Climate Change propaganda

[Boilermaker03]

Propaganda:

Climate Whiplash: Wild Swings in Extreme Weather Are on the Rise

As the world warms, scientists say that abrupt shifts in weather patterns — droughts followed by severe floods, or sudden and unseasonable fluctuations in temperature — are intensifying, adding yet another climate-related threat that is already affecting humans and natural world.

e360.yale.edu

Reality:

In 1937 there was a fire every 3 minutes burning 21,980,500 acres.

On 1/26/1950

Highs
Texas = 96
Florida = 86
Mississippi = 85
Georgia = 85
Louisiana = 84
Arkansas = 83
Alabama = 83
South Carolina = 83
North Carolina = 81
Oklahoma = 80
New York = 80
Pennsylvania = 80
West Virginia = 80

14 states were over 80 degrees on 1/26/1950

12 states were under -20 degrees on 1/26/1950


If the weather was doing this today, they'd be screaming climate change. New York Pennsylvania and West Virginia all over 80 degrees in late January!

 

[Nbergbuck]

Propaganda:

Climate Whiplash: Wild Swings in Extreme Weather Are on the Rise

As the world warms, scientists say that abrupt shifts in weather patterns — droughts followed by severe floods, or sudden and unseasonable fluctuations in temperature — are intensifying, adding yet another climate-related threat that is already affecting humans and natural world.

e360.yale.edu

Reality:

In 1937 there was a fire every 3 minutes burning 21,980,500 acres.

On 1/26/1950

Highs
Texas = 96
Florida = 86
Mississippi = 85
Georgia = 85
Louisiana = 84
Arkansas = 83
Alabama = 83
South Carolina = 83
North Carolina = 81
Oklahoma = 80
New York = 80
Pennsylvania = 80
West Virginia = 80

14 states were over 80 degrees on 1/26/1950

12 states were under -20 degrees on 1/26/1950


If the weather was doing this today, they'd be screaming climate change. New York Pennsylvania and West Virginia all over 80 degrees in late January!

You confuse weather with climate.

 

[Boilermaker03]

You confuse weather with climate.

I confuse nothing. This is what the media does. They show weather and claim it's the climate changing. If the things that happened in 1950 happened today, they'd be screaming it's because of climate change.

 

[Boilermaker03]

You confuse weather with climate.

Within this is definitive proof that NOAA is just making shit up. They are selling fear on made up fake data.




There is also a comment that I read where a guy was finally able to convince his brother that NOAA temp data is falsified by using family history.

It states:

"My brother recently asked me: "How do you know that NOAAs temperature statistics have been altered?"

"Do you remember that grandma and grandpa escaped Oklahoma in 1935 because of ghastly heat waves and drought that ravaged the entire region throughout the 1930s?"

"Yes of course! I remember grandmas stories just like in the movie 'Grapes of Wrath' they went west. Instead of grandpa being a banker in Oklahoma, he picked cotton and produce in California for years just to survive."

"Now just look at NOAAs temperature graphs. Those miserable, legendary, historical, unprecedented heat waves and subsequent "dust bowl' drought that our grandparents suffered has been erased. Like it never even happened. It shows the late 1990s HOTTER than the historical 8 year drought and massive heat waves of the 1930s that killed many thousands of people for almost a decade"

His stared for minutes at NOAAs century of falsified temperature graph records? Then he looked at me like he had just discovered the epiphany of a lifetime, and just said: "WOW!' "

This is the type of stuff that it's going to take to get through to people. Something that they can identify with to see the lie for what it is. Most people today weren't around in the 1920-1930's so we don't remember how hot it really was then let alone the long 8 year drought. Yet NOAA temp graphs show the 1930's as colder than the 1990's. Hell, they show the cold of the 1970's as hotter than the 1930's. It's pure lunacy.

 

[Droid12345]

Within this is definitive proof that NOAA is just making shit up. They are selling fear on made up fake data.

View embedded media

There is also a comment that I read where a guy was finally able to convince his brother that NOAA temp data is falsified by using family history.

