• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

The First Time In Us History That Kids Are Testifying In Court About The Effects Of Climate Change On Their Wellbeing.

But he still gets paid….
Kerry was paid for being a US Senator not a scientist. He does not have a science background, meaning he doesn't hold a degree in a scientific field like physics, chemistry, or biology. He holds a bachelor's degree in political science from Yale University and a Juris Doctor (JD) from Boston College Law School.

Sounds like, by your reasoning, that he shouldn't have been paid for doing his job as a Senator.

Since you like to post so much about science you should educate yourself before making such ridiculous posts, especially the ones on X. I don't think it is negative to post on X but you would be credible if you need to back up your posts with actual science and drop the pseudoscience.
 
Last edited:
More climate factors about our solar system:
Several issues.

Misunderstanding of Climate Change:
  • The statement that "2024 IS A PEAK SOLAR ACTIVITY YEAR IN THE 11 YEAR SOLAR CYCLE. THIS CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE, NOT CO2" is incorrect. While solar activity does have some influence on climate, it is a minor factor compared to the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2).
The overwhelming scientific consensus agrees that human activities are the primary driver of the observed warming trend since the mid-20th century.

Gravitational Influence of Jupiter and other Planets:
  • The statement claims that Jupiter's gravitational pull is responsible for the 11-year solar cycle and its impacts on climate. While gravitational influences do play a role in the Sun's behavior, Jupiter's impact on the 11-year cycle is minimal. The Sun's internal dynamo processes are the primary driver of this cycle.
Misinterpreting Sunspot Data:
  • The statement claims that "We can see this increased activity manifest through more Sun Spots...This is what creates the 11 year Schwabe cycle." While sunspots are markers of solar activity, their direct influence on climate is limited. Additionally, the 11-year cycle, known as the Schwabe cycle, is only one aspect of the Sun's cyclical behavior. Longer cycles also exist, but none have the magnitude to explain the observed global warming trend.
Incorrect Seawater-CO2 interaction:
  • The statement claims that "sea water releases CO2 when it heats up, and absorbs CO2 when it cools down". This is only partially true. Ocean CO2 exchange is a complex process with various factors involved. While warming oceans can release some CO2, the overall trend is an increase in oceanic CO2 absorption, acting as a sink for anthropogenic emissions.
Misattribution of Volcanic Activity and Earthquakes:
  • The statement attributes volcanic activity and earthquakes to solar gravitational pull.
While the Sun might have some indirect influence through tidal forces, the primary drivers of these phenomena are internal Earth processes, unrelated to solar activity.

Conclusion:

While the statement raises some interesting questions about solar activity and its potential influences, it suffers from several scientific inaccuracies and misconceptions. The overwhelming scientific evidence points to anthropogenic CO2 emissions as the primary driver of climate change, not variations in solar activity.

If you're interested in learning more about climate change and the science behind it, I recommend consulting reputable sources like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or national scientific institutions like NASA or NOAA.
 
Re the reliability of modern historians:

D Boorstins history of science and discovery omits at least 2 key figures who overturn the dominant view: Pelligrini about tectonics in 1860 and Bretz about cataclysm in 1910z. Yet the book is praised by major media and science.
 
Back
Top