Actually, most of the Mesozoic (Dinosaurs era) was below 2000 ppm and with average closer to 1000 ppm
As hard as you are trying, you do realise spamming BS! wont make you correct.
Actually, The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period- about 7k ppm.
Fact is CO2 levels have been falling for more than 50 million years.
Originally Posted by Genava
Yes it is.
WRONG! We had an ice age with CO2 levels at about 4k ppm.
Originally Posted by Genava
Yes, there are.
I didn't have time to check out all the links that you spammed so I simply chose the first link.
Again it was NOT C02 that is attributed to the many mass extinctions- but rather asteroid impact, volcanic activity/massive eruptions, acid rain, changes in ecosystems etc.
Last edited by Stario; December 09, 2019 at 01:22 AM.
Wow Genava, I really admire your patience and diligence, although you surely must know that people will never admit defeat and remain in their alternative facts bubble.
For a change, I'd like to ask you what do you think of the premise of the thread: do you think it's too late? Do you think we as a species will be able to avert disaster?
Wow Genava, I really admire your patience and diligence, although you surely must know that people will never admit defeat and remain in their alternative facts bubble.
First of all, I love to argue and I have a lot of tenacity. They will tire before me. Moreover, it is a good exercise to show how to respond to those common myths and lies. Ignorance and ideology give opportunities to spread correct informations from scientific literature. Stario and B.W. are actually counterproductive and are backstabbing their own side with their trolling.
For a change, I'd like to ask you what do you think of the premise of the thread: do you think it's too late? Do you think we as a species will be able to avert disaster?
No it is not too late. Each degree in addition is a different world in the end. It is too late to avoid damages to natural habitats and human societies but the amplitude is still to decide. We have the hand on the thermostat. Tipping points are not necessarily unavoidable on the very long run. Any action to stabilize the situation worth it.
The tipping point worrying me the most is a human and economical one: at some point acting fast enough will be costly enough to damage our societies. Those conservatives are putting the bullet in the gun that will kill the western civilization.
As hard as you are trying, you do realise spamming BS! wont make you correct.
Actually, The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period- about 7k ppm.
Fact is CO2 levels have been falling for more than 50 million years.
WRONG! We had an ice age with CO2 levels at about 4k ppm.
I didn't have time to check out all the links that you spammed so I simply chose the first link.
Again it was NOT C02 that is attributed to the many mass extinctions- but rather asteroid impact, volcanic activity/massive eruptions, acid rain, changes in ecosystems etc.
Exactly the way I feel. I've gone through these lists of links he posts too many times and virtually every instance I find that they are all based on, or draw their information from, data that has been manipulated or manufactured. Instead of presenting one, or even two, pieces of "evidence" he gives us lists as if that is conclusive to winning a debate.
Frankly, I don't have time to go through and address all these fraudulent sources, but he keeps putting them up.
It would be nice if he could give just one study that isn't based on bad data or makes its conclusion based on previous studies that were resolved using manipulated data.
Frankly, I don't have time to go through and address all these fraudulent sources, but he keeps putting them up.
I tried multiple times to argue with you on the scientific aspect but most of the time you stay strictly political, probably a good instinct since you have publicly shown your inability to understand basic math while questioning academic researches.
It would be nice if he could give just one study that isn't based on bad data or makes its conclusion based on previous studies that were resolved using manipulated data
Even the geologists are evil now. It is probably a conspiracy of intelligent people against those suffering of Dunning-Kruger bias.
Last edited by Genava; December 09, 2019 at 02:33 PM.
I tried multiple times to argue with you on the scientific aspect but most of the time you stay strictly political, probably a good instinct since you have publicly shown your inability to understand basic math while questioning academic researches.
Even the geologists are evil now. It is probably a conspiracy of intelligent people against those suffering of Dunning-Kruger bias.
