Climate change forum section?

Should Metabunk have a climate change section?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Mendel

Senior Member.
But they all harp on the CO2 increase is caused by the Industrial Age.
I looked at the statements you quoted, but I don't understand what exactly in them you don't agree with.

The source of the CO2 in the atmosphere is tracked via the proportion of Carbon (C) isotopes. Fossil fuels have more decayed Carbon because they were buried underground, and that carries over to the CO2 produced by burning them.
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
I looked at the statements you quoted, but I don't understand what exactly in them you don't agree with.

The source of the CO2 in the atmosphere is tracked via the proportion of Carbon (C) isotopes. Fossil fuels have more decayed Carbon because they were buried underground, and that carries over to the CO2 produced by burning them.
You’re a critical thinker. I’m a lateral thinker. I am approaching this problem differently so it might take a second to see where I am at.

(this is from personal experience and countless debate with the man-made global warming people)

My point is that when I discuss manmade global warming with people. They always pound on the premise that Man is a driver in global warming. It is due to the CO2 emissions produced since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Which began about 150 or 200 years ago take your pick.

The problem I have with that theory is . Taking say a 200 year snapshot of history from the last 450,000 years + of warming and cooling cycles then claiming it is proof of a never before seen spike in CO2 and temperature. What about the other 448,800 years don’t they count?

be hypothesis nothing more than hyperbole because they can’t supported that evidence with corresponding time periods from previous warming cycles.

To date no one has ever been able to pick out 200 year increments in the each of the last 450,000 years of warming trends for comparison.

That’s where the honest discussion ends. And we enter the realm of unfalsifiable Argument.

Instead of addressing my question directly people will use a variety of dodge tactics to avoid answering the question. Usually they’ll say atmospheric CO2 is 420 ppm there’s your proof . Neglecting that the Basic theory of man-made emissions has been around since the 19th century long before CO2 levels reached 420 ppm. Which I will point out and to avoid an argument ask them to point out a 200 year increments prior to the year 2000.

In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate. Many other theories of climate change were advanced, involving forces from volcanism to solar variation. In the 1960s, the evidence for the warming effect of carbon dioxide gas became increasingly convincing. Some scientists also pointed out that human activities that generated atmospheric aerosols (e.g., "pollution") could have cooling effects as well.

[url]https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage[/url]


Then the dodge it becomes solar radiation,Solar radiant heating
Or any argument to avoid directly answering the question. Because they know it can’t be answered.

This is where the discussion and most conspiracies depart from unfalsifiable Argument . To a variation of the“ A fire breathing dragon lives in my garage” Argument

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage


Again I guess I have two points to make on this matter. Asking them to show a corresponding time period. Puts them in a situation that I won’t say is impossible to answer. But is highly unlikely anyone will ever be able to supply an answer for supporting data.

But because of peoples beliefs in these theories they become more of a religion. Even with the obvious staring them in the face many can’t bring their self to give an honest answer. Which makes the whole debate disingenuous and fruitless. Which brings me to my second point of why bother? And that explains my no vote on this thread.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Asking them to show a corresponding time period.
i'm not following you. how can they show a corresponding time period if there are no corresponding time periods? aren't YOU supposed to show a corresponding time period that would prove their assertion wrong?
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
i'm not following you. how can they show a corresponding time period if there are no corresponding time periods? aren't YOU supposed to show a corresponding time period that would prove their assertion wrong?
No to make a accurate claim you have to show a corresponding a time period to support your claim in order to show that it is valid.

Here’s an example.

You smell like the color nine.

Now prove me wrong. Lol

Edit;

I’m on 4 sites currently. But I just reread my reply and I’m afraid you might take it the wrong way. It was meant for amusement.

The claim that you smell like the color nine will be refuted along the lines of the dragon in my garage Argument.

If you reply that you can’t smell the color nine.

I would say yes I can my family has a genetic abnormality that allows us to smell colors.

You’re a natural response would be prove it.

I would say sadly I wish I could but all of those records were destroyed in the fire.

My point being is to make that insertion without supplying data in support of my premise makes it unfalsifiable.

I sure hope you chuckled when you read it.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
No to make a accurate claim you have to show a corresponding a time period to support your claim in order to show that it is valid.
but their alleged claim is that it is unprecedented. you gave us the definition of unprecedented "never known before".

