DescentBB

woodchip wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 5:54 pm

vision wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 2:41 pm

woodchip wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 7:43 amThis extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures.[/color]
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/tonga- ... ratosphere

You stopped reading that article when you thought you had a gotcha moment?

"The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects."

Why are you quoting NASA? Aren't they behind the conspiracy?

Unlike you I am searching for answers:
"and could trigger a cycle of stratospheric cooling and surface heating — and these effects may persist for months to come, according to a new study."

https://www.space.com/tonga-eruption-wa ... warm-earth

The eruption was over a year and a half ago.

And what, do you think CO2 somehow isn't a greenhouse gas? And there was no warming before 2022?

Neo wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 6:42 pm Can we split this thread?

There are 2 other threads in 2 different sections of this forum. Post in either of those if you want to continue the flat earth conversion. I've already split one thread in the E&C, but not this one. Keep things about climate change arguments here.

Normally I would, but you think a reliable source like dailytech is nonsense and that I’m a moron.

You're not a moron. You just have different beliefs. However, you're very rigid and narrow focused in those beliefs and refuse to open your mind to other possibilities. Now if someone could take you up in a space ship of some sort and fly you around the planets, maybe you'd broaden your set of beliefs.

The best part about woody's big "gotcha" post is that his last link fully acknowledges anthropogenic climate change. Like, its whole point is that certain natural cycles should be creating a cooling Earth, and yet Earth is warning at an alarming rate thanks to human activity over the past two centuries. Undermining your own point with your own source material. Never change, woody.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:13 pm You're not a moron. You just have different beliefs. However, you're very rigid and narrow focused in those beliefs and refuse to open your mind to other possibilities. Now if someone could take you up in a space ship of some sort and fly you around the planets, maybe you'd broaden your set of beliefs.

Same thing would happen to you if you flew in a rocket and crashed into the firmament. Remember, there are no atheists in hell. Let that sink in. How do you know I haven't opened my mind to other possibilities? You don't know me. Everything I've ever learned shows me that the Lord is God and learning after going astray for a while would always bring me back to Christ.

You don't know me either. I'm not an Atheist. I'm an Agnostic who believes more in science and that the world and universe around us is far more complex than we currently or previously understood. It's certainly more complex than people understood it to be thousands of years ago, people who didn't have the tools, the ability and capacity to understand the world around them as we do today. So no, I don't believe in the Bible or it's ages old version of God and the universe. Most modern Christians I've met do have a firm belief in God and the Bible but also understand that yes, the earth is round and there's no firmament over our heads, only a vast amount of unexplored space that they firmly believe God created. They see no conflict within their beliefs with this modern revelation, whereas you do.

I'm not alone. There are plenty of other beliefs and religions on this planet that don't believe in the Bible either. In this day and age of telescopes, jet travel and extra atmospheric travel, plus an orbiting space station run by multiple nations, including one that doesn't like us right now and would love to tell us we're delusional and full of crap, there's plenty of evidence that there's no firmament and no flat earth. None of that contradicts the existence of a Biblical God either. It only contradicts those ancient authors who didn't have the modern tools to see what we now see of the universe. If you want to stick to the stone age and keep debating flat earth, you and Isaac can go at it in one of the other threads. But you're only fighting against the modern preponderance of evidence that says you're wrong and Isaac's fortitude to keep on with beating you like a dead horse.

Do owls exist?

Are there hats?

Can humans walk?

Is there such a thing as a car?

It doesn't matter if someone doesn't "believe" in climate change; no one needs opinions on facts.

Facts. Lol

Isaac is just trolling anyway.
Tunnelcat you can believe whatever you want but there is evidence of flat earth. There’s also evidence of Christianity but people like Ferno and you can just stick to your truth and put the burden of proof on people like me.

Neo in a nutshell.

Neo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 6:33 pm can just stick to your truth and put the burden of proof on people like me.

Because that's how it works.

Ferno wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:34 pm Do owls exist?

Birds aren't real.

Ferno wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:34 pm Are there hats?

Rumor has it they're at the tops of society.

Ferno wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:34 pm Can humans walk?

We're almost the humans from WALL-E.

Ferno wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:34 pm Is there such a thing as a car?

Park it in a bad neighborhood overnight.

Ferno wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 5:34 pm It doesn't matter if someone doesn't "believe" in climate change; no one needs opinions on facts.

Unless there's name calling or political divide...

When a tropical island like Maui has an entire town that's been in existence for over 200 years burn to the ground, our climate is changing and not for the better. Between invasive grasses and more intense drought, this will probably end up the future status quo in all the Hawaiian Islands. So becomes the eventual demise of a former tropical paradise.

