CO2 levels at the highest level in Earth's history

First topic message reminder :

And yet there are still some dumb fuckers like Skunk Stenchbandit and Monkey brain who deny it.

https://mol.im/a/7024057

Tommy Monk wrote:Also... your post contradicts the claim in your earlier post of the guardian article...!

How does it contradict the Guardian article?

Odyssey of errors
A temperature reconstruction using the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (“GISP2”) ice core was first published by Prof Kurt Cuffey and Dr Gary Clow in a 1997 paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans. Prof Richard Alley of Penn State University also used the record in a 2000 paper. Neither of these papers provided a comparison of GISP2 record with current conditions, as the uncertainties in the ice core proxy reconstruction were too large and the proxy record only extended back to 1855.

The GISP2 ice core record was used in a number of papers in the late 1990s and 2000s that examined changes over the last ice age and the start of the current warm era – the Holocene – around 11,000 years ago. Around 2009, it caught the attention of Dr J Storrs Hall of the Foresight Institute, a technology-focused nonprofit group, who wrote a blog post suggesting that it disproved the idea that “human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend”.

That post was republished on a climate sceptic blog called Watts Up With That, which followed up with its own version of a GISP2 graph in late 2010 by Dr Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at the Western Washington University. Easterbrook’s graph, shown below, was shared widely across the internet by climate sceptics and is still frequently seen – with many small variations – to this day in discussions on Twitter, blogs and news article comment threads.

This graph is misleading for a number of reasons.

First, the x-axis is mislabelled. In fact, it should say “Years before 1950”, rather than “Years before present (2000 AD)”. The GISP2 ice core only extends up to 1855 – 95 years before 1950. This means that none of the modern observational temperature period overlaps with the proxy reconstruction. (Easterbrook’s graph shows the uptick in the final 100 years or so of the record – shown in red – incorrectly indicating that it is the observational temperature period.)

The figure was also featured in another post on the same blog, which conflated Greenland with global temperatures. Any individual location will have significantly more variability than the globe as a whole. A single ice core is also subject to uncertainties around elevation changes and other perturbations to the ice core over time.

As Prof Alley told then-New York Times journalist Andrew Revkin back in 2010:

“The data still contain a lot of noise over short times (snowdrifts are real, among other things). An isotopic record from one site is not purely a temperature record at that site, so care is required to interpret the signal and not the noise.”

The GISP2 reconstruction is fairly old and more recent research has questioned the assumptions made in changing the relationship between temperature and 18O during the Holocene and how to best account for elevation change of the ice sheet at the GISP2 site. The GISP2 reconstruction changes the relationship between 18O and temperatures by a factor of two during the Holocene, while more recent reconstructions keep it constant. Similarly, elevation change influences 18O records. The old GISP2 reconstruction did not take elevation changes into account.

Scientists reconstructing past Greenland temperatures now use estimates from many different ice cores, which reduces the uncertainties associated with any single one and gives a more accurate picture of changes over Greenland as a whole.

Alley made this point explicitly, telling Revkin:

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

From your above post...


"...This graph is misleading for a number of reasons... First the x-axis is mislabelled. In fact, it should say “Years before 1950”, rather than “Years before present (2000 AD)"..."



This is just another example of how you do not read/understand the shit you post...!



Maybe you can tell me what is actually stated on the graph I posted...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:From your above post...


"...This graph is misleading for a number of reasons... First the x-axis is mislabelled. In fact, it should say “Years before 1950”, rather than “Years before present (2000 AD)"..."



This is just another example of how you do not read/understand the shit you post...!



Maybe you can tell me what is actually stated on the graph I posted...!!!???

I seriously just nearly peed in my pants laughing

If Tommy cannot figure this out after me presenting everything that was wrong with his doctiored graph, then the dummy, will never learn

Seriously its not worth even trying to educate the dummy

Night everyone

The graph I posted does actually state "years before 1950"...!!!


So your above C&P post is clearly bullshit!!!


The evidence on my graph stands!!!


Unless you can post a graph that shows the GISP2 data, that is any more accurate...?


Come on dodge...!?


