Glacial History of Michigan: How did we get our Great Lakes?

[Al Goar]

Did you know climate change started in Michigan over 2 million years ago, long before people had gas stoves and an internal combustion cars?


https://www.mucc.org/glacial-history-of-michigan-how-did-we-get-our-great-lakes


Looks like the fear-mongering Democrats are lying about the reason for climate change.
If a Democrat's lips are moving, they're lying.

[Ed P]

Post by Al Goar
Did you know climate change started in Michigan over 2 million years
ago, long before people had gas stoves and an internal combustion cars?
https://www.mucc.org/glacial-history-of-michigan-how-did-we-get-our-
great-lakes
Looks like the fear-mongering Democrats are lying about the reason for climate change.
If a Democrat's lips are moving, they're lying.

Of course climate has been changing. That fact though, does not negate
the fact that man is affecting it too.

Burning 100 million tons a day of fossil fuels, cutting down rain
forests makes a difference. If you opened your mind a but and looked at
the science, you'd understand it. You prefer not to though.

[clams casino]

Of course climate has been changing.  That fact though, does not negate
the fact that man is affecting it too.

No.

No man is not affecting much of anything, we lack the critical mass to
do that, clownshow!

You keep coming back to this lie time and again like a craven cur hound
to his vomit.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Viewpoint: Get off warming bandwagon

Changes in ocean currents may cause global warning

By Professor William M Gray of Colorado State University

As a boy, I remember seeing articles about the large global warming that
had taken place between 1900 and 1945. No one understood or knew if this
warming would continue. Then the warming abated and I heard little about
such warming through the late 1940s and into the 1970s.

In fact, surface measurements showed a small global cooling between the
mid-1940s and the early 1970s. During the 1970s, there was speculation
concerning an increase in this cooling. Some speculated that a new ice
age may not be far off.

Then in the 1980s, it all changed again. The current global warming
bandwagon that US-European governments have been alarming us with is
still in full swing.

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

Carbon dioxide BBC
Mainstream opinion believes that pollution contributes to climate change
As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.

Climate debate has 'life of its own'

Our global climate's temperature has always fluctuated back and forth
and it will continue to do so, irrespective of how much or how little
greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere.

Although initially generated by honest scientific questions of how
human-produced greenhouse gases might affect global climate, this topic
has now taken on a life of its own.

It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those
wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject.

This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and
scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain
government grants for research on this topic.

I have closely followed the carbon dioxide warming arguments. From what
I have learned of how the atmosphere ticks over 40 years of study, I
have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced
greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and insignificant
amounts of global warming.

The author is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado where he is
an expert in tropical meteorology.

[JTEM]

Post by clams casino
No man is not affecting much of anything, we lack the critical mass to
do that, clownshow!

Not only that but, nature does have the mass, as you call it, and
it never results in warming.

Volcanoes: "Volcanic Winter."

They billow ridiculous amounts of CO2, sulfur and other goodies, and
this COOLS the earth! But when we're talking about the same things
from humans, only a lot less, they melt the polar bears... supposedly.

[clams casino]

Post by JTEM

Post by clams casino
No man is not affecting much of anything, we lack the critical mass to
do that, clownshow!

Not only that but, nature does have the mass, as you call it, and
it never results in warming.
Volcanoes:  "Volcanic Winter."

+1!

(but not in centigrade, lol)

Post by JTEM
They billow ridiculous amounts of CO2, sulfur and other goodies, and
this COOLS the earth! But when we're talking about the same things
from humans, only a lot less, they melt the polar bears... supposedly.

We're talking about .04% from humans.

Trivial pursuit.

[Ed P]

Post by JTEM

Post by clams casino
No man is not affecting much of anything, we lack the critical mass to
do that, clownshow!

Not only that but, nature does have the mass, as you call it, and
it never results in warming.
Volcanoes:  "Volcanic Winter."
They billow ridiculous amounts of CO2, sulfur and other goodies, and
this COOLS the earth! But when we're talking about the same things
from humans, only a lot less, they melt the polar bears... supposedly.

Man has been playing with Mother Nature for over a century too. What
about all the protective forests that have been removed? Mostly in the
last century combined with the heavy increase use of fossil fuels

The world has lost one-third of its forest, but an end of deforestation
is possible. Over the last 10,000 years the world has lost one-third of
its forests. An area twice the size of the United States. Half occurred
in the last century.

[JTEM]

Post by Ed P

Post by JTEM

Post by clams casino
No man is not affecting much of anything, we lack the critical mass
to do that, clownshow!

