666888
Well-Known Member
Natural events, now we are getting somewhere
"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Junk science.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Surface temperature is skyrocketing while the natural cycle indicates cooling. Explain using natural causes.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Junk science indeed. Thickstemz 's plot ends about a hundred years ago. I have no idea what he thinks it represents. To me, it represents a plot made to fool the weak minded.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Funny how we're comparing Minoan and Roman era 'peaks' to today's.
We emit so much more into the atmosphere now than ever before it's staggering.
At all the global warming deniers; how do you explain the burning of BILLIONS OF BARRELS of fossil fuels WITHOUT affecting the atmosphere or climate?
...Crickets.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
They have to cut the past hundred years off their data sets.
Anytime soon?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
They'd have to walk. I don't think they'd like that.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Why do you care? you are the one who says everybody will be dead in two years.
You're lying because you don't have a legitimate answer.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You are the one who wanted a nuclear war. Strange suicide fantasy. Still, two years isn't the time frame to worry about global warming. Toddle off.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I watched the first 15 minutes of this video
He claimed that NASA scientists don't account for atmospheric degradation in satellite navigation while orbiting the Earth, so that makes it seem like the sea levels these satellites are measuring are rising, because the satellites are slowly falling to Earth
If NASA scientists didn't account for atmospheric degradation, they wouldn't put fuel systems onboard to keep satellites in orbit. This person is not qualified
666888
Well-Known Member
He is/was a NASA scientist, a real one, not a so-called climate scientist, who the real NASA scientist don't even consider as scientists, just frauds
So id say he is way more qualified than you and me
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Dude, he was speaking at an American Legion old folks home where he currently lives. The guy was at his prime about 50 years ago, when tubes were the top notch tech. I'd say he probably was pretty good with a slide rule too.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Good on you. I made it a few minutes into the talk when I started skipping forward. You have more fortitude that I.
That bit about not accounting for satellite elevation change was pretty old news and completely NOT a problem with the professional scientists who actually do work on studying climate science. The worst offender in using the data was JR Christy who put forth one of 666toiletface 's spamplots. Christy used satellite data to "prove" the climate science model was wrong. In doing so, he neglected to account for the satellites slowing down and losing altitude over time. Any legitimate professional would have ended his career with that mistake. But, Christy is funded by the oil lobby and they don't care about facts or legitimacy of the work.
The irony is that one climate science denier (Christy) was making the very mistake that another climate denier (old retired geezer) is using to "prove" NASA climate scientists are cheating or bumblers.
666toiletface won't understand, however.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
As we grow in knowledge some older ideas go by the wayside and change what we "know". Sometimes older scientists can't change with it. That guy was stuck in the past when less was known about climate change. The argument about whether or not AGW was real was a serious argument in the 60's and '70s among his crowd. By the nineties, he had retired and is now stuck in the past. I'd at least honor him for his dedication and I'm sure he advanced the science in one way or the other.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Actually, assumptions are quite useful if they are validated. The worst assumptions are the ones your ilk make up and use without validation. Especially the assumption you make that you think you have a clue about what you are saying.
