out of curiosity, are we 100% sure man is responsible for climate change?

to all those who say we need to clean up our act, I couldn't agree more. less pollution, more recycling, manage crop runnoff. We need to be mindful of things we do that makes our surroundings worse. But that is a long way from my gas range is causing polar bears to die. And I use that gross oversimplification as that is the level of leadership we have today in 2023.

We are all being asked forced to comply with an agenda based on what I believe is incorrect assumptions. I cannot say for sure we don't have a hand in any of this, perhaps we do, but to what degree?

The one thing I am sure of is the Earth will be just fine. It's our happiness that we are concerned with. The Earth is 4.5 Billion years old at least. She has seen many before us come and go, and she will see many after us do the same. Some leave on their own terms, and some due to stupid things they do, like war.

For anyone who is willing to be honest with themselves, it's demonstrably apparent that science has been weaponized just like our government has. We don't know what's true, we are being led to believe the very people who continue to get caught lying, are the one's telling us what "disinformation" is. LOL, and a large portion of "us" agree with them. As if there are points for who can lick the boots best.

I don't know what the future holds, but I don't think we need to do anything drastic, other than work towards a cleaner tomorrow. A common sense cleaner. Not the John Kerry/Al Gore version. A logical one. Science is not politics, and politics is not science (in the scientific sense). Let the two remain separate, quit letting the dumbest of our people lead us on this topic, and go about this the real scientific way. Study, observe, document, test, rethink, repeat.

a reply to: network dude

Just for the record, this is the climate change scam in a nutshell. . . . .

The village elder points at the setting sun and states that you must give all the village elders your gold and you must eat feces or else the sun will not rise in the morning.

When the sun rises, the village elder states that you must give all the village elders your gold and you must eat feces or else the sun will not set in the evening.

originally posted by: visitedbythem

My question is, what is causing the increase in Earths volcanic activity? I didn't ask him that, but I'm wondering if there is something going on in our solar system or beyond that is having an effect on our planets inner workings?

Apparently so.....

We've long known the moon directly affects many things on earth, so it stands to reason the sun might also.

solar activities have a clear relation with global volcanic activities.

[www.researchgate.net...]

Everyone has their theories and nothing is proven except with a lot of hindsite data and even then there could be a missing unknown factor someone didn’t consider.

I saw a YouTube video the other day talking about cycles. They stated the Earth has been warmer in the past long before man’s industrial revolution. Carbon dioxide I heard is a trace gas in our atmosphere. It only makes up about .04% of our atmosphere. What they talked about stated the current warm cycle is about to peak in 2024. Then the cycle will cause an alignment between earth sun, etc and cause volcanic eruptions and or earthquakes in a matter of years. I was thinking if Yellowstone has a major eruption, this debate will be over. People will be scrambling for food and survival for years unless they are already well stocked in a bunker. I’d rather be debating global warming rather than fighting for a few scraps of food because crops can’t grow. Global cooling because volcanic eruptions blocked out sunlight for years is a much scarier scenario if these things happen at regular intervals or cycles. I’m thinking that is a possibility.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I honestly don't get it. there are some really smart people who gobble this stuff up. they fight with themselves to justify their religion beliefs. there is plenty of room for questions and reasons not to blindly trust. We are in, and I mean deep in, interesting times. AKA, the land of the clown. Honk.

How you know the climate agenda is bs

Why do we have people driving long distances to work every day it's not needed but making changes to shorten the distance would be inconvenient for everyone's bottom line

Raising the price of electricity seems really counter productive if the goal is to produce less CO2 to add they blame natral gas prices but my power is hydro so it's for greed your cost did not go up the same yet they charge the same

The billions spent on bs green projects golf the money spent half the Southwest could have pannels on there home

Just some examples of things that work and would make people happy the green agenda we see is for control

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: DBCowboy

I honestly don't get it. there are some really smart people who gobble this stuff up. they fight with themselves to justify their religion beliefs. there is plenty of room for questions and reasons not to blindly trust. We are in, and I mean deep in, interesting times. AKA, the land of the clown. Honk.

It is because they've never had the basic concepts they've been led to believe challenged in any meaningful way.

For example, they will be told that some data set says the planet is warming. The take the data at face value and don't ask any questions because no one around is willing to call BS on it.

There have been numerous experiments on this. There is one famous one where they will have a group and have some simple problem like 2 + 2. Everyone in the group will say 2 + 2 = 5. There will be one person who still knows it is 4. The other people will berate them until they just accept that 2 + 2 = 5 because they start to think that if all these other smart people say it, then maybe they are right even though deep down, they know it is really 4.

We saw this a lot during c19 as well where no one wanted to question data or conclusions.

How long has modern man been around? How far can we go back in recorded history to see if the climate change theory is even possible?

