Global Warming Update!

[Englebert]

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Welcome to 1990 Senator.  We look forward to your next confirmations that gravity is real and the Earth is round...

And yet, still zero proof.

Is possible rising temperature due to Man and is this possible rise detrimental to Earth? I don't know. PROVE IT TO ME. Welcome to the scientific world.

[Englebert]

Does regression ring a bell when thinking of Man Made Global Warming, Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever the current hysteria driven name is? That is Scientific regression. We actually have people taking pot shots aimed at people that adhere to scientific methodology, by insinuating that we are "Neanderthals" (thanks for the analogy Biden) for asking for proof of a "theory" that has less evidential proof than the United States faking the moon landing. Or less evidence than the "theory" that Steven King was the one that actually shot John Lennon. Or that the Holocaust never happened. Or that Katy Perry is actually Jonbenet Ramsey. Or that Elvis is still alive. Or that women make 70 cents on the dollar for doing the same exact job with the same experience as a man.

When do we start turning the tables by calling out the "Neanderthals" (thanks again Biden) for making such belittling statements. I guess I will start. If you believe what the media/politicians/fake climatologists have told you about Man Made Global Warming, and you are in favor of spending hard earned tax dollars to solve a problem that has never been proven to exist, then you are an Un-American deplorable (thanks Hillary) that has no business weighing in on a topic that is way beyond your comprehension. You are a detriment to the American (and the world) way of life. You need to learn your station and admit you are not capable of discussing issues with people of even moderate intellectual means. If you are offended...good. You deserve it. Put up or shut up. Show me the proof of your Climate Change religion. I bet none of you will. You've been challenged...and all I foresee is tails tucking between legs and running from the topic like a frightened schoolgirl.

I have no doubt that the Al Gore disciples will be totally silent and will not dare respond to this challenge, but will reappear in a later topic to continually ridicule people that simply ask for the proof, pretending that this challenge never existed. Anyone care to take that bet? 

[Englebert]

So this topic has now dropped to Page 2 in the forum, with not one Global Warming cultist defending their religion. Is it because y'all can't? You all have been called out to your face, and yet y'all quiver in the corner peeing in your pants. And the inevitable result is, you will not do any research on your own. You will continue to worship at the alter of Al Gore. You will reappear at a later time to ridicule "non-believers" when you think your rabid pack of fellow blind followers has your back. (Courage in numbers.) You are cowards, and deserve the ridicule you are enduring. I would have a hard time listing all of the self-defense mechanisms y'all are now employing to make yourself feel better. And again, the inevitable is y'all will ignore this topic, only to reappear later, pretending y'all were never called out. If you are embarrassed with yourself, good, you deserve it. But mental gymnastics tend to make mediocre people feel like kings.

Anyone care to bet on how long it will take a Global Warmist disciple (aka...science denier) to attempt a defense of their religion?

 

[baddog]

My guess is never. What do I win?

[LumRaiderFan]

4 hours ago, baddog said:

My guess is never. What do I win?

 

[baddog]

25 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

 

I figured it would be something like that. lol

[Hagar]

What exacerbates the problem is the hard core belief by those on the Left that scientists can’t be bought.  For example, two groups of scientists get a $500,000 great to study Global Warming.  Group 1 doesn’t find any evidence of it.  Group 2 does.  When the time comes for grants to be renewed, Group 1 doesn’t get renewed, but Group 2 does.  We found out during Covid how scientists lie.  IMO Fauci lied about mask.  His initial response was homemade mask don’t work.  Evidently after being chastised by the Left, he became pro mask.  Now there’s a good indication that his initial response was right.  Also, when Trump was saying the Virus came from the Wuhan Lab, Fauci was claiming it evolved in nature and jumped species.  Even Occams Razor would indicate Trump was right, so why was Fauci so quick to come up with an alternative, less likely theory?

Most people won’t deny the possibility of GW, what we question is the fact it’s man made.  Do we really want to turn our world upside down on a “maybe”, with no definitive proof?   I’ve seen film of the Normandy landings in 1944.  The beaches appear to be as expansive now as it was then.  Based on past predictions of Global Warming doomsayers, that beach should be gone.  I just don’t see enough proof that “the sky is falling”.

