• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We're Screwed: 11,000 Years' Worth of Climate Data Prove It

If you had read the empirical evidence of AGW, you would see that is what they have done.

This discourse serves little further purpose when you dont even understand what does or does not represent empirical evidence.

1 + 1 = 2 This is empirical evidence as it is a calculable result because the variables are known

1+ Guesswork = ? this is not empirical evidence because the correct values for the variables are not known and hence the correct answer cannot be established

Now imagine that sort of guesswork being inputted for potentially thousands of such variables including most of the major ones. How would you be able to confirm your answer was correct ?

I cant really make it any simpler than that for you
 
And its just those sort of paleoclimatic analysies from all over the world that continally support the skeptic position as you have been shown countless times now.

CO2 Science


If it were science, it would be published in a scientific journal, not a political blog. Please try again!
 
This discourse serves little further purpose when you dont even understand what does or does not represent empirical evidence.

1 + 1 = 2 This is empirical evidence as it is a calculable result because the variables are known

1+ Guesswork = ? this is not empirical evidence because the correct values for the variables are not known and hence the correct answer cannot be established

Now imagine that sort of guesswork being inputted for potentially thousands of such variables including most of the major ones. How would you be able to confirm your answer was correct ?

I cant really make it any simpler than that for you



In short, you don't consider peer-reviewed scientific theory to be real science, right?
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but the amount of carbon we're digging up and burning into the atmosphere is pretty intuitively astronomical. Think of all combustion engines worldwide and how much weight is moved around and power is generated by burning carbon-based fuels. It's astronomical. It's true the climate shifted a lot when volcanic activity on Earth was spewing CO2 into the atmosphere like crazy, but now it's not. WE are.

One would have to outright balk at the reliability of Antarctic ice core CO2 measures to be able to ignore the likelihood that continued human combustion of carbon eventually triggers the same sorts of climatic anomalies that the Earth saw when volcanic activity was releasing similar (or even less) CO2 than we are now.
 
Yeah, it's all made up. A liberal conspiracy designed to undermine conservative values. It's all part of Algore's plan to grab your guns burn your bibles. :roll:
Well, according to you guys the world ended last week. So...yeah, you're full of ****. That's all there is to it You're full of ****.
 
Last edited:
If it were science, it would be published in a scientific journal, not a political blog. Please try again!

This is ultimately pointless given you wont actually read what presented to you :2brickwal This had a large number of published Peer review studies from around the globe sublinked within it showing previous earlier warming periods ,but you were so busy trying to garner smartie points waving your flag you didnt even bother checking them.

I've allowed you to waste far too much of my time already here and I really should have known better by now :doh :bolt
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but the amount of carbon we're digging up and burning into the atmosphere is pretty intuitively astronomical. Think of all combustion engines worldwide and how much weight is moved around and power is generated by burning carbon-based fuels. It's astronomical. It's true the climate shifted a lot when volcanic activity on Earth was spewing CO2 into the atmosphere like crazy, but now it's not. WE are.

One would have to outright balk at the reliability of Antarctic ice core CO2 measures to be able to ignore the likelihood that continued human combustion of carbon eventually triggers the same sorts of climatic anomalies that the Earth saw when volcanic activity was releasing similar (or even less) CO2 than we are now.


Exactly! Excellent reasoning!

"For numerous reasons, volcanologists have been interested in CO2 release from volcanoes for years and have been working to improve estimates on the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere and oceans by volcanic processes.

Carbon dioxide is released when magma rises from the depths of the Earth on its way to the surface. Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. Actively erupting volcanoes release much more CO2 than sleeping ones do.

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. "

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?
 
I haven't read the whole thread, but the amount of carbon we're digging up and burning into the atmosphere is pretty intuitively astronomical. Think of all combustion engines worldwide and how much weight is moved around and power is generated by burning carbon-based fuels. It's astronomical. It's true the climate shifted a lot when volcanic activity on Earth was spewing CO2 into the atmosphere like crazy, but now it's not. WE are.

One would have to outright balk at the reliability of Antarctic ice core CO2 measures to be able to ignore the likelihood that continued human combustion of carbon eventually triggers the same sorts of climatic anomalies that the Earth saw when volcanic activity was releasing similar (or even less) CO2 than we are now.

Our annual emissions are dwarfed by those of nature and represent a minute fraction in comparison. To put them into proper context you might find this interesting .

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

You will find a list of linked Peer reviewed citations for this data at the foot of the page
 
Last edited:
Our annual emissions are dwarfed by those of nature and represent a minute fraction in comparison. To put them into proper context you might find this interesting .

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

You will find a list of linked Peer reviewed citations for this data at the foot of the page


This was debunked in 2009

The skeptic argument - "Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”


What the science says -

"The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any."



"Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2."

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
 
Last edited:
A mass of data cited from multiple Peer reviews debunked (!) by the subjective interpretations of a 'cartoonists' blog . Well theres no arguing with that sort of intellectual integrity ! :lamo
 
Well, according to you guys the world ended last week. So...yeah, you're full of ****. That's all there is to it You're full of ****.

Hmm. One of the three stages of truth denial is anger. You sound angry.
 
Last edited:
Feel free to show where the figures cited from those studies were misquoted and how does an otherwise totally irrelevant study on Antarctica supposedly 'debunk' even one of them ? :bs


It isn't a problem of wrong figures, the problem are the factors your blogger friend ignored. As stated above, the blogger notes that man adds CO2 to to the natural balance but neglects to factor in that man does not remove a similar amount as does nature, which has created the overload of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that are warming the planet.

"Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)."

This is why your blogger's opinion is published in a political internet blog, rather than in a scientific journal. Its crap that no scientific journal would publish.
 
This is why your blogger's opinion is published in a political internet blog, rather than in a scientific journal. Its crap that no scientific journal would publish.

But it has used published data and you have failed to point out where it was misquoted so stop wasting my time :bs
 
Last edited:
But it has used published data and you have failed to point out where it was misquoted so stop wasting my time :bs


So in the science denier world, it is valid to leave out part of the equation as long as the part you do include is using valid numbers?

That's what I thought!
 
So in the science denier world, it is valid to leave out part of the equation as long as the part you do include is using valid numbers?

That's what I thought!

And of course your self righteous theological zealotry allows you to evade any pertinent scientific data that might challenge your mindset no matter how well qualified it may be. Any crackbrained evasion will do. How ironic that you then try to smear me with the 'science denier' tag given how much of it you seem so happy to dismiss out of hand .... moving on :beatdeadhorse
 
And of course your self righteous theological zealotry allows you to evade any pertinent scientific data that might challenge your mindset no matter how well qualified it may be. Any crackbrained evasion will do. How ironic that you then try to smear me with the 'science denier' tag given how much of it you seem so happy to dismiss out of hand .... moving on :beatdeadhorse

You may as well move on, you are not convincing anyone that everyone but the right wing bloggers are in on a worldwide conspiracy.
 
You may as well move on, you are not convincing anyone that everyone but the right wing bloggers are in on a worldwide conspiracy.
Only those watching Fox News are truly informed. ;)
 
Only those watching Fox News are truly informed. ;)

And of course everyone on this forum must automatically be an American that will care about what one of your media outlets say must'nt they ? :roll: :2ukflag:
 
Contrary to the disinformation subsequently disseminated about this by modern day eco theologians trying to paper it over. The 70s ice age scare was a big deal at the time and not just with the media but academia too. Its amazing how quickly people forget isnt it ?

Don’t Miss it! Climate Depot’s Factsheet on 1970s Coming ‘Ice Age’ Claims | Climate Depot

The media were every bit as disinformative and hysterically doom laden as they are today too.

Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

The big difference this time is the enormous effort being expended in the quest to empty our pockets over this. Alarmism is obviously easier to spread in todays modern information age facilitating such efforts enormously :(

seriously flogger ....

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

do you know what is meant by the following?

conjecture
little support in the scientific community
not accurately reflect the scientific understanding
current scientific opinion
 
And of course everyone on this forum must automatically be an American that will care about what one of your media outlets say must'nt they ? :roll: :2ukflag:

so you are a forelock tugging follower of Lord Monckton?
 
seriously flogger ....



Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

do you know what is meant by the following?

conjecture
little support in the scientific community
not accurately reflect the scientific understanding
current scientific opinion

Yes seriously

Good grief Wikipedia entries can be submitted or edited by anyone its hardly some guarantee of accuracy is it ? :roll:

I provided two large resources containing multiple links and even Peer review studies from the period. I also vividly remember the era too and the hysteria was very real at the time. I particularly liked the Youtube sub link showing the alarmist climatologist Dr Steven Shneider wringing his hands about how to avert the coming ice age in 1978 only to see him doing the same again about mankinds culpability for global warming in 2008. I guess the new bandwagon looked too lucrative for him not to jump ship :lol:

I realise modern day global warming hysterics would love to sweep this rather inconveniently embarrassing era under the carpet like it never happened , but the evidence is there for all to see that it did
 
Last edited:
seriously flogger ....



Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

do you know what is meant by the following?

conjecture
little support in the scientific community
not accurately reflect the scientific understanding
current scientific opinion



I bet he doesn't have a clue how hilarious it is that he's trying to portray conjecture by a few in the 70's as scientific consensus, while simultaneously denying the actual scientific consensus of today, nor how much that exposes him as science denier.
 
Back
Top Bottom