Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
That’s just being sensational again.
That’s just being sensational again.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
I think it’s slightly different. The people who actually saw Christ walking, is relatively few, and those who recorded seeing it is even fewer.
The population that has studied and found the same thing about greenhouse gases is every scientist that has studied it for almost 200 years. It is an incredibly clear consensus.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
His existence is recorded by historians of the time, specifically Josephus who if anything was biased against Christ, so you basically have to discard all that and choose to deny it. Even most non believers aren't willing to go that far.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
I’m not saying I don’t think Christ existed. Just that the proof he existed is not comparable to what is considered scientific proof.
Also you have to consider believing he existed and believing he was the son of God that performed miracles are two very different things
rsm
Well-known member
acceptance
Well-known member
Anyone who claims that man-made global warming is “settled science” is a moron.
acceptance
Well-known member
I just posted a study looking at the lockdowns, which is the closest thing to a controlled experiment that you’re ever going to get, that actually found the opposite, IE less human activity lead to warmer temps.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
That’s just you picking and choosing. I have only mentioned greenhouse gases. You post a study about aerosols. Not the same thing. The study even said that they have an opposite impact of greenhouse gases lol.
The study was interesting not because it is new information, but it was done during a time that hasn’t really happened before with the lockdowns.
Anything else?
acceptance
Well-known member
No, the study found that decreased human activity, which includes "greenhouse gas" emission, was linked to increased earth temps. You're free to speculate or further investigate the reasons why, but that wasn't what the study examined.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
Incorrect.
acceptance
Well-known member
Okay, you're right, I see they were looking at aerosols. Regardless, the broader point, that decreased human activity is linked to warmer temps is still true and arguable less subject to scrutiny.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
That’s why I said greenhouse gases.
H
harddriver
Well-known member
And there it is...................................................
acceptance
Well-known member
The best real-world empirical data we have shows a link between the reduction of human activity, which includes gas and aerosol emissions, and a warmer earth temp.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
Nope. That is a very grand conclusion from a very finite study.
acceptance
Well-known member
No, it is the basic data, or do you want to argue that human activity didn’t decrease or earth temps increase? You seem to be trying to convince yourself that the more granular study, with it’s complicated models and predictions about future cooling are better evidence to support your preconceived beliefs than the straightforward facts.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
That is not the case at all, nor is it a fact. I haven’t read the study since you initially posted it but I remember that it was studying surface temps, and there was a clear conclusion that it affected surface temps of areas that had a higher concentration of aerosols (pre pandemic) more so than those with lesser. Some areas showed only a negligible change. That is not exactly “earth temps” as you put it. It’s localized based on localized pollution.
Secondly you continue to use “man made” as a term that is either wildly generic or specific depending on what point you are trying to make. Some greenhouse gases are manmade, some aerosols are manmade. You can’t use them to make blanket statements about “man made climate change”.
3rdly I’ve several times stated that I hold no stake in predictions and models and that you should only consider the actual data.
The more you post the more fallacious your logic becomes
acceptance
Well-known member
"The lockdowns and reduced societal activity related to the COVID-19 pandemic affected emissions of pollutants in ways that slightly warmed the planet for several months last year, according to new research led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)."
"Temperatures over parts of Earth's land surface last spring were about 0.2-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.1-0.3 degrees Celsius) warmer than would have been expected with prevailing weather conditions, the study found."
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
"The lockdowns and reduced societal activity related to the COVID-19 pandemic affected emissions of pollutants in ways that slightly warmed the planet for several months last year, according to new research led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)."
thats a nice synopsis, but what did the data show?
It’s well known that most aerosols have a cooling effect on the planet. No one is arguing that. What does that have to do with the greenhouse gases that I mentioned though.
That is the fallacy of your logic.
acceptance
Well-known member
Explain, rationalize, deny, whatever, the fact is that that a reduction of human activity over the pandemic is linked to increased earth temps, thus contradicting a mainstay of climate alarmism. This study is made for people desperately looking for a way to justify their preconceived beliefs in spite of contrary, real world evidence.