[Hagar]

Here’s some interesting pictures of Normandy then & now.  Amazing that it’s changed so little.   

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[TxHoops]

On 5/25/2021 at 10:54 PM, Englebert said:

So this topic has now dropped to Page 2 in the forum, with not one Global Warming cultist defending their religion. Is it because y'all can't? You all have been called out to your face, and yet y'all quiver in the corner peeing in your pants. And the inevitable result is, you will not do any research on your own. You will continue to worship at the alter of Al Gore. You will reappear at a later time to ridicule "non-believers" when you think your rabid pack of fellow blind followers has your back. (Courage in numbers.) You are cowards, and deserve the ridicule you are enduring. I would have a hard time listing all of the self-defense mechanisms y'all are now employing to make yourself feel better. And again, the inevitable is y'all will ignore this topic, only to reappear later, pretending y'all were never called out. If you are embarrassed with yourself, good, you deserve it. But mental gymnastics tend to make mediocre people feel like kings.

Anyone care to bet on how long it will take a Global Warmist disciple (aka...science denier) to attempt a defense of their religion?

 

😂🤣
 

I’ve never met someone so enamored with their own ability to debate as the great Englebert, even those who were actually worthy of such self-worship.  
 

Contrary to what you might think (and much of this quoted post is unbelievably juvenile and indeed embarrassing - for the one posting it), I doubt many are “quivering” or “peeing their pants” at someone who uses big words and hurls insults.  Instead, it is your own insecurity that causes you to be so insulted when someone posts a leading Republican Senator’s statement about climate change. 

We’ve gone down this rabbit hole before.  I tend to go along with people who are trained in the area being discussed, not amateur internet heroes (in their own minds) who overvalue their own opinions.  In that regard, however, my opinion is no better than yours.  I, like you, am not a scientist.  As discussed ad nauseum, I do believe in climate change and that the earth has gotten warmer.  I also agree that man made global warming hasn’t been definitively proven.  
 

But I did see this and you got a response you obviously so desperately craved.   So good on you.  I don’t intend on reposting lengthy dissertations with supporting links that you have criticized in the past (albeit admitting you didn’t read them).  We can agree to disagree (and agree on other points).  And that’s okay. But you can post two or three times (sometimes replying to yourself) if that makes you feel better.  In general, arguing on message boards at night doesn’t appeal to me - particularly when my day job involves being paid to argue for others.  

[Englebert]

52 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I’ve never met someone so enamored with their own ability to debate as the great Englebert, even those who were actually worthy of such self-worship.  
 

Contrary to what you might think (and much of this quoted post is unbelievably juvenile and indeed embarrassing - for the one posting it), I doubt many are “quivering” or “peeing their pants” at someone who uses big words and hurls insults.  Instead, it is your insecurity that you are so insulted when someone posts a leading Republican Senator’s statement about climate change. 

We’ve gone down this rabbit hole before.  I tend to go along with people who are trained in the area being discussed, not amateur internet heroes (in their own minds) who overvalue their own opinions.  In that regard, mine is no better than yours.  I, like you, am not a scientist.  As discussed ad nauseum, I do believe in climate change and that the earth has gotten warmer.  I also agree that man made global warming hasn’t been definitively proven.  
 

But I did see this and you got a response you obviously so desperately craved.   So good on you.  I don’t intend on reposting lengthy dissertations with supporting links that you have criticized in the past (while even admitting you didn’t read them).  We can agree to disagree (and agree on other points).  And that’s okay. But you can post two or three times (sometimes replying to yourself) if that makes you feel better.  In general, arguing on message boards at night doesn’t appeal to me - particularly when my day job involves being paid to argue for others.  

Your analytical skills are indeed horrible. I jokingly made a statement a while back about your analytical skills, and you blew up like an immature little schoolboy. You even threatened to make me "pay" for a simple joke. You demanded I prove my skills, but kept changing the goal posts when I didn't back down. What a joke of a fiasco that was...for you.