Hahaha! I bet you printed that out and posted it on the wall! If I were concerned about my credibility I would have deleted the comment. Everyone makes mistakes and I admitted it, but you on the other hand won't. You're the only person on the planet that has never made a maths error; that's something even Einstein can't say. Which begs the question, why don't you admit that Stario was right about previous CO2 levels?
Here's a video of Happer destroying every argument you've put forth in this thread. The video is poor quality, but anyone who has followed this thread will recognize the charts he shows. He starts out by illustrating how Al Gore faked the cover of his book and then devastates the AGW argument:
And BTW, it is a political argument. You don't build a scientific argument on fake and manipulated data...Oh wait, you do.
Here's another in which he comments about the El Nino effect on warming. It was made before the study, which I linked, that showed the Ninos' were caused by Geothermal activity. Your rebuttal was based on a Politifact review (more hilarity).
Hahaha! I bet you printed that out and posted it on the wall! If I were concerned about my credibility I would have deleted the comment. Everyone makes mistakes and I admitted it, but you on the other hand won't. You're the only person on the planet that has never made a maths error; that's something even Einstein can't say. Which begs the question, why don't you admit that Stario was right about previous CO2 levels?
Here's a video of Happer destroying every argument you've put forth in this thread. The video is poor quality, but anyone who has followed this thread will recognize the charts he shows. He starts out by illustrating how Al Gore faked the cover of his book and then devastates the AGW argument:
And BTW, it is a political argument. You don't build a scientific argument on fake and manipulated data...Oh wait, you do.
Here's another in which he comments about the El Nino effect on warming. It was made before the study, which I linked, that showed the Ninos' were caused by Geothermal activity. Your rebuttal was based on a Politifact review (more hilarity).
You have been soundly and obviously defeated. And why would you even build up resistance, this is threatening your country as well. Why are you this resistant? Is it because Geneva is European and no Murican, admits defeat to Euro-trash? This makes you look worse and worse, you know. There is a limit to stubbornness, which is when it turns out to be conceitedness and undeserved arrogance.
Last edited by swabian; December 10, 2019 at 12:57 PM.
Hahaha! I bet you printed that out and posted it on the wall! If I were concerned about my credibility I would have deleted the comment. Everyone makes mistakes and I admitted it, but you on the other hand won't. You're the only person on the planet that has never made a maths error; that's something even Einstein can't say.
Did I say that? No. You are assuming it and you like to portray me like an arrogant person. Making mistakes is part of everyone's life and we are all ignorant on different subjects. So your lack of experience with common math is not demonstrating you are less valuable as a human being. But a big part of wisdom is knowing what you don't know and on which area you lack expertise. Obviously if you are struggling to understand this level of math and an unit's abbreviation commonly used, I will assume you don't have any experience on natural science.
This is really what bothers me with your attitude. Not your mistake directly. But because you are judging harshly the work of scientists while you do not have the ability to evaluate the quality of scientific arguments. You seem to rely on political sources and you evaluate their accuracy thanks to their political spectrum. Rarely you go to the core of the argument and when you do, honestly this is not really helping your reputation.
Like this time, next to the page of your mathematical mistake:
Originally Posted by B. W.
Ha!HA! I couldn't help but laugh at some of the language used in some of those articles, like this little gem:
The researchers found the most notable phytoplankton declines in waters near the poles and in the tropics, as well as the open ocean.
I guess he means everywhere. The cause as stated is warming of the oceans. But wait...if the ice caps are melting that would chill the waters, so which is it?
Originally Posted by Genava
Do you have the feeling it is getting colder?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by B. W.
That image says it is an anomaly.
