Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Route 66
  • Interests
    Science, politics, motorcycles, travel.

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    No Party/Other

Profile Fields

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

408 profile views
  1. It's called reconstructed data because we didn't have scientific measurement devices scatter throughout the world a thousand years ago. Scientists use climate proxy data.
  2. Can the Right Wing Nuts win without cheating??? They seem unconcerned with whether they can win without the lies and cheating. Those behaviors are entrenched in the Republican playbook.
  3. Scientists use isotropic analysis to determine the source of the additional atmospheric CO2. The evidence points to fossil fuel combustion and forest combustion. So it absolutely has been attributed to man. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-co2-increases-are-due-to-human-activities/
  4. Scientists are measuring 415 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. It dosn't all settle out and what remains warms the planet through the greenhouse effect. No hysterics. Just science.
  5. The important point is not whatever supports your opinion. It is to go where the science leads us. The science leads us to the inescapable conclusion that human industrial processes inject CO2 into the atmosphere. Increased CO2 leads to warming. Warming leads to climate change. The science is no longer questioned by serious climate scientists. That particular behavior is seems to be reserved for politicians and internet experts. .
  6. One is a constituent of the other. You're not making a point.
  7. Yawn, an opinion piece by a non scientist adds nothing to a scientific discussion. The national academies of 33 countries have reviewed Cook’s work and found it to be robust. It has been replicated in numerous other surveys and studies. Go dig up some real science.
  8. In context, tha LIA was a period of cooling after MWP. It is dwarfed in both scale and rapidity by recent changes to the average surface temperature of the planet.
  9. I have an idea what the average mass of an atom of CO2 is. What’s your point, cupcake?
  10. The pope is not mixed up. Change that occurred over hundreds of thousands of years is far less dangerous than an equivalent change over a matter of decades.
  11. This is not correct. There is near unanimity among climate scientists. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf. (academic citation in PDF format. More ,where that came from).