And yes, we've been down this Man Made Global Warming rabbit hole before. And like a good little sheeple, you ran like a frightened schoolgirl when I challenged you to prove your contention (of course, which never came). You just hid out in a dark corner pissing in your pants until you felt safe to revisit the topic. And as I predicted, you did zero research of your own...therefore you have definitively earned the moniker of "sheeple". But feel good about yourself...many, many, many have also earned that label. Proudly display that participation trophy.

Your immaturity and lack of simple analytical skills is abundantly clear now. You actually tried to equate an unproven theory that has zero evidence to the "theory" of gravity. Not only did you spout this unbelievable and hilarious analogy, you attempted to denigrate a person with that asinine statement. Elementary children would be proud.

Do you actually think that I'm insecure because you made a statement about a leading Republican Senator's statement. Your words. You can re-read them above. Are you really this stupid? Do you actually think I responded because you "quoted" a person as you contend? Are you really so ignorant or completely oblivious that you intentionally insulted normal people by insinuating that Man Made Global theory is accepted by everyone except the clueless? Again, are you really this obtuse?

You try to paint me as someone that just hurls insults. I hurl insults at those who hurl them first...and especially at those that deserve the backlash to their statements. You are guilty of everything you accuse, but I really do not believe your simplistic brain functionality will enable you to overcome your massive skill of deploying self defense mechanisms. Case in point...you responded...just as I goaded you into. It was a rather easy task to manipulate someone so thin skinned. Your response, nothing but childish insults as unproven as your climate religion. But you know what is glaringly obvious, you now admit that Man Made Global Warming is not a proven theory, even though your earlier contention was that it was as proven as gravity. You were better off when you hid from the topic. Now you just look petty and hypocritical. 

So for those of you that want to skip the childish banter, let's summarize:

TxHoops INSINUATED THAT THE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS PROVEN JUST LIKE THE THEORY OF GRAVITY. NOW HE BACKTRACKS BY ADMITTING MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS UNPROVEN.

Is that a fair summary? You tried to bury your admission in juvenile banter...but the admission is there. How long will it be before you backtrack and start insulting people again based on their beliefs of admittedly (by you) an unproven theory. I'm guessing you'll hide again until you get the pee stains out of your pants, or least buy a new pair.

 

 

 

[TxHoops]

35 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Your analytical skills are indeed horrible. I jokingly made a statement a while back about your analytical skills, and you blew up like an immature little schoolboy. You even threatened to make me "pay" for a simple joke. You demanded I prove my skills, but kept changing the goal posts when I didn't back down. What a joke of a fiasco that was...for you.

And yes, we've been down this Man Made Global Warming rabbit hole before. And like a good little sheeple, you ran like a frightened schoolgirl when I challenged you to prove your contention (of course, which never came). You just hid out in a dark corner pissing in your pants until you felt safe to revisit the topic. And as I predicted, you did zero research of your own...therefore you have definitively earned the moniker of "sheeple". But feel good about yourself...many, many, many have also earned that label.

Your immaturity and lack of simple analytical skills is abundantly clear now. You actually tried to equate an unproven theory that has zero evidence to the "theory" of gravity. Not only did you spout this unbelievable and hilarious analogy, you attempted to denigrate a person with that asinine statement. Elementary children would be proud.

Do you actually think that I'm insecure because you made a statement about a leading Republican Senator's statement. Your words. You can re-read them above. Are you really this stupid? Do you actually think I responded because you "quoted" a person as you contend? Are you really so ignorant or completely oblivious that you intentionally insulted normal people by insinuating that Man Made Global theory is accepted by everyone except the clueless? Again, are you really this obtuse?

You try to paint me as someone that just hurls insults. I hurl insults at those who hurl them first...and especially at those that deserve the backlash to their statements. You are guilty of everything you accuse, but I really do not believe your simplistic brain functionality will be able to overcome your massive skill of deploying self defense mechanisms. Case in point...you responded...just as I goaded you into. It was a rather easy task to manipulate someone so thin skinned. But you know what is glaringly obvious, you now admit that Man Made Global Warming is not a proven theory, even though your earlier contention was that it was as proven as gravity. You were better off when you hid from the topic. Now you just look petty and hypocritical. 

