[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by sounding

Many years ago many sources said witches caused the glaciers to grow during the Little Ice Age. Do you believe everything you read?

Doubt if any scientists believed that one. Clergy grasping at their confiscated property though.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

In other words you have no data to support your claim.

"In other words"? What was wrong with my words? Didn't get your way, so you intentionally misrepresent me and insult me? That is pathetic, imho.
Read what has already been written if you really care. My information comes from qualified scientific sources. I don't know where you get yours. We seem to have some common info, but you don't seem to have it all. If I can find it, so can you, I am sure.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

"In other words"? What was wrong with my words? Didn't get your way, so you intentionally misrepresent me and insult me? That is pathetic, imho.
Read what has already been written if you really care. My information comes from qualified scientific sources. I don't know where you get yours. We seem to have some common info, but you don't seem to have it all. If I can find it, so can you, I am sure.

Who determines what "qualified" is? Anyone can claim to be an expert. I only trust valid data. If the data does not support the theory, then the theory is useless. Whenever I see a claim about climate, I look at the data. For example, Al Gore is not qualified because the data shows his forecasts failed.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Nope, not quite true. Yes, there was warming, AND there was an Industrial Revolution, but if you look at the millenniums of cyclic climate changes, you will see that Earth was warmer and it cooled off and there was little or no humans to cause it. You are making assumptions. A man on the train died, so since there were people on the train, he MUST have been murdered. He couldn't have just died. Sure, he could have died, but someone has to prove it was not a natural occurrence in order to call it "man caused" death.
Sorry if some us do not put much stock in the U.N. As far as I am concerned they could disband and I doubt anyone would miss them.

I keep trying, but this is becoming difficult. Basically, the whole KNOWN WORLD of scientists and lay people with open minds believe in MAN MADE Global Warming. It is just Global Misinformation addicts that believe otherwise and actually, the likely start of the misinformation happened back in 1980 when the OIL Companies wanted to protect their stock investments by saying that Global Warming was just a HOAX. So, they got out their large MEGAPHONE and MONEY and created Climate Dis-information and lies. Today, the Russian bots use disinformation to try to confuse America about Global Warming and whatever subject they can conjure up to divide AMERICA. They even start things
like Reptilian Liberals are going around America drinking baby's BLOOD. That is NO JOKE, that is how far disinformation has gone in the US.
.........I am basically knocking myself out to try and beg people to open their minds toward the generally accepted Science of MAN CAUSED Global Warming.

And the UN is trying to help the US strengthen alliances against Russia, China, and North Korea - all of which, would turn the US into SMOKING ASH if they ever got the opportunity to do that.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

TV

A man was murdered and there was no place for anyone to get off the train. This is a better analogy and we all have to live with the murderer free. In this case, the train is earth and the murderer is Global Warming.

Good one!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

Who determines what "qualified" is? Anyone can claim to be an expert. I only trust valid data. If the data does not support the theory, then the theory is useless. Whenever I see a claim about climate, I look at the data. For example, Al Gore is not qualified because the data shows his forecasts failed.

Actually, his basic forecast has been proven TODAY. He was just AHEAD OF HIS TIME and OUTSPENT by the OIL LOBBY.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I keep trying, but this is becoming difficult. Basically, the whole KNOWN WORLD of scientists and lay people with open minds believe in MAN MADE Global Warming. It is just Global Misinformation addicts that believe otherwise and actually, the likely start of the misinformation happened back in 1980 when the OIL Companies wanted to protect their stock investments by saying that Global Warming was just a HOAX. So, they got out their large MEGAPHONE and MONEY and created Climate Dis-information and lies. Today, the Russian bots use disinformation to try to confuse America about Global Warming and whatever subject they can conjure up to divide AMERICA. They even start things
like Reptilian Liberals are going around America drinking baby's BLOOD. That is NO JOKE, that is how far disinformation has gone in the US.
.........I am basically knocking myself out to try and beg people to open their minds toward the generally accepted Science of MAN CAUSED Global Warming.

And the UN is trying to help the US strengthen alliances against Russia, China, and North Korea - all of which, would turn the US into SMOKING ASH if they ever got the opportunity to do that.

Begging is not science, but data is -- and this data is very important ... If man caused global warming, and since global warming started when the Little Ice Age ended, then how did man end the Little Ice Age?

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

Who determines what "qualified" is? Anyone can claim to be an expert.

I'll bet you were that kid that drove your parents nuts by constantly responding with "Why" whenever you were told to do something. You are making me laugh. 😀

[sounding]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

I'll bet you were that kid that drove your parents nuts by constantly responding with "Why" whenever you were told to do something. You are making me laugh. 😀

Actually, my parents were impressed with my questions -- which is why the more I asked, the more they assisted ... with chemistry sets, biology kits, microscopes, geology kits, weather stations, library passes, and many books about science -- and I'm still asking questions -- for that's how you learn. By the way ... do you know how much "man-made" CO2 warmed the earth last year?

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

Begging is not science, but data is -- and this data is very important ... If man caused global warming, and since global warming started when the Little Ice Age ended, then how did man end the Little Ice Age?

Taking another's comment ot of context then reassembling.them to suit your attemp to discredit that person is, imo, pretty low. And he never said man ended the little ice age. That is your fabrication, again, to try and make someone with valid info look foolish. You twist others words. Just my humble opinion.