Originally Posted by Genava
[responding to Daruwind about your message] The problem is that he was saying that ice caps melting is chilling the water. I told him it was no sense (because it is like arguing that a lonely ice cube in a bath will chill the water while the faucet is open) and then I showed him a map with the temperature anomaly of year 2017, clearly with warmer temperature in the North (because of polar amplification). But he simply replied "that image says it is an anomaly" without understanding the point of the map and the principle of the anomaly which is used in any publication about climate change. This is funny to see that he didn't understand this concept while he is arguing about anything you bring on the subject, clearly an indication that he is never making the effort to understand the information. Now you are teaching him the principle of the anomaly and now he is cherry-picking the only thing he saw to argue about, trying to move the talk to another subject once again.
Sorry to lessoning you here but I hope you will understand somehow why your attitude is far from helping you to convince other people. Neither helping the thread to stay peaceful.
I am making mistakes like anybody do and I do have misunderstanding, I am far from knowing everything. In fact sometimes I am not sure how to respond to a contrarian argument about climate stuff. But I check the literature and I try to understand the basic science around it before to argue. I put the guilt on myself first, the guilt of ignorance, so I take the time to correct it if I want to know what is the credibility of the argument opposed to mine.
Most of the science about global warming and the role of CO2 in climatic changes is very old and precede any political talk on the subject. I gave you evidences for this long time ago. (totally ignored btw)
It was made before the study, which I linked, that showed the Ninos' were caused by Geothermal activity. Your rebuttal was based on a Politifact review (more hilarity).
It was not, you should have read it more deeply and taken the time to understand the arguments.
Which begs the question, why don't you admit that Stario was right about previous CO2 levels?
Because he is not? I said why, you are free to respond to any point and argue:
Originally Posted by Genava
Actually, most of the Mesozoic (Dinosaurs era) was below 2000 ppm and with average closer to 1000 ppm. The Cenozoic was mainly below 1000 ppm. Both era have seen life flourishing with hot temperatures.
Big differences to note before to start this kind of comparison:
During the Paleozoic, the Solar output was 4% smaller than today. This is due to the stellar life-cycle of our Sun, it is something also explained in the faint young Sun problem. Which means that the greenhouse effect should compensate this lower output, around 12 W/m2, so it means around 2000 ppm of CO2 to only compensate this. Solar activity is varying slightly century to century and millenia to millenia, but in the case of hundreds of millions of years, the stellar evolution of our Sun should be taken in account. This is where most of the variations is happening.
Moreover in the Late Ordovician when the ice age you are talking about happened, there was a supercontinent known as Gondwana locked in the South Pole. This kind of configuration is known to enhance ice ages through the albedo feedback (polar ice caps are more stables as ice sheets over land than sea ice). And when this ice age occured, the CO2 was dropping quickly in the same time.
Although, the exact trigger of this ice age is debated, the role of CO2 decreases in the amplification of this event is not. Recently, a candidate has been found to initiate the chain reaction of feedback processes, a meteor: https://earthsky.org/space/did-an-as...e-age-on-earth
You have been soundly and obviously defeated. And why would you even build up resistance, this is threatening your country as well. Why are you this resistant? Is it because Geneva is European and no Murican, admits defeat to Euro-trash? This makes you look worse and worse, you know. There is a limit to stubbornness, which is when it turns out to be conceitedness and undeserved arrogance.
That was more than 6 months ago. His "resistance" is indicative of his goal; which isn't to get to the truth of the situation, but to lobby for his preferred narrative.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
You have been soundly and obviously defeated. And why would you even build up resistance, this is threatening your country as well. Why are you this resistant? Is it because Geneva is European and no Murican, admits defeat to Euro-trash? This makes you look worse and worse, you know. There is a limit to stubbornness, which is when it turns out to be conceitedness and undeserved arrogance.
Accepting this stuff as a real problem likely requires accepting that some problems cannot be solved without collective action. That's something many simply refuse to make jive with their ideology. It's why some Christian apocalypse fanboys are deadly afraid of the potential of humanity going to Mars or dismiss it out of hand. If some of us aren't living on the planet, judgement day can't happen the way it's supposed to.
Last edited by Cohors_Evocata; December 10, 2019 at 02:56 PM.