So for those of you that want to skip the childish banter, let's summarize:

TxHoops INSINUATED THAT THE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS PROVEN JUST LIKE THE THEORY OF GRAVITY. NOW HE BACKTRACKS BY ADMITTING MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS UNPROVEN.

Is that a fair summary? You tried to bury your admission in juvenile banter...but the admission is there. How long before will you backtrack and start insulting people again based on their beliefs of admittedly (by you) an unproven theory. I'm guessing you'll hide again until you get the pee stains out of your pants, or least buy a new pair.

 

 

 

What is hilarious is that you talk about childish banter but continue to make posts replete with it. You talked about my logical skills (not analytical) and I offered to post (if you likewise would) a five figure sum with a mod on this site and we could  take the ultimate test in logic (the LSAT).  Unsurprisingly, you weren’t interested in backing up your bloviating.  It’s all quite dumb - you vs the frequently banned poster on this site is a more fair (and equally juvenile).  Maybe he will come back in another version to play with you.  In the meantime, many of us will continue to chuckle at your self-aggrandizing posts.  And I hope you continue to impress yourself as you beg for attention.  Much like my children did.  As stated, some people play parts on the internet.  Others get paid large sums of money to do it in real life.  So you do you.  You are at least the greatest in one person’s mind on this board.  

Edit:  For those of you joining in this amusement (as we have discussed in the past), compare the quoted post herein (the original), with the current.  He actually edited to add MORE bathroom humor insults (literally).  It is becoming more sad than funny.  
 

As for your allegations of backtracking, we have had this discussion before.  Man made global warming as opposed to CLIMATE CHANGE (as I have stated previously) is absolutely debatable.  To put it in my vocational terms, in my opinion, it has not and cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  But I certainly could make a preponderance argument.  
 

 Now resume your insults while calling others juvenile.  You really can’t make this up. 

[Englebert]

28 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

What is hilarious is that you talk about childish banter but continue to make posts replete with it. You talked about my logical skills (not analytical) and I offered to post (if you likewise would) a five figure sum with a mod on this site and we could  take the ultimate test in logic (the LSAT).  Unsurprisingly, you weren’t interested in backing up your bloviating.  It’s all quite dumb - you vs the frequently banned poster on this site is a more fair (and equally juvenile).  Maybe he will come back in another version to play with you.  In the meantime, many of us will continue to chuckle at your self-aggrandizing posts.  And I hope you continue to impress yourself as you beg for attention.  Much like my children did.  As stated, some people play parts on the internet.  Others get paid large sums of money to do it in real life.  So you do you.  You are at least the greatest in one person’s mind on this board.  😂

I offered an alternative test, one more widely administered and accepted, but you ran like a child. I even challenged a gentleman's wager, but you kept changing the goal posts. I knew then you were not serous or worthy of further contemplation. And as I said before, only an unskilled, untrained, naïve, (this could get long) person could actually think that a test is a definitive indication of intelligence, or analytical skills. But hey, I'm used to dealing with thin skinned people that view their worth by challenging people to prove their worth. You accuse me of insecurity but your posts scream of precarious stability. Most, not all, intelligent people observe the fallacy of such piffle, some never learn. That is an internal demon you will have to deal with.

You accuse me of engaging in childish banter while you wallow in childish banter. I've never been shy of admitting I will dive down into the gutter if that is where the poster takes it. You should feel embarrassed. Me...I pretty much already knew your competency...or lack there of. 

You will continue this strategy to try to cover for the fact that you denigrated people for skepticism of a theory you said was emphatically akin to gospel (or written in stone), then when called out, you backtracked. You keep trying to hide this admission, but I will keep reminded the reader what this topic is all about.

 

[Englebert]

Back to the topic. TxHoops insinuated that Man Made Global Warming theory is as proven as gravity. Now he says it is not proven.

Which direction do you want to go Hoops. Back to the gutter, which I have no problem with, or discuss the fallacy of Man Made Global Warming theory. I'm giving you an out...you might want to take it.

[TxHoops]

7 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Back to the topic. TxHoops insinuated that Man Made Global Warming theory is as proven as gravity. Now he says it is not proven.

