Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 6 pts

lots of different ways.

one is ice cores. ice ((( bergs ))) basically keep a history within the ice. If you dig out a rod of ice that goes down 500 ft, you can look at what the ice contains and make A GUESS as to the climate x number of years ago.

smarter people track solar activity to determine climate shift.

but ultimately, the wizards don't know for certain. they mostly just extrapolate and jerk themselves off

[–] • 1 pt

Neither one makes sense

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt (edited )

>but ultimately, the wizards don't know for certain. they mostly just extrapolate and jerk themselves off

AT LAST A GRANULE OF TRUTH

There is a difference between knowledge and belief and further still is the difference between tested data and 'agreed upon phenomenon"

Here is a good example: "You must wear the mask, because EVERYONE KNOWS.... abc xyz..."

Dont ask for stats, dont ask at all, just comply or be browbeaten with unknowable quotations.

[–] • 1 pt

How old the ice is that you’re sampling is also a GUESS. Almost every “scientific fact” is based on an assumption that was never proven and can never be.

An example is, the distance from earth to the sun. Calculating this depends on knowing the size of the sun, which they can’t, by calculating something based on the size of Venus, which they also can’t prove or know. It’s all built on a house of cards little of which is based on observation.

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

Just because you're too ignorant or stupid to know how a figure is derived doesn't invalidate that figure, it invalidates your education.

[–] • 1 pt

The implication being that you totally understand all of these things and can independently prove the age of the earth, the distance of the sun, the size of Venus, etc.

Idiot.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Did you know, if just one of the axioms (assumptions) of Einstein's theory of relatively is incorrect, namely the assumption that space in unbounded, then the speed of light constant changes. In particular, the speed of light if the universe is bounded is far faster, meaning ALL of our clauclations based on parallax (distance, trigonometry) would be incorrect.

You, like many, seem to not understand that ALL of science is based on axioms. Axioms are assumptions held to be true. Hence, they are not "proven" they are simply agreed to be true.

Your below comment about using "enough math" and "navigational tools" is incorrect. These tools and the underlying mathematical principles on which they operate, are fundamentally built upon assumptions we hold to be true (like the speed of light constant) because it works well enough to help us "understand" reality.

It's not magic, it's belief.

[–] • 0 pt

An example is, the distance from earth to the sun. Calculating this depends on knowing the size of the sun

Wut?

No it doesn't. It just requires geometry. If two people in different locations observe the location of the Sun at the same time, they can precisely calculate the distance by comparing their observations. Two lines on the same plane that aren't parallel have to intersect eventually. You can even just draw it on paper to scale and measure the distance.

[–] • 1 pt

they can precisely calculate the distance by comparing their observations

You realize you didn’t explain the process, at all.

[–] • 1 pt

smarter people track solar activity to determine climate shift.

This channel is good. This particular video is very good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA

[–] • 1 pt

One of the ways is to use ice core samples, such as the Vostok ice core samples. It is just a calculation but if you were to believe it to be somewhat accurate it would show that the CO2 does not increase temperature and that the CO2 is more a reaction to the temperature changing. Also the Vostok ice core samples show that out of the 420 000 year sample for most of those years the temperature and CO2 of this planet was much. much. higher than it is today. Therefore there is nothing wrong with the planet and CO2. It helps the planet return to normal and become greener and more hospitable to life. The only thing we need to change is the countries filling our oceans and rivers with toxins and plastic, such as China, India and Africa.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I understand they are still pumping rads into the ocean.

This is fine.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

they cant really, it all depends on the sun. they know when ice ages happen etc, and sudden warming to melts them.. but really its best guess

[–] • 1 pt

Input different variable ranges until you find the result you want, then find reasons to explain your choice of variable ranges. Call it science and ask for grant money.

[–] • 0 pt

If you'd call it a 'best *scientific *guess' that makes it more authoritative and worthy of deference.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

kinda how most climate science works there, they dont know other than models

[–] • 1 pt

Time travel with a thermometer.

[–] • 1 pt

Your problem is that you have a shit ton of political activists who've moved into the scientific community and have created a ridiculous theory that CO2 raises temperatures, instead of carbon sinks naturally releasing CO2 when temperatures are warmer.

This shit is easy to track down the source of - most big names in the climate industry lean super far left and their solutions always require communism of some kind. Magically, Communist China doesn't have to follow the climate rules because they are already communist, and the goal of the whole grift is communism by stealth. Ask yourself why China, the world's largest polluter doesn't have to follow these rules? All roads in scientism lead to Beijing (and formerly, Moscow).

[–] • 0 pt

Your problem is that you have a shit ton of political activists who've moved into the scientific community and have created a ridiculous theory that CO2 raises temperatures

Carbon dioxide does absorb infrared radiation. When energy is absorbed by something it warms up, like backtop in the desert sun.

The question isn't whether carbon dioxide traps heat, the question is whether there are feedback loops to temper the effect. Does a warmer atmosphere make more clouds, which reflect more sunlight?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Snowfall patterns in glacial ice, tree rings recording cold or warm Winters, ratios of isotopes in trapped gases in glacial ice cores, that sort of thing.

[–] • 0 pt

Computer models. Statistics. Same garbage they used to “settle” the science on climate change. It’s all jewish shit, like 9/11.

[–] • 0 pt

You forgot to capitalize Scientist.

[–] • 0 pt

Scientists are supposed to use a wide range of evidence. Things such as tree growth rings from long dead and/or fossilized trees and other fossil plant records, the ice cores mentioned in other comments, probably geologic evidence for atmospheric gases, and I'm sure a lot more, like old coral etc. They are then supposed to extrapolate a range of possibilities. From this they are to find the overlaps in the data and give a more detailed range. Lather, rinse, repeat, until you have an exact answer or the smallest range feasible. This is still a vast oversimplification.

Instead we have "scientists" that do the least work possible then cherry pick the data out of it that fits what will get them the money.

Load more (2 replies)