Here's what conservatives call "Real Science". PragerU. They love the message so much, Florida has made their BS part of the school curriculum. No surprise that some of the biggest wealthy backers are fracking kings. Do they even believe that God made the oil they made their billions of off? We're going to get a whole generation of conservative dipshits and these are the new recruits who will fight efforts to reign in carbon.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... can-donors

All of you need to stop acting like alarmists and adapt/evolve, you monkeys

Neo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 7:35 am All of you need to stop acting like alarmists and adapt/evolve, you monkeys

Problem is, that always involves a great deal of death.

I hear more alarmist crap from conservatives than democrats, so I'd say the Republican Party has de-evolved into a bunch of conspiracy believing sheep without any brains. Evolution tends to weed out stupidity with extinction, eventually.

Neo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 7:35 am All of you need to stop acting like alarmists and adapt/evolve, you monkeys

Yo, this is actually the problem people don't seem to get. A warm planet isn't bad, but the rate of warming is because it outpaces evolution. It's literally a catastrophe that's causing a mass extinction.

And here's exactly what I'm refering to:
"A California scientist admitted that he "left out the full truth" about climate change, blaming it primarily on human causes, to get his study published in a prestigious science journal."
Patrick T. Brown, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins University and doctor of earth and climate sciences, admitted in an online article in The Free Press, a blog post and a series of social media posts that he distorted the findings of his studies to appeal to the editors at Nature and Science magazines, which are prestigious online science journals.

"And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society," Brown wrote in The Free Press..

So how many other "scientists" do the very same thing, either to get grants or get grants. The only morons here are those who think this doesn't happen and all scientists are somehow above the fray.

So practically the first article I found linked on a search engine I hardly ever use turned up this interesting tidbit:

It so happens that Brown is the co-director of the climate and energy team at the Breakthrough Institute, a nonprofit known for courting controversy and pushing “ecomodernism,” or relying on technology to help humanity adapt to climate change. Implied is the idea that global warming isn’t as catastrophic as many scientists warn it could be, further implying that action to transition from fossil fuels isn’t so urgent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html

Bet if you follow that guy's pay stub from the nonprofit you will find a mildly disguised oil company bank account before too long.

Krom wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 4:58 pm So practically the first article I found linked on a search engine I hardly ever use turned up this interesting tidbit:

It so happens that Brown is the co-director of the climate and energy team at the Breakthrough Institute, a nonprofit known for courting controversy and pushing “ecomodernism,” or relying on technology to help humanity adapt to climate change. Implied is the idea that global warming isn’t as catastrophic as many scientists warn it could be, further implying that action to transition from fossil fuels isn’t so urgent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html

Bet if you follow that guy's pay stub from the nonprofit you will find a mildly disguised oil company bank account before too long.

Literally billions of dollars have been paid by fossil fuel companies to promote climate denialism. Climate scientists couldn't match that level of propaganda even if they wanted to. Just ask yourselves who makes more money, climate scientists or fossil fuel CEOs?

And yet his bio shows his education and degree's to be legit. So Kroms supposition is just another red herring from a uneducated cultist in the global man made climate change religion.

> Tens of thousands of scientists around the world have a broad evidence-based consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

> Woody: "lol imma listen to this one dude instead!"

Of course. It is just like every time they go "HoW cAn ThErE bE cLiMaTe ChAnGe If It Is CoLd OuTsiDe?" every time a record low is set in January.

That kind of goes along with this BS, that the earth is continuing to make oil so that we won't ever run out and Biden is emptying our oil reserves. As a geologist, I can tell you that the notion that crude supplies are being created as fast as we burn it is hogwash. We WILL run out eventually and sooner rather than later, so why not start weening ourselves off of the stuff and help our atmosphere become cleaner much faster? And Biden is not draining our reserves. Money and greed corrupts everyone and frames their political views.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 219366002/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 462234002/

Earning a degree doesn't prevent you from having delusional or biased ideas. That's why science has this thing called peer review.

Top Gun wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 9:00 am > Tens of thousands of scientists around the world have a broad evidence-based consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

> Woody: "lol imma listen to this one dude instead!"

And what percent of those souls have sold their souls for grant money or to get published. You have absolutely no clue.

Krom wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 9:30 am Of course. It is just like every time they go "HoW cAn ThErE bE cLiMaTe ChAnGe If It Is CoLd OuTsiDe?" every time a record low is set in January.

Trouble with your cap key?

Darth Wang wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:07 am Earning a degree doesn't prevent you from having delusional or biased ideas. That's why science has this thing called peer review.

And the peers, you assume, can't be biased?

woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 4:33 pm And what percent of those souls have sold their souls for grant money or to get published. You have absolutely no clue.

You don't have a goddamn clue about anything. Unless you have hard evidence that they're sellouts, you have absolutely nothing.