How can they show something that doesnt exist?

as i said..i'm not following your logic at all. (and i do smell like the color nine)
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
but their alleged claim is that it is unprecedented. you gave us the definition of unprecedented "never known before".

How can they show something that doesnt exist?

as i said..i'm not following your logic at all. (and i do smell like the color nine)

I don’t see how you can’t follow. Their alleged claim and they are making the claim is that the change is unprecedented.

Therefore the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a sensational claim.

And they can’t as you yourself have stated.

Unsubstantiated claims shouldn’t be taken seriously.


As for smell the color nine.

Did you read the “there’s a dragon in my garage argument” I posted.

If you did and still don’t understand. just for fun try and get me to admit that I can’t smell the color nine.

And I’ll show you how my unsubstantiated claim is unfalsifiable.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Did you read the “there’s a dragon in my garage argument” I posted.
no. you post super long comments and i have a low attention span.

I don’t see how you can’t follow. Their alleged claim and they are making the claim is that the change is unprecedented.

Therefore the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a sensational claim.

And they can’t as you yourself have stated.

Unsubstantiated claims shouldn’t be taken seriously.

or... you could just prove their claim wrong by showing by showing a 200 year period that disproves them.
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
no. you post super long comments and i have a low attention span.



or... you could just prove their claim wrong by showing by showing a 200 year period that disproves them.
It’s not up to me to prove a baseless theory. It’s up to them to support their theory. On which their entire argument hinges on.

They could just show me a 200 year period that proves I am wrong.

For that matter

My point is they can’t so why should I bother?
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Do you believe that mans CO2 emissions during the industrial age are a driving force in climate change.
driving force? i have no idea but considering the huge population jump since before the industrial revolution, it is logical to assume all the crap we pump into the air has some effect.

i dont read those studies, because i wouldnt understand what im reading anyway.




Do you believe we caused the hole in the ozone with our a/c and hairspray?
1636571384942.png
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Taking say a 200 year snapshot of history from the last 450,000 years + of warming and cooling cycles then claiming it is proof of a never before seen spike in CO2 and temperature.
You still haven't shown me a source that claims that.

What you have shown me are claims that this spike is man-made.
So what we have here is a garage filled with provably man-made CO2 from burning fossil fuels that is also heating up. You're telling me it must be caused by something else, but can't show me what it is. Who has the invisible dragon, you or I?

Temperatures in Greenland going back 12000 years
Article:
SmartSelect_20211110-195513_Samsung Internet.jpg


I know I've discussed this kind of evidence before, this year even, but I am having trouble finding it: did it end up in Rambles?
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
driving force? i have no idea but considering the huge population jump since before the industrial revolution, it is logical to assume all the crap we pump into the air has some effect.

i dont read those studies, because i wouldnt understand what im reading anyway.




Do you believe we caused the hole in the ozone with our a/c and hairspray?
1636571384942.png
driving force? i have no idea but considering the huge population jump since before the industrial revolution, it is logical to assume all the crap we pump into the air has some effect.

i dont read those studies, because i wouldnt understand what im reading anyway.




Do you believe we caused the hole in the ozone with our a/c and hairspray?
1636571384942.png
Don’t have a opinion on it.
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
You still haven't shown me a source that claims that.

What you have shown me are claims that this spike is man-made.
So what we have here is a garage filled with provably man-made CO2 from burning fossil fuels that is also heating up. You're telling me it must be caused by something else, but can't show me what it is. Who has the invisible dragon, you or I?

Temperatures in Greenland going back 12000 years
Article:
SmartSelect_20211110-195513_Samsung Internet.jpg


I know I've discussed this kind of evidence before, this year even, but I am having trouble finding it: did it end up in Rambles?
You still haven't shown me a source that claims that.

You must have missed this.

Contemporary climate change includes both global warming caused by humans and its impacts on Earth's weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current changes are more rapid than any known events in Earth's history.[2] The main cause is the emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide(CO
2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for energy use creates most of these emissions.
Agriculture, steel making, cement production, and forest loss are additional sources.[3] Temperature rise is also affected by climate feedbacks such as the loss of sunlight-reflecting snow cover, and the release of carbon dioxide from drought-stricken forests. Collectively, these amplify global warming.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

What you have shown me are claims that this spike is man-made.