Did I say that? No. You are assuming it and you like to portray me like an arrogant person. Making mistakes is part of everyone's life and we are all ignorant on different subjects. So your lack of experience with common math is not demonstrating you are less valuable as a human being. But a big part of wisdom is knowing what you don't know and on which area you lack expertise. Obviously if you are struggling to understand this level of math and an unit's abbreviation commonly used, I will assume you don't have any experience on natural science.
This is really what bothers me with your attitude. Not your mistake directly. But because you are judging harshly the work of scientists while you do not have the ability to evaluate the quality of scientific arguments. You seem to rely on political sources and you evaluate their accuracy thanks to their political spectrum. Rarely you go to the core of the argument and when you do, honestly this is not really helping your reputation.
Like this time, next to the page of your mathematical mistake:
Sorry to lessoning you here but I hope you will understand somehow why your attitude is far from helping you to convince other people. Neither helping the thread to stay peaceful.
I am making mistakes like anybody do and I do have misunderstanding, I am far from knowing everything. In fact sometimes I am not sure how to respond to a contrarian argument about climate stuff. But I check the literature and I try to understand the basic science around it before to argue. I put the guilt on myself first, the guilt of ignorance, so I take the time to correct it if I want to know what is the credibility of the argument opposed to mine.
Most of the science about global warming and the role of CO2 in climatic changes is very old and precede any political talk on the subject. I gave you evidences for this long time ago. (totally ignored btw)
It was not, you should have read it more deeply and taken the time to understand the arguments.
Because he is not? I said why, you are free to respond to any point and argue:
First of all, I'm not the one hurling petty insults here. Secondly, I see you still intend to continue the practice of posting a wall of information to go throw as if my time isn't important. It only takes a couple of seconds to post those links, but it takes a lot of time to go through it all so I'm only going to comment on the video of Alley.
In the video he claims that the world was dominated by water 4.4 billion years ago. I don't believe this is correct. It is true that there is evidence of water 4.4 billion years ago, but that is a completely different scenario from a world dominated by water. It is just another example of distorting the facts to fit a conclusion.
It only takes a couple of seconds to post those links, but it takes a lot of time to go through it all so I'm only going to comment on the video of Alley.
Exactly as it takes a couple of seconds to write a dull trolling comment and a lot of time to write something with arguments and references. I did several times the exercise to write a proper answer to your babbling and generally you responded with an irrelevant comment beside the point with a link on something else following.
In the video he claims that the world was dominated by water 4.4 billion years ago. I don't believe this is correct. It is true that there is evidence of water 4.4 billion years ago, but that is a completely different scenario from a world dominated by water. It is just another example of distorting the facts to fit a conclusion.
His argument, I think, is based on the fact that there is little indication for extensive plate tectonics earlier than 3 billions years ago. Most rocks found suggest oceanic crust and volcanic islands during the Hadean and early Archean, so an Earth mostly covered by ocean (far above the actual situation). That is not a settled debate but for the moment, the evidences suggest this explanation.
First of all, I'm not the one hurling petty insults here. Secondly, I see you still intend to continue the practice of posting a wall of information to go throw as if my time isn't important. It only takes a couple of seconds to post those links, but it takes a lot of time to go through it all so I'm only going to comment on the video of Alley.
In the video he claims that the world was dominated by water 4.4 billion years ago. I don't believe this is correct. It is true that there is evidence of water 4.4 billion years ago, but that is a completely different scenario from a world dominated by water. It is just another example of distorting the facts to fit a conclusion.
This is not about you. This is not about getting you caught on some BS you said and to humiliate you. Nobody is working on distorting any facts for you, man! You're actually being taken seriously on a serious matter and people expect from you to see things as they really are. That's why you're being attacked.
