FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
What is the likelihood that mankind will destroy itself?

What is the likelihood that mankind will destroy itself?

(6:02) Theoretical physicist Michio Kaku describes two major trends in the world today - one towards a multicultural scientific society, the other towards a monocultural fundamentalist society. Which one wins out will determine the fate of mankind.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Get Real (1175 days ago)

Must be nice having a life where you get paid to THINK BIG.

I guess my guidance counselor forgot to mention there was such a job.

You mentioned the Type Zero Civilization and I beg to differ that we are even a type Zero.

I have yet to see any society that was civilized.

ReplyVote up (105)down (90)
Original comment

Must be nice having a life where you get paid to THINK BIG.

I guess my guidance counselor forgot to mention there was such a job.

You mentioned the Type Zero Civilization and I beg to differ that we are even a type Zero.

I have yet to see any society that was civilized.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1175 days ago)

I think you're being a bit harsh. "Being civilised" is relative. Overall, the world is more civilised today than it was during the Middle Ages.

Accidental or intentional nuclear war will definitely slow us down in the journey to a fully fledged type 1 civilisation, but I don't think it would prevent us getting there eventually.

Runaway global warming though would render the Earth like Venus, and in the process destroy all known life in the universe.

We need to spend less on fighting each other and more on building a type 1 civilisation. We need more super rich like Elon Musk, and less super rich like the Koch brothers or Dick Cheney.

ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment

I think you're being a bit harsh. "Being civilised" is relative. Overall, the world is more civilised today than it was during the Middle Ages.

Accidental or intentional nuclear war will definitely slow us down in the journey to a fully fledged type 1 civilisation, but I don't think it would prevent us getting there eventually.

Runaway global warming though would render the Earth like Venus, and in the process destroy all known life in the universe.

We need to spend less on fighting each other and more on building a type 1 civilisation. We need more super rich like Elon Musk, and less super rich like the Koch brothers or Dick Cheney.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1175 days ago)

“Runaway global warming though would render the Earth like Venus, and in the process destroy all known life in the universe.” Another load of crap. If global warming was true on Earth, how could that possibly affect any other life that exists in the universe?

I suppose you'll scapegoat out of this by saying "known life" and that we don't know of any other life but that is a complete cop-out.

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

“Runaway global warming though would render the Earth like Venus, and in the process destroy all known life in the universe.” Another load of crap. If global warming was true on Earth, how could that possibly affect any other life that exists in the universe?

I suppose you'll scapegoat out of this by saying "known life" and that we don't know of any other life but that is a complete cop-out.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SS.ATM (1175 days ago)

hey originalmad, why do you emulate the writing stile of cengland0 when you are using the imbecilic username?

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

hey originalmad, why do you emulate the writing stile of cengland0 when you are using the imbecilic username?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1175 days ago)

hey sat, either you could just get over the fact someone registered guest123456789, and it wasn't you,or you can seek psychiatric help. Ps i do wish it was me, just think of the fun I could have, but alas it wasn't.

ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment

hey sat, either you could just get over the fact someone registered guest123456789, and it wasn't you,or you can seek psychiatric help. Ps i do wish it was me, just think of the fun I could have, but alas it wasn't.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SS.ATM (1175 days ago)

lies lies, all lies.

no wonder you go on and on about climate change not being real: you're a liar.

bwaa ha ha ha ha!

a LIAR!

bwaaa ha ha ha ha!

ReplyVote up (173)down (175)
Original comment

lies lies, all lies.

no wonder you go on and on about climate change not being real: you're a liar.

bwaa ha ha ha ha!

a LIAR!

bwaaa ha ha ha ha!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1175 days ago)

Actually what I emphasize is natural climate change, which is real and recorded throughout history. If you had any ability in maths and science, you would be able to follow the debate and note that the alamists endless dubious adjustments to the historical record to try and erase/minimise this inconvenient fact, Its not my fault you are as thick as two short planks.