Which is my point. By pure logic the man-made emissions spike could only have happened during the industrial revolution and ramped up during the fossil fuel age. (refer to wiki quote and link)

That was even the basis for inconvenient truth by Al gore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth

The film's thesis is that global warming is real, potentially catastrophic, and human-caused. Gore presents specific data to support this thesis, including:

The claim that the omissions spiked during that period. Seems logical on the surface. But they don’t supply definitive support for that theory by comparing similar time spans over previous warming trends while making that sensationalized claim.

Basically it’s the same thing as me stepping outside and saying “this is the hottest day on record” without checking the record.

Then I would be making a assertion without any support to my claim.

This is a lateral approach to a common problem. I think our miscommunication is occurring because you guys are critical thinking the hell out of it. Lol
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
But they don’t supply definitive support
the scientists do. your wiki quote sources do. Members here on MB do if the topic comes up.

You are basically arguing for your backwards logic based on some people you chat with on Facebook? who are "they"?
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
the scientists do. your wiki quote sources do. Members here on MB do if the topic comes up.

You are basically arguing for your backwards logic based on some people you chat with on Facebook? who are "they
Really?

Then you should be able to point out a correlation when the temperature rose drastically during a 200 year time span in each of the last warming cycles. To support your position.

Oh wait your response is going to be to tell me to do it.

The fallacy of shifting the burden of proof occurs when someone making a claim does not respect their obligation to provide the needed evidence for it, but instead attempts to shift the burden to their opponent.

https://fallacyinlogic.com/burden-of-proof-fallacy-definition-and-examples/

We’ve been over this. At this point I take your replies to be disingenuous and not a honest discussion. Requiring no further debate.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
it is a claim unsupported by evidence.

Any claim of a precedent is indeed unsupported by evidence. RIght now we have plenty of evidence of no precedent spanning the entirety of human history.

You seem to be unaware that ice cores can be read (which includes CO2 levels) to incredibly high precision - in a good core, even individual seasons can be detected - all the way back from when we weren't properly human yet. Prior earth history I consider irrelevant, we're not looking at Gaia's life support system, we're looking at humans'. So the earth we need to consider is the one we live on, not the one with no plants on land, or when trilobites ruled the waves, or when cold-blooded animals a hundred times our size were cock-of-the-roost.
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
Any claim of a precedent is indeed unsupported by evidence. RIght now we have plenty of evidence of no precedent spanning the entirety of human history.

You seem to be unaware that ice cores can be read (which includes CO2 levels) to incredibly high precision - in a good core, even individual seasons can be detected - all the way back from when we weren't properly human yet. Prior earth history I consider irrelevant, we're not looking at Gaia's life support system, we're looking at humans'. So the earth we need to consider is the one we live on, not the one with no plants on land, or when trilobites ruled the waves, or when cold-blooded animals a hundred times our size were cock-of-the-roost.
No I’m completely aware of the estimates of CO2 levels in ice cores.

The following graph represents the temperature spike from the year 1800 to the year 2000 a 200 year period. The year 1800 is indicated by the partial red arrow.


42FCC4DA-0CA6-4F77-A54C-5E4F03BDFCF0.jpeg

Now using ice core data show me that exact 200 year time span on any of these earlier three cycles.

2DD73264-BE1F-487F-8E1C-9ADD8E4A3239.jpeg

I have no doubt or do I dispute that CO2 levels have increased over the last 10,000 years. Every form of measurement says so.

My point is nobody can match that exact 200 year time span to support the claim of a never before seen increase in CO2 during a 200 year time span.

I think you are earnestly trying to understand my point.

So..,,,

Try not to overthink what I’m saying. I’m approaching this laterally. Critical thinking on the issue will make it impossible for you to understand the simplicity of the statement.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Now using ice core data show me that exact 200 year time span on any of these earlier three cycles.

2DD73264-BE1F-487F-8E1C-9ADD8E4A3239.jpeg

No. Because that's not the "ice core data". That's a simplified graphic created from the ice core data in order to get a particular point accross.

Would you claim to know everything about a sports car from one photo? Why do you do the same with utterly enormous datasets? And they are enormous - storing the data in its rawest form takes up many many huge refrigerated warehouses around the world.
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
No. Because that's not the "ice core data". That's a simplified graphic created from the ice core data in order to get a particular point accross.