You have been soundly and obviously defeated. And why would you even build up resistance, this is threatening your country as well. Why are you this resistant? Is it because Geneva is European and no Murican, admits defeat to Euro-trash? This makes you look worse and worse, you know. There is a limit to stubbornness, which is when it turns out to be conceitedness and undeserved arrogance.
That was more than 6 months ago. His "resistance" is indicative of his goal; which isn't to get to the truth of the situation, but to lobby for his preferred narrative.
Originally Posted by Cohors_Evocata
Accepting this stuff as a real problem likely requires accepting that some problems cannot be solved without collective action. That's something many simply refuse to make jive with their ideology. It's why some Christian apocalypse fanboys are deadly afraid of the potential of humanity going to Mars or dismiss it out of hand. If some of us aren't living on the planet, judgement day can't happen the way it's supposed to.
Originally Posted by swabian
This is not about you. This is not about getting you caught on some BS you said and to humiliate you. Nobody is working on distorting any facts for you, man! You're actually being taken seriously on a serious matter and people expect from you to see things as they really are. That's why you're being attacked.
Of course neither of you watched the video of the presentation by Happer I posted in the link.
Originally Posted by Genava
Exactly as it takes a couple of seconds to write a dull trolling comment and a lot of time to write something with arguments and references. I did several times the exercise to write a proper answer to your babbling and generally you responded with an irrelevant comment beside the point with a link on something else following.
His argument, I think, is based on the fact that there is little indication for extensive plate tectonics earlier than 3 billions years ago. Most rocks found suggest oceanic crust and volcanic islands during the Hadean and early Archean, so an Earth mostly covered by ocean (far above the actual situation). That is not a settled debate but for the moment, the evidences suggest this explanation.
That is the point. He wasn't talking plate tectonics. He was talking about the Earth's water content 4.4 billion years ago. It is an unsettled issue and he was stating something as fact. That is precisely what you warmists do. Did you bother watching the video I posted where he listed the beneficial effects of rising CO2 levels. No you didn't. A fun fact: the limit of CO2 on spacecraft is 7000 ppm.
I don't have to watch any more vids about the tpopic.
Swabian, close your eyes, don't break you monitor
----
First video. Two hours ago- Press statement by President Ursula von der Leyen on the European Green Deal,
Selected excerpts,
"We are ready to contribute with our European Green Deal to a Global Green Deal"
"100 billion euros precisely target to the most vulnerable regions and sectors".
"...We do not have all answers yet. Today is the start of a journey but this is Europe's man on the moon moment"
"The European Green Deal is something we owe to our children because we do not own this planet..and now is time to act".
--
Second video,
Trump, in his comments on climate change .The childish fool, embarrassing America, took issue with energy-efficient light bulbs and poor water pressure during a business roundtable at the White House.
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”. Thomas Piketty
You have been soundly and obviously defeated. And why would you even build up resistance, this is threatening your country as well. Why are you this resistant? Is it because Geneva is European and no Murican, admits defeat to Euro-trash? This makes you look worse and worse, you know. There is a limit to stubbornness, which is when it turns out to be conceitedness and undeserved arrogance.
Originally Posted by swabian
This is not about you. This is not about getting you caught on some BS you said and to humiliate you. Nobody is working on distorting any facts for you, man! You're actually being taken seriously on a serious matter and people expect from you to see things as they really are. That's why you're being attacked.
That's just laughable. I would have said 'ridiculous' but apparently that word is now considered an insult. You say I have been soundly defeated, but you refuse to look at anything I've posted that is contrary to your views. Happer is one of the world's most distinguished scientists and in the video he soundly destroys the arguments put forward here by you and others.
As far as I'm concerned I win. I have been patient and reviewed nearly all of the copy and paste links posted. As I said they are all based on or rely on fraudulent or manipulated data. You guys, on the other hand refuse to even look at anything that is contrary to your worldview; cult-like.
That is the point. He wasn't talking plate tectonics. He was talking about the Earth's water content 4.4 billion years ago. It is an unsettled issue and he was stating something as fact.
