Thanks for helping make the argument. Our “recorded history“ covers something like .00000001% of the earths know existance.
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
Maybe you should ask Desert Hound where he got his evidence for this statement --
So in the past the climate around the globe has fluctuated wildly. Being vastly colder and vastly warmer countless times throughout Earths history. None of those events were due to human activity and none of them caused global catastrophe. This is the normal variation of the Earths climate.
According to your point, it can't be from "recorded history".
This might help, if you read it carefully --
Volcanic carbon dioxide drove ancient global warming event | University of Southampton
New research, led by the University of Southampton and involving a team of international scientists, suggests that an extreme global warming event 56 million years ago was driven by massive CO2 emissions from volcanoes, during the formation of the North Atlantic Ocean.
Imagine how much worse it's going to be when Choo Choo Biden builds a railroad from California to Africa. You think the train will have solar panels?
You have 15,177 posts. Why do you keep asking people to quote you?
Maybe people should just stop making things up.
Yep... you're one of 'em.
Say, Fudd, you think you'll be brave enough to try Railroad Joe's ocean train once it's done? Correct me if I'm wrong but "t" never said anything that fucking stupid, did he?
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
It means nothing until you put a year on it. When? Also, what are you doing to mitigate this crisis?
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
So are you claiming that the Ice Age did not exist
?
Are you abandoning the "recorded history" point?
Desert Hound
DA
You know what didnt happen?This might help, if you read it carefully --
Volcanic carbon dioxide drove ancient global warming event | University of Southampton
New research, led by the University of Southampton and involving a team of international scientists, suggests that an extreme global warming event 56 million years ago was driven by massive CO2 emissions from volcanoes, during the formation of the North Atlantic Ocean.www.southampton.ac.uk
Catastrophe as in runaway global warming.
The earth has always fluctuated wildly in temperatures. A natural thing.
And yet somehow we think this time it is different?
Desert Hound
DA
Funny thing is people think that the climate should always be stable.
You see stupid comments in papers or by politicians that a drought affecting the Western US is caused by manmade global warming.
And yet events like this have happened all the time.
About a thousand years ago as one of many examples a culture called the Anasazi thrived in NM/CO. Suddenly or over a rather quick period of time that culture vanished. The accepted explanation is the climate changed...ie extended period of years of drought...which forced them to leave.
5-10k yrs ago the Sahara was a rainforest.
The planet is always changing.
You see stupid comments in papers or by politicians that a drought affecting the Western US is caused by manmade global warming.
And yet events like this have happened all the time.
About a thousand years ago as one of many examples a culture called the Anasazi thrived in NM/CO. Suddenly or over a rather quick period of time that culture vanished. The accepted explanation is the climate changed...ie extended period of years of drought...which forced them to leave.
5-10k yrs ago the Sahara was a rainforest.
The planet is always changing.
Happened again
SILVER ELITE
is recorded history accurate? the junk vaccine data still has you hooked?
The irony is that the global cooling of the 70's is dismissed as unsophisticated climate science, yet the same scientists rely on decades and centuries old temperature data.
How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be
Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed
That's my recollection of the claims of the time:How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be
Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazedwww.scientificamerican.com
"that there had been a gradual decrease in global average temperatures from about 1940, now believed to be a consequence of soot and aerosols that offered a partial shield to the earth as well as the gradual retreat of an abnormally warm interlude."
Pollution, both air and water, was the big environmental issue of the 70's which resulted in a significant improvement in both in many communities. We should continue to pursue measures improving air and water quality because we have a proven record of success in these areas. Changing our climate? Good freaking luck.
So close, but you just missed it.
I don't dispute anything in the article. I'm not sure what you think it proves, nor does it contradict anything I've said. The article starts out like there is going to be some stellar rebuke of the cooling theory, when it just recounted the circumstances around the article in Newsweek. It was a an oft repeated theory at that time that pollution (and/or aerosols, soot, etc) was shielding the earth from the sun's rays.
This was in the article --
But there also was a small but growing counter-theory that carbon dioxide and other pollutants accompanying the Industrial Age were creating a warming belt in the atmosphere, and by about 1980 it was clear that the earth's average temperature was headed upward.
You are not disputing that?