Not only that but, nature does have the mass, as you call it, and
it never results in warming.
Volcanoes:  "Volcanic Winter."
They billow ridiculous amounts of CO2, sulfur and other goodies, and
this COOLS the earth! But when we're talking about the same things
from humans, only a lot less, they melt the polar bears... supposedly.

Man has been playing with Mother Nature for over a century too.

And volcanoes have existed slightly longer. Promise.

Post by Ed P
What
about all the protective forests that have been removed?  Mostly in the
last century combined with the heavy increase use of fossil fuels

If the problem was fossil fuels then the solution would be to use as
much as possible.

We're running out. Demand is expected to outstrip supply starting around
2035. But if we encouraged fossil fuel use we could shave a lot of time
off of that, and the sooner it's all gone the sooner the skies start to
clear for good!

Post by Ed P
The world has lost one-third of its forest

So kill people: Maybe 7 billion will be about right.

That'll get us down to where we were when the myth has Gwobull Warbling
beginning in the first place.

The wholesale slaughter of some 7 billion people will be a real
environment saver! Less fuel, less food, less cow farts, less
electricity... think of the emissions savings just from the shoes!

At only ONE pair of shoes each, after you butcher 7 billion people
that'll save 14 billion pairs of shows, all the raw materials that
goes into making them... the little metal rings that the laces go
through... energy to transport them to market... the energy overhead
of the retailer...

It's phenomenal, the energy savings JUST FROM ALL THE SHOES after to
butch 7 billion people!

AWESOME!

[clams casino]

Post by Ed P
Man has been playing with Mother Nature for over a century too.

Geologic time makes than an eyelash worth, clownshow.

[Bob F]

Post by JTEM

Post by clams casino
No man is not affecting much of anything, we lack the critical mass to
do that, clownshow!

Not only that but, nature does have the mass, as you call it, and
it never results in warming.
Volcanoes:  "Volcanic Winter."
They billow ridiculous amounts of CO2, sulfur and other goodies, and
this COOLS the earth! But when we're talking about the same things
from humans, only a lot less, they melt the polar bears... supposedly.

Another tard broadcasting ignorance to the world.

"Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide
released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the
rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are
too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact,
several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than
all the volcanoes on the planet combined do."

[JTEM]

Post by Bob F
"Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide
released by volcanoes each year.

We're *Way* overdue for a super volcanic eruption, as there hasn't
been one in the entirety of the Holocene.

Many are active right now, including Yellowstone. When that explodes,
and it will (it's a "When?" and not an "If?") we're speaking of the
energy equivalent to 100,000 nuclear weapons, and that's a conservative
estimate. When Toba exploded over 70,000 years ago it was roughly 2.5x
larger.

Toba is also active right now.

The massive Krakatoa eruption in the late 1800s was roughly 1/50th
Yellowstone, btw.

What I'm saying is that you are a textbook example of scale. You're
looking at today, when "Climate" and what is normal needs thousands
if not tens of thousands of years to determine what is "Normal."

Human will die in the cold. A super volcano (caldera) will explode
and this will touch off a glacial period -- what you think of as an
"Ice Age." If all goes well, the northern hemisphere will be fully
recovered in 1000 to 1400 years.

[Bob F]

Post by JTEM

Post by Bob F
"Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide
released by volcanoes each year.

We're *Way* overdue for a super volcanic eruption, as there hasn't
been one in the entirety of the Holocene.
Many are active right now, including Yellowstone. When that explodes,
and it will (it's a "When?" and not an "If?") we're speaking of the
energy equivalent to 100,000 nuclear weapons, and that's a conservative
estimate. When Toba exploded over 70,000 years ago it was roughly 2.5x
larger.
Toba is also active right now.
The massive Krakatoa eruption in the late 1800s was roughly 1/50th
Yellowstone, btw.
What I'm saying is that you are a textbook example of scale. You're
looking at today, when "Climate" and what is normal needs thousands
if not tens of thousands of years to determine what is "Normal."
Human will die in the cold. A super volcano (caldera) will explode
and this will touch off a glacial period -- what you think of as an
"Ice Age." If all goes well, the northern hemisphere will be fully
recovered in 1000 to 1400 years.

And you are willing to risk all of humanity ignoring the easily
understood danger of greenhouse gasesfor these worthless fantasy
ramblings, "thinking" somehow we are saving humanity from a very
infrequent supper duper volcano that still will only release a tiny
fraction of the CO2 that man does every month?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

[JTEM]

Post by Bob F
And you are willing to risk all of humanity ignoring the

There's no risk.