I don't understand you. Are you talking about what Alley is starting to explain at 09:16 in the video? He is simply saying that the geological evidences are showing that water was mostly liquid 4.4 Gyr ago. I thought you were reacting about the idea of a water dominated world 4.4 Gyr ago, that's why I talked about the plate tectonics. But if you are reacting on the idea of liquid water then it is a different matter. If this is the case, I suggest you to read a bit more on the Hadean eon and to calm down your untimely accusations. If you could clarify exactly what is bothering you and giving us your opinion, it would be helpful. For the moment your two replies on the video are unclear to me because the point of Alley is specifically on the evidences of liquid water during this eon.
Originally Posted by B. W.
It is just another example of distorting the facts to fit a conclusion.
Originally Posted by B. W.
That is precisely what you warmists do.
Evil scientists, yeah we know. What a very convincing view, thank you to share it with us again.
Originally Posted by B. W.
Did you bother watching the video I posted where he listed the beneficial effects of rising CO2 levels. No you didn't. An fun useless and irrelevant fact: the limit of CO2 on spacecraft is 7000 ppm.
The point is: in our time scale, the effect is more detrimental than beneficial for the natural vegetation. There are other nutrients that will limit the fertilization and the huge impact of CO2 on the water cycle from changes in temperature is clearly the point to consider the most.
Ecosystems won't be able to cope with these changes in precipitations and temperatures, there will be a biodiversity loss and this is piling up with dozen of other impacts from human societies on the natural world.
Even the idea that CO2 is good for the plants is a very gross picture missing the diversity of the vegetation. The different biological genus of plants do not react the same way for an increase in CO2. Some plants are better to take profit in the increase than the others. Which it means that plants having the most gain with increasing CO2 will competitively exclude the others. So it will have huge consequence on plant biodiversity and ecosystems. Biological evolution is slow and new adaptations won't solve the problem.
I don't understand you. Are you talking about what Alley is starting to explain at 09:16 in the video? He is simply saying that the geological evidences are showing that water was mostly liquid 4.4 Gyr ago. I thought you were reacting about the idea of a water dominated world 4.4 Gyr ago, that's why I talked about the plate tectonics. But if you are reacting on the idea of liquid water then it is a different matter. If this is the case, I suggest you to read a bit more on the Hadean eon and to calm down your untimely accusations. If you could clarify exactly what is bothering you and giving us your opinion, it would be helpful. For the moment your two replies on the video are unclear to me because the point of Alley is specifically on the evidences of liquid water during this eon.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't bring myself to watch that man's presentation in its entirety a second time. His screeching voice was unbearable. However, I did suffer through the first 16 minutes, which should be sufficient to address your point. He was saying that the world was "dominated" by water at 4.4 billion years ago. I believe he is implying that the world's water content was is what it is now. A lot of scientists believe that estimate is off by .4 billion years or so, but he stated it as fact when he knows that the issue isn't satisfactorily resolved.
Going farther, he assumes that the ice ages were caused by variations in CO2 levels, then shows a chart that supports he premise. Unfortunately, that chart shows CO2 level variations that range from over 7000 ppm to several hundred ppm. For any thinking person, the chart has no relation to his argument at all, but yet he uses it. It is just crazy. I think he uses it to underpin his claim that the ice ages were caused by variations in CO2 levels, but I can't say for sure because the relative comparison is so bizarre.
Originally Posted by Genava
Evil scientists, yeah we know. What a very convincing view, thank you to share it with us again.
When you start out with a false assertion and manipulated data, such as Al Gore's book cover as well as its contents, you can't blame people for suspecting deception.
The point is: in our time scale, the effect is more detrimental than beneficial for the natural vegetation. There are other nutrients that will limit the fertilization and the huge impact of CO2 on the water cycle from changes in temperature is clearly the point to consider the most.