It states:

"My brother recently asked me: "How do you know that NOAAs temperature statistics have been altered?" "Do you remember that grandma and grandpa escaped Oklahoma in 1935 because of ghastly heat waves and drought that ravaged the entire region throughout the 1930s?" "Yes of course! I remember grandmas stories just like in the movie 'Grapes of Wrath' they went west. Instead of grandpa being a banker in Oklahoma, he picked cotton and produce in California for years just to survive." "Now just look at NOAAs temperature graphs. Those miserable, legendary, historical, unprecedented heat waves and subsequent "dust bowl' drought that our grandparents suffered has been erased. Like it never even happened. It shows the late 1990s HOTTER than the historical 8 year drought and massive heat waves of the 1930s that killed many thousands of people for almost a decade"

His stared for minutes at NOAAs century of falsified temperature graph records? Then he looked at me like he had just discovered the epiphany of a lifetime, and just said: "WOW!' "

This is the type of stuff that it's going to take to get through to people. Something that they can identify with to see the lie for what it is. Most people today weren't around in the 1920-1930's so we don't remember how hot it really was then. Much more so than today. Yet NOAA temp graphs show the 1930's as colder than the 1990's. Hell, they show the cold of the 1970's as hotter than the 1930's. It's pure lunacy.

Just because you and the guy in the video don't know the methodology by which NOAA estimates temperatures in areas where they don't have data doesn't mean they just made it up. This is a personal incredulity fallacy.

High temperatures in the 1930s are NOT HIDDEN by NOAA, but that, again, is weather, not climate, and was localized to North America. Abnormally high temperatures in one region does not necessarily mean that the entire planet had abnormally high temperatures during those years. This is a fallacy of composition.

And here are the ACTUAL reasons the graph changed. But, I'm sure you'll ignore it as just part of the conspiracy even though everything was and is still publicly available and was never hidden from anyone.

Was Global Warming Data 'Faked' to 'Fit Climate Change Fictions'?

That adjustments are made to records of climate is neither a scoop, nor a secret, nor a controversy.

www.snopes.com

FYI, I have no desire to get into a whole other argument with you about this, so I will not respond if you reply to me in this thread. I present the information here mostly for other readers who may take your ridiculous video and anecdote at their word.

 

[Nbergbuck]

I confuse nothing. This is what the media does. They show weather and claim it's the climate changing. If the things that happened in 1950 happened today, they'd be screaming it's because of climate change.

Weather can be evidence of climate change. However, it is but one piece in a very large, complex puzzle. Data like the level of CO2 in the atmosphere over decades and mean temperatures over long periods are far more meaningful.

 

[Crayfish57]

Just because you and the guy in the video don't know the methodology by which NOAA estimates temperatures in areas where they don't have data doesn't mean they just made it up. This is a personal incredulity fallacy.

High temperatures in the 1930s are NOT HIDDEN by NOAA, but that, again, is weather, not climate, and was localized to North America. Abnormally high temperatures in one region does not necessarily mean that the entire planet had abnormally high temperatures during those years. This is a fallacy of composition.

And here are the ACTUAL reasons the graph changed. But, I'm sure you'll ignore it as just part of the conspiracy even though everything was and is still publicly available and was never hidden from anyone.

Was Global Warming Data 'Faked' to 'Fit Climate Change Fictions'?

That adjustments are made to records of climate is neither a scoop, nor a secret, nor a controversy.

www.snopes.com

FYI, I have no desire to get into a whole other argument with you about this, so I will not respond if you reply to me in this thread. I present the information here mostly for other readers who may take your ridiculous video and anecdote at their word.

Oh that's right I forgot you are an expert on everything. Why are you always such a d*ck? We don't really need your PSA ''So I will not respond if you reply to me''? GFY man and just don't reply .

 

[Indy_Rider]

Weather can be evidence of climate change. However, it is but one piece in a very large, complex puzzle. Data like the level of CO2 in the atmosphere over decades and mean temperatures over long periods are far more meaningful.

And then you have to correlate that with activities like solar levels and other natural occurring phenomena that can effect those things. But that's a lot of work so instead they focus on individual data points to push a narrative and drive agenda.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Just because you and the guy in the video don't know the methodology by which NOAA estimates temperatures in areas where they don't have data doesn't mean they just made it up. This is a personal incredulity fallacy.

High temperatures in the 1930s are NOT HIDDEN by NOAA, but that, again, is weather, not climate, and was localized to North America. Abnormally high temperatures in one region does not necessarily mean that the entire planet had abnormally high temperatures during those years. This is a fallacy of composition.

And here are the ACTUAL reasons the graph changed. But, I'm sure you'll ignore it as just part of the conspiracy even though everything was and is still publicly available and was never hidden from anyone.

