[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

Claims about man-made global warming are fun to make up ... but actual data is much better. So ... how much did man-made CO2 warm the earth last year?

So ... how much did naysayers hogwash cool the earth last year?

Oh, the answer to your question is, combined with other human "contributions", @ .07 degrees C.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

So ... how much did naysayers hogwash cool the earth last year?

Oh, the answer to your question is, combined with other human "contributions", @ .07 degrees C.

Please provide "the science" (as we are all told to follow) that produces the .07 C value.

[lkagele]

I know next to nothing about coral reefs so I did a quick search on 'coral reef thriving'. Articles abound of areas where reefs are thriving.

Fear mongering to promote a hidden agenda? Oh, sorry, We all know that never happens......

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by lkagele

I know next to nothing about coral reefs so I did a quick search on 'coral reef thriving'. Articles abound of areas where reefs are thriving.

Fear mongering to promote a hidden agenda? Oh, sorry, We all know that never happens......

If only science was that simple.

Facts: Large areas of coral reefs have died off;; large areas are now again covered by coral.

Nearly everything beyond that is just some conclusion drawn from two data points. No investigation into why the coral died. Not investigation into what changed that the coral can now recover. No data on whether the coral that has recovered is substantially the same as what was lost.

A lightning strike causes a fire that destroys hundreds of acres of old-growth forest. Twenty years later the area is covered with healthy pines. Since the area is again covered with trees does that prove that lightning doesn't destroy forests? Can we say there were trees before and there are trees now so nothing really happened, the trees just changed their clothes?

Science just isn't that simple.

[Byte1]

It's a shame that underwater volcanoes erupt and warm the oceans so much. Too bad man can't control volcanoes like they control the climate..............

[bmcgowan13]

Originally Posted by Pballer

Mainstream media certainly has a lot of catching up to do with Ailes. Fox "News" had agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787,000,000 to settle a defamation lawsuit concerning all the lies Fox promoted against them during the 2020 election. Fox promoted these lies in order not to lose viewers who only watch "news" outlets that reinforce their beliefs.

“Mainstream media” will never catch up!

In (another) stroke of brilliance, when Ailes created FOX NEWS he made sure it was on cable-only (not to be confused with FOX Entertainment which airs locally and has the Simpsons, etc.) so FOX NEWS is NOT constrained by the FCC and the Frankfurter (SCOTUS 1943) ruling that allow the federal government to meddle in on-air stations operations.

Frankfurter--“This ruling cleared the way for the FCC to regulate networks indirectly by banning licenses to individual stations that contract with networks engaged in practices considered detrimental to the public interest.“

FOX NEWS is free of the FCC public interest requirements that apply to NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. – the on-air entities. He knew (even back then) that cable was the future. He was a visionary. If you notice on-air talent reports “others are saying” and quote/echo “other” sources. Ailes freed them from the burden to investigate on his dime. Smart man. He was a businessman to the core.

There are five major recognized journalism awards. FOX NEWS has never won an Emmy, Edward R. Murrow, DuPont/Columbia, Peabody or Pulitzer. MTV and Nickelodeon have one each. Roger did not care on bit. He didn’t need them. Why fight for viewers with three other networks (forget CNN—they were newcomers) when you can groom your own loyal audience?

He is comparable to Elon Musk who had the vision, the courage and the money to step up while NASA and Boeing were failing to fill the need.

FOX is commentary/opinion—they do not purport to report news (see Dominion Voting defense) . He packed the programming/commentary with Glen Beck, Megan Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, Gretchen Carlson, Chris Wallace, Jeanine Pirro, Ed Henry, Tucker Carlson, Eric Bolling, and Sean Hannity. All talented audience builders. Ailes never needed it to be a “news” station. He saw a lucrative future while mainstream media was blind During its startup FOX PAID $11 per month to get cable companies to carry the station. (Most providers are compensated for carrying their content) FOX used Rudi Guiliani to step in as the mayor to make Time Warner carry the FOX NEWS channel in NYC. He played hardball and was genius-what companies PAY cable providers to carry THEIR channel. FOX NEWS has exceeded his expectations.

FOX NEWS had revenues exceeding $3B (with a “B”) in the last quarter of 2023. What other venue can come even close to this measure of success?

The so-called main-stream entities are lost in space—they can’t compete with Roger’s genius.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

Please provide "the science" (as we are all told to follow) that produces the .07 C value.