Would you claim to know everything about a sports car from one photo? Why do you do the same with utterly enormous datasets? And they are enormous - storing the data in its rawest form takes up many many huge refrigerated warehouses around the world.
Well it’s official. Although everywhere else I posted it people understood. No one here is able to understand my point.

I’ll check in from time to time to see if anyone has a aha moment in their subconscious.

BTW

No I wouldn’t claim I know everything from the picture of one car. But Al Gore claimed he knew everything from the picture of one graph.

Take care everybody.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Then you should be able to point out a correlation when the temperature rose drastically during a 200 year time span in each of the last warming cycles. To support your position.

i dont understand how you think that would support the position. That would debunk the position.

as i said before, i am not understanding you.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
You must have missed this.
You didn't quote this before. The claim is, "but the current changes are more rapid than any known events in Earth's history", do you disagree?
But they don’t supply definitive support for that theory by comparing similar time spans over previous warming trends while making that sensationalized claim.
I don't understand why you demand this?
Earth is getting warmer now, climate science is looking at the current factors that affect warming now, which works well because we have large amounts of measurements for now and very little for thousands of years ago.

You are arguing that the understanding of now is invalid unless we also understand what happened thousands of years ago, to which I say that this condition is unreasonable and illogocal, and that I'd bet there are some scientists who actually do understand this quite well.
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
isn't it no more complicated than

"things that have human causes now, can have natural causes in the past"


so in the last 100 years forest fires overwhelming human causes, 200 million years ago natural causes

climate change now is human caused (over human timescales) whereas in the geological past it was natural (over geological timescales)

with both having CO2 as an important "control knob" function re temperature
 

Mauro

Active Member
@Fallingdown : the graph you posted is misleading.

The rise in temperatures due to global warming happened in the last 200 years (just google 'climate hockey-stick' graph). In the graph you posted each pixel corresponds to 555 years (about 90 pixels every 50kyears): this means the whole spike of global warming should not even be half a pixel wide in your graph, no wonder it does not show at all. On the vertical axis the graph stops at 310ppm CO2, but today's CO2 concentration is 419ppm: it's even out of the graph. This is a corrected and less misleading version of your graph:

1636637031474.png

It now looks pretty much an unprecedented CO2 spike, doesn't it? And notice the line I drew is two pixels wide for clarity, but it should be less than half a pixel wide to scale correctly also on the X-axis, even spikier than it looks. I'd rather not wait for the temperature delta to show up the same before starting to do something...
 
Last edited:

Mauro

Active Member
-
good catch. i was wondering why there was a thousand year gap of white on his chart.
The data come from an ice core, I guess they have to discard the first few superficial meters of the drilling due to contamination issues or maybe the ice not being yet compacted enough or some other technical reason. One thousand year should be about the first 10 meters (Vostok Ice Core was 3623m deep).
 

Inti

Senior Member.
You can’t seriously be debating that statement. Are you pulling my leg or not? If you’ve ever talked with a “manmade”global warming fanatic they emphasize that man is the cause and has been the driving force since the industrial revolution.

Everybody knows this. But apparently is brand new information around here?



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-temperatures-idUSKCN10Z28Z

Not to mention everyone is completely avoiding my position and nitpicking around the edges. From sources say 150 years others say 200 years. But they all harp on the CO2 increase is caused by the Industrial Age.



https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/

Edit;

I guess I better clarify what’s the IPPC is for those who have never heard of it and don’t know their standing theory on climate change.

It’s The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is one of the go to sources for the manmade global warming theorists.​

Here is a starting point for an answer to your question. Here is another. It is unreasonable to expect a brief answer that does justice to the mass of evidence, which is why Metabunk has never tried to do so.

The fact that you refer to the overwhelming proportion of climate scientists, who have studied climate change and concluded that it is real, serious and caused by human action, as “fanatics” suggests that it is not them but you who are motivated by irrational factors.

The IPCC is the UN body which collates, describes and summarises the conclusions of climate science.Anyone can submit research based evidence, but almost all of that evidence supports the anthropogenic conclusion, based on multiple independent lines of research which all converge on that same conclusion.

All of the alternative explanations put forward have been repeatedly examined and found wanting through peer reviewed (and yes, falsifiable but unfalsified) science.

If you doubt this, I would suggest you start by examining the IPPC reports. If not, try the Skeptical Science website, where you can find alternatives categorised , with summaries of the relevant research which has refuted other, nonanthropogenic causal together with links to the published research papers.