ReplyVote up (175)down (82)
Original comment

Actually what I emphasize is natural climate change, which is real and recorded throughout history. If you had any ability in maths and science, you would be able to follow the debate and note that the alamists endless dubious adjustments to the historical record to try and erase/minimise this inconvenient fact, Its not my fault you are as thick as two short planks.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SS.ATM (1175 days ago)

the imbecilic ID and the "smart" id are merging into one i see.

I guess we can call this progress.

he he he he!

ReplyVote up (100)down (96)
Original comment

the imbecilic ID and the "smart" id are merging into one i see.

I guess we can call this progress.

he he he he!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: man in white coat (1175 days ago)

we ?. A sign of multiple internet identity disorder

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

we ?. A sign of multiple internet identity disorder

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SS.ATM (1174 days ago)

sure it is originalmad, sure it is. 3rd ID so far.

How many do you have?

ReplyVote up (105)down (80)
Original comment

sure it is originalmad, sure it is. 3rd ID so far.

How many do you have?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1175 days ago)

Rather than merely say "all life on Earth", I prefer "all known life in the universe" because it is more dramatic, yet still correct.

RUNAWAY global warming would definitely change the Earth's atmosphere to something like Venus, that's undisputed physics.

What you disagree with is that the globe is warming at all. I've tried to explain. Almost every expert has tried to explain, but none of it is getting through. Were you this thick at school?

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

Rather than merely say "all life on Earth", I prefer "all known life in the universe" because it is more dramatic, yet still correct.

RUNAWAY global warming would definitely change the Earth's atmosphere to something like Venus, that's undisputed physics.

What you disagree with is that the globe is warming at all. I've tried to explain. Almost every expert has tried to explain, but none of it is getting through. Were you this thick at school?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1175 days ago)

“because it is more dramatic” Exactly. You’re a big drama queen.

“What you disagree with is that the globe is warming.” No, that is not what I disagree with. To be clear, I agree the Earth has warmed a little in the last couple hundred years. I also say that there hasn’t been any significant increase in the last 16 or so years even though our CO2 production continues to rise.

What I disagree with is that any warming we experienced is unusual because the historical temperature of this planet has been on average 25C during the majority of the time life existed. We are significantly below that so the earth is simply getting back to its normal temperature. I have brought this to your attention and you him-haw about it completely ignoring it.

When I ask direct questions, you say that you’re not an expert in the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Triassic, Jurassic, or Cretaceous periods. Well, I suggest you familiarize yourself with these details before you attempt to have an educated discussion about this subject. There was plenty of life during all those periods and the average temperatures during all those periods was 25C.

ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment

“because it is more dramatic” Exactly. You’re a big drama queen.

“What you disagree with is that the globe is warming.” No, that is not what I disagree with. To be clear, I agree the Earth has warmed a little in the last couple hundred years. I also say that there hasn’t been any significant increase in the last 16 or so years even though our CO2 production continues to rise.

What I disagree with is that any warming we experienced is unusual because the historical temperature of this planet has been on average 25C during the majority of the time life existed. We are significantly below that so the earth is simply getting back to its normal temperature. I have brought this to your attention and you him-haw about it completely ignoring it.

When I ask direct questions, you say that you’re not an expert in the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Triassic, Jurassic, or Cretaceous periods. Well, I suggest you familiarize yourself with these details before you attempt to have an educated discussion about this subject. There was plenty of life during all those periods and the average temperatures during all those periods was 25C.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SS.ATM (1175 days ago)

yeah sure imbecilic ID of originalmad

""When I ask direct questions, you say that you’re not an expert in the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Triassic, Jurassic, or Cretaceous periods. Well, I suggest you familiarize yourself with these details before you attempt to have an educated discussion about this subject. ""

As if you can tell your elbows from your tongue.

he he he he!

