What Climate Crisis? And what is it?

Into the Night said:
RQAA
Click to expand...

So...you ask others to post links to the things they insist upon.
Yet you do not do the same when asked for evidence yourself.
I think that is called 'hypocrisy'.


I will try it again:

'Scientists know with virtual certainty that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. '

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...he-climate.php'

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...mperature.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...arch-suggests/

Yet you seem to be saying - matter of factly - that this is wrong.
And where are your links to unbiased, factual evidence of this?
Again, without them?
Your point means NOTHING.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
It is not possible to trap heat. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat has no temperature.
Click to expand...

Man?
No offense.
But first you seemed rather bright to me.
But now you seem to be a bit of a whacko.
Someone warned me that you were.
I am beginning to see what they meant.

You say CO2 does not affect climate temperature in ANY way.
And - of course - refuse to back up your statement with ANY link(s).
So your statement means ZIP.

And instead of answering, straightforward questions?
You post ad hominem's/strawman and bizarre statements.

Now you are saying that it is 'not possible to trap heat'.
And where is ANY link to unbiased, factual evidence to back this up?
 
Last edited:
McRocket said:
So...you ask others to post links to the things they insist upon.
Yet you do not do the same when asked for evidence yourself.
I think that is called 'hypocrisy'.


I will try it again:

'Scientists know with virtual certainty that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. '

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/...he-climate.php'

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...mperature.html

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...arch-suggests/

Yet you seem to be saying - matter of factly - that this is wrong.
And where are your links to unbiased, factual evidence of this?
Again, without them?
Your point means NOTHING.
Click to expand...

No links necessary. Theories of science stand on their own. You are just denying them.
 
Into the Night said:
Very good. You at least tried.

It unfortunately is not possible, since the word 'climate' is a subjective word and has no value associated with it, such as the number of storms, hurricanes, etc. There is no 'crisis' specified.

Storms are not a crisis. They are weather. So are hurricanes and tornadoes.

The number or intensity of tornadoes is unknown. The number of hurricanes or their intensity in history is unknown. That information used to be available, but NOAA removed it from the site (after they were caught modifying it). In other words, there is NO surviving data.

So your definition is based on random numbers of type randU.

You're going to have to try again.
Click to expand...

I am not going to discuss your wacky conspiracy theory.
 
You saved me.

BananawithPeelon.jpg


Ask him if he’s okay. Are you okay?

6a9746a642c95bc5f60f6e42e3d3ecc5.jpg


When I stopped in 7 Eleven to use the bathroom. I picked up
something to eat in the car. Huh huh duh!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top