I could post a long list of links to debunks of the whole range of denialist claims. But it would be absurd to try to replicate all that on Metabunk. If you believe you can refute that body of work, please take your best evidence to Skeptical Science, or to Real Climate, or And Then There’s Physics, or other forums where you can explain to the specialist climate scientists why you know better than them.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I’ve been re-reading these replies.



That is my entire point.
Your point would be more persuasive if you had actually quoted a claim that refers to unknown events.

Such a sensational finding, if known anywhere, would certainly soon be widely known among climatologists; the search wouldn't need to be exhaustive if you're looking for a known precedent (that was the claim you did quote).
But I believe climatology doesn't even know any mechanism that could hypothetically cause this naturally.
 
Last edited:

Fallingdown

Active Member
Such a sensational finding, if known anywhere, would certainly soon be widely known among climatologists; the search wouldn't need to be exhaustive if you're looking for a known precedent (that was the claim you did quote).
But I believe climatology doesn't even know any mechanism that could hypothetically cause this naturally.
Your point would be more persuasive if you had actually quoted a claim that refers to unknown events.
You’re gonna tell me with a straight face that you’ve never heard the claim that there is a climate emergency because the earth is heating faster than previously due to the industrial revolution?

Silly demands like that make me feel like you’re just messing with me.

Are you ?
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
You’re gonna tell me with a straight face that you’ve never heard the claim that there is a climate emergency because the earth is heating faster than previously due to the industrial revolution?

Silly demands like that make me feel like you’re just messing with me.

Are you ?
If your argument is that respected, prominent climate scientists are wrong to
be calling the the current warming "unprecedented" is it really mean of people
to ask you to cite one or two of these instances?
(so that your argument doesn't look merely like a lazy straw man?)
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
If your argument is that respected, prominent climate scientists are wrong to
be calling the the current warming "unprecedented" is it really mean of people
to ask you to cite one or two of these instances?
No once again you’re putting a false burden of proof on me. I never said they were wrong. My position is they can’t prove it by comparing this hundred years to every 100 year period of the last 800,000 years.

And I’ve linked statements that were made about (my choice of words) unprecedented.

Here’s another will NASA do ?

Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. But the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

If things keep going as they have been on this thread. He will dismiss that on a technicality and then ask me to prove it again.


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
@Fallingdown : the graph you posted is misleading.

The rise in temperatures due to global warming happened in the last 200 years (just google 'climate hockey-stick' graph). In the graph you posted each pixel corresponds to 555 years (about 90 pixels every 50kyears): this means the whole spike of global warming should not even be half a pixel wide in your graph, no wonder it does not show at all. On the vertical axis the graph stops at 310ppm CO2, but today's CO2 concentration is 419ppm: it's even out of the graph. This is a corrected and less misleading version of your graph:

1636637031474.png

It now looks pretty much an unprecedented CO2 spike, doesn't it? And notice the line I drew is two pixels wide for clarity, but it should be less than half a pixel wide to scale correctly also on the X-axis, even spikier than it looks. I'd rather not wait for the temperature delta to show up the same before starting to do something...
That’s great but I’ve never asked anyone to prove the CO2 levels are higher during this 200 year period.

That is a strawman argument.

My whole argument has been around proving examples of never before seen heat spikes in a 200 year period .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Fallingdown

Active Member
I would like to ask anyone that replies to me one question. Failure to answer will mean I will ignore your post.

On a percentage of 0 to 100 are you a believer in man-made global warming?

I don’t know you guys like I do everywhere else. And I don’t know if I’m discussing things with a devout believer or a objective observer.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
(so that your argument doesn't look merely like a lazy straw man?)
No once again you’re putting a false burden of proof on me. I never said they were wrong. My position is they can’t prove it by comparing this hundred years to every 100 year period of the last 800,000 years.

And I’ve linked statements that were made about (my choice of words) unprecedented.

Here’s another will NASA do ?



If things keep going as they have been on this thread. He will dismiss that on a technicality and then ask me to prove it again.


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming
So...a long-winded "Yes...nothing more than a lazy straw man..."
 

Fallingdown

Active Member
So...a long-winded "Yes...nothing more than a lazy straw man..."
That’s pretty close to a ad-hom attack .

Don’t ya think?

But I’m willing to learn. Point out exactly what part of my argument is a strawman ?
 