Which direction do you want to go Hoops. Back to the gutter, which I have no problem with, or discuss the fallacy of Man Made Global Warming. I'm giving you an out...you might want to take it.

We have had this discussion before.  As stated above, there is a distinction between global warming/climate change and man-made global warming.  This is nothing new and I’m not changing anything.  We’ve actually discussed this before (or I have with someone on this board).  I’m not going to state the same things over and over (as I’ve explained above).  So thanks for the “out” I guess lol.  You can carry on but I’m not playing the beat the dead horse game any more than the childish insult game.  

And to a person on this board that I frequently disagree with (including in aspects of this topic), thanks for the text tonight.  I won’t continue to “stoop” and I genuinely appreciate the kind words.  Much respect. 

[Englebert]

26 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

We have had this discussion before.  As stated above, there is a distinction between global warming/climate change and man-made global warming.  This is nothing new and I’m not changing anything.  We’ve actually discussed this before (or I have with someone on this board).  I’m not going to state the same things over and over (as I’ve explained above).  So thanks for the “out” I guess lol.  You can carry on but I’m not playing the beat the dead horse game any more than the childish insult game.  

And to a person on this board that I frequently disagree with (including in aspects of this topic), thanks for the text tonight.  I won’t continue to “stoop” and I genuinely appreciate the kind words.  Much respect. 

No, we have not discussed this before. You have never made a distinction between global warming/climate change and man-made global warming. That is an outright lie. I have always contended that Climate Change is just a rename of Man Made Global Warming. You have never rebutted that. But since you want to impress your compadre on this board (or is it more accurately as a plea for approval...since you publicly pronounced your affirmation instead of a PM reply...but that discussion is for another topic where you discuss your insecurities), please explain the difference so that we all can bask in the subtle nuances of the two. And make sure to explain why one theory is as proven as gravity, but the other one is different.

Wow, you should have taken the out. That is one quality shovel you have.

[Englebert]

How about you answer the following questions: You won't because it would crush your feelings...and you feel you would loose intellectual points with your secret compadre. But I will try anyway:

Will you apologize for denigrating people that are skeptical, or seek more evidence of Climate Change (insert your title here)?

More importantly, will you refrain from denigrating people in the future that do not adhere to your opinion of Climate Change (insert your title here)?

Do you admit that Climate Change (insert your title here) is an unproven theory that is in no way akin to the accepted theory of gravity?

Do you admit that Climate Change (insert your title here) experts do not adhere to scientific methodology, therefore believers in this theory should be the ones that are labeled "science deniers".

You will think this is childish. So do I. But this is where you led the discussion. You started this with an insult. You then got offended when you were insulted back. You can make amends for your original sin by answering the above questions. I will be shocked if you answer them. I bet you will attempt continuing obfuscation by again claiming this whole thing is childish, or you've answered the questions before and that your refuse to beat a dead horse, or that you are above the fray (too intellectually superior to admit guilt...even though you are clearly guilty), etc, etc, etc. Which do you choose? Admission or shovel or hiding in the corner?

[TxHoops]

On 2/15/2021 at 4:58 PM, TxHoops said:

I thought I did when I quoted LRF’s post.   That is a premise that has a ton of support, but hasn’t been proven with absolute certainty.  So AGAIN, while many understand the difference, not sure you do. 
 

And not everything is liberal and conservative.  Some of it is apolitical.  But the low information folks on BOTH sides have trouble grasping that too. 

Sorry it was LRF.  Someone I often disagree with but with whom we share a mutual respect (I think). 

[TxHoops]

 

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

No, we have not discussed this before. You have never made a distinction between global warming/climate change and man-made global warming. That is an outright lie. I have always contended that Climate Change is just a rename of Man Made Global Warming. You have never rebutted that. But since you want to impress your compadre on this board (or is it more accurately as a plea for approval...since you publicly pronounced your affirmation instead of a PM reply...but that discussion is for another topic where you discuss your insecurities), please explain the difference so that we all can bask in the subtle nuances of the two. And make sure to explain why one theory is as proven as gravity, but the other one is different.

Wow, you should have taken the out. That is one quality shovel you have.

Not an outright lie and I did say in the post you quoted it could have been another member of this board.  See above. 

