 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 594/600) |
|
jmclemore
|
FEB 22, 12:03 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by dobey:
There is absolutely no scientific basis for the comparison. Dinosaurs didn't strip down entire forests to build cities and mine resources.
|
|
are you certain that the combined population of "dinosaur" made up less mass than the combined mass of human beings. Are you certain that dinosaurs in no way altered their environment to improve safety, comfort and reproduction.
Do you have any scientific facts that show dinosaurs being so inert to the environment that they merely walk through the woods and fields with tender steps or nibbling consciously of their environmentally impact.
| quote |
They didn't dig up oil and coal (which didn't exist yet, because the dinosaurs hadn't died and turned into oil and coal), and burn it constantly for hundreds of years. |
|
Yep, the tonnage of manure gallons of urine posed no acidic affect to the ground or released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
| quote |
They did not reproduce uncontrollably, causing significant extinction events to other species.
|
|
And their family planning model .... just wow, wow!....
|
|
|
|
dobey
|
FEB 22, 12:32 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
…
|
|
And have you any proof that those things did happen?
There is plenty of evidence that dinosaurs did not build cities, roads, and energy infrastructure, because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that they did. There have never been any groups of dinosaurs found together as a family unit with evidence of a house, fire pit, or clay pots.
There is no way to state exactly what the specific biological efficiency of those dinosaurs were. Not all dinosaurs were so massive, either. But plants were also much larger in those days, because forests weren't being intentionally removed on a massive worldwide scale, and there was a lot more CO2 in the air, with a much warmer environment, which led to much larger plants, and in some cases animals, who evolved to that size due to abundant food source.
We know plenty about the age of dinosaurs, from geological evidence. We know enough to assert that they did not act anything like humans. We know enough to conclude that the large dinosaurs were a result of an already very warm planet with lots of CO2, and we know enough to conclude that there wasn't enough CO2 to make our atmosphere as bad as that of Venus. We also know enough to conclude that a meteor hitting the earth caused an extinction event, which led to the dying of all of the massive dinosaurs, while smaller reptiles and mammals were able to survive. We also know that not all dinosaurs lived during the same time periods.
Claiming humans aren't causing any accelerated global warming, because you think it was really hot when dinosaurs lived, is just flat out stupid. There is absolutely no reason to make such a comparison, nor any evidence whatsoever to support it as even a remotely valid hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
E.Furgal
|
FEB 22, 01:39 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ray b:
found on the land in the dirt
but the land was not at the pole when the animals were alive
as continents drift
|
|
And might just be why we have climate changing in area's..
oh, crap.. your own logic ,,
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
FEB 22, 02:11 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by dobey:
Claiming humans aren't causing any accelerated global warming, because you think it was really hot when dinosaurs lived, is just flat out stupid. There is absolutely no reason to make such a comparison, nor any evidence whatsoever to support it as even a remotely valid hypothesis. |
|
Can you show any global mean temperature data collected prior to 1850?
|
|
|
|
dobey
|
FEB 22, 02:19 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
Can you show any global mean temperature data collected prior to 1850? |
|
What is the point of this question, besides an attempt to condescend?
You must think that I cannot provide global mean temperature data, and thus scientists don't have it, as a means to support your claim, however, you would also be unable to provide it, and thus cannot provide any supporting data for your claim either. Therefore it is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
FEB 22, 08:41 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by dobey:
You must think that I cannot provide global mean temperature data, and thus scientists don't have it, |
|
No just feeding you with your own spoon. It's the same challenge you threw out at others.
Scientists do not claim to have global mean temperature records prior to 1850. Even they admit that any assumption regarding global temperatatures are just that, assumptions.
When you challenge others to show proof that does not exist, you set a standard that you yourself can not meet.
And what do you think my claim is......
BTW - I do think there are warming treads ....
|
|
|
|
dobey
|
FEB 22, 09:12 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
No just feeding you with your own spoon. It's the same challenge you threw out at others.
Scientists do not claim to have global mean temperature records prior to 1850. Even they admit that any assumption regarding global temperatatures are just that, assumptions.
When you challenge others to show proof that does not exist, you set a standard that you yourself can not meet.
And what do you think my claim is......
BTW - I do think there are warming treads ....
|
|
I don't challenge others to show proof I can't meet. I challenge them to provide evidence for the claims they make. However, they tend not to do so, and instead reply with arbitrary questions asking me to provide some other proof.
In this instance, I was merely stating that the claim you were defending, which is that humans have no effect on climate, because it was a tropical paradise when only a certain set of dinosaurs were roaming the earth, is utter nonsense, and has absolutely no basis in any facts whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
FEB 22, 11:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
FEB 23, 02:34 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by dobey:
I was merely stating that the claim you were defending, which is that humans have no effect on climate, because it was a tropical paradise when only a certain set of dinosaurs were roaming the earth, is utter nonsense, and has absolutely no basis in any facts whatsoever. |
|
Major miss on my claim....
Try reading my posts.
I do not think that human activity is causing "global climate change".
I do however believe we have an influence that is limited and local.
I believe 2 extreme political views have corrupted the facts so thoroughly
it is hard to tell which facts are "facts" .
As I have said before.
There are too many reputations, financial beneficiaries and power brokers
who are dependent upon on their version of the facts to maintain their stake
in Federal Policy and Funding....
And what is the evidence of those dependencies - repeating the same tired
answers when anyone asks, "what about this data" ....
All of a sudden it becomes a rerun of a classic scene from The Wizard Of OZ.
| quote | | Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain |
|
Comparison
1. I don’t have a gambling problem / Our model is not flawed
2 . I can stop anytime I want / I just follow the data
3. My gambling doesn’t hurt anyone / We are making life better for all
4. I'm a professional gambler / I'm an Expert
Like gamblers
they always need more time and money because they are "this close"
to a pay off.....
Like gambling addicts, they keep comming back for more money with
no measurable reversal of the "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE" they claim
to be cause by human activity.....
So far all we have gotten from them are less money, less freedom and
more government control of human activity.
And all I ask (as well as others) is to see the data that shows that their
regulations and research have yielded any measurable movement in
reducing the pace of "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE".
I don't care about the data that may accurately show justification for
both funding and regulation. Instead show me results or get the F***
out the way so we can hire someone can fix the Sh**......
BTW,
I would bet that the money we have spent on studying the problem
would have yielded better results had they issued it as a refund, rebate
or voucher to individuals who demonstrated a reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions from their home, auto , etc........
You would know what work and see a differences after the first year.[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 02-23-2017).]
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
FEB 23, 08:03 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by RandomTask:
There was no manipulation. However, lies travel at break neck speeds in the deniosphere. The *whistleblower himself* said this. He was just unhappy an internal protocol wasn't followed. However, the study has been verified by multiple other organizations...
http://www.eenews.net/clima...7/stories/1060049630
|
|
From the original article there absolutely was manipulation. The author used the data from ship water intakes versus data from surface buoys. Data that was known to be hotter than actual. The author removed known good data and replaced it with known flawed data. So how is this not manipulation?
|
|
|
|