re: Thoughts on global warming/climate change?

quote:

---

1. We're not going to fricking colonize space and move the entire human race to a new planet. That's dumber than believing in catastrophic climate change by a couple of orders of magnitude

---

Then we die sooner or later. At that point, who cares?

But you are limiting us to no more evolution. No more advancements. No more anything. Believing that we never can or could is dumber than anything anyone has said on this forum to date.

The rest of your post is a good discussion, but one for another time.

Historical records on weather only go back around 200 years. Anything before that is just a guess. We have less than 0.01% weather data on the history of the world.

Scientists are going off 200 years of data. Not nearly enough data to say global warming is an issue and something that isn't natural.

Check back when humans have a million years of weather data.

I looked up the ice age subject about 6 years ago. Of course Noaa popped up. I distinctly remember it saying 8000 years to the next ice age. I guess maybe it said 8-10,000. I looked again before I typed and it just says 10,000 now. Not sure what changed.
Obviously climate changes. With or without us.
The majority of deserts were once oceans.
Much of the worlds land was once covered in glaciers.
I read a book written by Obama’s undersecretary for Science, US department of Energy called “Unsettled”
I highly recommend reading it.
Spoiler alert. He says there is nothing we can do about climate change except, Maybe we can slow it down by a fraction.
It would be much more practical to start devoting the trillions of dollars being spent fighting climate change on preparing our world to endure and exist with the inevitable.

The climate changes? No way!

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Shock New Evidence Showing No Link Between CO2 and Temperature Over Last Three Million Years Stumps Net Zero Activists | Chris Morrison, Watts Up With That?

The climate science world (‘settled’ division) is in shock following the discovery in ancient ice cores that levels of carbon dioxide remained stable as the world plunged into an ice age around 2.7 million years ago. Levels of CO2 at around 250 parts per million (ppm) were said to be lower than often assumed with just a 20 ppm movement recorded for the following near three million-year period. In addition, no changes in methane levels were seen in the entire period. Massive decreases in temperature with occasional interglacial rises appear to have occurred without troubling ‘greenhouse’ gas levels, and this revelation has caused near panic in activist circles.

The assumed level three million years ago of CO2 was around 400 ppm, a convenient mark that has been used to explain the subsequent ice age and a drop to 250 ppm. Due to the recently published paper, this explanation has become more problematic and natural climate variation is correctly noted to have occurred with the temperature changes. Alas, similar explanations are mostly ignored in discussing today’s climate changes in the interests of promoting the Net Zero fantasy. Some cling desperately to a dominant CO2 role, including one of the authors of the findings published in Nature. The co-author states that the results suggest even greater climate sensitivity to the warming effect of CO2. In short, there is a great deal of applying the laws of physics and chemistry to one era, but failing to extend the same courtesy to another.

---

quote:

---

Believing that we never can or could is dumber than anything anyone has said on this forum to date.

---

No, it's not, because math matters. (Sorry to have hurt your feelings, though...I obviously did to cause you to use that kind of ridiculous hyperbole.)

It's like when you confront atheists with the mathematical probability against life starting spontaneously on this planet without any intelligent intervention (calculated at 1 x 10 to the 40,000) and they still act like it's the most probable explanation.

This isn't like telling someone in 1850 that we would go to the moon one day.

It's several orders of magnitude more complicated.

We're not talking about creating and holding together an artificial environment for a week. We're talking about creating an artificial environment permanently that can sustain life indefinitely, and the pilgrims having to create it ON the new planet. We're not talking about transporting 4 guys who have tested out to be exceptional physical specimens off the planet. We're talking about transporting a thousand people.

quote:

---

At that point, who cares?

---

If you have no basis for caring, why do you care about colonizing space?

Because it's "cool?"