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

yeah sure imbecilic ID of originalmad

""When I ask direct questions, you say that you’re not an expert in the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Triassic, Jurassic, or Cretaceous periods. Well, I suggest you familiarize yourself with these details before you attempt to have an educated discussion about this subject. ""

As if you can tell your elbows from your tongue.

he he he he!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1175 days ago)

You are slipping back into Cambrian times again. OK, I concede - humans had nothing to do with the climate during Cambrian times, even Ordovician and Silurian times. Happy?

Now that's cleared up, can I gently pull you back to the topic today. 13 out of the 14 years this century were the warmest on record. Maybe, just maybe, the billions of tons of HEAT-TRAPPING CO2 we pump into the atmosphere every year has something to do with it.

Or maybe those billions of tons of CO2 are breaking the laws of physics, and not trapping heat? That would get scientists very excited.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

You are slipping back into Cambrian times again. OK, I concede - humans had nothing to do with the climate during Cambrian times, even Ordovician and Silurian times. Happy?

Now that's cleared up, can I gently pull you back to the topic today. 13 out of the 14 years this century were the warmest on record. Maybe, just maybe, the billions of tons of HEAT-TRAPPING CO2 we pump into the atmosphere every year has something to do with it.

Or maybe those billions of tons of CO2 are breaking the laws of physics, and not trapping heat? That would get scientists very excited.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1175 days ago)

“13 out of the 14 years this century were the warmest on record” Bogus statistic. Sounds like 4 out of 5 dentists prefer Crest toothpaste.

This shows how you can cherry pick your data. How far back did your “record” go? Just 14 years?

If you just look at the medieval warming period (and there are many more you can look at), those temperatures are much warmer than they are today. There have been some past controversies about it not being global temperatures but that has been debunked. LINK

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

“13 out of the 14 years this century were the warmest on record” Bogus statistic. Sounds like 4 out of 5 dentists prefer Crest toothpaste.

This shows how you can cherry pick your data. How far back did your “record” go? Just 14 years?

If you just look at the medieval warming period (and there are many more you can look at), those temperatures are much warmer than they are today. There have been some past controversies about it not being global temperatures but that has been debunked. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1175 days ago)

"Warmest on record" means the warmest instrumental temperature record - that is from about 1850 for global stats. LINK

So do you think the billions of tons of CO2 we add to the atmosphere every year is NOT trapping heat?

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

"Warmest on record" means the warmest instrumental temperature record - that is from about 1850 for global stats. LINK

So do you think the billions of tons of CO2 we add to the atmosphere every year is NOT trapping heat?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1175 days ago)

That means you are purposely ignoring the temperatures prior to the industrial revolution because it doesn’t tell the story you want to tell. Why don’t you try looking at the bigger picture for a change instead of having such a narrow focus. Answer is because you know that this is not the warmest on record and it completely does away with your AGW hypothesis. That is why it’s called cherry picking the data.

The statement about the temperatures being the warmest on record has been shown many times to be false. That hockey puck graph that Al Gore used in his presentation chopped off important data that showed the previous Medieval Warming period followed by the little ice age. When you see the whole graph, you can see that the warming is not the warmest in history.

I suggest you try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating what the media wants you to think. If you do that, you may think outside the box and realize that the politicians and media have an agenda and only provide you with the cherry picked data to show you a picture that tells a specific story. You fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

That means you are purposely ignoring the temperatures prior to the industrial revolution because it doesn’t tell the story you want to tell. Why don’t you try looking at the bigger picture for a change instead of having such a narrow focus. Answer is because you know that this is not the warmest on record and it completely does away with your AGW hypothesis. That is why it’s called cherry picking the data.

The statement about the temperatures being the warmest on record has been shown many times to be false. That hockey puck graph that Al Gore used in his presentation chopped off important data that showed the previous Medieval Warming period followed by the little ice age. When you see the whole graph, you can see that the warming is not the warmest in history.

I suggest you try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating what the media wants you to think. If you do that, you may think outside the box and realize that the politicians and media have an agenda and only provide you with the cherry picked data to show you a picture that tells a specific story. You fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1175 days ago)

From Wkipedia: "The period for which reasonably reliable instrumental records of near-surface temperature exist with quasi-global coverage is generally considered to begin around 1850. Earlier records exist, but with sparser coverage and less standardized instrumentation."