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

How about you answer the following questions: You won't because it would crush your feelings...and you feel you would loose intellectual points with your secret compadre. But I will try anyway:

Will you apologize for denigrating people that are skeptical, or seek more evidence of Climate Change (insert your title here)?

More importantly, will you refrain from denigrating people in the future that do not adhere to your opinion of Climate Change (insert your title here)?

Do you admit that Climate Change (insert your title here) is an unproven theory that is in no way akin to the accepted theory of gravity?

Do you admit that Climate Change (insert your title here) experts do not adhere to scientific methodology, therefore believers in this theory should be the ones that are labeled "science deniers".

You will think this is childish. So do I. But this is where you led the discussion. You started this with an insult. You then got offended when you were insulted back. You can make amends for your original sin by answering the above questions. I will be shocked if you answer them. I bet you will attempt continuing obfuscation by again claiming this whole thing is childish, or you've answered the questions before and that your refuse to beat a dead horse, or that you are above the fray (too intellectually superior to admit guilt...even though you are clearly guilty), etc, etc, etc. Which do you choose? Admission or shovel or hiding in the corner?

This is not about me trying not to “loose (sic) intellectual points.”  I posted a video I found interesting about Lindsey Graham.  I posted a joke about HIM with it.  To which you posted, and reposted, and reposted (acknowledge ME!  Acknowledge Me!) with multiple juvenile insults and quips contained.  
 

I have stated and restated this same stuff before.  I “get” your position, you obviously don’t get mine.  That’s okay.  People can disagree. 

[TxHoops]

And for finality, and to repost something from another thread where a list of questions was answered, I will copy and paste here a post of mine from a few years ago (with which, like then, I will make my way back to the sports board):  

I really was just trying to educate and present some real news that is apart from the normal droll of this board.  But just so not to avoid the "questions" you guys like to pose, I would offer the following on my way back to the sports' boards  

1) The Earth is warming

 Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.

These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:

• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up

There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.

Specifically, the “

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

• the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
• the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
• the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels; 
• if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
• a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …

• Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
• Royal Society of Canada
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Academié des Sciences (France)
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
• Indian National Science Academy
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
• National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
• Australian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
• Caribbean Academy of Sciences
• Indonesian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Irish Academy
• Academy of Sciences Malaysia
• Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

… in either one or both of these documents: 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  (GISS)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
   (NOAA)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
   (NAS)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  (SOCC)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  (EPA)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
   (RS)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
   (AGU)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
   (AIP)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  (NCAR)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  (AMS)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
   (CMOS)

If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

2) Man is the cause 

 

No one credible is arguing that man is the sole cause.  However, it is naive at best to somehow convince one's self that man isn't playing a large role. It’s true that natural fluxes in the 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 are much larger than anthropogenic emissions. But for roughly the last 10,000 years, until the industrial revolution, every gigatonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by one coming out.

What humans have done is alter one side of this cycle. We put approximately 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air but, unlike nature, we are not taking any out.

Thankfully, nature is compensating in part for our emissions, because only about half the CO2 we emit stays in the air. Nevertheless, since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, the atmospheric concentration that was relatively stable for the previous 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 years has now 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 by over 35%.

So whatever the total amounts going in and out “naturally,” humans have clearly upset the balance and significantly altered an important part of the 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

 

3) This warming is detrimental to the Earth's health

 

I don’t know if there is a meaningful way to define an “optimum” average temperature for planet earth. Surely it is better now for all of us than it was 20,000 years ago when so much land was trapped beneath ice sheets. Perhaps any point between the recent climate and the extreme one we may be heading for, with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, is as good as any other. Maybe it’s even better with no ice caps anywhere.

It doesn’t matter. The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

This kind of sudden change is rare even in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before — that sounds reassuring, right?

Not so much. Once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.

What we know about ecosystems, and what geologic history demonstrates, is that dramatic climate changes — up or down or sideways — are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. That, all in all, is not likely to be a good thing.