You say my GISP2 graph is "doctored"... so maybe you can post up the REAL GISP2 data...!!!???

phildidge wrote:

Alley made this point explicitly, telling Revkin:

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

I just realised what Tommy tried to do. He actually used the correct graph for a change, when he normall,y uses the doctored graph and he thinks again he has a gotcha moment on me.

One moment



So his argument is on the old data on this graph, which has since been updated and corrected by mutiple ice core samples.  

Is this really all Tommy can come up with, trying to catch me out, with switching his doctored graph for the real one. When the real one stilll does nothing for his argument.

Man alive, talk about clutching at straws.  

Thanks tommy, you made my day, for winning "most stupidiest of the year award again"



Priceless

Night everyone

I asked you to post the real accurate GISP2 data...!!!???


Not a quote of what one irrelevant person may have said to another irrelevant person...!



So...!?


You said my graph of GISP2 data was "doctored"... and therefore inaccurate...


So... I'm asking you to post up an accurate graph of the GISP2 data... one that is more accurate than the graph I posted up...!!!???


Either you can provide this evidence... or you must accept that my graph is the real accurate evidence...!!!???


And if you cannot refute the data in my graph, by posting up any graph that shows any data that is in any way different and more credible... then you must accept that the data I showed is the real deal... and you must then question the credibility of your sources who attempt to disagree and undermine the truth...!?


In other words... your sources have been found out to be lying to you... the GISP2 data is true... your sources are lying...!


Over to you...!

phildidge wrote:I just realised what Tommy tried to do. He actually used the correct graph for a change, when he normall,y uses the doctored graph and he thinks again he has a gotcha moment on me.

One moment



So his argument is on the old data on this graph, which has since been updated and corrected by mutiple ice core samples.  

Is this really all Tommy can come up with, trying to catch me out, with switching his doctored graph for the real one. When the real one stilll does nothing for his argument.

Man alive, talk about clutching at straws.  

Thanks tommy, you made my day, for winning "most stupidiest of the year award again"



Priceless

Night everyone

I always post the same graph dodge...!


But this is the first time that you have realised that you are posting bullshit!!!


Maybe you are finally starting to wake up from the deluded spell that you have been under all this time...

Its hilarious he cannot even read basic data or even understand what is being said

Now he also lying about what graphs he has posted, it gets funnier by the minute

So now Tommy thinks he is smarter than climate scientists and calling them liars, ignoring how they show the data was poor, ha ha ha Where they have shown how we come to correct information on this from mutiple core samples etc



I will leave him to again embarress himself again, showing how he does not even understand basic science and data

Like I said its impossible to reason with someone that stupid on this and he can have the last word all he likes. I will simple continue to post more and more evidence for people who can understand the science....

A more modern Greenland temperature reconstruction, based on six different ice cores, was published by Prof Bo Vinther of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen and colleagues in Nature in 2009.

Speaking to Carbon Brief, Vinther suggests that this multi-core Holocene reconstruction provides a number of advantages over the old GISP2 series, using ice core 18O data corrected for past elevation change and “tuned” to fit ice core borehole temperatures at four locations.

The six ice core sites used by the reconstruction are shown in the figure below.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

Tommy Monk wrote:

phildidge wrote:I just realised what Tommy tried to do. He actually used the correct graph for a change, when he normall,y uses the doctored graph and he thinks again he has a gotcha moment on me.

One moment



So his argument is on the old data on this graph, which has since been updated and corrected by mutiple ice core samples.  

Is this really all Tommy can come up with, trying to catch me out, with switching his doctored graph for the real one. When the real one stilll does nothing for his argument.

Man alive, talk about clutching at straws.  

Thanks tommy, you made my day, for winning "most stupidiest of the year award again"



Priceless

Night everyone

I always post the same graph dodge...!


But this is the first time that you have realised that you are posting bullshit!!!


Maybe you are finally starting to wake up from the deluded spell that you have been under all this time...

You always post the same graph.

And you don't think this might be the issue?

You found ONE graph that confirms what you want to believe, a while ago. And as result you refuse to acknowledge ANY other graph, study, scientist's statement or research or literally ANY data that could cause you to question what you believe.