Last edited:

Fallingdown

Active Member
The fact that you refer to the overwhelming proportion of climate scientists,

If you have a direct quote where I said “overwhelming proportion of climate scientist”. I didn’t mean it literally because it’s wrong.

So let me reiterate then we can be done with this line of discussion.

“A lot” of MGW believers @including some climate scientist” believe that since the Industrial Age..... “ climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events” .

As demonstrated by the words “current climatic warming”

Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. But the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
skephu Paul Beckwith (climate scientist) on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 19
MikeG Climate Change War Games Contrails and Chemtrails 0
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
keefe Debunking guide Practical Debunking 3
keefe Climate change and conspiracy theories - Lewandowsky General Discussion 3
CeruleanBlu Airliner Emissions EPA Hearing General Discussion 15
Auldy Claim: Satellites show global warming pause continues by CFACT Science and Pseudoscience 13
K Please help me find sources on anthropogenic climate change scientific consensus General Discussion 5
Belfrey "Climategate" and "Censored" Data General Discussion 4
Thor Odinson Debunked:Solar System Warming (Climate Change Conspiracy Theory) Conspiracy Theories 113
mrfintoil Debunked: SKYSCRATCH - The Geoengineering/Chemtrail Cover Up Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Critical Thinker Flooding in Colorado caused by HAARP, nothing to do with Climate Change? Contrails and Chemtrails 24
David Fraser They study Human Engineering for Climate Change. Conspiracy Theories 0
Kevin45345 Climate change deniers: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere General Discussion 2
Mick West How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what? Practical Debunking 534
Spongebob Climate Change Why it is NOT being caused by increased CO2 emissions from humans Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Marin B Climate scientist on man-made clouds General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: Irrefutable Film Footage Of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
T Explained/Debunked: "Irrefutable Footage of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying" - Explanations? Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Trailblazer Debunked: "Top climate scientist Tim Lenton admits to ongoing geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 23
TEEJ "Airline Pilot" at Climate Engineering Awareness Day - Carlow, Eire, 22nd August 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Katie Seas GeoengineeringWatch.org: Are Climate Engineers Waging Warfare on Texas?, Again? Conspiracy Theories 15
keefe ARM Climate Research Facility Contrails and Chemtrails 17
MikeC Warning over aerosol climate fix from Vienna Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Hoax: Climate Engineering Pilot Disclosure? Contrails and Chemtrails 76
Mick West Debunked: Renowned Physician Sounds The Alarm On Climate Engineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
BlueCollarCritic Debunked: US AIrforce Admits that HARRP is used for Climate Engineering HAARP 7
Steve Funk Internationally Recognized Theoretical Physicist Acknowledges Climate Engineering Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Lone Bison Contrail Question for Skeptics - What's the Effect of Contrails on Climate? Contrails and Chemtrails 233
Tim TheToolman Coles Debunked: Infowars: "Latest Climate Report Admits Chemtrails Exist" Contrails and Chemtrails 4
jvnk08 Monsanto acquires Climate Corporaton for $1.1 Billion Contrails and Chemtrails 13
Critical Thinker NASA: 'This September, Ask a NASA Climate Scientist' Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Debunked: CIA studying Geoengineering, Climate Engineering, Weather Warfare Contrails and Chemtrails 67
Jay Reynolds Dane Wigington & Co. get taken to the cleaners by climate scientists Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Climate Scientist Alan Robock gets asked every chemtrail question in 11 minutes Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Spongebob Is trying to alter the climate a waste of money? General Discussion 188
Steve Funk The Climate Fixers Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Contrails in Teacher's Climate and Weather Text Book Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Sceptical climate scientists concede Earth has warmed Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Mick West TFTRH #30 - Tom: 9/11 - Why We Believe and Change Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 9
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
cosmic Name change? Site Feedback & News 3
Mick West Dylan Avery - Director of the 9/11 Conspiracy Film "Loose Change" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West Explained: Manurewa NZ, 'Extra-terrestrial' Fireball Jumps Up [Contrail, Altitude change] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Teertskcab Why Don't Cloud Formations Change Much in DSCOVR animations? Flat Earth 4
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
TWCobra Flat earth Debunk-change in apparent altitude of clouds as seen from airliner Flat Earth 2
qed ZA Government accuses US of plotting regime change in ZA General Discussion 15
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top