Iran

#18,907
#18,907
rikberry31 said:
1. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. The it was significantly warmer in the 30’s and the CO2 concentration was much lower.
2. The CO2 concentration(0.04%) in the atmosphere is far too small to be a contributor to a temperature rise.
3. The rise in temperature is mostly due to the urbanization around temperature sensors and the fact that many of the studies rig the numbers by removing the “outliers” which happen to be rural sensors which record significantly lower temperatures. The rural sensors also show no significant warming since 1950.
4. The rise in CO2 only correlates with a similar rise in temperature if you use the doctored numbers that exclude rural areas. The rural areas show no such correlation. If there was global warming then these areas would show a proportional increase as urban areas, they do not.
5. Urban areas stay significantly higher nighttime temperatures. Once again the rural areas excluded in the studies that corroborate warming.
6. We are not experiencing short term warming. Since the Little Ice Age (500years ago) temperatures have been steadily rising and are near the highest temperatures in history.
7. The sea levels have not significantly risen and are no where near historical highs. In the short term, the polar ice cap area has increased and the polar bear population has risen sharply.
8. Every level of radiation has increased dramatically since 1945. There were multiple atomic explosions in the atmosphere until very recently. This affects things like atmospheric radiation and radioactive dating.
9. The Sun warms the earth. Other than geothermal heating, which small compared to solar, are it. The higher the activity of the Sun the more energy enters the atmosphere.
10. This the only one you got right. Climate change is generally excepted nu climate scientists because that is where the money is.
Bottom Line
There is a tremendous amount of money to be made by perpetuating the climate hoax.
There is also a lot of power gained by the green leftist. Search engines and AI are polluted by the massive bombardment of propaganda .
And I didn’t have to google any pf this unlike you.
Click to expand...
@rikberry31 give it up bro.

Here’s a careful, evidence-based evaluation of each claim. I’ll separate what’s accurate, misleading, or incorrect, and explain why based on mainstream climate science (e.g., assessments from organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA).

1. Past CO₂ levels and 1930s warmth​

Partly true, but misleading

  • It’s true that CO₂ levels were higher millions of years ago (e.g., during the Eocene).
  • However, human civilization developed during a relatively stable, low-CO₂ period.
  • The claim about the 1930s being warmer than today globally is false.
    • The 1930s were hot in parts of the U.S. (Dust Bowl), but globally today is significantly warmer.

2. “CO₂ is too small (0.04%) to matter”​

Incorrect

  • Small concentrations can have large effects. CO₂ is a trace gas but a powerful greenhouse gas.
  • Without it, Earth would be ~33°C colder.
  • The mechanism (infrared absorption) is basic physics established since the 1800s.

3. Urbanization and “rigged” temperature data​

Incorrect

  • Urban heat island effects are well-known and corrected for in datasets.
  • Independent datasets (satellite, ocean, rural stations) all show warming.
  • Studies explicitly comparing rural vs. urban stations show similar warming trends.

4. “Only urban areas show warming”​

Incorrect

  • Warming is observed:
    • Over oceans (which cover ~70% of Earth)
    • In rural land areas
    • In satellite measurements
  • Correlation between CO₂ and temperature appears across multiple independent datasets, not just urban ones.

5. Nighttime temperatures and urban bias​

Partly true, but misleading

  • Urban areas do retain more heat at night.
  • However:
    • This effect is accounted for in analyses
    • Nighttime warming is also observed in rural and ocean data
  • The broader warming trend cannot be explained by urbanization alone.

6. “Warming since the Little Ice Age is natural”​

Misleading

  • Temperatures did rise after the Little Ice Age (~1300–1850).
  • However:
    • The rate and magnitude of warming since ~1950 are far faster
    • This recent warming correlates strongly with greenhouse gas emissions, not natural factors alone.