Because you found one graph that told you what you want to know

I always post the same graph dodge...!


You are just making yourself look more stupid...!


You said my graph if GISO2 data was "doctored"...


So... still waiting for you to post up the real/accurate graph of the GISP2 data...!?


Or... just admit that the graph I posted is accurate...!?

Same question to you les...


If you want to dispute the accuracy of the data posted in my GISP2 graph... then post up a graph that is more accurate...!?


Or... just fuck off with your bullshit!!!

The real impact of climate change depends on tiny organisms we can’t even see, argues an international panel of more than 30 microbiologists in a consensus statement published Tuesday.

Microbes, or microorganisms, are any organism or virus invisible to the naked eye. Numbering in the nonillions (in the U.S., that’s 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or a 10 followed by 30 zeros), they make up the “unseen majority” of life on Earth, according to the scientists. Microbes not only contribute to how fast the climate changes, but to our ability to mitigate and adapt to it.

“[Microbes] support the existence of all higher lifeforms and are critically important in regulating climate change,” Ricardo Cavicchioli, a University of New South Wales environmental microbiologist and co-author on the paper, said in a press release. “However, they are rarely the focus of climate change studies and not considered in policy development.”

Now, Cavicchioli and his co-authors hope that their statement, published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology, “puts humanity on notice,” they write in the abstract.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2019/06/19/scientists-issue-warning-to-humanity-climate-change-depends-on-microbes/#.XQwdfOhKhPY

Tommy Monk is a clueless fuckwit, when it comes to anything to do with science or technology...

He laughingly claims that his bullshit internet "research" will somehow trump the education, working knowledge and lifetime experiences of anyone with a science-based background..

That's on top of Tommy's regular claim to always knowing better than the great majority of the world's climate scientists, meterologists, farmers, foresters, fishers, and any forward-planners who have to work within the actual real world environment.

Tommy has obviously learnt nothing from all those simple facts and explanations that have been posted on here over the last few years..

Some people are born stupid and gullible --  Tommy, however, has deliberately chosen to be this way...

Yawn...


You really are scraping the barrel of desperation now dodge...!!!





I repeat...


You said my graph if GISO2 data was "doctored"...


So... still waiting for you to post up the real/accurate graph of the GISP2 data...!?


Or... just admit that the graph I posted is accurate...!




Come on dodge...!!!


You cant keep saying the truth is wrong... without actually providing any evidence of any better truth!!!


And if the graph I posted is really the truth... why are you so set on trying to disbelieve it...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Same question to you les...


If you want to dispute the accuracy of the data posted in my GISP2 graph... then post up a graph that is more accurate...!?


Or... just fuck off with your bullshit!!!

You have posted one graph.

In the past I and others have responded or posted counter research or many other graphs and you just dismiss them. We can play the 'here's a link or image I found' game all day long and be no further on.

And you will just say waffle to any and all anyway.

Pretty boring way to debate tbh. I don't care if you think climate change is man made or not. Most of my generation, and even more younger than me, do.

It'll be sorted out. Most politicians of the current ruling generation believe it anyway. The next lot will do with far greater enthusiasm. And it'll get sorted. That many of your generation and above are skeptics is irrelevant. We'll just laugh at you and look down on you retrospectively. But don't worry about it; you won't be here

I’m not the brightest scientific spark but I don’t see how anyone can deny climate change.

And I am not closed to any side of an argument, in fact, quite the opposite.

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Same question to you les...


If you want to dispute the accuracy of the data posted in my GISP2 graph... then post up a graph that is more accurate...!?


Or... just fuck off with your bullshit!!!

You have posted one graph.

In the past I and others have responded or posted counter research or many other graphs and you just dismiss them. We can play the 'here's a link or image I found' game all day long and be no further on.

And you will just say waffle to any and all anyway.

Pretty boring way to debate tbh. I don't care if you think climate change is man made or not. Most of my generation, and even more younger than me, do.