If this doesn't get paywalled, here's the reason Brown fudged is paper and why it's disingenuous.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html

Meanwhile, 15 years ago I didn't worry about local forest fires burning down my home. They were rare. Now, I have to worry, every summer.

woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 4:48 pm

Darth Wang wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:07 am Earning a degree doesn't prevent you from having delusional or biased ideas. That's why science has this thing called peer review.

And the peers, you assume, can't be biased?

I'd you're accusing the entire worldwide scientific community of taking part in a huge conspiracy, you might as well join Neo and start accusing them of hiding the truth about the Earth being flat.

Top Gun wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 5:19 pm

woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 4:33 pm And what percent of those souls have sold their souls for grant money or to get published. You have absolutely no clue.

You don't have a goddamn clue about anything. Unless you have hard evidence that they're sellouts, you have absolutely nothing.

As do you

Darth Wang wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:22 pm

woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 4:48 pm

Darth Wang wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:07 am Earning a degree doesn't prevent you from having delusional or biased ideas. That's why science has this thing called peer review.

And the peers, you assume, can't be biased?

I'd you're accusing the entire worldwide scientific community of taking part in a huge conspiracy, you might as well join Neo and start accusing them of hiding the truth about the Earth being flat.

didn't say that, simply asked a question that you seem to have a problem processing.

woodchip wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 7:20 am

Darth Wang wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 8:22 pm

woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 4:48 pm

Darth Wang wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:07 am Earning a degree doesn't prevent you from having delusional or biased ideas. That's why science has this thing called peer review.

And the peers, you assume, can't be biased?

I'd you're accusing the entire worldwide scientific community of taking part in a huge conspiracy, you might as well join Neo and start accusing them of hiding the truth about the Earth being flat.

didn't say that, simply asked a question that you seem to have a problem processing.

You implied that the entire process of peer review is suspect, which would only be the case if there was a massive international conspiracy.

Woody, you go and look up the environmental damage caused by fracking and you'll get the same results, results that have been manipulated to prove each side's claim. One side says no long term environmental damage, the other side says it's destroying ground water. In truth, it's destroying ground water aquifers in certain areas, not everywhere, but everyone twists the results to fit their narrative. You also have to realize that most studies are short term. In the long term, things like a changing climate and poisoned ground water may take generations to show their true impact, and by then, it's too late or too expensive to mitigate. Then people will ★■◆● about if foresight were hindsight, this disaster wouldn't ever have happened, and now we're all screwed.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/clear ... ing-study/

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 9:56 am Woody, you go and look up the environmental damage caused by fracking and you'll get the same results, results that have been manipulated to prove each side's claim. One side says no long term environmental damage, the other side says it's destroying ground water. In truth, it's destroying ground water aquifers in certain areas, not everywhere, but everyone twists the results to fit their narrative. You also have to realize that most studies are short term. In the long term, things like a changing climate and poisoned ground water may take generations to show their true impact, and by then, it's too late or too expensive to mitigate. Then people will ★■◆● about if foresight were hindsight, this disaster wouldn't ever have happened, and now we're all screwed.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/clear ... ing-study/

TC if you want to post about fracking...start your own thread.

No woody. This isn't about fracking per se. It's about how each side of the political isle manipulates any study or research to bolster their side of the argument. You sit there and post about how bad lithium mining is and then use that as an argument against battery manufacturing and electric cars when obtaining and burning oil is far more damaging to the planet. You side even wants to keep mining and burning coal, which DOES create toxic lakes and is very dirty to burn. Our country needs to do the world a favor and quit selling that coal to China. Our sales even surged when Australia embargoed coal shipments to China. And guess which party champions coal usage? Yours.

Looks like Krom unintentionally supported woodchip’s opinion.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 12:07 pm I hear more alarmist crap from conservatives than democrats, so I'd say the Republican Party has de-evolved into a bunch of conspiracy believing sheep without any brains. Evolution tends to weed out stupidity with extinction, eventually.

That’s because the Reptilican party is pretending.

Darth Wang wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 5:21 pm

Krom wrote: ↑Sat Sep 09, 2023 4:58 pm So practically the first article I found linked on a search engine I hardly ever use turned up this interesting tidbit:

It so happens that Brown is the co-director of the climate and energy team at the Breakthrough Institute, a nonprofit known for courting controversy and pushing “ecomodernism,” or relying on technology to help humanity adapt to climate change. Implied is the idea that global warming isn’t as catastrophic as many scientists warn it could be, further implying that action to transition from fossil fuels isn’t so urgent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... story.html

Bet if you follow that guy's pay stub from the nonprofit you will find a mildly disguised oil company bank account before too long.

Literally billions of dollars have been paid by fossil fuel companies to promote climate denialism. Climate scientists couldn't match that level of propaganda even if they wanted to. Just ask yourselves who makes more money, climate scientists or fossil fuel CEOs?

Counter-intelligence agents came up with the term “climate denialism.” I’m sure the scientists have enough motivation to lie, even if it’s not always money.