According to your AGW myth, Gwobull Warbling started when
human emissions reached 1 billion tons. China all by itself
surpassed 11x that more than, what? Two years ago?

Their emissions have grown since then.

The amount of CO2 exhaled by humans is more than DOUBLE
what the myth says got AGW started, due to the population
growth since the early to mid 1800s.

In other words, if 100% of all human emissions ended, we'd
still be producing more than 2x the amount of CO2 needed to
create GWOBULL WARBLING just from breathing.

If we killed every man, woman & child outside of China the
planet would still be producing, what is it? Maybe 14x the
CO2 your myth claims started GWOBULL WARBLING.

IF there is any truth to your narrative, the only actions
left open to humans is PREPARATION. Not avoidance but
preparation.

But that's what I meant before when I talked about your
problem with scale...

You defined a problem that literally can not be solved, and
you insist that it must be solved. No. You can't go to the
ocean and stop the tide, you change. The tide doesn't.

[clams casino]

Post by Bob F
And you are willing to risk all of humanity ignoring the easily
understood danger of greenhouse gasesfor

Breathe deeply....rest...breathe again...

[clams casino]

Post by JTEM

Post by Bob F
"Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide
released by volcanoes each year.

We're *Way* overdue for a super volcanic eruption, as there hasn't
been one in the entirety of the Holocene.
Many are active right now, including Yellowstone. When that explodes,
and it will (it's a "When?" and not an "If?") we're speaking of the
energy equivalent to 100,000 nuclear weapons, and that's a conservative
estimate. When Toba exploded over 70,000 years ago it was roughly 2.5x
larger.
Toba is also active right now.
The massive Krakatoa eruption in the late 1800s was roughly 1/50th
Yellowstone, btw.
What I'm saying is that you are a textbook example of scale. You're
looking at today, when "Climate" and what is normal needs thousands
if not tens of thousands of years to determine what is "Normal."
Human will die in the cold. A super volcano (caldera) will explode
and this will touch off a glacial period -- what you think of as an
"Ice Age." If all goes well, the northern hemisphere will be fully
recovered in 1000 to 1400 years.

Solar cycle 26 is a cold bitch, and she's a comin'!

[clams casino]

Post by Bob F
Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide
released by volcanoes each year.

CO2 is still .04% of atmospheric gases, regardless of emitter.

Cope, clownshow.

[Bob F]

Post by Al Goar
Did you know climate change started in Michigan over 2 million years
ago, long before people had gas stoves and an internal combustion cars?
https://www.mucc.org/glacial-history-of-michigan-how-did-we-get-our-
great-lakes
Looks like the fear-mongering Democrats are lying about the reason for climate change.
If a Democrat's lips are moving, they're lying.

Of course climate has been changing.  That fact though, does not negate
the fact that man is affecting it too.
Burning 100 million tons a day of fossil fuels, cutting down rain
forests makes a difference.  If you opened your mind a but and looked at
the science, you'd understand it. You prefer not to though.

trumptards are naturally immune to reality.

[Ed P]

Post by Bob F

Post by Al Goar
Did you know climate change started in Michigan over 2 million years
ago, long before people had gas stoves and an internal combustion cars?
https://www.mucc.org/glacial-history-of-michigan-how-did-we-get-our-
great-lakes
Looks like the fear-mongering Democrats are lying about the reason for climate change.
If a Democrat's lips are moving, they're lying.

Of course climate has been changing.  That fact though, does not
negate the fact that man is affecting it too.
Burning 100 million tons a day of fossil fuels, cutting down rain
forests makes a difference.  If you opened your mind a but and looked
at the science, you'd understand it. You prefer not to though.

trumptards are naturally immune to reality.

I've seen some explanation of how the greenhouse gasses affect the
oceans and it is pretty simple if you open our mind.

The other portion of this is the future. Sure, probably none of us on
this forum will see it, but, oil is a finite material and will become
scarce and expensive. It will be interesting to see our world in 50
years. Will we still have air travel? Ships?

I have greatgrandkids and want them to have a good future.

[Racheal Madcow]

Post by Bob F

Post by Al Goar
Did you know climate change started in Michigan over 2 million years ago, long before people had gas stoves and an internal combustion cars?
https://www.mucc.org/glacial-history-of-michigan-how-did-we-get-our- great-lakes
Looks like the fear-mongering Democrats are lying about the reason for climate change.
If a Democrat's lips are moving, they're lying.