It'll be sorted out. Most politicians of the current ruling generation believe it anyway. The next lot will do with far greater enthusiasm. And it'll get sorted. That many of your generation and above are skeptics is irrelevant. We'll just laugh at you and look down on you retrospectively. But don't worry about it; you won't be here

Either... my graph is showing falsified data, and you can post up the "real" GISP2 data for us to see...?

Or... you are claiming that the method used in collecting the GISP2 data is inaccurate... and therefore you are denying the accuracy of the scientific method that is widely recognised as being accurate by scientists all over the world...!?


Either post the accurate data and show my graph as "falsified"... or deny science...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Same question to you les...


If you want to dispute the accuracy of the data posted in my GISP2 graph... then post up a graph that is more accurate...!?


Or... just fuck off with your bullshit!!!

You have posted one graph.

In the past I and others have responded or posted counter research or many other graphs and you just dismiss them. We can play the 'here's a link or image I found' game all day long and be no further on.

And you will just say waffle to any and all anyway.

Pretty boring way to debate tbh. I don't care if you think climate change is man made or not. Most of my generation, and even more younger than me, do.

It'll be sorted out. Most politicians of the current ruling generation believe it anyway. The next lot will do with far greater enthusiasm. And it'll get sorted. That many of your generation and above are skeptics is irrelevant. We'll just laugh at you and look down on you retrospectively. But don't worry about it; you won't be here

Either... my graph is showing falsified data, and you can post up the "real" GISP2 data for us to see...?

Or... you are claiming that the method used in collecting the GISP2 data is inaccurate... and therefore you are denying the accuracy of the scientific method that is widely recognised as being accurate by scientists all over the world...!?


Either post the accurate data and show my graph as "falsified"... or deny science...!?

You can't conflate or confuse what's going on in one area with what's happening in general over the entire planet. That's the same reason scientists are reluctantly to blame an isolated hurricane, or even one overactive hurricane season, to climate change.

We're talking about the long-term, averaged-out effects observed all over the world for decades on end. Not "it's chilly today so fuck Al Gore" idiocy.

10,000 years of historical temp data tells us much more than the schetchy and inaccurate and unreliable "since records began" data, from what is only covering the last 100-150 years or so, but which is so heavily promoted as being totally accurate and reliable and used as the basis for many spurious climate change arguments and future predictions...

Tommy Monk wrote:10,000 years of historical temp data tells us much more than the schetchy and inaccurate and unreliable "since records began" data, from what is only covering the last 100-150 years or so, but which is so heavily promoted as being totally  accurate and reliable and used as the basis for many spurious climate change arguments and future predictions...

Actually, wouldn't you tend to trust the results of temperatures taken with thermometers than temperatures inferred from things like tree rings and ice core samples?

That's actually always been the part about historical temperature records that I'm forced to take with a grain of salt, because it would seem to me that the way we measure temperatures now is significantly more reliable than the information inferred from the natural record.

Tommy Monk wrote:10,000 years of historical temp data tells us much more than the schetchy and inaccurate and unreliable "since records began" data, from what is only covering the last 100-150 years or so, but which is so heavily promoted as being totally  accurate and reliable and used as the basis for many spurious climate change arguments and future predictions...

More outright arrogant lies from the denialists' bullshit corner...

Thousands of 'ice core' samples have been taken from several sites in the Antarctic, New Zealand, Patagonia, the Andes, Himalaya, and around the Arctic circle over the last century...

And yet the anti-science, anti-technologist, denialist dupe Tommy stupidly claims that one grossly misrepresented hypothesis from a bunch of samples from one amateur expedition to the backblocks of Greenland somehow disproves what most scientists have already agreed on, and that many of us are seeing and experiencing for ourselves  ?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:10,000 years of historical temp data tells us much more than the schetchy and inaccurate and unreliable "since records began" data, from what is only covering the last 100-150 years or so, but which is so heavily promoted as being totally  accurate and reliable and used as the basis for many spurious climate change arguments and future predictions...

Actually, wouldn't you tend to trust the results of temperatures taken with thermometers than temperatures inferred from things like tree rings and ice core samples?

That's actually always been the part about historical temperature records that I'm forced to take with a grain of salt, because it would seem to me that the way we measure temperatures now is significantly more reliable than the information inferred from the natural record.