Was Global Warming Data 'Faked' to 'Fit Climate Change Fictions'?

That adjustments are made to records of climate is neither a scoop, nor a secret, nor a controversy.

www.snopes.com

FYI, I have no desire to get into a whole other argument with you about this, so I will not respond if you reply to me in this thread. I present the information here mostly for other readers who may take your ridiculous video and anecdote at their word.

The 1930's heat was NOT localized. It was world wide. The newspapers in Australia, Europe, etc all talked about the scolding heat and death tolls during that era. NOAA claims it was localized to explain why their graph shows the 1930's colder than the 1970's but that's a total lie.

Figures you'd fall for the Snopes explanation of why the data was changed. The data was good for decades until climate change demanded it not be.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Weather can be evidence of climate change. However, it is but one piece in a very large, complex puzzle. Data like the level of CO2 in the atmosphere over decades and mean temperatures over long periods are far more meaningful.

Yes I can agree with that. Good thing that the vast majority of data shows that there is absolutely zero correlation with C02 and temperature.

 

[Nbergbuck]

Yes I can agree with that. Good thing that the vast majority of data shows that there is absolutely zero correlation with C02 and temperature.

I wish you were right. You are not.

https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/documents/temp-and-co2.pdf

This is easy to understand.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I wish you were right. You are not.

https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/documents/temp-and-co2.pdf

This is easy to understand.

Dude, several reasons this link is wrong.

1. This is a fart in the time of the Earths history. The vast majority of the Earths history has NO link whatsoever to C02 and temp. C02 has been over 7000 ppm and no crazy warming.

2. Ice cores are good for many things (like past temperatures), but accurate C02 readings are not one of them. As ice thickens, bubbles of C02 that are trapped in the ice are squeezed out, causing a more monolithic picture of C02 history (which isn't reality). Plant stomata is a much better proxy for C02 and those proxies show that C02 has been much higher and varies much more than what ice cores suggest.

3. If they use any other proxy other than ice cores, the C02 global warming theory falls apart.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I wish you were right. You are not.

https://archive.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/documents/temp-and-co2.pdf

This is easy to understand.

Here is a climate scientist that will explain what is wrong with the ice core C02 data. I skipped ahead to that section of the video. He cites papers to prove his point.

 

[Nbergbuck]

Dude, several reasons this link is wrong.

1. This is a fart in the time of the Earths history. The vast majority of the Earths history has NO link whatsoever to C02 and temp. C02 has been over 7000 ppm and no crazy warming.

2. Ice cores are good for many things (like past temperatures), but accurate C02 readings are not one of them. As ice thickens, bubbles of C02 that are trapped in the ice are squeezed out, causing a more monolithic picture of C02 history (which isn't reality). Plant stomata is a much better proxy for C02 and those proxies show that C02 has been much higher and varies much more than what ice cores suggest.

3. If they use any other proxy other than ice cores, the C02 global warming theory falls apart.

While the earth had far higher levels of CO2 at one time, it is hard to say there was no link with temperature. The temp. then was thought to be about 10 degrees Celsius higher than today. That would be a catastrophe for humans. At that time, the sun was earlier in its life cycle and did not generate as much radiant energy as today. The continents were also in different positions which would affect ocean currents and other things. By focusing on only the last couple of hundred years, many of these other factors have a negligible impact. The relationship between man-made greenhouse gases and mean temperature is well established.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

I confuse nothing. This is what the media does. They show weather and claim it's the climate changing. If the things that happened in 1950 happened today, they'd be screaming it's because of climate change.

Why do they do that though?

 

[Boilermaker03]

While the earth had far higher levels of CO2 at one time, it is hard to say there was no link with temperature. The temp. then was thought to be about 10 degrees Celsius higher than today. That would be a catastrophe for humans. At that time, the sun was earlier in its life cycle and did not generate as much radiant energy as today. The continents were also in different positions which would affect ocean currents and other things. By focusing on only the last couple of hundred years, many of these other factors have a negligible impact. The relationship between man-made greenhouse gases and mean temperature is well established.

Yes, it is well established. C02 lags temperature. Nobody in the science community that is serious about science disagrees with that.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Why do they do that though?

Because they are pushing the narrative.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

Because they are pushing the narrative.

