming...
Then the second denialist is quoted from a Wall Street Journal article that is later corrected in another Wall Street Journal article.Patrick Michaels, currently the Director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Koch-founded and funded Cato Institute, has built a career curating doubt about climate change science and its impact on our environment. His contributions as an ‘expert’ to the multi-pronged strategy to stall action on climate change have been subsidized for decades by the industries that have the most to lose from any such action.
And then the last quote and whole study is directly refuted by another study published in the same publication as the original study was published in:Frederick Seitz's June 12 editorial-page piece"A Major Deception on 'Global Warming' '' wrongly accuses both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeand a member of the climate science community of violation of procedure and deception. Not only does he thereby demonstrate ignorance of both the topic and the IPCC process, but his actions reflect an apparent attempt to divert attention away from the scientific evidence of a human effect on global climate by attacking the scientists concerned with investigating that issue.
It looks to me like VySky has pushed a bunch of denialist lies and misinformation.Majority view of climate scientists is that global warming is indeed happening
Editor—Gardner states that the scientific basis of climate change is uncertain and that there are major differences of opinion among climatologists...
...The evidence that Gardner quoted against climate change—that satellite data have shown 0.13°C global cooling between 1979 and 1994 and that the Arctic has been cooling—is mistaken. Satellite measurements are in good agreement with records of surface temperature for 1979-94.3...
Logical fallacy. You are labeling him. Obstrasizing him. Blacklisting him. This is exactly what I have been saying. Anyone who does not tow the propaganda of the AGW cult it tossed out of consideration.UWell, curious about this "study" I decided to do some fact-checking...
The first person that Gardner cites to refute that “virtually all scientists agree that global warming is happening.” is from a well-known climate change denialist who has made a career of pushing denialist lies and misinformation.
Then the second denialist is quoted from a Wall Street Journal article that is later corrected in another Wall Street Journal article.
He said she said logic. How stupid...And then the last quote and whole study is directly refuted by another study published in the same publication as the original study was published in:
Will you ever stop your denial of science or is your faith in the cult absolute?It looks to me like VySky has pushed a bunch of denialist lies and misinformation.
No surprise there.
Hey, Vy... where did you find this BS?
But you know I already have.How would you know if something were disproved, if you cannot define the initial claim?
Not true, early on the sun was much cooler, longer days have been debunked as to Venus's earlier life and its possible habitability. As to cooling and warming cycles, early on Earth didn't have 8.3 billion humans wrecking havoc on the planet. 10 billion by 2050I don’t think Venus was ever a vibrant planet, its day is too long! Imagine for a second how hot the daytime temperatures would be on Earth if the day was 5832 hours long? Add in that Venus gets a lot more sunlight, and it was always hot, perhaps not as hot as it is now, but much warmer than what Earth has the potential to become.
As for the glacial periods, earth tends to spend about 80,000 of each 100,000 years in a cold cycle, this is a pattern that has repeated for close to a million years, and human activity is unlikely to alter that pattern.
Venus may have had a shallow liquid-water ocean and habitable surface temperatures for up to 2 billion years of its early history, according to computer modeling of the planet’s ancient climate by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
Previous studies have shown that how fast a planet spins on its axis affects whether it has a habitable climate. A day on Venus is 117 Earth days. Until recently, it was assumed that a thick atmosphere like that of modern Venus was required for the planet to have today’s slow rotation rate. However, newer research has shown that a thin atmosphere like that of modern Earth could have produced the same result. That means an ancient Venus with an Earth-like atmosphere could have had the same rotation rate it has today.
The few scientist who disagree are usually paid by the "Drill baby drill" crowd.As usual, VySky didn’t do any background checking for his posted article. Ummm—Gregory Gardener is a “General Practioner”. In other words, he’s and has no background in climate change research. Just another standard denier, and nothing else. The claims that he makes in those couple of paragraphs are extremely misleading. This is just another “ho-hum”. Scammers like Gardener throw out a net for the bottom feeders, and it seems to work quite well.
Venus gets about twice the solar energy as the earth. The sun would have had to be vastly cooler for Venus to be in the Goldilocks Zone.Not true, early on the sun was much cooler, longer days have been debunked as to Venus's earlier life and its possible habitability.
We are less significant than insects in many ways.As to cooling and warming cycles, early on Earth didn't have 8.3 billion humans wrecking havoc on the planet. 10 billion by 2050
The paper the article refers to only models that is was possible. It does not say it was likely habitable. In their model, values of water and other components were chosen to make it possible. The likelihood of it actually being habitual is very slim.![]()
NASA Climate Modeling Suggests Venus May Have Been Habitable - NASA
Venus may have had a shallow liquid-water ocean and habitable surface temperatures for up to 2 billion years of its early history, according to computerwww.nasa.gov
I know this is a poor tactic of yours, to claim you have already done something you have not!But you know I already have.
Why haven’t you published your paper yet, disproving the entire scientific community? You keep running from this question for some reason![]()
Do you think Venus’s rotation has changed significantly? The early sun may have been cooler, but enough to compensate for a 10 month day?Not true, early on the sun was much cooler, longer days have been debunked as to Venus's earlier life and its possible habitability. As to cooling and warming cycles, early on Earth didn't have 8.3 billion humans wrecking havoc on the planet. 10 billion by 2050
![]()
NASA Climate Modeling Suggests Venus May Have Been Habitable - NASA
Venus may have had a shallow liquid-water ocean and habitable surface temperatures for up to 2 billion years of its early history, according to computerwww.nasa.gov
But you know that I have.I know this is a poor tactic of yours, to claim you have already done something you have not!
Oh, for God's sake... when are you going to quit being a complete hypocrite? You do far worse when you automatically disregard NASA articles, Wikipedia articles, and anything not written by a scientist. You have even taken to disregarding IPCC reports even though you know everything in them is based on science and written by scientists. Hell... you disregard anything that doesn't say what you want it to say.Logical fallacy. You are labeling him. Obstrasizing him. Blacklisting him. This is exactly what I have been saying. Anyone who does not tow the propaganda of the AGW cult it tossed out of consideration.
Scientific bigoty. Are you a proud denier of science because you throw out cobsideration of other work?
Thow out the harasy to your dogma?
Nope! Not stupid. It is 3 denialists pushing lies and misinformation Vs a whole bunch of climate scientists using real science.He said she said logic. How stupid...
My faith is in the science. It is you denialists who have joined a cult.Will you ever stop your denial of science or is your faith in the cult absolute?
Will you ever stop your denial of science or is your faith in the cult absolute?
And yet you can’t support your claim!But you know that I have.
Why haven’t you published your paper yet, disproving the entire scientific community? You keep running from this question for some reason![]()
Why lie? You know I have.And yet you can’t support your claim!
Have what?Why lie? You know I have.
Why haven’t you published your paper yet, disproving the entire scientific community? You keep running from this question for some reason![]()
Proven your position wrong with citation.Have what?