Of course climate has been changing.  That fact though, does not negate the fact that man is affecting it too.
Burning 100 million tons a day of fossil fuels, cutting down rain forests makes a difference.  If you opened your mind a but and looked at
the science, you'd understand it. You prefer not to though.

trumptards are naturally immune to reality.

I've seen some explanation of how the greenhouse gasses affect the oceans and it is pretty simple if you open our mind.

Yah, I heard grifter Gill Bates was going to sprinkle nano-particle mRNA pixie dust in the stratosphere to eliminate greenhouse gasses and
prevent climate change.

The other portion of this is the future.  Sure, probably none of us on this forum will see it, but, oil is a finite material and will become
scarce and expensive.  It will be interesting to see our world in 50 years.  Will we still have air travel?  Ships?
I have greatgrandkids and want them to have a good future.

Got any proof? (A transcript from an episode of The View doesn't count.)

[Cindy Hamilton]

Post by Racheal Madcow

The other portion of this is the future.  Sure, probably none of us on this forum will see it, but, oil is a finite material and will become
scarce and expensive.  It will be interesting to see our world in 50 years.  Will we still have air travel?  Ships?
I have greatgrandkids and want them to have a good future.

Got any proof? (A transcript from an episode of The View doesn't count.)

Everything is finite. Even stupidity (although it often seems
otherwise).

My favorite argument for getting rid of fossil fuels is that it
will make OPEC irrelevant and all those Middle Eastern sheiks can
go back to being the headman of their local village.

[Snag]

Post by Cindy Hamilton

Post by Racheal Madcow

The other portion of this is the future.  Sure, probably none of us on this forum will see it, but, oil is a finite material and will become
scarce and expensive.  It will be interesting to see our world in 50 years.  Will we still have air travel?  Ships?
I have greatgrandkids and want them to have a good future.

Got any proof? (A transcript from an episode of The View doesn't count.)

Everything is finite. Even stupidity (although it often seems
otherwise).
My favorite argument for getting rid of fossil fuels is that it
will make OPEC irrelevant and all those Middle Eastern sheiks can
go back to being the headman of their local village.

OPEC WAS irrelevant during the first Trump presidency . It became
relevant again the day BuyDumb shut down all the oil related industries
on his first day in office . Now that Trump is coming back it will once
again become irrelevant .
Widely denied by the commie bastards that are currently running the
country , it has been proven that oil is continuously being regenerated
and we will NEVER run out . In other energy news , it has been proven
that windmills will never produce more energy than it takes to build them .
Cue Ed , Bobfuck and others to jump in and claim otherwise ...

[Ed P]

  OPEC WAS irrelevant during the first Trump presidency . It became
relevant again the day BuyDumb
 Cue Ed , Bobfuck and others to jump in and claim otherwise ...

Nah, when you use dumb cutesy names like that you won't understand a
sensible reply.

[Snag]

Post by Ed P

   OPEC WAS irrelevant during the first Trump presidency . It became
relevant again the day BuyDumb
  Cue Ed , Bobfuck and others to jump in and claim otherwise ...

Nah, when you use dumb cutesy names like that you won't understand a
sensible reply.

You might be surprised what I understand . And exactly what was
sensible about cutting off affordable energy ? And ending up buying
energy from people that hate us and would gleefully murder us all ? And
don't even try citing "global warming" or "climate change" , anybody
with the capability to investigate can see it's just another
money-laundering hoax .

[clams casino]

Post by Ed P

   OPEC WAS irrelevant during the first Trump presidency . It became
relevant again the day BuyDumb
  Cue Ed , Bobfuck and others to jump in and claim otherwise ...

Nah, when you use dumb cutesy names like that you won't understand a
sensible reply.

  You might be surprised what I understand . And exactly what was
sensible about cutting off affordable energy ? And ending up buying
energy from people that hate us and would gleefully murder us all ? And
don't even try citing "global warming" or "climate change" , anybody
with the capability to investigate can see it's just another
money-laundering hoax .

1.) Ed is a specious liberal twat - he only invokes the name-calling
card when he's been fully put in his place.

2.) Affordable energy serves two important masters - fueling us at a
workable price point and employing plenty of humans to produce it.

3.) The less we have to do with global markets (BRICS) the better - they
and OPEC do hate us.

4.) "Global warming" is rapidly coming to a halt and solar cycle 26 will
be a cold bitch for sure!

