Climate and Weather

espola said:
That's interesting since there is good geological evidence that the Sahara has been desert since about 2500 BCE or sooner.

More information on the Sahara green/brown cycles here --

en.wikipedia.org

Sahara - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

I know it's not as credible as Wiki but let's give the 'Cats some benefit of the doubt.

dad4 said:
Bill Nye is an actor. Quoting him is like getting your medical advice from Doogie Howser.

How about you dredge up a 10-20 year old government report and see what it was predicting? You know, try to actually find out what mainstream scientific opinion on climate was saying in 2003.

I know it is easier to do a web search for hyperbole from some lightweight MSM type with an am-stud degree. But those aren’t the ones I’m defending.
Click to expand...

You know what, Dad, we finally agree! Tell your libtard friend Espola that Nye has a degree in Mechanical Engineering. The 3 times I've done it he wouldn't listen.

I will apologize to you for not announcing my sarcasm ahead of time, though.
 
espola said:
What did they get wrong?
Click to expand...

No idea... I don't read Wikipedia or consider it a guaranteed, credible source for anything. Do you understand how Wikipedia works? So the bigger question is this... should we trust Wikipedia saying they aren't a trustworthy source?


Reliability of Wikipedia
1693946183632.png
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Reliability_of_Wikip...


Because Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and ...

‎Wikipedia editing model · ‎Assessments
 
Slobodan said:
I know it's not as credible as Wiki but let's give the 'Cats some benefit of the doubt.



You know what, Dad, we finally agree! Tell your libtard friend Espola that Nye has a degree in Mechanical Engineering. The 3 times I've done it he wouldn't listen.

I will apologize to you for not announcing my sarcasm ahead of time, though.
Click to expand...
Within the relevant part of the wiki article about Sahara are references to published articles from which the statements in the wiki article are drawn. I have copied some of them out for you below --

1693946416296.png
 
Last edited:
espola said:
Within the relevant part of the wiki article about Sahara are references to published articles from which the statements in the wiki article are drawn. I have copies some of them out for you below --

View attachment 18003
Click to expand...

You're such a cornball. Did you read the part where Wikipedia says you can't source Wikipedia as factual? Again, I haven't seen anyone here challenge the existence of climate change. The only relevant issue is what's to be done about it. That's why Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord... he got tired of footing 20% of the bill when the worst offenders just laughed at it. I know libtards think it's okay to just print more money/inflation but cuts HAVE to come from somewhere. (Don't worry... Pelosi won't let anyone touch our taxpayer dollars going to her entertainment at the Kennedy Center.).

What would you like the U.S. to do since the majority of climate offenders don't care about doing anything? You want to build more EVs? You seen what it takes to make a battery? Do I call in sick when Gavin turns my power off for the night?
 
Slobodan said:
You're such a cornball. Did you read the part where Wikipedia says you can't source Wikipedia as factual? Again, I haven't seen anyone here challenge the existence of climate change. The only relevant issue is what's to be done about it. That's why Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord... he got tired of footing 20% of the bill when the worst offenders just laughed at it. I know libtards think it's okay to just print more money/inflation but cuts HAVE to come from somewhere. (Don't worry... Pelosi won't let anyone touch our taxpayer dollars going to her entertainment at the Kennedy Center.).

What would you like the U.S. to do since the majority of climate offenders don't care about doing anything? You want to build more EVs? You seen what it takes to make a battery? Do I call in sick when Gavin turns my power off for the night?
Click to expand...
As I said, you don't know how it works.

If you find something wrong with an article, you can change it, although many articles are either locked because of controversial subject matter or subject to review by a body of volunteer researchers. For the Sahara article in question there is a list of all the changes --

en.wikipedia.org

Sahara: Revision history - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

and also a talk forum where users can discuss requested changes

Talk:Sahara - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Happy to be of service in furthering your education.
 
dad4 said:
Look it up. It’s surprisingly small. Around 200-300.

But they had LOTS if kids and grandkids.

news.ku.edu

DNA sequences suggest 250 people made up original Native American founding population

The latest news and information for the University of Kansas.
news.ku.edu news.ku.edu

Within a few thousand years, there were enough people to kill off the dire wolves, wooly mammoths, giant sloths, and most of the other large land mammals. Just spears. No one had invented a bow yet.

Not definitive. Other researchers have said it was multiple waves of migration, which would imply larger numbers.
Click to expand...
Interesting theory.

The Wooly Mammoths main diet was grass. Towards the end of the last ice age and the climate warmed the forest began to spread. The forests began encroaching on the grasslands pushing these animals into smaller and smaller areas. With a reduced habitat, dwindling numbers leading to a weaker animal they became a much easier target for humans.

Humans may have been the final blow but they were far from the reason why the Wooly Mammoths disappeared.
 
espola said:
Did you know that Newton's Theory of Gravitation is still called a "theory" despite the fact that NASA and SpaceX use it every day??