Problem with that is this... even if you DO trust the accuracy of ALL of the "since records began" measurements from the last 100-150 years or so etc... it is still the fact that the further you go back over this 100-150 years etc, the less and less locations there are that are taking any measurements around the world, and becoming fewer and further between as you look back over this 100-150 year period etc... so not only being an increasingly inaccurate global record of historical temps for the time period up to 150 years ago... but also telling us nothing about what we should expect to see as being within the boundaries of what is "nornal", which is what can only be considered by comparison to what has happened over at least the last few thousands of years!!!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:10,000 years of historical temp data tells us much more than the schetchy and inaccurate and unreliable "since records began" data, from what is only covering the last 100-150 years or so, but which is so heavily promoted as being totally  accurate and reliable and used as the basis for many spurious climate change arguments and future predictions...

More outright arrogant lies from the denialists' bullshit corner...

Thousands of 'ice core' samples have been taken from several sites in the Antarctic, New Zealand, Patagonia, the Andes, Himalaya, and around the Arctic circle over the last century...

And yet the anti-science, anti-technologist, denialist dupe Tommy stupidly claims that one grossly misrepresented hypothesis from a bunch of samples from one amateur expedition to the backblocks of Greenland somehow disproves what most scientists have already agreed on, and that many of us are seeing and experiencing for ourselves  ?

Either post up some of this more accurate data...!?


Or fuck off!!!




But... just need to make an important point here... the ice core data does not tell us anything about today... it merely tells us what has happened before...!!!


And what it tells us is that most of the last 10,000 years has been warmer (or just as warm) as today!!!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:10,000 years of historical temp data tells us much more than the schetchy and inaccurate and unreliable "since records began" data, from what is only covering the last 100-150 years or so, but which is so heavily promoted as being totally  accurate and reliable and used as the basis for many spurious climate change arguments and future predictions...

More outright arrogant lies from the denialists' bullshit corner...

Thousands of 'ice core' samples have been taken from several sites in the Antarctic, New Zealand, Patagonia, the Andes, Himalaya, and around the Arctic circle over the last century...

And yet the anti-science, anti-technologist, denialist dupe Tommy stupidly claims that one grossly misrepresented hypothesis from a bunch of samples from one amateur expedition to the backblocks of Greenland somehow disproves what most scientists have already agreed on, and that many of us are seeing and experiencing for ourselves  ?

Why are you even bothering. He is going off one ice core sample taklen decades ago and since then mutiple have in different areas oif greneland, showing a much revised tempreture and more importantly for the localised area and not globally as he stupidily thinks. I already posted this all, but he simple refuses to read the actual data., You are wasting your time. He is like a religious fanatic, unable to see past his dogmatic beliefs on this. We know the earth is rapidly warming and we know the causes for this. Its us humans and we also know what happens in many other epochs of history when the weather has become warmer. Exctinctions and he simple wants to refuse to understand this. You simple cannot reason with someone is stupid as Tommy, when it comes to climate science.

First you say my graph was showing falsified data...

I've asked you to post up the accurate data...

And all you do is waffle!!!

Victorismyhero wrote:

Didge is laughing... cos he doesn't get the irony of the joke...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge is laughing... cos he doesn't get the irony of the joke...!

So what do you think i did not get Tommy and then see whether Victor agress with you or me.

Care to go there?

Also I will give you a clue here on two words tommy

Liberal

Scientists

Though what he should have posted was social scientists to be more apt

phildidge wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:

First off, no scientist I've ever heard of claims that there's no discernible difference between male and female.

Secondly, the scientists who study the sexes aren't the same who study climate change, obviously

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

First off, no scientist I've ever heard of claims that there's no discernible difference between male and female.

Secondly, the scientists who study the sexes aren't the same who study climate change, obviously

Sadly there is now scientists that claim, that sex is a social construct

https://medium.com/@ES_4P/biological-sex-as-a-social-construct-b2583c222737

Its all done from a view to think this makes transgender acceptable. Which is dumb to say the least. I flies in the face of biological science as if there is a third sex. Its dumb to say the least, but this is why I keep telling you that evolution is no under attack

Listen, I’m no science geek, in fact I’m totally the opposite but....