5.) The money-laundering is awful yes, but the economic warfare it
creates upon producers and consumers is even worse.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-024-02361-4

https://earthsky.org/sun/the-next-solar-cycle-already-beginning-solar-cycle-26/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7575229/

In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar
activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern
Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant
reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder
minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature.

Sun is the main source of energy for all planets of the solar system.
This energy is delivered to Earth in a form of solar radiation in
different wavelengths, called total solar irradiance. Variations of
solar irradiance lead to heating of upper planetary atmosphere and
complex processes of solar energy transport toward a planetary surface.

The signs of solar activity are seen in cyclic 11-year variations of a
number of sunspots on the solar surface using averaged monthly sunspot
numbers as a proxy of solar activity for the past 150 years. Solar
cycles were described by the action of solar dynamo mechanism in the
solar interior generating magnetic ropes at the bottom of solar
convective zone.

[Ed P]

Post by Ed P

   OPEC WAS irrelevant during the first Trump presidency . It became
relevant again the day BuyDumb
  Cue Ed , Bobfuck and others to jump in and claim otherwise ...

Nah, when you use dumb cutesy names like that you won't understand a
sensible reply.

  You might be surprised what I understand . And exactly what was
sensible about cutting off affordable energy ? And ending up buying
energy from people that hate us and would gleefully murder us all ? And
don't even try citing "global warming" or "climate change" , anybody
with the capability to investigate can see it's just another money-
laundering hoax .

Look at the long term. Use up their oil and preserve ours. Saudi has
been diversifying for years knowing the oil will run out.

[Snag]

Post by Ed P

   OPEC WAS irrelevant during the first Trump presidency . It became
relevant again the day BuyDumb
  Cue Ed , Bobfuck and others to jump in and claim otherwise ...

Nah, when you use dumb cutesy names like that you won't understand a
sensible reply.

   You might be surprised what I understand . And exactly what was
sensible about cutting off affordable energy ? And ending up buying
energy from people that hate us and would gleefully murder us all ?
And don't even try citing "global warming" or "climate change" ,
anybody with the capability to investigate can see it's just another
money- laundering hoax .

Look at the long term.  Use up their oil and preserve ours.  Saudi has
been diversifying for years knowing the oil will run out.

By the time our oil "runs out" - which has been disproven - we will
have other options . Nuclear energy is the future at this point , the
"nuclear waste" problem has been solved by fast breeder reactors which
create more fuel than they consume .
Solar and wind generation are a stopgap "solution" meant to pacify
the masses while a truly viable solution is found . Neither is reliable
and neither will return the amount of energy used to build the
infrastructure used to build them .

[Ed P]

Post by Ed P

   OPEC WAS irrelevant during the first Trump presidency . It
became relevant again the day BuyDumb
  Cue Ed , Bobfuck and others to jump in and claim otherwise ...

Nah, when you use dumb cutesy names like that you won't understand a
sensible reply.

   You might be surprised what I understand . And exactly what was
sensible about cutting off affordable energy ? And ending up buying
energy from people that hate us and would gleefully murder us all ?
And don't even try citing "global warming" or "climate change" ,
anybody with the capability to investigate can see it's just another
money- laundering hoax .

Look at the long term.  Use up their oil and preserve ours.  Saudi has
been diversifying for years knowing the oil will run out.

  By the time our oil "runs out" - which has been disproven - we will
have other options . Nuclear energy is the future at this point , the
"nuclear waste" problem has been solved by fast breeder reactors which
create more fuel than they consume .
  Solar and wind generation are a stopgap "solution" meant to pacify
the masses while a truly viable solution is found . Neither is reliable
and neither will return the amount of energy used to build the
infrastructure used to build them .

If Trump is smart, he will tap you to be his Energy Czar.

[Cindy Hamilton]

  By the time our oil "runs out" - which has been disproven

Makes me a little sorry Snag is in my killfile. I'd like to see
the proof. It's not as if new oil is being created.

[Greta Thongturd]

Post by Cindy Hamilton

  By the time our oil "runs out" - which has been disproven

Makes me a little sorry Snag is in my killfile. I'd like to see
the proof. It's not as if new oil is being created.

Yah, dinosaurs are extinct so there can never be new dinosaur juice.
When it's gone, it's gone.

[Snag]

Post by Cindy Hamilton

  By the time our oil "runs out" - which has been disproven

Makes me a little sorry Snag is in my killfile. I'd like to see
the proof. It's not as if new oil is being created.