We are trying to figure out if human activity is warming the planet, and 1850 is about the time we started burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale. What happened before is irrelevant because human activity was simply too small to have an effect on global systems.

Today, as I'm sure you'll agree, it's is very different. We have 7 billion people, industries on a huge scale, and globalisation.

So do you think the billions of tons of CO2 we add to the atmosphere every year is NOT trapping heat? Please don't make me ask the same question over and over. Just answer yes or no. Guess if you don't know and I'll be happy to explain why you're wrong.

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

From Wkipedia: "The period for which reasonably reliable instrumental records of near-surface temperature exist with quasi-global coverage is generally considered to begin around 1850. Earlier records exist, but with sparser coverage and less standardized instrumentation."

We are trying to figure out if human activity is warming the planet, and 1850 is about the time we started burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale. What happened before is irrelevant because human activity was simply too small to have an effect on global systems.

Today, as I'm sure you'll agree, it's is very different. We have 7 billion people, industries on a huge scale, and globalisation.

So do you think the billions of tons of CO2 we add to the atmosphere every year is NOT trapping heat? Please don't make me ask the same question over and over. Just answer yes or no. Guess if you don't know and I'll be happy to explain why you're wrong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1175 days ago)

“From Wikipedia” Ha, you fell victim to one of the problems with the Internet. Since anyone can create a page on the web, you cannot trust all the information you get. That is why Wikipedia is the last place you should go for information. You should go directly to the source where Wikipedia authors got their information. Try a science website or NOAA, NASA, IPCC, even an EDU website.

Anyway, your comment about prior to 1850 having less standardized instrumentation is interesting. Are you trying to say that all the scientists that show the temperatures before that are wrong and their methods for determining what the temperatures were at that time is flawed. Is that why you discard all that previous data?

“We are trying to figure out if human activity is warming the planet, and 1850 is about the time we started burning fossil fuels “ Agreed. However, it would be like saying something like, I want to know if using computers have increased my productivity. I began using computers in 1979 so I will not use any productivity data prior to that. See the flaw? How can you compare productivity if you don’t look at what it was before using computers? You are trying to do the same thing by ignoring any climate data prior to the industrial age and only using the temperatures within the age you’re trying to see if it’s increasing. You need a base temperature to compare that is before the event and you are throwing all the precious data out the window.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

“From Wikipedia” Ha, you fell victim to one of the problems with the Internet. Since anyone can create a page on the web, you cannot trust all the information you get. That is why Wikipedia is the last place you should go for information. You should go directly to the source where Wikipedia authors got their information. Try a science website or NOAA, NASA, IPCC, even an EDU website.

Anyway, your comment about prior to 1850 having less standardized instrumentation is interesting. Are you trying to say that all the scientists that show the temperatures before that are wrong and their methods for determining what the temperatures were at that time is flawed. Is that why you discard all that previous data?

“We are trying to figure out if human activity is warming the planet, and 1850 is about the time we started burning fossil fuels “ Agreed. However, it would be like saying something like, I want to know if using computers have increased my productivity. I began using computers in 1979 so I will not use any productivity data prior to that. See the flaw? How can you compare productivity if you don’t look at what it was before using computers? You are trying to do the same thing by ignoring any climate data prior to the industrial age and only using the temperatures within the age you’re trying to see if it’s increasing. You need a base temperature to compare that is before the event and you are throwing all the precious data out the window.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1175 days ago)

So do you think the billions of tons of CO2 we add to the atmosphere every year is NOT trapping heat - Y or N?

ReplyVote up (101)down (73)
Original comment

So do you think the billions of tons of CO2 we add to the atmosphere every year is NOT trapping heat - Y or N?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1175 days ago)

N. Walter, I dont think you understand the greenhouse effect, it doesn't "trap" heat.

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment

N. Walter, I dont think you understand the greenhouse effect, it doesn't "trap" heat.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1175 days ago)

For the benefit of all, why don't you explain how the greenhouse effect works.