Ecosystems won't be able to cope with these changes in precipitations and temperatures, there will be a biodiversity loss and this is piling up with dozen of other impacts from human societies on the natural world.
Even the idea that CO2 is good for the plants is a very gross picture missing the diversity of the vegetation. The different biological genus of plants do not react the same way for an increase in CO2. Some plants are better to take profit in the increase than the others. Which it means that plants having the most gain with increasing CO2 will competitively exclude the others. So it will have huge consequence on plant biodiversity and ecosystems. Biological evolution is slow and new adaptations won't solve the problem.
Finally, it doesn't adress the issue of ocean acidification, which also an important risk for ocean ecosystems.
At this point I wouldn't trust anything the IPCC publishes. Here's the truth of the situation, it is obvious that there were ongoing studies about the fact that some plants benefit more from higher levels of CO2 and some do worse. That is not the issue and that is not what "climate alarmists' were claiming originally. The original claims were all about causing alarm and indoctrinating school children and simpletons into thinking that only catastrophic effects will come from increased CO2 levels, etc.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't bring myself to watch that man's presentation in its entirety a second time. His screeching voice was unbearable. However, I did suffer through the first 16 minutes, which should be sufficient to address your point. He was saying that the world was "dominated" by water at 4.4 billion years ago. I believe he is implying that the world's water content was is what it is now. A lot of scientists believe that estimate is off by .4 billion years or so, but he stated it as fact when he knows that the issue isn't satisfactorily resolved.
I am not asking you to watch it a second time. Your memory seems to have slightly changed his discourse, his whole point is actually is based on the fact there is liquid water 4.4 Gyr ago. Something you are not contesting in regards of your first message on the video. So I find your attitude inappropriate against him.
Going farther, he assumes that the ice ages were caused by variations in CO2 levels, then shows a chart that supports he premise. Unfortunately, that chart shows CO2 level variations that range from over 7000 ppm to several hundred ppm. For any thinking person, the chart has no relation to his argument at all, but yet he uses it. It is just crazy. I think he uses it to underpin his claim that the ice ages were caused by variations in CO2 levels, but I can't say for sure because the relative comparison is so bizarre.
Do not confuse quaternary ice ages with the older periods. The older ice age happened on a context of weaker solar radiation (I already explained my point about this aspect of stellar evolution, you didn't reply so I assume you are agreeing on this matter). In these situations, older of hundreds of millions of years, the ppm of CO2 can be above 1000 and still not be able to compensate the whole solar radiation fainter than in our recent era.
When you start out with a false assertion and manipulated data, such as Al Gore's book cover as well as its contents, you can't blame people for suspecting deception.
Again the same rejection based on no scientific argument. They are evil, they talk about climate change so climate change is hoax. You have no care about my arguments that the consensus on climate change was already displayed in the 1960s, far before any politicization. Neither that most of the denier stuff you posted here used lies and manipulation to build their discourse, totally hypocritical to be blind on this matter.
At this point I wouldn't trust anything the IPCC publishes. Here's the truth of the situation, it is obvious that there were ongoing studies about the fact that some plants benefit more from higher levels of CO2 and some do worse. That is not the issue and that is not what "climate alarmists' were claiming originally. The original claims were all about causing alarm and indoctrinating school children and simpletons into thinking that only catastrophic effects will come from increased CO2 levels, etc.
Absolutely shameful!
Yeah, IPCC is evil so you are not paying attention to my arguments. Didn't even care to reply as always. You continue your political babbling and try to move the topic on more political arguments totally irrelevant to the current talk.
Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?
Originally Posted by Genava
Reply With Quote
is threatening your country as well. Why are you this resistant? Is it because Geneva is European and no Murican, admits defeat to Euro-trash? This makes you look worse and worse, you know. There is a limit to stubbornness, which is when it turns out to be conceitedness and undeserved arrogance.
I don't understand you. Are you talking about what Alley is starting to explain 