You'd just claim it came from a "disinformation" source , as does Ed
and several others . I'm not wasting my time trying to prove anything to
your crowd .
Hey , y'all are still convinced that mRNA vaccines are a "good thing"
...

[Clare Snyder]

Post by Snag

Post by Cindy Hamilton

  By the time our oil "runs out" - which has been disproven

Makes me a little sorry Snag is in my killfile. I'd like to see
the proof. It's not as if new oil is being created.

You'd just claim it came from a "disinformation" source , as does Ed
and several others . I'm not wasting my time trying to prove anything to
your crowd .
Hey , y'all are still convinced that mRNA vaccines are a "good thing"
...

You and my kid brother would be GREAT friends!! You could
crossreference yourselves as "proof" for all kinds of cockamanie
claims

[Snag]

Post by Clare Snyder

Post by Snag

Post by Cindy Hamilton

  By the time our oil "runs out" - which has been disproven

Makes me a little sorry Snag is in my killfile. I'd like to see
the proof. It's not as if new oil is being created.

You'd just claim it came from a "disinformation" source , as does Ed
and several others . I'm not wasting my time trying to prove anything to
your crowd .
Hey , y'all are still convinced that mRNA vaccines are a "good thing"
...

You and my kid brother would be GREAT friends!! You could
crossreference yourselves as "proof" for all kinds of cockamanie
claims

And you just made my point Clare .

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 09:46:14 -0000 (UTC), Cindy Hamilton

Post by Cindy Hamilton

  By the time our oil "runs out" - which has been disproven

Makes me a little sorry Snag is in my killfile. I'd like to see
the proof. It's not as if new oil is being created.

Every time he farts it makes natural gas, and everyone knows natural
gas and oil are found together - hey - sometimes when he farts he even
gets oil stains on his tighty whities - what more proof do these guys
need???

[Snag]

Post by Clare Snyder
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 09:46:14 -0000 (UTC), Cindy Hamilton

Post by Cindy Hamilton

  By the time our oil "runs out" - which has been disproven

Makes me a little sorry Snag is in my killfile. I'd like to see
the proof. It's not as if new oil is being created.

Every time he farts it makes natural gas, and everyone knows natural
gas and oil are found together - hey - sometimes when he farts he even
gets oil stains on his tighty whities - what more proof do these guys
need???

Oh how mature and adult ! There are thing that we'll never agree on ,
you don't have to be so nasty about it .

[Alejandro Ocasio-Mayorkas]

Post by Ed P

   OPEC WAS irrelevant during the first Trump presidency . It became relevant again the day BuyDumb
  Cue Ed , Bobfuck and others to jump in and claim otherwise ...

Nah, when you use dumb cutesy names like that you won't understand a sensible reply.

   You might be surprised what I understand . And exactly what was sensible about cutting off affordable energy ? And ending up buying
energy from people that hate us and would gleefully murder us all ? And don't even try citing "global warming" or "climate change" , anybody
with the capability to investigate can see it's just another money- laundering hoax .

Look at the long term.  Use up their oil and preserve ours.  Saudi has been diversifying for years knowing the oil will run out.

   By the time our oil "runs out" - which has been disproven - we will have other options . Nuclear energy is the future at this point , the
"nuclear waste" problem has been solved by fast breeder reactors which create more fuel than they consume .
   Solar and wind generation are a stopgap "solution" meant to pacify the masses while a truly viable solution is found . Neither is reliable
and neither will return the amount of energy used to build the infrastructure used to build them .

If Trump is smart, he will tap you to be his Energy Czar.

Anyone would be better than Jennifer Grandtheft.

[clams casino]

Post by Cindy Hamilton
My favorite argument for getting rid of fossil fuels is that it
will make OPEC irrelevant and all those Middle Eastern sheiks can
go back to being the headman of their local village.

You do realize that you will simultaneously be getting rid of plastics, yes?

You are brick stoopid!

[Ed P]

Post by Racheal Madcow

Post by Ed P

Post by Bob F

Post by Al Goar
Did you know climate change started in Michigan over 2 million
years ago, long before people had gas stoves and an internal
combustion cars?
https://www.mucc.org/glacial-history-of-michigan-how-did-we-get-
our- great-lakes
Looks like the fear-mongering Democrats are lying about the reason
for climate change.
If a Democrat's lips are moving, they're lying.

Of course climate has been changing.  That fact though, does not
negate the fact that man is affecting it too.
Burning 100 million tons a day of fossil fuels, cutting down rain
forests makes a difference.  If you opened your mind a but and
looked at the science, you'd understand it. You prefer not to though.

trumptards are naturally immune to reality.

