The Climate Is So Bad..........

[christ_undivided]

From research involving sampling [including sea sediment] experts can identify the climate over a prolonged period.

No they can not. That is arrogant nonsense. They can know small things about the sample but they can not know what they claim to know.

What is not true? And what historical evidence are you citing?

Evidence that you're not considering. There are thousands upon thousands of newspaper articles preserved over decades that give us raw data concerning climate.

The only think you care about manipulated data.

 

[Backup]

Evidence that you're not considering. There are thousands upon thousands of newspaper articles preserved over decades that give us raw data concerning climate.

really? You want to go there?

where are these newspapers that report temperatures that contradict what the climate scientists are now saying?

certainly you can’t mean any global newspapers, so they would just report local weather

but a lot of other people were recording temperatures

The fact that you think you’ve come across something that real climate scientists have not take into account just further illustrates how dumb denier “arguments” are

 

[christ_undivided]

We get it

You think all of the world’s scientists are lying to us about climate change

Not ALL of the world's scientist agree. So you can stop with this "ALL" argument you're using.

scientists from every country and every political position

I think that’s absurd

the motivations of the climate deniers are obvious and their dishonesty is clear to anyone that fact-checks them

You don't know this either. You haven't verified the information. You're just a blind sheep following your gods.

 

[christ_undivided]

really? You want to go there?

where are these newspapers that report temperatures that contradict what the climate scientists are now saying?

https://realclimatescience.com/

Has collected a treasure trove of information from various sources.

Do you seriously not know that newspaper articles are saved on microfilm around the world. You can also find through various digital services that have converted them to digital format and made them searchable.

https://newspaperarchive.com/

certainly you can’t mean any global newspapers, so they would just report local weather

but a lot of other people were recording temperatures

The fact that you think you’ve come across something that real climate scientists have not take into account just further illustrates how dumb denier “arguments” are

Dumb? You're one that didn't know about microfilm.... You've been believing lies. You don't really care.

 

[Backup]

Not ALL of the world's scientist agree. So you can stop with this "ALL" argument you're using.

Of course there will alone a few outliers, so what?

Conspiracy theorists always want to reject the overwhelming majority of experts and believe the kooks

You don't know this either. You haven't verified the information. You're just a blind sheep following your gods.

you can apply that standard to anything and claim all knowledge is impossible and all fantasy scenarios are just as “true” as objective reality

back when debating Christians was interesting, this was referred to as the “nuclear option.” Christian apologists would have to deny all of reality to claim their beliefs were as valid as ours

 

[christ_undivided]

Of course there will alone a few outliers, so what?

Conspiracy theorists always want to reject the overwhelming majority of experts and believe the kooks

Hitler created his own majority. See how that works?

you can apply that standard to anything and claim all knowledge is impossible and all fantasy scenarios are just as “true” as objective reality

back when debating Christians was interesting, this was referred to as the “nuclear option.” Christian apologists would have to deny all of reality to claim their beliefs were as valid as ours

Unlike yourself, I have dealt honestly with the information. You can't make the exaggerated claims you make with the small data sample you have. The small data sample any scientist has.

You know as well as I do, that current data is aggregated and ultimately manipulated.

I was taught to be a skeptic. You're taught to swallow anything you can get your hands on.

 

[Backup]

https://realclimatescience.com/

Has collected a treasure trove of information from various sources.

Do you seriously not know that newspaper articles are saved on microfilm around the world. You can also find through various digital services that have converted them to digital format and made them searchable.

lol

you see a wall of text and miss the conspiracy blog it’s on

“Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism.”

https://newspaperarchive.com/

Dumb? You're one that didn't know about microfilm.... You've been believing lies. You don't really care.

yeah, dumb

the second link is a worthless distraction and the first is silly, denier propaganda

Working scientists tend not to waste much time on deniers, but here is a site that addresses many of the denier propaganda:

Skeptic Rebuttals in one line

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

It may be dated. Outside of Evangelical and Conspiracy forums there is hardly any debate about the reality of climate change anymore

that’s kind of 1990s

 

[Backup]

Hitler created his own majority. See how that works?