7. Sea levels, ice caps, polar bears​

Mostly incorrect

  • Sea levels are rising (~20–25 cm since 1900, accelerating).
  • Arctic sea ice is declining sharply, not increasing.
  • Antarctic trends are mixed, but overall ice loss is occurring.
  • Polar bear populations are not “rising sharply”; some populations are stable, others declining due to habitat loss.

8. Radiation from nuclear explosions​

Mostly incorrect / irrelevant

  • Atmospheric nuclear tests did increase radiation temporarily.
  • However:
    • Levels dropped significantly after test bans.
    • This has no meaningful impact on global temperature trends.
    • Radiometric dating methods account for such variations.

9. The Sun as the main driver​

Partly true, but incomplete

  • The Sun is indeed Earth’s primary energy source.
  • However:
    • Satellite measurements show solar output has not increased in recent decades.
    • Meanwhile, temperatures have continued rising.
  • This mismatch is strong evidence that recent warming is not solar-driven.

10. “Scientists accept climate change for funding”​

Incorrect

  • There is overwhelming scientific consensus (multiple studies show ~97% agreement among publishing climate scientists).
  • This consensus is based on:
    • Independent lines of evidence
    • Global datasets
    • Reproducible results
  • The “funding conspiracy” claim lacks credible evidence and would require coordination across thousands of scientists globally.

Bottom line​

  • A few statements contain kernels of truth, but most are misleading or incorrect when examined in full context.
  • The strongest conclusions supported by evidence:
    • CO₂ is a significant driver of warming.
    • The current warming trend is real, global, and not explained by urbanization or solar changes.
    • Multiple independent datasets confirm the same pattern.
If you want, I can walk through the strongest pieces of evidence scientists rely on (like satellite data, ice cores, or ocean heat content) in a simple way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and OHvol40
#18,911
#18,911
swampfoxfan said:
I gave my source, I understand you not believing him.

Lot of things just don't add up with the attempted assassination story. I'm not alone with my doubts, Jesse Ventura has sources you and I don't, he publicly stated it was fake.
Click to expand...
So no source to link. Got it.

Jesse Ventura is your source for the conspiracy theory that the Butler, PA assassination was staged?

Who’s the real source behind the Ford conspiracy theory you’ve now latched onto? Rowdy Roddy Piper?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#18,915
#18,915
#18,917
#18,917
Vol8188 said:
If I’m not mistaken many here strongly oppose the use of nuclear weapons in Japan too. Guess the world forgot that the Japanese were probably worse than the Nazis
Click to expand...
General MacArthur and Admiral Nimitz must have had goldfish memories, then, since they were opposed to employing the atomic bomb in Japan (as was General Eisenhower and several other of our most important generals and admirals).
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and NashVol11
#18,921
#18,921
MAD said:
Trump is so popular and loved by the Iranians.

Not so much by the Islamic Republic and our leftists that support them.
Click to expand...
"Our leftists" (defined, it seems, as Americans who oppose Trump, regardless of where they may sit on the political spectrum) that support the Ayotollah's regime (that is, it seems, that don't want to expend American blood and treasure on an unnecessary, ill-defined, and morally dubious war in Asia) . . .

Do you have any loved ones, MAD, who could be sent to fight in Iran?
 
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan, EasternVol and MontyPython
#18,922
#18,922
Vol8188 said:
No he didn’t



It won’t take 17 months
Click to expand...
She’s gonna be laid up for quite sometime. I said as much over a week ago when someone posted she would be back quickly -

85SugarVol said:
I figured the Ford would have been laid up for quite a while… she’s been out on deployment for quite some time.
Click to expand...

85SugarVol said:
She’s the first in her class, and has been out there a long time. Launching combat sorties at a high rate.

She’s seen more live action in 10 months than some of the other carriers have in 10 years - there’s probably all kinds of sht broken…
Click to expand...
 
#18,925
#18,925
MontyPython said:
@rikberry31 give it up bro.

Here’s a careful, evidence-based evaluation of each claim. I’ll separate what’s accurate, misleading, or incorrect, and explain why based on mainstream climate science (e.g., assessments from organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA).