I've seen some explanation of how the greenhouse gasses affect the
oceans and it is pretty simple if you open our mind.

Yah, I heard grifter Gill Bates was going to sprinkle nano-particle mRNA
pixie dust in the stratosphere to eliminate greenhouse gasses and
prevent climate change.

Post by Ed P
The other portion of this is the future.  Sure, probably none of us on
this forum will see it, but, oil is a finite material and will become
scarce and expensive.  It will be interesting to see our world in 50
years.  Will we still have air travel?  Ships?
I have greatgrandkids and want them to have a good future.

Got any proof? (A transcript from an episode of The View doesn't count.)

You really have to ask that? Did you have any science classes in high
school? Did you pay attention?

[clams casino]

Did you have any science classes in high school?  Did you pay attention?

You're going to be so fucking shattered when this happens:

The last Heinrich event isn't on the list because it is the only one to
NOT occur in a glacial cycle. How does a 6000-year cycle event look
during the interglacial? Tropical hydroclimate events, volcanos, and
multi-millennial geomagnetic minimum.

Climate Change, Solar Forcing, Ice Age | From volcanic cooling born
beneath our feet to the most seemingly distant reaches of both space
time, we lay out Climate Forcing: the problems, path forward, and
character of the finish line.

[Clare Snyder]

Post by Ed P

Post by Racheal Madcow

Post by Ed P

Post by Bob F

Post by Al Goar
Did you know climate change started in Michigan over 2 million
years ago, long before people had gas stoves and an internal
combustion cars?
https://www.mucc.org/glacial-history-of-michigan-how-did-we-get-
our- great-lakes
Looks like the fear-mongering Democrats are lying about the reason
for climate change.
If a Democrat's lips are moving, they're lying.

Of course climate has been changing.  That fact though, does not
negate the fact that man is affecting it too.
Burning 100 million tons a day of fossil fuels, cutting down rain
forests makes a difference.  If you opened your mind a but and
looked at the science, you'd understand it. You prefer not to though.

trumptards are naturally immune to reality.

I've seen some explanation of how the greenhouse gasses affect the
oceans and it is pretty simple if you open our mind.

Yah, I heard grifter Gill Bates was going to sprinkle nano-particle mRNA
pixie dust in the stratosphere to eliminate greenhouse gasses and
prevent climate change.

Post by Ed P
The other portion of this is the future.  Sure, probably none of us on
this forum will see it, but, oil is a finite material and will become
scarce and expensive.  It will be interesting to see our world in 50
years.  Will we still have air travel?  Ships?
I have greatgrandkids and want them to have a good future.

Got any proof? (A transcript from an episode of The View doesn't count.)

You really have to ask that? Did you have any science classes in high
school? Did you pay attention?

You even need to ask???

[Bob F]

Post by Clare Snyder

Post by Ed P

Post by Racheal Madcow

Post by Ed P

Post by Bob F

Post by Al Goar
Did you know climate change started in Michigan over 2 million
years ago, long before people had gas stoves and an internal
combustion cars?
https://www.mucc.org/glacial-history-of-michigan-how-did-we-get-
our- great-lakes
Looks like the fear-mongering Democrats are lying about the reason
for climate change.
If a Democrat's lips are moving, they're lying.

Of course climate has been changing.  That fact though, does not
negate the fact that man is affecting it too.
Burning 100 million tons a day of fossil fuels, cutting down rain
forests makes a difference.  If you opened your mind a but and
looked at the science, you'd understand it. You prefer not to though.

trumptards are naturally immune to reality.

I've seen some explanation of how the greenhouse gasses affect the
oceans and it is pretty simple if you open our mind.

Yah, I heard grifter Gill Bates was going to sprinkle nano-particle mRNA
pixie dust in the stratosphere to eliminate greenhouse gasses and
prevent climate change.

Post by Ed P
The other portion of this is the future.  Sure, probably none of us on
this forum will see it, but, oil is a finite material and will become
scarce and expensive.  It will be interesting to see our world in 50
years.  Will we still have air travel?  Ships?
I have greatgrandkids and want them to have a good future.

Got any proof? (A transcript from an episode of The View doesn't count.)

You really have to ask that? Did you have any science classes in high
school? Did you pay attention?

You even need to ask???

Has anyone EVER seen a climate denier display any concept of the simple
and clear science of greenhouse gases, much less explain a reasonable
explanation of how it is wrong?