Not a fan of Hitler, he was a right-wing Christian

Unlike yourself, I have dealt honestly with the information. You can't make the exaggerated claims you make with the small data sample you have. The small data sample any scientist has.

You know as well as I do, that current data is aggregated and ultimately manipulated.

I was taught to be a skeptic. You're taught to swallow anything you can get your hands on.

no you are not

you are rejecting all scientific information and buying into a conspiracy

 

[christ_undivided]

lol

you see a wall of text and miss the conspiracy blog it’s on

“Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism.”

Laugh all you want. I don't reject your data because of the crazy people pushing it. I look at the facts. I don't care what he says. I care what he uses as evidence. That is what I care about.

yeah, dumb

the second link is a worthless distraction and the first is silly, denier propaganda

Working scientists tend not to waste much time on deniers, but here is a site that addresses many of the denier propaganda:

Skeptic Rebuttals in one line

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

It may be dated. Outside of Evangelical and Conspiracy forums there is hardly any debate about the reality of climate change anymore

that’s kind of 1990s

So you don't consider the historical record from newspapers as reliable?

 

[christ_undivided]

Not a fan of Hitler, he was a right-wing Christian

He was a murdering idiot. I don't reject Christ because of who claims Him. The facts is still true. A majority means nothing without the evidence.

no you are not

you are rejecting all scientific information and buying into a conspiracy

What conspiracy? The hard evidence found in newspaper articles from history gone by?

 

[Backup]

Laugh all you want. I don't reject your data because of the crazy people pushing it. I look at the facts. I don't care what he says. I care what he uses as evidence. That is what I care about.

no

you reject the science and embrace the conspiracy

I did a shallow dive into the first link on the wall of text from your conspiracy blog

They cited a “medical journal” from 1884 which listed a lot of old anecdotal stories and wives tales

lots of articles about Beef Liver Elixirs and such

They claim that in 1303 and 1304 the Rhine, the Loire and Seine rivers ran dry.

Maybe someone in the 1880s who thought Beef Liver Elixir would cure their baldness and erecting disfunction might have believed that, but only a complete idiot would today

It’s been a while since I’ve bothered to fact-check any climate denier claims. They have all proven to be 100% bogus.

So you don't consider the historical record from newspapers as reliable?

They are an interesting look into what the people of the times believed.

 

[christ_undivided]

no

you reject the science and embrace the conspiracy

I did a shallow dive into the first link on the wall of text from your conspiracy blog

They cited a “medical journal” from 1884 which listed a lot of old anecdotal stories and wives tales

lots of articles about Beef Liver Elixirs and such

They claim that in 1303 and 1304 the Rhine, the Loire and Seine rivers ran dry.

Maybe someone in the 1880s who thought Beef Liver Elixir would cure their baldness and erecting disfunction might have believed that, but only a complete idiot would today

It’s been a while since I’ve bothered to fact-check any climate denier claims. They have all proven to be 100% bogus.

You don't think I'm capable of discerning valid sources. I don't care about Beef Liver Elixir but I do care about evidence from other sources he uses. So try again.

They are an interesting look into what the people of the times believed.

No. They are historical records. We a newspaper articles details recorded temperatures in an area that are dramatically more than the manipulated data you use shows, then I know what I can easily believe.

You're making this too easy for me. Try harder.

 

[Backup]

You don't think I'm capable of discerning valid sources.

no

you obviously linked to a conspiracy blog by dishonest climate deniers

I would say that is clear evidence you do not. know what a valid source is

I consider NASA a valid source

I don't care about Beef Liver Elixir but I do care about evidence from other sources he uses. So try again

No. They are historical records. We a newspaper articles details recorded temperatures in an area that are dramatically more than the manipulated data you use shows, then I know what I can easily believe.

There is much better evidence than old writings

There are old writings about dragons and unicorns

Science deals with physical data

To be fair, I assumed you were referring to temperature data from more reliable news sources. Not old fairytales

You're making this too easy for me. Try harder.

It would certainly be easy for you to look at what the real scientists are saying and not the conspiracy theorists

 

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No they can not. That is arrogant nonsense. They can know small things about the sample but they can not know what they claim to know.




Evidence that you're not considering. There are thousands upon thousands of newspaper articles preserved over decades that give us raw data concerning climate.

