Firstly, he says that like today the Earth was dominated by water. By that he probably means liquid water covering most of the surface. So actually I don't see how you are disagreeing with him and I really don't understand your comment saying he is off by 400 Myr.
Secondly, are you sure to have listened to the video? Because Alley at
this exact moment of the video is telling us that the theory of the early Sun being dimmer comes from astrophysics and not geological evidences (google Carl Sagan). This is stellar evolution. I have really the feeling you are not understanding a tiny bit of the topic. Only acting with bad faith and provocative attitude.
Yes there was already a consensus on the fact that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas and plays a major role in Earth climate.
From the work of Gilbert Norman Plass in the 1950s, a lot of scientists became convinced about the theory of Arrhenius and Callendar because he gave physical evidences from observation for the process which make the CO2 a significant greenhouse gas.
https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...nd-the-climate
I already shared the report from the president’s Science Advisory Committee on the matter. It shows how the scientific community reacted to the evidences:
These documents do not match your view that the actual position of the scientific community is based on a political agenda.
What bothers me is that you are ignoring totally the BS coming from your own side. You posted several times link from blogs accusing scientists of fraud but all the times I checked their arguments, it was blatant lies and manipulation grounding their arguments and the scientists were not acting bad on anything.
I even checked the method of one of your source and I simply discovered their comparison was wrong:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...7#post15804797
The most funny was your childish reaction about it:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15805205
I was simply doing exactly what your source was demonstrating with his comparison, downloading the datasets he told us in the blog post. It doesn't hold. But you shouted that the data are invalidated in a mind-blowing circular logic among the worst displayed here. The whole point of the guy was "proving" the scientific datasets have been tampered using the actual datasets from the scientists to caught them in act. I simply shown that doesn't hold by repeating what he did but anyway for your fact-proof confirmation bias that cannot be done because... the data are invalidated. So when the guy proved that the dataset has changed a lot, it was ok to use the data from these scientists, when I proved it was not the case with the data from these scientists, magically it became not ok for you.
The same when I tried to show you how there are blatant lies and manipulation on your own side, simply to raise your skepticism on a more honest level and to remove your double standard:
And your reply was childish and besides the point, always sticking to the same circular logic:
Besides the topic about the climate data tampered or not, this figure used by contrarians is a blatant lie. This is a manipulation, period. That was the only point of my message, showing you that your own side do not hesitate to make up manipulation stories, to build a misleading figure to make you believe the scientists are lying to you.
I have an issue about how you fall easily for any trick and easy manipulation from your own side. For example about the USHCN records prior to 1960s, accepting raw data without any critical thinking:
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...1#post15805595
And again you replied besides the point.
All the time it ends like this. I gave you arguments against your view, trying to discuss the core of your own arguments. You reacted with a simple rejection by source. Exactly what you did as well with the talk about plants and CO2 we just had.
Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?
Originally Posted by Genava
Reply With Quote