Did you know that Einstein's Theories of Relativity (special and general) are still called "theories" despite the fact that GPS wouldn't work without taking them into the calculations?
Click to expand...
Funny. You didn't know until you looked it up online.. fraud.
 
dad4 said:
You have given us one reference: a Danish man with two political science degrees, one reprimand from the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, and zero scientific credentials.

I’ve given you an official report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That’s not a back and forth. That’s bringing a plastic butter knife to a gun fight.
Click to expand...
Are you saying NOAA is always right? I hope not..
 
Slobodan said:
Go read my post again, Fudd.

Hey, how come you're hiding from my posts about JoeTato Briben being a fascist dictator? You ALWAYS run from factual posts, don't you? Maybe do a Wiki search.
Click to expand...
The Meat Beater never changes. He runs from the truth.. right into a corner. Then he pops out on another thread and acts like he's already answered the questions. Richard is a comedy act, and as long as you understand it you can relegate him back to the corner.
 
Multi Sport said:
Are you saying NOAA is always right? I hope not..
Click to expand...
No. But if I have to choose between NOAA and an orange haired man with a sharpie, I'm trusting NOAA.


Slobodan said:
I know it's not as credible as Wiki but let's give the 'Cats some benefit of the doubt.

Click to expand...
I’m curious. What did you think that article was about? It’s a lecture about how to assess integrate multiple different estimates for temperature for years which lack hard data because they predate the invention of thermometers.

I agree it’s a neat topic. I’d be really surprised if you got beyond the fact that the headline contains the word “controversy”.
 
dad4 said:
I never said you were the one who grabbed a sharpie and did an impromptu hurricance forecast.

That was a different genius. Remember him? Apparently he is facing felony charges in multiple states now.
Click to expand...
Ok.. now I get you. Try to have an actual conversation and you decide to bring in President Trump. What is it with you people? Does he really live in your head that much that he leaks into every conversation you have? SMH...
 
dad4 said:
Timely, and instantly misinterpreted.

The article is about an unwillingness to include non-climate factors in climate related articles. Specifically, most fires are (deliberately or accidentally) caused by humans. But they are worse if they hit an area made more vulnerable by climate change. All true. But the author had to drop point #1 because it distracts from the climate change argument.

That’s not good for science. But it does not imply that there are thousands of scientists who believe “nothing is really happening” or “fossil fuels have nothing to do with it.”.

But show the headline to Hound or Fox, and that’s exactly what they claim.
Click to expand...
Not misinterpreted at all.

Here is an article written by the guy talking about how science publications only look for certain type of articles. And this creates a problem in that it creates a huge incentive to publish what they want. Publishing is key to get more funding.

And the current system as he points out is not one of science inquiry. It is a self reinforcing loop.

We saw the exact same thing durind Covid. You keep pointing to the papers and officials stating this would happen. They did not allow dissenting opinions. This is what we see as it relates to climate change.

nypost.com

As a scientist, I’m not allowed to tell the full truth about climate change

What really should matter isn’t citations for the journals, clicks for the media, or career status for the academics — but research that actually helps society.
nypost.com nypost.com
 
Desert Hound said:
Not misinterpreted at all.

Here is an article written by the guy talking about how science publications only look for certain type of articles. And this creates a problem in that it creates a huge incentive to publish what they want. Publishing is key to get more funding.

And the current system as he points out is not one of science inquiry. It is a self reinforcing loop.

We saw the exact same thing durind Covid. You keep pointing to the papers and officials stating this would happen. They did not allow dissenting opinions. This is what we see as it relates to climate change.

nypost.com

As a scientist, I’m not allowed to tell the full truth about climate change

What really should matter isn’t citations for the journals, clicks for the media, or career status for the academics — but research that actually helps society.
nypost.com nypost.com
Click to expand...

It gets misinterpreted as soon as you believe "therefore we can ignore the evidence in what does get published."

Which seems to be where you are.
 
dad4 said:
It gets misinterpreted as soon as you believe "therefore we can ignore the evidence in what does get published."

Which seems to be where you are.
Click to expand...
The problem is you are advocating not publishing studies that go against the government line.

You and others dont like to see or read about questions, or people pointing out problems with the current theory and offering up their own.

This quite frankly is the position you and the gov/media held during COVID. It is not a rational or a good standard.

We want to see a back and forth. The public shouldnt be fed one line and not be exposed to why the theory may be completely wrong. Especially in light of all the things gov wants to change the economy as it relates to a theory.

It is not in the public interest to not know about other studies and/or opinions from scientists skeptical to the catastrophic global warming theory.

You would think that after the failure of the consensus during COVID one should not just blindly follow along.

But as they say people that dont understand/remember history are doomed to make the same mistakes again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top