1. Past CO₂ levels and 1930s warmth​

Partly true, but misleading

  • It’s true that CO₂ levels were higher millions of years ago (e.g., during the Eocene).
  • However, human civilization developed during a relatively stable, low-CO₂ period.
  • The claim about the 1930s being warmer than today globally is false.
    • The 1930s were hot in parts of the U.S. (Dust Bowl), but globally today is significantly warmer.

2. “CO₂ is too small (0.04%) to matter”​

Incorrect

  • Small concentrations can have large effects. CO₂ is a trace gas but a powerful greenhouse gas.
  • Without it, Earth would be ~33°C colder.
  • The mechanism (infrared absorption) is basic physics established since the 1800s.

3. Urbanization and “rigged” temperature data​

Incorrect

  • Urban heat island effects are well-known and corrected for in datasets.
  • Independent datasets (satellite, ocean, rural stations) all show warming.
  • Studies explicitly comparing rural vs. urban stations show similar warming trends.

4. “Only urban areas show warming”​

Incorrect

  • Warming is observed:
    • Over oceans (which cover ~70% of Earth)
    • In rural land areas
    • In satellite measurements
  • Correlation between CO₂ and temperature appears across multiple independent datasets, not just urban ones.

5. Nighttime temperatures and urban bias​

Partly true, but misleading

  • Urban areas do retain more heat at night.
  • However:
    • This effect is accounted for in analyses
    • Nighttime warming is also observed in rural and ocean data
  • The broader warming trend cannot be explained by urbanization alone.

6. “Warming since the Little Ice Age is natural”​

Misleading

  • Temperatures did rise after the Little Ice Age (~1300–1850).
  • However:
    • The rate and magnitude of warming since ~1950 are far faster
    • This recent warming correlates strongly with greenhouse gas emissions, not natural factors alone.

7. Sea levels, ice caps, polar bears​

Mostly incorrect

  • Sea levels are rising (~20–25 cm since 1900, accelerating).
  • Arctic sea ice is declining sharply, not increasing.
  • Antarctic trends are mixed, but overall ice loss is occurring.
  • Polar bear populations are not “rising sharply”; some populations are stable, others declining due to habitat loss.

8. Radiation from nuclear explosions​

Mostly incorrect / irrelevant

  • Atmospheric nuclear tests did increase radiation temporarily.
  • However:
    • Levels dropped significantly after test bans.
    • This has no meaningful impact on global temperature trends.
    • Radiometric dating methods account for such variations.

9. The Sun as the main driver​

Partly true, but incomplete

  • The Sun is indeed Earth’s primary energy source.
  • However:
    • Satellite measurements show solar output has not increased in recent decades.
    • Meanwhile, temperatures have continued rising.
  • This mismatch is strong evidence that recent warming is not solar-driven.

10. “Scientists accept climate change for funding”​

Incorrect

  • There is overwhelming scientific consensus (multiple studies show ~97% agreement among publishing climate scientists).
  • This consensus is based on:
    • Independent lines of evidence
    • Global datasets
    • Reproducible results
  • The “funding conspiracy” claim lacks credible evidence and would require coordination across thousands of scientists globally.

Bottom line​

  • A few statements contain kernels of truth, but most are misleading or incorrect when examined in full context.
  • The strongest conclusions supported by evidence:
    • CO₂ is a significant driver of warming.
    • The current warming trend is real, global, and not explained by urbanization or solar changes.
    • Multiple independent datasets confirm the same pattern.
If you want, I can walk through the strongest pieces of evidence scientists rely on (like satellite data, ice cores, or ocean heat content) in a simple way.
Click to expand...
1-10 all 🐂💩.
Buddy we are on the cusp of Grand Solar Minimum and they will have to find another hoax. Maybe they will go back to saying “We are entering an ice age.” Nobody talks about that garbage that was settled science back then. To be fair you probably weren’t born.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top