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

For the benefit of all, why don't you explain how the greenhouse effect works.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1175 days ago)

Its supposed to increase the height of the trosphere.

ReplyVote up (90)down (170)
Original comment

Its supposed to increase the height of the trosphere.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1175 days ago)

Is that it? Is that your explanation of how the greenhouse effect works? That's the least impressive few words I have come across in a long time.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Is that it? Is that your explanation of how the greenhouse effect works? That's the least impressive few words I have come across in a long time.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SS.ATM (1175 days ago)

the imbecilic persona is merging with the "original" one. The stupid is blending with the... lesser stupid, hence his answer.

Give him a day and he'll say global warming = PINGO.

bwaa ha ha ha ha!!

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

the imbecilic persona is merging with the "original" one. The stupid is blending with the... lesser stupid, hence his answer.

Give him a day and he'll say global warming = PINGO.

bwaa ha ha ha ha!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1175 days ago)

Waltersyou did see the instant correction of the typo to troposphere. guess should I also mention lapse rate,. walter I suggest you been fed an ersazt version for proles, but green house gasses (and liquids) dont trap heat.

ReplyVote up (81)down (101)
Original comment

Waltersyou did see the instant correction of the typo to troposphere. guess should I also mention lapse rate,. walter I suggest you been fed an ersazt version for proles, but green house gasses (and liquids) dont trap heat.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1175 days ago)

troposphere (typo)

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

troposphere (typo)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1175 days ago)

Actually have you noticed how the "message" has morphed from 7 out of the last 8 years are the warmist on record to 13 of the last 14 are the warmist on record. Anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of sine waves will note this behavoir as you go over a peak in the data. It actually means we are going into a cooling phase,

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

Actually have you noticed how the "message" has morphed from 7 out of the last 8 years are the warmist on record to 13 of the last 14 are the warmist on record. Anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of sine waves will note this behavoir as you go over a peak in the data. It actually means we are going into a cooling phase,

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1175 days ago)

Not necessarily. The temperature could have remained the same in the last 14 years with no significant change and they could still be considered the warmest 13 of those 14 years. Doesn’t mean we are cooling and it doesn’t mean we are warming either.

That 13 of the last 14 figure means nothing to me unless I see the rest of the data and they (as Al Gore would say inconveniently) left off that important truth to show AGW is nothing but a hoax.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

Not necessarily. The temperature could have remained the same in the last 14 years with no significant change and they could still be considered the warmest 13 of those 14 years. Doesn’t mean we are cooling and it doesn’t mean we are warming either.

That 13 of the last 14 figure means nothing to me unless I see the rest of the data and they (as Al Gore would say inconveniently) left off that important truth to show AGW is nothing but a hoax.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1175 days ago)

Finally got your other hemisphere working? I was wondering how long it would take.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Finally got your other hemisphere working? I was wondering how long it would take.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1175 days ago)

Actually they were saying 7 of the last 8 years are the warmest a couple of years ago. fast forward 2 or 3 years and the range has gone from 8 to 14 an increase in range of 6 years. those extra years come from before the "peak". Ps think of walking up a perfectly conical hill in a straight line with equal steps until reaching the peak and then to continue in a straight line down the other side. As you reach the peak, and start to walk downhill, it will be perfectly correct to say on the nth step from the peak, that the last 2n+1 steps have been at the highest elevation in this walk, despite the fact you have been walking downhill for the last n steps. Those extra n+1 steps come from the walk up to and including the peak.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

Actually they were saying 7 of the last 8 years are the warmest a couple of years ago. fast forward 2 or 3 years and the range has gone from 8 to 14 an increase in range of 6 years. those extra years come from before the "peak". Ps think of walking up a perfectly conical hill in a straight line with equal steps until reaching the peak and then to continue in a straight line down the other side. As you reach the peak, and start to walk downhill, it will be perfectly correct to say on the nth step from the peak, that the last 2n+1 steps have been at the highest elevation in this walk, despite the fact you have been walking downhill for the last n steps. Those extra n+1 steps come from the walk up to and including the peak.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1174 days ago)

I understand what you're saying. It just doesn't automatically mean we are in a cooling phase. If the data shows we are cooling, then we are cooling. If you say that there hasn't been any significant warming, it doesn't automatically mean we are cooling. It could have flat-lined.