[TxHoops]

Ok, one last post and then I’m really done.  It is amazing to me that I can have frequent philosophical or political differences with many on this board (Hagar, LRF, baddog, BSWildcats, the late great stevenash - to name a few), without resulting in juvenile name calling. Granted, with a few, we have had such discussions in person as well and are assuredly friends off of this board.  But some I have never met but still respect greatly.  I wonder what the common denominator would be in the differences in discourse?  Hmmmmm.
 

As such, I will try (on the rare occasions I visit this portion of the website) to keep the discussions civil and respectful.  I’m afraid that requires limiting who discussions are had with.  Sad, but true.  NOW, you guys can carry on with this discussion, if you choose, without me. 

[Englebert]

10 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Ok, one last post and then I’m really done.  It is amazing to me that I can have frequent philosophical or political differences with many on this board (Hagar, LRF, baddog, BSWildcats, the late great stevenash - to name a few), without resulting in juvenile name calling. Granted, with a few, we have had such discussions in person as well and are assuredly friends off of this board.  But some I have never met but still respect greatly.  I wonder what the common denominator would be in the differences in discourse?  Hmmmmm.
 

As such, I will try (on the rare occasions I visit this portion of the website) to keep the discussions civil and respectful.  I’m afraid that requires limiting who discussions are had with.  Sad, but true.  NOW, you guys can carry on with this discussion, if you choose, without me. 

That's funny. I have "debates" with many people, and quite frequently, and they don't devolve into childish banter. Maybe because they don't hurl insults then play victim when the insults are hurled back. Hmmmmmm.

[Englebert]

12 hours ago, TxHoops said:

And for finality, and to repost something from another thread where a list of questions was answered, I will copy and paste here a post of mine from a few years ago (with which, like then, I will make my way back to the sports board):  

I really was just trying to educate and present some real news that is apart from the normal droll of this board.  But just so not to avoid the "questions" you guys like to pose, I would offer the following on my way back to the sports' boards  

1) The Earth is warming

 Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.

These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:

• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up

There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.

Specifically, the “

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

• the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
• the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
• the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels; 
• if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
• a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …

• Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
• Royal Society of Canada
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Academié des Sciences (France)
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
• Indian National Science Academy
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
• National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
• Australian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
• Caribbean Academy of Sciences
• Indonesian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Irish Academy
• Academy of Sciences Malaysia
• Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
• Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

… in either one or both of these documents: 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  (GISS)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
   (NOAA)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
   (NAS)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  (SOCC)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  (EPA)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
   (RS)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
   (AGU)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
   (AIP)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  (NCAR)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
  (AMS)
• This is the hidden content, please

  • Sign In
  • or
  • Sign Up
   (CMOS)

If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

2) Man is the cause 

 

No one credible is arguing that man is the sole cause.  However, it is naive at best to somehow convince one's self that man isn't playing a large role. It’s true that natural fluxes in the 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 are much larger than anthropogenic emissions. But for roughly the last 10,000 years, until the industrial revolution, every gigatonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by one coming out.

What humans have done is alter one side of this cycle. We put approximately 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air but, unlike nature, we are not taking any out.

Thankfully, nature is compensating in part for our emissions, because only about half the CO2 we emit stays in the air. Nevertheless, since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, the atmospheric concentration that was relatively stable for the previous 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 years has now 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 by over 35%.

So whatever the total amounts going in and out “naturally,” humans have clearly upset the balance and significantly altered an important part of the 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

 

3) This warming is detrimental to the Earth's health

 

I don’t know if there is a meaningful way to define an “optimum” average temperature for planet earth. Surely it is better now for all of us than it was 20,000 years ago when so much land was trapped beneath ice sheets. Perhaps any point between the recent climate and the extreme one we may be heading for, with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, is as good as any other. Maybe it’s even better with no ice caps anywhere.

It doesn’t matter. The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

This kind of sudden change is rare even in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before — that sounds reassuring, right?

Not so much. Once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.

What we know about ecosystems, and what geologic history demonstrates, is that dramatic climate changes — up or down or sideways — are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. That, all in all, is not likely to be a good thing.