[tuccillo]

Wow, quite a rant ;-) You really need to go reread my post. A good portion of it was addressing the silliness of using "greenhouse" and "blanket" as analogies for the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere. They are not good analogies. I personally don't buy into the dumbing down of scientific explanations, which "greenhouse" and "blanket" are. Be that as it may, it is almost universally accepted, by those that understand the science, that there has been some anthropogenic warming. This is based on both data (traditional and proxy) and radiative transfer theory. There are numerous peer reviewed journal articles that address this. There is some debate on the magnitude. There is also some debate on the magnitude of future warming (next 100 years or so) from climate models and which CO2 scenario is appropriate for the future. I suspect, but certainly don't know, that the atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than the climate models are showing. Modeling of non-linear systems is complicated. Analyzing results from these non-linear models is complicated. Sufficient computing power to reduce model resolutions (1km in the horizontal would be helpful) to the point where the closure schemes for parameterizing sub-grid scale processes ceases to become a significant point of uncertainty, and bias, is probably a decade away. Trends are important but so is a lack of bias for analyzing possible tipping points. Will we continue to warm? Yes, from both anthropogenic sources and the fact that we are in an interglacial period that started about 12,000 years ago. What can we do about it? Probably not much. We will continue to use fossil fuels, in great amounts, for the foreseeable future. There is just no getting around that. If the most pessimistic modeling projections for anthropogenic warming come to fruition, we will probably see substantial political unrest over the next 100 years or so (the time frame that modeling is looking at) as regional climates are impacted.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I am sorry, but all my additional reading on the subject of CO2 has CONFIRMED my statements. 2 sources are Corning and RAC in England, among others.
.......Carbon Dioxide IS a greenhouse gas from automobile EXHAUST that is a MAJOR CONTRIBUTING FACTOR to Climate Change. Other greenhouse gases from car EXHAUST are NOx and Benzene........which is a CARCINOGENIC.
......"CO2 has the potential to TRAP energy from the sun and heat the surface of the earth" .........(that sounds like a blanket to me)

I have read MULTIPLE articles that state that CO2 has become excessive and the oceans are storing that excess CO2 as acid that is BLEACHING and killing coral reefs around the world.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Taking another's comment ot of context then reassembling.them to suit your attemp to discredit that person is, imo, pretty low. And he never said man ended the little ice age. That is your fabrication, again, to try and make someone with valid info look foolish. You twist others words. Just my humble opinion.

If man caused the start of global warming, then man caused the end of global cooling -- or is that not correct?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

Many years ago many sources said witches caused the glaciers to grow during the Little Ice Age. Do you believe everything you read?

"Do I believe what I read?" Let"s analyze that question. I tend to believe statements made by the U.N., the US Government Agencies, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NBC, USA, and articles in the relevant Scientific journals. I tend to NOT believe
CONSPIRACY THEORIES of any origin especially if they are coming from DARK MEDIA and Russian and Chinese BOTS. It is easy to spot OBVIOUS disinformation that is designed to split and carve up various groups in the US.

Conspiracy theories work well in decrying Global Warming because the average America does NOT take the time to read and research things like CO2 pollution and dying coral reefs. Starting about 1980 the OIL LOBBY knew that they needed to use disinformation techniques against the Scientists because they had their large CASH COW of OIL profits to protect. And protect......they have......very successfully. Even today when we are on the brink of a US recession, the OIL companies are showing RECORD profits. They want to keep that a secret to rake in more PROFITS and keep saying HOAX while the environment suffers........arctic ice disappears, Antarctic ice melts into the sea, the coral reefs die, and the US and the world's fishing industry is decimated.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

"Do I believe what I read?" Let"s analyze that question. I tend to believe statements made by the U.N., the US Government Agencies, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NBC, USA, and articles in the relevant Scientific journals. I tend to NOT believe
CONSPIRACY THEORIES of any origin especially if they are coming from DARK MEDIA and Russian and Chinese BOTS. It is easy to spot OBVIOUS disinformation that is designed to split and carve up various groups in the US.

Conspiracy theories work well in decrying Global Warming because the average America does NOT take the time to read and research things like CO2 pollution and dying coral reefs. Starting about 1980 the OIL LOBBY knew that they needed to use disinformation techniques against the Scientists because they had their large CASH COW of OIL profits to protect. And protect......they have......very successfully. Even today when we are on the brink of a US recession, the OIL companies are showing RECORD profits. They want to keep that a secret to rake in more PROFITS and keep saying HOAX while the environment suffers........arctic ice disappears, Antarctic ice melts into the sea, the coral reefs die, and the US and the world's fishing industry is decimated.

Ok, you started off by naming the UN. They are not a reliable source of information -- here is just one example ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_IlgwmCkFE Tell me one UN climate forecast that has come true.

[Vermilion Villager]

OK....It took awhile but was able to track this down.
In 2017 the Department of Interior, under direction of Ryan Zinke ordered the NPS to remove signs at Glacier National Park that had anything to do with melting of glaciers and climate change. Without getting political it doesn't take much of a search to see who's administration Mr. Zinke served under.. There were some signs in the park that said glaciers in glacier national Park could be gone as early as the year 2020. This is actually a true statement. Several of the 26 named glaciers are at a level that does not qualify them as glaciers anymore, and all 26 glaciers have seen a minimum of 40% and as high as 80% erosion in the last 50 years. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to remove the signs.
So move forward to the OP. A prior administration removes signs for political reasons, and those signs' removal leads the OP to conclude that the science is all wrong because the signs were removed...when in fact they were removed for political reasons. Everyone to get it now?.