TIL academic researchers are flush with cash, science is a fake industry, and scientists' conclusions are just guesses.
My whole life is a lie.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Charlie Marlow
- Start date
- Status
TIL academic researchers are flush with cash, science is a fake industry, and scientists' conclusions are just guesses.
My whole life is a lie.
That's why in most cases peer review is so valuable and part of the process in science. But when it comes to pet projects like man-made global warming peer review goes out the window because it's a hunt for data to fit a narrative.
About 10 years ago didn't a major university get busted for covering up data that didn't fit its man-made narrative
Why??? I wouldn't get millions of dollars in research funds and grants because my paper would be short and sweet.
Global climate change by Red Rover 70
It's all part of the natural global cycle of warming and cooling.
The End
Perfect. Please take video when you present it at the conference.
That's my whole point about peer review. You wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the conference if you had an honest rebuttal to their science.
In all honesty all you would have to point out is Mars and my points in this thread. Last time I checked there's no SUVs or coal-fired power plants on Mars.
The problem is you're spewing dogma and talking points, you don't actually have any knowledge based on your scientific research of the subject. You don't speak the same language as actual scientists. Your vague generalities won't get you very far if you're talking to people who have been doing actual scientific research.
What there was was an abundance of water that fed it's Greenhouse into a compounding effect of destruction.
That's it huh? Just mars. No context or further reading necessary. Perhaps thats why religeon teaches to believe by factless faith, so you can be told what to believe without any supporting evidence.
Trying to argue with him is like trying to knock out a river.
I think the evidence that most of the water is gone is pretty damning. Especially considering at one time Mars had more water than we did.
It's pretty damn interesting that all you professors and scientists can't answer a simple question that a guy posting on a rival's site is asking?
And in sports that's called scoreboard.
And in sports that's called scoreboard.
Do I need to post all the numerous articles? I will if you want to be totally anal about it.
They pretty much all say it was there but they just don't know where it went like it magically disappeared by David Copperfield. 
No just unreliable when they find facts that don't fit their narrative. All them years are claiming about water on Mars and then when they find out it blows up there man-made global warming Theory they now claim they don't know where it went.
Last edited:
Mars never had more water. It had large, shallow seas.
Second, mars lost it's water from solar winds stripping aways it's atmosphere. And yes, mars can have water in the atmosphere as its sublimation, freezing and evaporation temperature thresholds are much lower than earth given its very low gravity and atmospheric pressures.
Did you know any of this? Or did someone rell you to believe that crap you posted by faith?
I seriously have no dog in this fight (i honest to god truly don't care) but the amount of times that scientific consensus has been majorly wrong in history is extremely high -- if you don't believe me, look at how einstein got treated as a patent clerk. And the scientific community has done an extremely poor job of communicating the connection between climate and weather and how things will work (they are connected intimately and anyone with a brain knows it). lots of loud talking and political bs but nothing that can make the common person understand -- that's not a good combination. and if you can't break things down that low on something this important then there is something wrong with your theory.
there is no such thing as "consensus science" or "the science is settled". anyone who uses those arguments needs to go back to school.
there is no such thing as "consensus science" or "the science is settled". anyone who uses those arguments needs to go back to school.
I stand corrected on the amount. I guess the updated numbers as it was close to the percentage of the Atlantic Ocean. Or the Arctic Ocean as a whole buy the updated data
Isn't blaming solar winds as a major contributor counterintuitive since you have to lose the atmosphere first?
Honest question.
Honest question.
Wrong.
Climate science is about defining the constants and observing the natural behavior and responses in different environments. Climatology will go deep into particle, chemical and geographical physics to establish it's own constants of cause and effect. With these constants it will do it's best to define the behaviors of the hadley cells, the kinetic energy traversing across the globe from warm to cold (and vice versa) areas (winds, ocean currents). It is like how biology will use these same categories to establish constants and it's patterns in nature.
