sunfish

CountryBoy1981

Funkthulhu

__________________
"Ph'nglui musaglw'nanna Funkthulhu R'Omahaea wgah'basjoo fhtagn"
"In his house at Omaha, dread Funkthulhu plants bananas."

caliboy1994

What more proof do you need than statistics?

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

CountryBoy1981

Your proof shows that the Earth is warming like it did prior to the black plague, except it is not as warm now as it was then according to scientists. If you had the same video of the time lapse on Mars you would be seeing about the same thing: Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

There is one thing that Mars and Earth have in common and it is not humans producing CO2.

CountryBoy1981

Funkthulhu

Uh, did you actually read that article you linked to? Because it says in the article that this (now 7 year old hypothesis) is pretty much complete bunk. This "global warming hoax" idea of pointing to Mars and saying the Earth's problem is not anthropogenic is a farce! The Mars Warming argument is a myth with as little fact to it as the argument that immunization causes autism.

So, yeah, stop using the Mars argument; to those with an understanding of standard orbital oscillations, Milankovitch cycles and their affect on planetary climate you just sound uneducated.

__________________
"Ph'nglui musaglw'nanna Funkthulhu R'Omahaea wgah'basjoo fhtagn"
"In his house at Omaha, dread Funkthulhu plants bananas."

Funkthulhu

The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley – Greg Laden's Blog

So, yeah, that picture is photoshopped BS.

Also, a 1971 paper by Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. Schneider's paper suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled. After doing some further research and a lot of math he retracted that statement. There were a few papers about science that was not fully understood at the time which suggested we might be entering a global cooling trend, but had no numbers to back it up. Mostly they were just looking at the same Milankovitch forcing and ice-core records that showed when the last couple ice ages happened and they took a guess. All of the theories in these papers have since been disproven, often by the original scientist who published it!

However, the media of the time ran with it, and so you get all the "OMG ICE AGE!!!" stories of the 1970's that have very little, if any, actual science in them.

(How many of these anti-anthropogenic, Warming-Hoax fallacy myths are we going to debunk today?)

__________________
"Ph'nglui musaglw'nanna Funkthulhu R'Omahaea wgah'basjoo fhtagn"
"In his house at Omaha, dread Funkthulhu plants bananas."

caliboy1994

Didn't you post that same article a few pages back? And it was thoroughly debunked? And yes, humans are producing CO2. That is a fact. That's like saying that fireplaces don't produce smoke.

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

CountryBoy1981

Whether the cover is faked doesn't matter, global cooling was the big science scare of the 1970s, here is a link with some info:

Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism

CountryBoy1981

Debunked by whom? The global warming scientists who are dependent on government grants to keep their jobs?

caliboy1994

Saying that the defunct global cooling alarmism in the 70s is makes global warming invalid is like saying that the defunct theory of spontaneous generation makes germ theory invalid. You can't use previous science that has been proven wrong to attempt to debunk science that has so far been proven right now. Not only is that logically fallacious, it flies straight in the face of the scientific method. You know how you debunk climate change? Become a climate scientist yourself, do a scientific study, and if you manage to conclusively disprove global climate change, collect your Nobel Prize and go home. But clearly you are no climate scientist so you have no authority to make these kinds of statements and expect them to be accepted as true.

No, I debunked it, because the Russian scientist assumed that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, which goes against 150 years of established scientific knowledge. Also, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, which proved for the umpteenth time that climate change is happening, was funded by the Koch Brothers, not the government. Your argument is invalid.

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

CountryBoy1981

So now you are the authority on whose study is credible based on who is funding what? Have you graduated with a degree in climate science, if not, according to your own words you have no authority to make any kind of statements either. I studied global warming in college also (actually was duped into believing it at the time). I guess neither of us should even be debating this in this thread then since we have no authority.

caliboy1994

I am an environmental science major, and I very well might go into climate science. I have studied climate change both in college as a part of my curriculum and independently myself. I should probably rephrase what I said. Those who attempt to debunk climate change without using science have no authority whatsoever. If we are using actual scientific data and studies as our sources to debate this, then of course we can debate it, even if we are not scientists. If you are one of those people who say things like "GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX" without any evidence to back it up, THEN you have no authority to debate it. Sen. Inhofe and the people over at Wing Nut Daily are perfect examples of these people. So, if you use actual science to try and make an argument, then you are able to draw conclusions based on your sources. But I have every right to debate and attempt to debunk the conclusions you draw, and even question the credibility of the sources that you cite. Same goes for you. Neither of us, since we are not scientists (for me at least, not yet) have the authority to expect what we say be accepted as true by the broader community, because we haven't done independent research or experimentation on it.

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

CountryBoy1981

The issue with this is you have disagreed with scientists because they were funded by the coke brothers. You have to understand the structure of science funding. You either get it from a private organization or you get it from the government. If you get it from the government you have to extole the general consensus belief or you lose your funds for research. The progressives also know that if you teach it as fact to the high school and college students they won't question it.

caliboy1994

I'm not categorically disagreeing or agreeing with scientific studies. The Koch-funded study actually confirmed that climate change is happening. As do 99.99% of all climate change-related studies (which are conducted by MANY different institutions) regardless of where their funding is coming from. You're also forgetting that universities and NGOs also fund climate change studies. Ask yourself this for a moment. If you think you might have cancer and consult 10 different oncologists, and 9 out of 10 say you have cancer, what will you believe? It's the same sort of situation.

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

sunfish

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

CountryBoy1981

There is a difference. Even if I did not have cancer that doctor would still be employed treating other cancer patients. If global warming is falsified the climate scientists are out of work.

caliboy1994

You're just skirting around my question. And if global warming was falsified then the graph of summer Arctic ice volume over time wouldn't look like this:

__________________
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
~ Masanobu Fukuoka

Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer:
https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

CountryBoy1981

I would expect the graph to look like that as I would presume that throughout hundreds of years during periods of warming it would resemble that graph. The Earth does not stay the current temperature year after year, there are warming periods and cooling periods.

Now answer my question, what would climate scientists do if global warming was falsified?