Well i think your problem is you are looking at the problem only from one side

I've heard all the sides.

I know by now that there's a HUUUUUUUGE racket for confirming manmade climate change.

Obviously we dont have complete data of development of climate on earth

Thats why they model the processes

What is the other side? That our 100 years of Ford motor company beats out billions of years of straight up ass sulfur atmosphere?

And "90% of scientists agree" is one of the biggest talking points.

Makes the old almonds activate ey

Yeah, it's like...

Volcanoes erupting really outcompetes the shit out of us.

We're not in the same weight class. o_o

The climate is remarkeably stable now and has been for millions of years. But nothing stays the same. Its just the lefties who tend to house themselves on the coasts that create a fuss cuz they were dumb enough to invest in beachfront property.

Nah

Again

--Ah

I'm convinced.

Sorry, Zutt. We apologize.

Look at the processes

The process of how certain gases influence climate is well documented

And also explained

There is no conspiracy there

An extra harsh summer will create an even harsher winter which will create a la nino, which creates a la nina which if you're getting the cyclical nature of oceanic currents you'll understand weather does the same thing just a few ticks later.

Now you are talking short term weather cycles

While i am talking carbon cycle

Well carbon and methane

Short term influences long term. Think we had el nino's 10k years ago? Ask the polynesians I guess.

Well el nino is pretty well explained and understood no ?

with modern science, yes. in as much as we understand it. which is fallable.

Yep

So it's not competely out of reach to consider other aspects of climate change as fallable or at least needs to be understood more thats what i'm getting at.

I'm not trying to be quick to judge this one especially when it comes to the blame game. Alrready too much of that going around as i'm being blamed for everything cuz im white.

Its very unlikely

The thing about the climate change is that the research fits

Over the years they look at the same process from multiple disciplines and all of them came to same conclusion

At least in general direction

I guess agree to disagree. The only graphs and data that are realiable are measured from pre-industrial 1900 to now, when we could actually gauge through ice samples what the atmo was wayyy longer ago. When talking about ice ages, the earth couldn't go through that and not have some significant changes that would effect the PH of oceans, ice drift/melt and land mass.

We're using insufficient data that is only a tiny blip of time in comparison.

Its bad sample sizing, bad science

You keep looking at it just from one angle

Thats only part of the whole reaearch

yes, mostly cfc levels throughout time which are the supposed offender of all this