The only think you care about manipulated data.

I asked you for evidence. You ignored my request and just continue to refer to newspaper articles, written, I suspect, by those with no scientific credentials.

Is this the best you can do?

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

It does indeed. However, humans are responsible for present climate change and that is going impact on future human life, as well as all other life on the planet.

False. Your sources are dumb as a sack of hammers.'

Just as rock solid stupid when President Trump warned the German idiots about buying their pipeline gas from russia.

An article on the discovery of gold from a 350 year old Spanish wreck which went down on the western side of the Little Bahama Bank emphasises that point. The team in the article are also collecting data on the reef health, seafloor geology and plastic pollution to understand how the archaeology and marine environment interact. However, Carl Allen, the leader of that team notes:

Why did you accept the Darwinismus lies from idiot German hackels which were proven lies over 100 years ago?

From the article:
“The sea bottom is barren,” said Allen. “The colourful coral that divers remembered from the 70s is gone, poisoned by ocean acidification and choked by metres of shifting sand. It’s painfully sad. Still lying on those dead grey reefs, though, are sparkling finds.”

After 350 years, sea gives up lost jewels of Spanish shipwreck

Marine archaeologists stunned by priceless cache long hidden beneath the Bahamas’ shark-infested waters

www.theguardian.com

And that is in a mere fifty years or less.

Watch the mouth breather germans pay 6o dollars per thousand cubic feet for natural gas. Our farms produce gas. Sad ignorance.

More lies.

The OCEAN is not acidic. Why do Nazis still push "ocean acidic" lies?

You don't know the pH factor of the ocean and it is NOT acidic.

Are you against science?

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

It is a fact. That you do not accept it does not alter that fact.

It is your brainwashed emotional opinion.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

as I said, I can easily cite any of the 100% of legitimate scientific bodies on the planet to support my position

you people obviously won’t accept that

all you have is your ignorance of the basic science

Flat earther allegation.

How many post grad science degrees do you have?

Just a reminder, when your anti science nut cases argued about masks, you proved you were anti-science. I offered the science proving they never stopped a virus 30 months ago.

 

[Backup]

Flat earther allegation.

How many post grad science degrees do you have?

Just a reminder, when your anti science nut cases argued about masks, you proved you were anti-science. I offered the science proving they never stopped a virus 30 months ago.

I was told you claimed to perform circumcisions

is this true?

 

[DaGeo]

Oh for goodness sake. Do you imagine there is some global conspiracy among scientists determined to pretend that these events are occurring?

No conspiracy just the usual propaganda

In the past 90 years the earth has been hotter than at any other period in the last millennium and in the past few decades that warming has dramatically accelerated. Data from 2002 showed that nineteen of the hottest years on record occurred between 1980 and the late 1990s and as recorded in the early years of this millennium the earth was warmer than it had been for 90% of its 4.6 billion year history.

The climate has always done that throughout history, has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels

This rising temperature trend in not a mere climatic blip nor can it be explained entirely by variations in the output of the sun [as some would like to do]; although the sun clearly does have a significant effect on this planet's climate. What we are seeing is over two centuries of pollution which is enclosing the planet in an insulating blanket of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and various other greenhouse gases. As perm-frost melts as a result of increased temperatures [buildings in Siberia are showing cracks as the ground beneath them melts] more methane is released into the atmosphere.

Yes, but you’re misinterpreting the data.

Positive feedback is something that is happening and while the planet will not be entirely ice-free; what our children and grand-children are facing is lethal heatwaves and where temperatures in excess of 50°C [122°F] in the tropics are unexceptional; a world where winters at temperate latitudes have dwindled to virtually nothing; and baking hot summers will become normal. Where the oceans will have heated [possibly to the point of no return] and temperatures in the Arctic circle of 30°C+ [86°F+] will be unremarkable.

Yeah yeah yeah, but none of your chicken little hysterical predictions have come true so far but they do sell books

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

I asked you for evidence. You ignored my request and just continue to refer to newspaper articles, written, I suspect, by those with no scientific credentials.

Is this the best you can do?

You have no scientific credentials. Do you understand why the ALAMISTS had to mannipulate data?
Your sources lie. You have been exposed.