How can you not see the fucking effects of climate change? It’s all around us!!!

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

First off, no scientist I've ever heard of claims that there's no discernible difference between male and female.

Secondly, the scientists who study the sexes aren't the same who study climate change, obviously

Sadly there is now scientists that claim, that sex is a social construct

https://medium.com/@ES_4P/biological-sex-as-a-social-construct-b2583c222737

Its all done from a view to think this makes transgender acceptable. Which is dumb to say the least. I flies in the face of biological science as if there is a third sex. Its dumb to say the least, but this is why I keep telling you that evolution is no under attack

Bumped for Ben, sorry Eddie. Ben needs to see that the Far left are the new creationists

The sad reality is social scientists are trying to erase evolution to make transgender ideology acceptrable. When you dont have to lie and make absurd claims as seen above to ensure people like trans have human rights. What we are seeing now is people fly in the face of biology and science to argue a case that sex differences are not biological but social constructs

The only way to describe this insanity, is like claiming the bible is 100% scientifically accurate

eddie wrote:Listen, I’m no science geek, in fact I’m totally the opposite but....

How can you not see the fucking effects of climate change? It’s all around us!!!

If you look at history... you will see it has always happened...!


What you might think is normal from a few years of your own personal experience of weather/climate etc... and where you then think a slight change is thereby abnormal... is not necessarily what is considered as being abnormal at all, when you look back over 100s or 1000s or 10000s of years...

In fact... what you think of as being 'the normal'... is a very small snapshot of things... and just part of the long term normal which has seen much warmer and much cooler periods over the last few tens of thousands of years...!


You may as well stick your head out of your window for 1 second of an entire year... have a look at how light/dark it is, or how warm/cold it is, or how sunny/cloudy it is etc... and then try to claim that what you see for that 1 second of that year is what should be the benchmark of what is normal for the every second of that entire year!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:Listen, I’m no science geek, in fact I’m totally the opposite but....

How can you not see the fucking effects of climate change? It’s all around us!!!

If you look at history... you will see it has always happened...!


What you might think is normal from a few years of your own personal experience of weather/climate etc... and where you then think a slight change is thereby abnormal... is not necessarily what is considered as being abnormal at all, when you look back over 100s or 1000s or 10000s of years...

In fact... what you think of as being 'the normal'... is a very small snapshot of things... and just part of the long term normal which has seen much warmer and much cooler periods over the last few tens of thousands of years...!


You may as well stick your head out of your window for 1 second of an entire year... have a look at how light/dark it is, or how warm/cold it is, or how sunny/cloudy it is etc... and then try to claim that what you see for that 1 second of that year is what should be the benchmark of what is normal for the every second of that entire year!!!

So by Tommy's reasoning, whn genocide happens. It has always happened. Yes climate change has always happened and we also understand why it has happened. Each time it has happened. Many species have become extinct.

We now have so many scientific data on this, its Tommy that wants to stick his head perpetually in the sand.

He either takes the view, well its happened in the past, ignoring the mass extinction of species. Where also ignoring we humans are creating this. Even worse ignoring the actual data. So what do we do?

Listen to some half brain uneducated wally on the internet. Or actually look at the science and decide for ourselves. Which as seen tommy is incapable of doing

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

First off, no scientist I've ever heard of claims that there's no discernible difference between male and female.

Secondly, the scientists who study the sexes aren't the same who study climate change, obviously

Sadly there is now scientists that claim, that sex is a social construct

https://medium.com/@ES_4P/biological-sex-as-a-social-construct-b2583c222737

Its all done from a view to think this makes transgender acceptable. Which is dumb to say the least. I flies in the face of biological science as if there is a third sex. Its dumb to say the least, but this is why I keep telling you that evolution is no under attack

No scientist is saying there's more than two sexes. Some say there's more than one gender. You really need to look at the definition of "sex" and "gender," and see that they aren't the same thing. I'm not going into it further on this thread, because it's not the place for that discussion.

phildidge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


If you look at history... you will see it has always happened...!