That was a lot of work on someone's part only to verify the conclusion that Man Made Global Warming in just an opinion based on junk science wrapped in the farce of real science. Point 1 is rife with altered, edited, and even made-up data, so any results are definitely in question. But Points 2 and 3 are the real kicker. If you notice, not one shred of evidence is presented to verify Man's effect, only conjecture and wild speculation. You (if it was you that wrote this) even threw in an insult...saying someone must be naïve not to believe in the author's viewpoint. And incredibly, but predicted, no extraneous variables have been addressed...extraneous variables that very well could be the overwhelming factors for any perceived change...negating or regulating to inconsequential Man's role. That is a spit in the face to scientific methodology. And to try to pass this off as science is laughable, not to mention incredibly arrogant and naïve. 

When are these "scientists" going to incorporate studies on sunspots, solar flares, sun hibernation, the Moon's varying gravitation pull, the Earth's varing axis spin, the Earth's varying orbital path, volcano emissions, earthquake emissions, Earth's varying magnetic fields, neutrino bombardment, etc. The list goes on. To simply ignore these factors and place the blame directly on Man is the very definition of naivety. 

And please explain why every single temperature forecasting model (not 50%, not 75%, not 95%, not 99%, but 100%) produced by these "experts" has been wrong...wildly wrong. And not wrong on both sides, but always predicting warmer temperatures than what ultimately pans out. That is a 100% failure rate. Hmmmmm.

So again, to summarize, you have zero evidence of Man Made Global Warming. But you will continue to insult people who do not worship at the alter of this cultist theory. Hate to see you leave the topic. You've performed a good service by letting readers see for themselves the FACT that no evidence exists. Maybe people that don't pay much attention to this topic can easily see for themselves the absence of any credible evidence, laid out in a short synopsis. 

[Englebert]

And one more thing. AOC stated a couple of years ago that Earth would be irreparably harmed (i.e. game over for Earth, all life forms extinct) in 12 years unless we bow to the alter of Global Warming cultist and give up our worldly possessions in order to save her. (paraphrased, but please point out any inaccuracies.) She didn't indicate how long extinction would come after the 12 year line in the sand, but she stated that 12 years was the ultimatum timeline to alter our ways...or else doom is inevitable. Do you agree with her? Is AOC the messiah of the Man Made Global Warming hypothesis? Do you disown her views or agree with them? I find it funny that you insult people that disagree with AOC. Maybe you do too. I don't know. Let's see.

Just for fun, let's throw Al Gore into the mix. Next time manbearpig comes a'calling, I need to remember to give him a call. Is he the messiah of MMGW, or does AOC hold that title? Should Nancy Pelosi get consideration for the title? What about Chucky Schumer? Can't forget ol' Joe Biden? How about any of the comedy crew at CNN or MSNBC? Should they be in the running for the messiah title? I'm starting to see why you think there is a consensus. Do you see the common denominator...and no, it is not political affiliation.

[Englebert]

So once again this topic has fallen to page two...so let's get it back up to where it belongs, considering President Biden (cough cough) believes this topic is one of the utmost existential threats to mankind (and he is the most powerful man on the planet). Since the most powerful man on the planet (redundant for effect), along with his most powerful supporters, not to mention the majority of the largest political party in the U.S. (and therefore the world), all think in unison on this topic, shouldn't we the common people get some minute glimpse of some miniscule sliver of evidence of Man's quest to destroy the Earth. Hoops tried to explain the fallacy then intelligently bolted from the topic once real evidence was required. He tried the ol' tried and true deception based on ambivalence of the audience. And as all before him, failed miserably to produce any proof. A corner is now once again occupied. Who is next? Who will step up and provide evidence of what Hoops labeled a consensus of evidence? Who will forgo the tripe previously offered...in which no constraints, no benchmarks, no pinnacles, no high and low standards of Earth's resiliency were identified, but somehow deemed by "experts" as inevitably being crossed? Who will provide that long sought evidence of Man's contribution to weather manipulation, while simultaneously ruling out the more obvious culprits? You Man Made Global Warming cultists have had plenty of time for research...so who will step up? I'm guessing there is still a whole lot of peeing in the corner. Since I'm confident that none of you will step up, the pressing question is how long will it take for you to perform your mental gymnastics to blackout this post and return to mocking people that don't conform to your religion? Ball is in your corner...keep it dry (unstained).