I haven't looked at the individual data points to confirm it either way because I'm more concerned about the bigger picture looking at a much wider timespan and when I do that, it's clear that we might have warmed a little in the last 200 years but nothing like the medieval warm period.

I don't deny the little bit of warming that we experienced but I'm not alarmed about it nor am I concerned. I also don't believe it's related to greenhouse gases because those keep increasing (30 billion tons according to WalterEgo) but the temperature is not still increasing. I believe the natural temperature of the planet is 25C because that's what it was during most of the periods containing life on this planet and we are at 15.12C average. We have a lot of warming to go before we get back to normal.

Original comment

I understand what you're saying. It just doesn't automatically mean we are in a cooling phase. If the data shows we are cooling, then we are cooling. If you say that there hasn't been any significant warming, it doesn't automatically mean we are cooling. It could have flat-lined.

I haven't looked at the individual data points to confirm it either way because I'm more concerned about the bigger picture looking at a much wider timespan and when I do that, it's clear that we might have warmed a little in the last 200 years but nothing like the medieval warm period.

I don't deny the little bit of warming that we experienced but I'm not alarmed about it nor am I concerned. I also don't believe it's related to greenhouse gases because those keep increasing (30 billion tons according to WalterEgo) but the temperature is not still increasing. I believe the natural temperature of the planet is 25C because that's what it was during most of the periods containing life on this planet and we are at 15.12C average. We have a lot of warming to go before we get back to normal.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1174 days ago)

I know, but it does say we are not warming at present and haven't for 14 years, confirming the "pause" . ps the missing and incidentally "hottest" year is 1998, some 16 years ago. One could argue we have been cooling the last 16 years, but of course that would lead to accusations of cherrypicking, something of course climate alarmistas never do..... no no never ever.... no really they dont..

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

I know, but it does say we are not warming at present and haven't for 14 years, confirming the "pause" . ps the missing and incidentally "hottest" year is 1998, some 16 years ago. One could argue we have been cooling the last 16 years, but of course that would lead to accusations of cherrypicking, something of course climate alarmistas never do..... no no never ever.... no really they dont..

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1174 days ago)

The cherry picking is one of the biggest issues with AGW hypothesis. If they stopped doing that, they would see AGW is not happening.

ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment

The cherry picking is one of the biggest issues with AGW hypothesis. If they stopped doing that, they would see AGW is not happening.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SS.ATM (1174 days ago)

it's so weird when originalmad comments to himself and answeres to himself by using to different user ID's.

A mad man expecting people to take him seriously.

heh

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

it's so weird when originalmad comments to himself and answeres to himself by using to different user ID's.

A mad man expecting people to take him seriously.

heh

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1174 days ago)
Latest comment:

Indeed, although I suppose it helps that their supporters are typically so iinept at maths and logic that they cant see that it is cherrypicked. hence the endless sheep like bleats of illogical tautology

ReplyVote up (87)down (162)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Indeed, although I suppose it helps that their supporters are typically so iinept at maths and logic that they cant see that it is cherrypicked. hence the endless sheep like bleats of illogical tautology

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
World Urbanisation: 3700 BCE - 2000 CE
World Urbanisation: 3700 BCE - 2000 CE
History of human histories
History of human histories
What would happen if humans disappeared?
What would happen if humans disappeared?
How megacities are changing the map of the world
How megacities are changing the map of the world
Idiocracy
Idiocracy