Subsidy war.. fossil fuels have their subsidies and renewables fix nothing but it’s a whole different group of people who want free taxpayer money.

check out planet of the humans. Most liberals don’t know that countries that increase renewables don’t see a drop off in fossil fuel usage.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Subsidy war.. fossil fuels have their subsidies and renewables fix nothing but it’s a whole different group of people who want free taxpayer money.

check out planet of the humans. Most liberals don’t know that countries that increase renewables don’t see a drop off in fossil fuel usage.

Yes, I'm aware. People also believe that renewables are much cheaper than fossil fuels, but it's only because of hidden subsidies. They are massive.

 

[Bill4411]

Just because you and the guy in the video don't know the methodology by which NOAA estimates temperatures in areas where they don't have data doesn't mean they just made it up. This is a personal incredulity fallacy.

High temperatures in the 1930s are NOT HIDDEN by NOAA, but that, again, is weather, not climate, and was localized to North America. Abnormally high temperatures in one region does not necessarily mean that the entire planet had abnormally high temperatures during those years. This is a fallacy of composition.

And here are the ACTUAL reasons the graph changed. But, I'm sure you'll ignore it as just part of the conspiracy even though everything was and is still publicly available and was never hidden from anyone.

Was Global Warming Data 'Faked' to 'Fit Climate Change Fictions'?

That adjustments are made to records of climate is neither a scoop, nor a secret, nor a controversy.

www.snopes.com

FYI, I have no desire to get into a whole other argument with you about this, so I will not respond if you reply to me in this thread. I present the information here mostly for other readers who may take your ridiculous video and anecdote at their word.

Don't confuse him with the facts.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

Yes, I'm aware. People also believe that renewables are much cheaper than fossil fuels, but it's only because of hidden subsidies. They are massive.

I’m of the opinion that climate change is real BUT that renewables are an insidious scheme. the question becomes how real is it? Because if you hear anything as far as how real it is, it’s usually influenced by someone seeking renewables subsidies.

best outcome would be to go back to living like Amish.

Am I a fan of fossil fuels? No. Is it better than bio waste ? Yes. Do most people know what BioWaste is? No lol

 

[Boilermaker03]

Don't confuse him with the facts.

What facts? I've refuted every single thing he's brought up.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I’m of the opinion that climate change is real BUT that renewables are an insidious scheme. the question becomes how real is it? Because if you hear anything as far as how real it is, it’s usually influenced by someone seeking renewables subsidies.

best outcome would be to go back to living like Amish.

Am I a fan of fossil fuels? No. Is it better than bio waste ? Yes. Do most people know what BioWaste is? No lol

Climate change in the man made sense is impossible. At least from a C02 perspective. We are living in a C02 famine right now. The average C02 levels of the Earth's history is in the thousands. Hell, when life on Earth had it's greatest explosion of growth, C02 was in the several thousands of ppm.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Don't confuse him with the facts.

@Droid12345 The other issue that I didn't even mention is that apparently here in the US our media hasn't gotten the message from the IPCC that IF temps are rising, then bad weather should be going down, not up.

That's what is hilarious about this whole thing. You can't have worsening weather if the polls are getting hotter. You need hot AND cold air for bad storms. Not hotter air all around.

 

[Nbergbuck]

@Droid12345 The other issue that I didn't even mention is that apparently here in the US our media hasn't gotten the message from the IPCC that IF temps are rising, then bad weather should be going down, not up.

That's what is hilarious about this whole thing. You can't have worsening weather if the polls are getting hotter. You need hot AND cold air for bad storms. Not hotter air all around.

Very cold air that is 1-2 degrees warmer than it used to be (60 years ago) is still very cold air.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Very cold air that is 1-2 degrees warmer than it used to be (60 years ago) is still very cold air.

Yes, but it's still warmer and it's still not going to create worse weather. That's just the facts. If weather is getting worse, then that SHOULD be a sign of cooling temps in the polls, not warming.

Very general of course, but that's just the reality.

 

[Nbergbuck]

Yes, but it's still warmer and it's still not going to create worse weather. That's just the facts. If weather is getting worse, then that SHOULD be a sign of cooling temps in the polls, not warming.

Very general of course, but that's just the reality.

I was speaking on average. In Ohio we had a cold January. The warmer the air, the more moisture it can hold and is likely to be holding. If you live in the Eastern U.S., the next few days will give you a taste of the new normal.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I was speaking on average. In Ohio we had a cold January. The warmer the air, the more moisture it can hold and is likely to be holding. If you live in the Eastern U.S., the next few days will give you a taste of the new normal.

