Expert prognosis for the planet

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by DrinkenBRZ

For the record I am also networked with plenty of accomplished phd’d level individuals who can much better lay out support to my position.

ah well since you seem incapable of making coherent arguments, perhaps you can convince these people sign up to post on ft86club and you can stop embarrassing yourself

[DrinkenBRZ]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Is one of them Dr Chipmonk?

Physiatrists, Geologists, and Biologists. I review their budgets and grant requests for both ROI and non revenue generating efforts in public company environments. Not my entire job, but at certain times of the year, like now. These are often recruited academics who have shown promising results in their fields. So, have additional education in the subjects and a hobby interest I engage them in discussions like these. So far only the deniers and scientifically backed evidence. The others are just manipulating models like I do on occasion to justify an investment I ‘really’ want to make sense.

[DrinkenBRZ]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

ah well since you seem incapable of making coherent arguments, perhaps you can convince these people sign up to post on ft86club and you can stop embarrassing yourself

Looks like the coherency is more on your ability to grasp logical reasoning backed by obvious facts.

[spcmafia]

Originally Posted by DrinkenBRZ

Looks like the coherency is more on your ability to grasp logical reasoning backed by obvious facts.

Not going to agree, nor disagree with whatever, I am sure, extensive research, studies, journals, you have read, written and reviewed. Because it would be like talking to a wall whenever it comes to two people talking about either politics, religion, money, and science with different opinions. But, I will say this, I mean I guess you could, but in some settings, one just can't start splurging out theories, opinions, with a base for arguments being that you talk or know allegedly "PhD'd level individuals", and call them obvious facts.



That is the equivalent of me saying I would know how to operate a power plant because I hold conversations with electrical engineers from time to time.



Other than that, post , or troll at your own leisure. Can't stop you, won't stop you. The ICE thread is slowing down a bit.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by DrinkenBRZ

Looks like the coherency is more on your ability to grasp logical reasoning backed by obvious facts.

great post mr dunning kruger

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by DrinkenBRZ

Physiatrists, Geologists, and Biologists. I review their budgets and grant requests for both ROI and non revenue generating efforts in public company environments. Not my entire job, but at certain times of the year, like now. These are often recruited academics who have shown promising results in their fields. So, have additional education in the subjects and a hobby interest I engage them in discussions like these. So far only the deniers and scientifically backed evidence. The others are just manipulating models like I do on occasion to justify an investment I ‘really’ want to make sense.

So allegedly you, as an individual, have the authority to decide who get's funded. You use this authority to to fund those who's research matches your preconceived ideas by fraudulently manipulating information.

I am also very interested on what sort of ROI you are looking at in their budgets.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Or, put another way, "No single raindrop blames itself for the flood"

I'm not surprised given that raindrops are not sentient.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I'm not surprised given that raindrops are not sentient.

Hey if snowflakes can be sentient so can OG raindrops.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by DrinkenBRZ

Looks like the coherency is more on your ability to grasp logical reasoning backed by obvious facts.

lol. obvious facts.

you mean like chemtrails?

or the earth being flat?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Isn't the real answer "There is more than enough evidence to show that the current interglacial stage of the existing Ice Age, combined with the increased contribution of industrialization to levels of CO2 in the environment are contributing factors to the current warming trend."?

Or, put another way, "No single raindrop blames itself for the flood"

We are in a long term warming trend coming out of the ice-age, but the rate of change recently has greatly accelerated. Two different things that are often confused. We often hear, for instance, about rising sea level, and people will quote that sea level was 300 feet lower just 10k-12k years ago, so raising a few more meters in 50-100 years is not a big deal and totally normal. Well, sea level rise is a non-linear event, and we have had 800 years of fairly stable sea levels to build grand cities near the oceans without issues, but this stability is being disrupted, and it will cost trillions of dollars. The warming now is different and rapid compared to the past.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

We are in a long term warming trend coming out of the ice-age, but the rate of change recently has greatly accelerated....

Understood, that's basically what I said, it's not "or" it's an "and".

You could take either out of the equation and the net change is still up, but not as much.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

We are in a long term warming trend coming out of the ice-age, but the rate of change recently has greatly accelerated. Two different things that are often confused. We often hear, for instance, about rising sea level, and people will quote that sea level was 300 feet lower just 10k-12k years ago, so raising a few more meters in 50-100 years is not a big deal and totally normal. Well, sea level rise is a non-linear event, and we have had 800 years of fairly stable sea levels to build grand cities near the oceans without issues, but this stability is being disrupted, and it will cost trillions of dollars. The warming now is different and rapid compared to the past.

SEE! The glaciers melting are the cause of global warning.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Understood, that's basically what I said, it's not "or" it's an "and".

You could take either out of the equation and the net change is still up, but not as much.

My point is that it isn't even an "And". The increase is anthropomorphic. The year over year addition is not at historical natural levels, as you can see. There is more of an exponential rise recently that coincides and is best explained by anthropomorphic causes, which is why I am saying it isn't an "And"; it is 99% anthropomorphic (made up percentage used to illustrate the difference between human and natural rise).

[Sapphireho]

I think we are all little ants on this planet. We have been given enough brain to argue, but no understanding of how things really work, given our tiny brains, our giant ego, and tiny time on this earth. None of you know anything.

I'll take a quarter pounder with cheese.