Sudden rapid warming of the Earth - 5 million years ago

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
But once you see your Government turn their back on renewable sources, it speaks volumes about the validity of the claims

Uh, no... no government is in any way a determining source of what makes a scientific claim valid or not.

I suppose you also believe Chernobyl's radiation didn't exist because the government didn't warn it's people?

Your logic is beyond flawed.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Government corruption doesn't disprove man made climate change either. It just proves that people in the government are willing to take advantage of a scientific threat to make money.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
But once you see your Government turn their back on renewable sources, it speaks volumes about the validity of the claims

Uh, no... no government is in any way a determining source of what makes a scientific claim valid or not.

I suppose you also believe Chernobyl's radiation didn't exist because the government didn't warn it's people?

Your logic is beyond flawed.

Wow, talk about a straw man response. We're not discussing Chernobyl, but no I am not a denier of what happened in Chernobyl.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

straw man

But knowing that the ooze that meant we didnt entirely wipe out the whales is now causing a different problem, should we continue using it? Or develop new technology?

I guess it depends on whether your $billions are derived from selling that ooze .....

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I'm also curious which scientists are getting paid millions of dollars to push climate change. Got any names? Where is your source for this claim? Because the only ones -I- can think of that receive money in those sums are the denier scientists.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Wow, talk about a straw man response. We're not discussing Chernobyl, but no I am not a denier of what happened in Chernobyl.

You stated that the government decides what is scientifically valid or not, according to that logic anything that any government does should be considered superior to any and all science.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Wow, talk about a straw man response. We're not discussing Chernobyl, but no I am not a denier of what happened in Chernobyl.

You stated that the government decides what is scientifically valid or not, according to that logic anything that any government does should be considered superior to any and all science.

Way to put words in my mouth, masterful attempt.

The current U.K Government invalidated the science they sold us, the moment the Fracking Lobbyists showed up. There's more money to be made from Shale, despite it meaning injecting Mother Earth with poison to remove another poison from her.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Wow, talk about a straw man response. We're not discussing Chernobyl, but no I am not a denier of what happened in Chernobyl.

You stated that the government decides what is scientifically valid or not, according to that logic anything that any government does should be considered superior to any and all science.

Way to put words in my mouth, masterful attempt.

The current U.K Government invalidated the science they sold us, the moment the Fracking Lobbyists showed up. There's more money to be made from Shale, despite it meaning injecting Mother Earth with poison to remove another poison from her.

Which scientific papers presented by the UK government invalidated climate change exactly? Are you ever going to prove your claims or do you just argue solely off of your political bias?

PS: This is a science forum, not a political forum. So we want scientific evidence here.

Maybe if they stopped chopping down the woodlands and rain forests the trees would be able to do their jobs and keep the air clean. Might I add Hemp can do a lot of the stuff we use wood for? But no, more profit for logging companies to hack down the forests.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

What was the rate of CO2 growth in that time?

a reply to: korath

You may find this interesting

www.bbc.co.uk...

There is NO energy source that comes without ecological consequences.......... none.....
Greenies want to drive their gas guzzlers too.....
Theres NO other source that's available now or soon that matches Gas.....so what ya gona do?

a reply to: bandersnatch

Not act like gas is the only answer...

What is the consequence of electric cars?

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
The dinosaurs became extinct without any intervention by humans.

Ergo, humans cannot possibly be responsible for making any species extinct.

Right?

Is someone currently claiming humans are responsible for creating asteroids?

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Way to put words in my mouth, masterful attempt.

You put your own nonsensical words in your own mouth...

Here's the exact quote from your comment in the last page:

Cobaltic1978
But once you see your Government turn their back on renewable sources, it speaks volumes about the validity of the claims

Now, am I just misinterpreting it? Because what that line appears to state is that the government shows what is valid or what isn't about scientific matters.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: InMyShell
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Is there a possibility that a natural disaster caused this rapid warming. Such as a meteor impact or super volcano creating a kick up or dust into the atmosphere creating a massive greenhouse effect?

I don't understand the idea that for no reason the earth just heats up. There has got to be an underlying reason for it.

Could have been many things, but volcanoes and meteor impacts aren't any of them.

They block out the sun, causing cooling.

My money is on an increase in solar activity, seems the most likely option for so quick a warming trend.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

And what if we do what they want, and hundreds of millions starve and freeze to death for no reason when they are wrong?

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Way to put words in my mouth, masterful attempt.

You put your own nonsensical words in your own mouth...

Here's the exact quote from your comment in the last page:

Cobaltic1978
But once you see your Government turn their back on renewable sources, it speaks volumes about the validity of the claims

Now, am I just misinterpreting it? Because what that line appears to state is that the government shows what is valid or what isn't about scientific matters.

I was relating to validity of the science they always used to use when trying to validate their reasons for 'Green' taxation and you know it.

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

And what if we do what they want, and hundreds of millions starve and freeze to death for no reason when they are wrong?

How would that happen exactly?