What?

 

[Nbergbuck]

What?

I was explaining to you why worse weather will result. The warmer the air, the more energy it has and the more moisture it can hold. The next few days was referring to the huge storm coming. In Ohio it is starting as I type this.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I was explaining to you why worse weather will result. The warmer the air, the more energy it has and the more moisture it can hold. The next few days was referring to the huge storm coming. In Ohio it is starting as I type this.

This is total nonsense.

 

[Nbergbuck]

This is total nonsense.

What is your background in the sciences?

 

[Boilermaker03]

What is your background in the sciences?

I'm a pilot, so I have extensive background in weather.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Just because you and the guy in the video don't know the methodology by which NOAA estimates temperatures in areas where they don't have data doesn't mean they just made it up. This is a personal incredulity fallacy.

High temperatures in the 1930s are NOT HIDDEN by NOAA, but that, again, is weather, not climate, and was localized to North America. Abnormally high temperatures in one region does not necessarily mean that the entire planet had abnormally high temperatures during those years. This is a fallacy of composition.

And here are the ACTUAL reasons the graph changed. But, I'm sure you'll ignore it as just part of the conspiracy even though everything was and is still publicly available and was never hidden from anyone.

Was Global Warming Data 'Faked' to 'Fit Climate Change Fictions'?

That adjustments are made to records of climate is neither a scoop, nor a secret, nor a controversy.

www.snopes.com

FYI, I have no desire to get into a whole other argument with you about this, so I will not respond if you reply to me in this thread. I present the information here mostly for other readers who may take your ridiculous video and anecdote at their word.

Snopes LOL… didn’t PolitiFact have anything to say on the matter?

 

[Nbergbuck]

I'm a pilot, so I have extensive background in weather.

I have to be honest. I am shocked. We probably will have to disagree on the nature and future of climate change.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I have to be honest. I am shocked. We probably will have to disagree on the nature and future of climate change.

What does my background have to do with anything anyway?

 

[Nbergbuck]

What does my background have to do with anything anyway?

Nothing. It is your claim of a background in weather. Then again, the topic really isn't weather, it is climate.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Nothing. It is your claim of a background in weather. Then again, the topic really isn't weather, it is climate.

So you don't think pilots are trained in weather? You made a statement about the air being able to hold more moisture thus having more energy. I disagreed based on my training. Warm weather holding more moisture is not enough to cause bad weather. The IPCC even says that there isn't an increase in bad weather.

Someone doesn't have to have a background in sciences to know something about science. It's call research. To say that you have to have a background in science is an appeal to authority and a false argument.

 

[Nbergbuck]

So you don't think pilots are trained in weather? You made a statement about the air being able to hold more moisture thus having more energy. I disagreed based on my training. Warm weather holding more moisture is not enough to cause bad weather. The IPCC even says that there isn't an increase in bad weather.

Someone doesn't have to have a background in sciences to know something about science. It's call research. To say that you have to have a background in science is an appeal to authority and a false argument.

I didn't say pilots are not trained in weather. One would think that they should be. Very warm moist air can very definitely lead to bad weather. Think hurricanes. But again, the actual topic is climate and it is changing.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I didn't say pilots are not trained in weather. One would think that they should be. Very warm moist air can very definitely lead to bad weather. Think hurricanes. But again, the actual topic is climate and it is changing.

You're missing the point. The whole point of climate change is that the polls are warming the fastest. Thus, the temperature delta between the polls and the equator is shrinking. If that's the case, bad weather will decrease. The entire Earth could warm 20 degrees more allowing more moisture in the air, but without the very cold air that comes from the polls, you will not get severe weather.

Climate always changes. There is zero evidence we are causing it to change more.

 

[Nbergbuck]

You're missing the point. The whole point of climate change is that the polls are warming the fastest. Thus, the temperature delta between the polls and the equator is shrinking. If that's the case, bad weather will decrease. The entire Earth could warm 20 degrees more allowing more moisture in the air, but without the very cold air that comes from the polls, you will not get severe weather.

Climate always changes. There is zero evidence we are causing it to change more.

The delta between polar and tropical areas is not the sole determining factor of weather. If the earth warmed 20 degrees, the human race probably goes extinct, so everything would be pretty irrelevant. Zero evidence? I disagree.

Extreme weather gets a boost from climate change

Scientists are detecting a stronger link between global warming and changing weather patterns. Read more about it here.

www.edf.org