Climate Change - Yet another UN report

goat said:
Any fifth grader can see how the continental puzzle plates used to fit perfectly together as Pangea.
Click to expand...
Stay focused. Nobody knows exactly where any piece of land was at any given time. Nobody is omniscient, not even geologists. This means that you are not omniscient.

You do not know where the land mass of today's Antarctica was five million years ago, much less where it was 40 million years ago, much less where it was 150 million years ago, much less where it was 240 million years ago.

Yes, tectonic plates move. No, you are not omniscient concerning unobserved events of the distant past.

You also don't understand radiometric dating. You obviously think it imparts omniscience. You claim that you were told to believe that certain fossils on that land mass were dated back to the Eocene. What was the published error for the specific dating of those specific fossils?

Next question: Why should any rational adult be so gullible as to simply accept the conclusion that the fossils were of trees of a forest? Do you simply resign yourself to believing that the title of "researcher" somehow imparts omniscience? If the "researchers " had decided that a "sweltering Mojave desert" was more exciting, is that what you would be regurgitating right now? (Answer: yes you would)
 
IBDaMann said:
Stay focused. Nobody knows exactly where any piece of land was at any given time. Nobody is omniscient, not even geologists. This means that you are not omniscient.

You do not know where the land mass of today's Antarctica was five million years ago, much less where it was 40 million years ago, much less where it was 150 million years ago, much less where it was 240 million years ago.

Yes, tectonic plates move. No, you are not omniscient concerning unobserved events of the distant past.

You also don't understand radiometric dating. You obviously think it imparts omniscience. You claim that you were told to believe that certain fossils on that land mass were dated back to the Eocene. What was the published error for the specific dating of those specific fossils?

Next question: Why should any rational adult be so gullible as to simply accept the conclusion that the fossils were of trees of a forest? Do you simply resign yourself to believing that the title of "researcher" somehow imparts omniscience? If the "researchers " had decided that a "sweltering Mojave desert" was more exciting, is that what you would be regurgitating right now? (Answer: yes you would)
Click to expand...

It is not an exact science. It is a ongoing research.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That's not true. We know that anthropogenic CO2 isn't the only potential cause of warming. Yet, the Gorebal Warming crowd is 'all in' on that as the single cause of warming due to anthropogenic means. It's a fool's errand to buy into that.
Click to expand...

To be blunt: you don't know what you are talking about. You should read the IPCC where they lay out all the forcings, not just CO2.

Honestly. When you say stuff like that it is clear you have not even looked at the real science. All you know is "al Gore". You should learn some of the ACTUAL SCIENCE.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
To be blunt: you don't know what you are talking about. You should read the IPCC where they lay out all the forcings, not just CO2.

Honestly. When you say stuff like that it is clear you have not even looked at the real science. All you know is "al Gore". You should learn some of the ACTUAL SCIENCE.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 'forcings'. Buzzword fallacy. You deny science. You are continuing to deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
 
Into the Night said:
You are not talking about science. Religion is not science. YOU are denying science.
Click to expand...
There's no denying climate change, it's been going on for 4.5 billion years. My point is no ice on the poles will result in a mass die-off in human population.
 
goat said:
Antarctica Fossil Forests - Antarctic tropical forests fossilized - when, how and why?
Click to expand...
Is "goat" short for "gullibloat"? It amazes me how easily it is for someone to convince you that his wild, WACKY speculation is somehow "what we know."

You're as bright as a tar pit.
 
IBDaMann said:
Is "goat" short for "gullibloat"? It amazes me how easily it is for someone to convince you that his wild, WACKY speculation is somehow "what we know."

You're as bright as a tar pit.
Click to expand...
Is IBD short for I'm Brain Dead?
 
goat said:
There's no denying climate change,
Click to expand...
Right, and a Christian will tell me that there is no denying God.

goat said:
it's been going on for 4.5 billion years.
Click to expand...
Not anything that you have unambiguously defined. A Christian will tell me that God has been around for even longer, and he won't define his God either.

goat said:
My point is no ice on the poles will result in a mass die-off in human population.
Click to expand...
You never answered my questions. Why will humans die off? Do they depend on ice to survive? Does this explain why there is no human life at or near the equator?

You're as sharp as a billiard ball.
 
goat said:
I know you're a clueless cunt with a broomstick up your ass.
Click to expand...
Now that is some heavy-duty science expertise right there. I think you've just earned yourself the right to declare others as not knowing any science. Great job!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top