What you might think is normal from a few years of your own personal experience of weather/climate etc... and where you then think a slight change is thereby abnormal... is not necessarily what is considered as being abnormal at all, when you look back over 100s or 1000s or 10000s of years...

In fact... what you think of as being 'the normal'... is a very small snapshot of things... and just part of the long term normal which has seen much warmer and much cooler periods over the last few tens of thousands of years...!


You may as well stick your head out of your window for 1 second of an entire year... have a look at how light/dark it is, or how warm/cold it is, or how sunny/cloudy it is etc... and then try to claim that what you see for that 1 second of that year is what should be the benchmark of what is normal for the every second of that entire year!!!

So by Tommy's reasoning, whn genocide happens. It has always happened. Yes climate change has always happened and we also understand why it has happened. Each time it has happened. Many species have become extinct.

We now have so many scientific data on this, its Tommy that wants to stick his head perpetually in the sand.

He either takes the view, well its happened in the past, ignoring the mass extinction of species. Where also ignoring we humans are creating this. Even worse ignoring the actual data. So what do we do?

Listen to some half brain uneducated wally on the internet. Or actually look at the science and decide for ourselves. Which as seen tommy is incapable of doing

Yeah... conflate genocide and mass extinctions with my post...


Yawn...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

phildidge wrote:

So by Tommy's reasoning, whn genocide happens. It has always happened. Yes climate change has always happened and we also understand why it has happened. Each time it has happened. Many species have become extinct.

We now have so many scientific data on this, its Tommy that wants to stick his head perpetually in the sand.

He either takes the view, well its happened in the past, ignoring the mass extinction of species. Where also ignoring we humans are creating this. Even worse ignoring the actual data. So what do we do?

Listen to some half brain uneducated wally on the internet. Or actually look at the science and decide for ourselves. Which as seen tommy is incapable of doing

Yeah... conflate genocide and mass extinctions with my post...


Yawn...!

Just exposing your ignorane Tommy.

You are exposing yourself as an idiot...

Tommy Monk wrote:

You are exposing yourself as an idiot...

Is that why you cannot make scientific points Tommy?

Your view is that it was hotter in the past

Animals became extinct enmass in the pass

Is that really your argument?

The giant sequoia tree wouldn't exist at all if it were not from millions of years of warmer temperatures being the real long term normal...!!!

https://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/why-the-giant-sequoia-needs-fire-to-grow

Tommy Monk wrote:

The giant sequoia tree wouldn't exist at all if it were not from millions of years of warmer temperatures being the real long term normal...!!!

https://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/why-the-giant-sequoia-needs-fire-to-grow

And?

This is your case?

One tree surviving out of many species of plants and animals that went extinct?

phildidge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

The giant sequoia tree wouldn't exist at all if it were not from millions of years of warmer temperatures being the real long term normal...!!!

https://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/why-the-giant-sequoia-needs-fire-to-grow

And?

This is your case?

One tree surviving out of many species of plants and animals that went extinct?

Tip: Always check Tommy's links to see whether they mean what he says they mean. They often do not.

I checked that link about sequoias and it says nothing about millions of years of warm temperatures -- it's about how they do better when wildfires are allowed to burn themselves out, rather than when people put them out. Nothing to do with climate change.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:


And?

This is your case?

One tree surviving out of many species of plants and animals that went extinct?

Tip: Always check Tommy's links to see whether they mean what he says they mean. They often do not.

I checked that link about sequoias and it says nothing about millions of years of warm temperatures -- it's about how they do better when wildfires are allowed to burn themselves out, rather than when people put them out. Nothing to do with climate change.

To be honest i did not even read his link, so thanks

How do you think this species of tree came to evolve/exist at all...???

And how do you think it has continued to exist now...?

Unless the long term normal conditions for it's very existence and evolution over millions of years... require there to be regular periods of warm temperatures as the long term normal, where these warm temperatures result in regularity of wild fires... which is a fundamental requirement for these trees to reproduce and survive today... and which they must have experienced as the long term normal, over millions of years, for them to have evolved into being in existence today!!!