Industrialization that generates any sort of pollutants has only been around for maybe 150-200 years, if that long.

a reply to: RazorV66

In that time period you specified, , the total Carbon Dioxide level in the atmosphere has gone up 50% after being relatively stable for 400,000 years.
That is not proof, but it certainly is evidence.

Apart from the burning of fossil fuels, we also reduce the forests with fires and cutting, which is a main consumers of Carbon Dioxide, replacing it with Oxygen.

We definitely have an effect. How much, no one really knows.

One thing we should know; the silly, stupid concerns of the current US administrations "Green" movement like gas stoves and washing machines, is absolutely laughable as is most of their miniscule carbon footprint ideas.

The only thing that fixes this is massive change in transportation and industry, and on a global scale.

a reply to: charlyv

In that time period you specified, , the total Carbon Dioxide level in the atmosphere has gone up 50% after being relatively stable for 400,000 years.
That is not proof, but it certainly is evidence.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's a good thing that we're putting some CO2 back into the atmosphere. The planet has been in a CO2 drought for a long time.....very close to extinction levels. we're at around 400 ppm. At 150 ppm all plant life begins to die.

Of course not.

All the "fossil fuel" companies are making record profits.

You think this isn't by design?

Climate change is the perfect ploy.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's a good thing that we're putting some CO2 back into the atmosphere. The planet has been in a CO2 drought for a long time.....very close to extinction levels. we're at around 400 ppm. At 150 ppm all plant life begins to die.

But way back then, the atmosphere, temperatures and climate were not ideal for humans either. We are most likely the product of evolution in which the average environment becomes conducive to the species that will develop and detrimental to species that can no longer tolerate the gradual changes. (unless of course, a global cataclysm overrides the situation.)

are we 100% sure man is responsible for climate change?

Professor Klimenko is sure, and there is also a solution to the problem. Parlamentskaya Gazeta informs us.
For reference: "Parlamentskaya Gazeta (Parliamentary Newspaper) is the official weekly publication of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Published since 1997. The founders of the newspaper are the State Duma and the Federation Council of the Russian Federation. The publication is the official publisher of federal laws, resolutions, acts and other documents of the Federal Assembly."
News from 16.05.2023:

Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Global warming can be stopped by reducing the population

It is possible to stop global warming if population growth slows down within 25-50 years, says Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor, leading expert of the NUST MISIS Competence Center Alexander Klimenko.

The expert recalled that at the conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention, The Glasgow Climate Pact was adopted, which is designed to keep the increase in global average temperature well below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels from 1850 to 1900, as well as the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees. According to Klimenko, the pact will not be able to achieve these goals.
[...]
"The world community has no real opportunities to limit the temperature rise within 2 degrees and even more so 1.5 degrees. These opportunities will not become available if the growth of the world's population is not suspended during the life of the current or next generation," the academician summed up.

Earlier, Yulia Zyulyaeva, a researcher at the Laboratory of Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction and Climate Change Monitoring at the P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that due to global warming, the climate in the middle part of Russia will become more and more extreme, as the Parliamentary Newspaper wrote. In summer, temperature indicators will more often be at abnormally high values, and in winter — at zero. An increase in tornadoes is possible.

Of course, the professor probably means a decrease in the population, conducted according to all the rules of traditional values, Christian principles, and everything else, which, as we know from the alternative press, Russia defends.

originally posted by: Halfswede
We do appear to be at a relative peak which also explains current volatility.

Here lies the issue. I think everyone can agree that man affects the climate to some degree... Is that less than 1%, 3%, 30%, or Gretta's 90%?

We have people that think man is destroying the earth and the earth is very capable of doing that all by itself with no help from man.

a reply to: flice

I got this response from the professor behind the article:

Figure 4 shows the rotational pole.

Rotational pole is wandering about 10m in a year. So, we don’t need to worry about change in spin axis associated with groundwater pumping.

Ki-Weon Seo, PhD
Professor
Earth Science Education
Seoul National University

If you're trying to sell new cars, hybrids, ev's or any environmentally friendly product then hell yea humans are causing all the changes. For the rest of us it's life as normal

a reply to: flice

The thing your missing is 80cm where was it measured.. in space it's huge, on land not as much. These measurements are done from space. So an 80cm rotation.. a large part of it was the past 10years and it's very noticeable to people paying attention. Especially if you been watching it since the chili quake that knocked the earth off its axis by 10feet in 2010.
www.cnn.com... x.html
(Who cares if it's CNN, it's 2010 - 1960s keep showing up too). But this also happened in 1960 where they "believed" another chili quake altered the axis of the planet. They didn't have proof at the time or of how much of a rotation occured then, only suspected after the 2010 8eq was recorded, the one in 1960 was a 9.5

So it's been a long time coming, and goes beyond what humans are capable of.