I never have.

They are all clueless.

[clams casino]

Post by Ed P
I have greatgrandkids and want them to have a good future.

Then move them to a planet not prone to solar micronovas and pole
shifts, ya dumbass!

https://www.hindustantimes.com/science/earths-north-pole-shifting-faster-is-a-pole-flip-imminent-how-will-it-impact-us-101715780759793.html

- NASA, citing the paleomagnetic records, said Earth's magnetic poles
have reversed 183 times in the last 83 million years and several hundred
times over the past 160 million years.

- The time intervals between reversals have varied widely but average
around 300,000 years. The last reversal occurred approximately 780,000
years ago.

- Over the past 200 years, Earth's magnetic field has weakened by about
nine per cent globally.

https://www.iflscience.com/earths-magnetic-poles-can-flip-and-its-long-overdue-to-happen-again-69613

Something’s up with the Earth’s magnetic poles. Over the past few
thousand years, Earth’s geomagnetic field has been getting weaker and
weaker. If it decays enough, it could collapse altogether and flip the
poles. North would become South and South would become North.

Looking at the geological history of Earth, magnetic field flips appear
to occur every 200,000 to 300,000 years on average. Considering the last
record of a total reversal was around 780,100 years. we are overdue for
another.

The Most Important Items Combined Into One Video | No more "Watch the
dozens of videos", no more "Go watch the series playlist"... now there
is ONE catch-up video for the earth catastrophe cycle... share it wisely.

First, combine Chan Thomas, Charles Hapgood, Major White, August
Dunning, Robert Felix, Robert Shoch, Albert Einstein, Randall Carlson
and Douglas Vogt. Then, combine mythology, religion, 4 fields of
astrophysics, 8 fields of geophysics, archeology and paleontology. Then
add on the signs of the disaster unfolding now on earth, the other
planets, the sun, nearby stars... and realize that the cycle timing is
perfectly due again now. It's coming. Are you ready?

[clams casino]

Post by Bob F

Post by Al Goar
Did you know climate change started in Michigan over 2 million years
ago, long before people had gas stoves and an internal combustion cars?
https://www.mucc.org/glacial-history-of-michigan-how-did-we-get-our-
great-lakes
Looks like the fear-mongering Democrats are lying about the reason for climate change.
If a Democrat's lips are moving, they're lying.

Of course climate has been changing.  That fact though, does not
negate the fact that man is affecting it too.
Burning 100 million tons a day of fossil fuels, cutting down rain
forests makes a difference.  If you opened your mind a but and looked
at the science, you'd understand it. You prefer not to though.

trumptards are naturally immune to reality.

Y0U are among the most pig-ignorant leftards I have ever come across -
LEARN:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Not our fault

Are we, the fossil-fuel-burning public, partially responsible for this
recent warming trend? Almost assuredly not.

These small global temperature increases of the last 25 years and over
the last century are likely natural changes that the globe has seen many
times in the past.


Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes

William M. Gray
Colorado State University

This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in
global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.
Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature
changes. We are not that influential.

There is a negative or complementary nature to human-induced greenhouse
gas increases in comparison with the dominant natural greenhouse gas of
water vapour and its cloud derivatives.

It has been assumed by the human-induced global warming advocates that
as anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase that water vapour and
upper-level cloudiness will also rise and lead to accelerated warming -
a positive feedback loop.

It is not the human-induced greenhouse gases themselves which cause
significant warming but the assumed extra water vapour and cloudiness
that some scientists hypothesise.

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.

[clams casino]

Post by Al Goar
Did you know climate change started in Michigan over 2 million years
ago, long before people had gas stoves and an internal combustion cars?
https://www.mucc.org/glacial-history-of-michigan-how-did-we-get-our-great-lakes
Looks like the fear-mongering Democrats are lying about the reason for climate change.
If a Democrat's lips are moving, they're lying.

_ALWAYS!_

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm

Negative feedback

The global general circulation models which simulate significant amounts
of human-induced warming are incorrectly structured to give this
positive feedback loop.

Their internal model assumptions are thus not realistic.

As human-induced greenhouse gases rise, global-averaged upper-level
atmospheric water vapour and thin cirrus should be expected to decrease
not increase.

Water vapour and cirrus cloudiness should be thought of as a negative
rather than a positive feedback to human-induced - or anthropogenic
greenhouse gas increases.

No significant human-induced greenhouse gas warming can occur with such
a negative feedback loop.