You asked that same question many many times. Now you have your answer. But that isn't good enough. You want others to jump through hoops of your choosing to give you answers you will deny because the truth doesn't fit your narrative. I did some work and came up with that answer. You want my answer and my work. You are like the kid in school who cheated off others test answers. Do your own research if you can and get your own answers instead of relying upon others who spin a narrative that says what you want to hear. By the way, my figure was many decimal places long. What I gave you was an appropriate figure.
Good luck. I wish you every success.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Byte1

It's a shame that underwater volcanoes erupt and warm the oceans so much. Too bad man can't control volcanoes like they control the climate..............

Don't forget the surface volcanoes. They are doing there part. Volcanic activity has been a part of Earth's evolution since the world began. Human caused destruction, pollution, deforestation, burning fossil fuel and even wood, mining, etc, is in addition to the Earth's natural heating/cooling cycles. And Human caused changes have been documented and tested and there are direct correlations that prove Human industrial activity exacerbates global warming. The truth is out there. Seek and ye shall find. Or not.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

You asked that same question many many times. Now you have your answer. But that isn't good enough. You want others to jump through hoops of your choosing to give you answers you will deny because the truth doesn't fit your narrative. I did some work and came up with that answer. You want my answer and my work. You are like the kid in school who cheated off others test answers. Do your own research if you can and get your own answers instead of relying upon others who spin a narrative that says what you want to hear. By the way, my figure was many decimal places long. What I gave you was an appropriate figure.
Good luck. I wish you every success.

Appropriate? Just try inserting an "appropriate" trajectory (without a science based formula) into a rocket designed to land on Mars. The reason you can't provide a science-based answer to man-made CO2 warming is becase the main stream media refuses to provide it. Guess why.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Don't forget the surface volcanoes. They are doing there part. Volcanic activity has been a part of Earth's evolution since the world began. Human caused destruction, pollution, deforestation, burning fossil fuel and even wood, mining, etc, is in addition to the Earth's natural heating/cooling cycles. And Human caused changes have been documented and tested and there are direct correlations that prove Human industrial activity exacerbates global warming. The truth is out there. Seek and ye shall find. Or not.

If the truth is out there -- please provide it. How much did man-made CO2 warm the earth last year? Or any year?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Facts are different than theories. These cover a lot of ground.


You can double check what are facts using the internet rather easily. Theories are a lot harder but I have found very few facts which negate the theory of global warming.

Which. completely negates your claim that "You can double check what are facts using the internet rather easily"...

I (and many others) have posted those facts, multiple times, with only a modicum of time "searching the internet"...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Sounds like there is little, possibly questionable, evidence sprinkled amongst a mountain of factual evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
We (humans) didn’t start global warming, but we absolutely have contributed to it. We most certainly have done nothing to hold it back.

I think we should all move to another part of the world to "old back" and possibly even "reverse" the ever changing tilt of the earth's axis in it's orbit...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Pballer

Mainstream media certainly has a lot of catching up to do with Ailes. Fox "News" had agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787,000,000 to settle a defamation lawsuit concerning all the lies Fox promoted against them during the 2020 election. Fox promoted these lies in order not to lose viewers who only watch "news" outlets that reinforce their beliefs.

Everybody Drink! But I do find it interesting that many of the prevoius claims that were deemed "lies" are now being shown to be true...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

If only science was that simple.

Facts: Large areas of coral reefs have died off;; large areas are now again covered by coral.

Nearly everything beyond that is just some conclusion drawn from two data points. No investigation into why the coral died. Not investigation into what changed that the coral can now recover. No data on whether the coral that has recovered is substantially the same as what was lost.

A lightning strike causes a fire that destroys hundreds of acres of old-growth forest. Twenty years later the area is covered with healthy pines. Since the area is again covered with trees does that prove that lightning doesn't destroy forests? Can we say there were trees before and there are trees now so nothing really happened, the trees just changed their clothes?

Science just isn't that simple.

Those forest fires are needed to maintain the healthy forests.

Once they get too big, those "old growth trees" begin to choke out the undergrowth (not enough sunlight gets thru) and it does, leaving behind excellent kinding for a forest fire.

Once a fire burns the old growth threes, their seed post release new seeds (they need the fire to release the seeds), and the cycle begins anew...

Coral reefs die. Later, they are replaced by healthy new reefs... The cycle of life continues...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Byte1

It's a shame that underwater volcanoes erupt and warm the oceans so much. Too bad man can't control volcanoes like they control the climate..............

Same with the under water oil spills. The earth "farts" up millions of gallons of oil every year...

We really need to fix this. Maybe spending a few $Trillion$ would help...