We are already going through a mixup of the Jetstream.. you should look into that. They been calling it a *van go painting

https ://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/earths-jet-streams-look-as-chaotic-as-a-van-gogh-right-now-and-thats-a-big-problem/ar-AA1d5T84


As for the geo axis shift, that page you linked about what would happen is only half right. Things will eventually restable on a new axis. Ice will melt and refreeze somewhere else. Course that depends on if we eventually come to a stop. Temperatures will resettle, and a new "equator" will form. The earth is round and the equator is the closest to the sun. So as long as we eventually stop tilting on the axis. There won't be too much to worry about. Just season changed, and local climate change as countries are no longer where they were prior.


But they will blame climate change, and blame humans instead of the fact that in 1972 scientist predicted a very dense cloud in our pathway, hundreds of thousands of miles long that our solar system travels.

They estimated time of entry to be around the year 2010-2015 before our planet entered the dustbin. So if you were to compare space weather to earth weather it would be like a dry heat vs humid heat. We are now in a humid heat part of space. This is why all of the other planets are heating up. Because the thickness of the cloud just happens to act like a blanket. This space cloud is literally why we have been seeing weird weather in space. It will more likely exaggerate the effects of the geo axis tilt for while, but at the same time it should in theory actually cause the axis to stabilize without causing worldwide extinction style damage(yes there will be some.)

As plants, animals etc migrate to their new homes, there will be a die off of plants that can't tolerate the new climate, but they should grow back in their new location provided the birds and us humans do the job to preserve seeds - this is why Canada is burning it's grounds; a lot of those trees can not seed without wildfires. So my guess is these fires were set on purpose to seed them for new locations, since it will be easier to move seeds then huge trees while keeping roots in tact. It also happens that wildfires cool the earth, along with volcanic eruptions.


So in part, it couldn't of been better timing.

originally posted by: charlyv

How long has modern man been around? How far can we go back in recorded history to see if the climate change theory is even possible?

Industrialization that generates any sort of pollutants has only been around for maybe 150-200 years, if that long.

a reply to: RazorV66

In that time period you specified, , the total Carbon Dioxide level in the atmosphere has gone up 50% after being relatively stable for 400,000 years.
That is not proof, but it certainly is evidence.

Apart from the burning of fossil fuels, we also reduce the forests with fires and cutting, which is a main consumers of Carbon Dioxide, replacing it with Oxygen.

We definitely have an effect. How much, no one really knows.

One thing we should know; the silly, stupid concerns of the current US administrations "Green" movement like gas stoves and washing machines, is absolutely laughable as is most of their miniscule carbon footprint ideas.

The only thing that fixes this is massive change in transportation and industry, and on a global scale.

that is one thing that baffles me. The argument is deforestation is a huge part of this. We know, through science, that trees and plants eat C02. So planting more trees seems like a fairly easy option. Yet here we are with the "Green New Deal". A joke 6 years ago, and soon to be legislation. Just this one example should be enough to convince anyone who thinks that this is off the rails.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Nice and easy way to keep the lie going right? Have em say the damage they are doing is the cause of "too much" when in reality we are lowest levels compared to every other time period. Nice little spiral cycle that they can keep going indefinitely, til they literally kill everyone off.

Makes me wonder if their goal is to change the atmosphere for otherworldly beings. Realistically it's nothing more then another fluffy bunny cause to funnel money into someone's pocket.

A lot of countries including the US already filter both engines and industrial pollution - which occured after air got bad during the industrial revolution. Laws have been in place for a long ass time that prevents them from releasing those toxins into the air. China is a prime example of a country who does not filter their factories. Quit punishing us for CHINA.

People are just too damn stupid to realize that. Even most states won't let you drive your car if you fail the pollution test. Which Every car on the road gets tested for every 1-4years depending on state.

For idiots who don't know what that is, it's called vehicle emissions and smog test. Every person with a car has to get it checked for the state inspection. Your car don't pass if you fail it.

So attacking engine cars, and other crap is just really dumb and is about control and money.

I had to say it.

We have accelerated the rate of change, that’s it. It’s not complicated.

Anyone who thinks otherwise, or that the globe will just stay hospitable to us indefinitely has their head in the sand.

The issue is simply because the left has hijacked the discussion and turned it political, so anyone on the right has convinced themselves “climate change” isn’t real, or it isn’t a big deal.

Habitat loss, ecological collapse, famine… it’s all going to seem real when we have mass migrations from these 3rd world countries that can’t feed themselves. If you think migration at the border is bad right now, just wait.

The fishing industry is about to collapse. Micro plastics are everywhere, in everything, to the point that DO NOT EAT orders have been issued for deer meat in the USA.

a reply to: network dude

Isn't this site 100 percent responsible for denial of ignorance?

Could've fooled me.