Weather is a state. Weather men should always be allowed a range of right/wrong as our incompleteness of knowing where all particles in the solar system are and the incomplete climate science makes it (weather) very, very difficult to project. In fact, weathermen and the models are generally pretty solid at projecting outcomes using these constants despite all of this. They are going by averages and understood behaviors. So there is always more to the story, like with all sciences.
That doesn't mean that we should throw away what we know because of this, like you seem to be indirectly suggesting. We know how the human heart works in a very incomplete way, but we know enough about it to (imperfectly) perform surgery, if needed. You won't tell a heart surgeon to back off from your chest because he doesn't know everything about all there is to know about the heart and it's properties, right?
Same goes for greenhouse gasses. We know through direct observations and paleo-records what happens when the amount of greenhouse gasses are given an increased concentration. Greenhouses that are supplied carbon dioxide see a drastic increase in temperature. It is known that carbon dioxide's radiative forcing is 1.7 versus water vapor's .02 meaning it is a full 85x more powerful. However it isn't just CO2 that we are concerned about. The public barely mentions nitrous oxide, surface ozone, methane which all are 100-2000x the radiative forcing of CO2 (and a bunch of other chemicals) that have seen even steeper increases. We also know that some particles reflect sunlight which would cool the earth, like many dust particles. All particles have an effect on the overall radiative forcing on the earth.
We know these facts to be as true (as true can be) in physical science. The physics have been tried countless times from lab observations, the data collecting from sites around the world using placebo tests. So we aren't going to just say those tests are not real because we don't know everything there is to know.
I could literally right a thesis on what is wrong with your statements. It's crazy that someone who admits they know nothing about the subject will basically call out scientists as being idiots. My .......
Last edited:
I overate today, world hunger doesn't exist. (I know this is what you were hinting at, btw)
God I want to show that I'm open-minded and I want to concede the point but I don't see how that makes any sense. You couldn't have any water without an atmosphere. You would have to lose the water first through greenhouse and then you would lose your atmosphere. That's how they ended up with so much CO2 in their thin atmosphere.
No. It's physics.
The dynamic of mar's atmosphere and physical structure made it impossible to hold on to water. The core of the planet was too small to continue spinning at a different rate from it's upper layers, causing a loss of the magnetic shield (which is what keeps the solar winds from stripping away earth's atmophere). Through time, Mars lost more and more of its water to space from both the lack of gravity to hold it down and the stripping away of it's atmosphere from solar winds.
Nobody said Mars doesn't have an atmosphere. It does have one still. However, the size of it is only about a percent of earth's. Very low dense and shallow.
I know they have a really thin atmosphere I've got it there I'm just using my voice to text right now
i never said anything about knowing nothing or anything on the subjects -- that was your words put into my mouth.
i also never said scientists were idiots. i simply said "consensus science" or that "the science is settled" are not arguments and that anyone who uses them needs to go back to school. there are a ton of variables (plant growth, evolution, etc.) that aren't taken into account or communicated well -- at all.
ALL i said was that scientists have done a horrible job of communicating the problem -- if there is one. and that if you can't communicate in forty years what the problem actually is and put it in terms that the common man can understand that there is something wrong with your theory -- it may be worse, it may be better, it doesn't matter -- just that something is wrong with the theory. einstein took less than a decade and his physics were way more incomprehensible than this.
i have no dog in the fight and i DO NOT CARE about the argument because i think both sides are juvenile -- just so happens i have been exposed to more on the scientific side lately so i kicked you as opposed to them.
The solar winds would have to contribute after they lose most of their atmosphere. How can you have a true greenhouse effect without a full-fledged atmosphere?
You seem to think that Albert Einstein's theories are complete sciences on their own, but they are not. Climate science is a range of science, like physics. Albert's theories were not. Albert's theories were much smaller and helped 'to form' a science. Huge difference.
You don't. Which is why Mars is so fridgid. Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C) without them.
- Status
