ADVERTISEMENT

Climate ?

Boiler Buck

All-American
Mar 11, 2010
14,844
14,671
113
The article says Greenland "was ice free 400,000 years ago, when temperatures were similar to those the world is approaching now."

If the world was hotter then, how are scientist 100% sure that cars & factory emmissions are responsible for our current temp rises? Obviously, no cars & factory emmissions back then. Yet the world got naturally hotter on its own. Thoughts?

Now I am against car & factory emmissions, just because I like fishing, hiking, canoeing, boating camping & everything outdoors....and those seem to harm that experience.

But tell me again, given history how we are 100% sure it's these emissions & not natural warming that history shows happens in earth cycles? Thoughts?

 
Last edited:
The article says Greenland "was ice free 400,000 years ago, when temperatures were similar to those the world is approaching now."

If the world was hotter then, how are scientist 100% sure that cars & factory emmissions are responsible for our current temp rises? Obviously, no cars & factory emmissions back then. Yet the world got naturally hotter on its own. Thoughts?

Now I am against car & factory emmissions, just because I like fishing, hiking, canoeing, boating camping & everything outdoors....and those seem to harm that experience.

But tell me again, given history how we are 100% sure it's these emissions & not natural warming that history shows happens in earth cycles? Thoughts?

They aren't. The one's that claim that it's certain are full of shit.

BTW we are nowhere even close to the heat of the 1930's.
 
It gets hot in summer, cold in winter.
It’ll be that way until the earth collides with a big meteor and then we won’t have to worry about anything. Ever.
 
INDIANA WAS ONCE COVERED WITH A GLACIER, PURDUE WAS COVERED, THE EARTH HEATS AND COOLS AS A NATURAL PROCESS. I AGREE, IT IS OUR JOB TO KEEP IT CLEAN
It got really cold at times during my four years, but somehow I didn't notice a glacier.

Where was it? Over by the ag school, perhaps? I avoided that area.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: New Pal Boiler
They aren't. The one's that claim that it's certain are full of shit.

BTW we are nowhere even close to the heat of the 1930's.

I know the 30s were hot especially 1936 here in USA, dust bowl era.

But do you have a link for global temperatures in the 30s vs now? No rush, just wondering and could not find one that said the 30s had higher global temps. Did fine a couple that said USA was much hotter.
 
If the world was hotter then, how are scientist 100% sure that cars & factory emmissions are responsible for our current temp rises?

But tell me again, given history how we are 100% sure it's these emissions & not natural warming that history shows happens in earth cycles? Thoughts?
Scientists don't claim to be 100% sure about anything. That's not how science works.
 
I know the 30s were hot especially 1936 here in USA, dust bowl era.

But do you have a link for global temperatures in the 30s vs now? No rush, just wondering and could not find one that said the 30s had higher global temps. Did fine a couple that said USA was much hotter.
Here's a graph that shows the average percent of days in the US to reach over 95 degrees F.


Here's the same graph for days over 100 degrees F


The media squawked the other day about some place reaching 120 degrees. In the 1930's there was a location (don't remember where off hand) that was over 120 degrees 5 or 6 days in a row.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boiler Buck
I know the 30s were hot especially 1936 here in USA, dust bowl era.

But do you have a link for global temperatures in the 30s vs now? No rush, just wondering and could not find one that said the 30s had higher global temps. Did fine a couple that said USA was much hotter.
The biggest issue with finding a link for global temperatures is that the vast majority of the globe either have no or spotty records. The US was the only place to have records going back to the 1800's. Some places in Europe, but not as far back. There are people that have taken news paper articles and pieced together the fact that the 1930's was indeed global and much hotter than today. There were articles about glaciers collapsing all over the world as well from the 1930's.

What's funny too is that NASA has put out images of the globe trying to make today seem really hot. They are horribly inaccurate and much of the data is completely made up. There are images of the same globe that show where there is actual data and some of the most red hot spots on the NASA image were in areas that had no data at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boiler Buck
Umm, yes they do. The main climate alarmists claim that there is no more room/need for debate. The debate is over. That's only the case if you're 100% sure. Or at least they claim to be.
The article that the OP links says that it was previously believed that Greenland's ice sheet had been frozen for millions of years, but new studies show that it was ice free 400,000 years ago. Science is always changing with new data. The debate is never over. But that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands when the current data suggests that man-made climate change will cause health problems, impact food production, increase extreme weather events, damage our economy, etc.
 
Here's a graph that shows the average percent of days in the US to reach over 95 degrees F.


Here's the same graph for days over 100 degrees F


The media squawked the other day about some place reaching 120 degrees. In the 1930's there was a location (don't remember where off hand) that was over 120 degrees 5 or 6 days in a row.

Yea found those in my search. Appreciated anyway your response.

The 30s were baking in the USA......led to lots of land conservation efforts post dust bowl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boilermaker03
Umm, yes they do. The main climate alarmists claim that there is no more room/need for debate. The debate is over. That's only the case if you're 100% sure. Or at least they claim to be.

Yea talk to many milineal or younger, especially those in the press or academia. Tell them there is no climate change or that some science is not settled on the matter. They will look @ you like you are crazy. They have been taught to believe and only shown certain data....not all. It is settled science in their minds.

It is a shame on our educational system when it comes to climate change.....that some are teaching believing the narrative is more important than the ability to think and determine on your own. Teaching that climate change is settled science like gravity, entropy, genes can evolve, etc. is just WRONG.
 
The article that the OP links says that it was previously believed that Greenland's ice sheet had been frozen for millions of years, but new studies show that it was ice free 400,000 years ago. Science is always changing with new data. The debate is never over. But that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands when the current data suggests that man-made climate change will cause health problems, impact food production, increase extreme weather events, damage our economy, etc.
You're wrong. Democrats and "scientists" that they agree with are trying to denigrate and silence those that counter their narrative on climate. The facts are that there is no proof we are causing anything beyond what is natural. Everything that has occurred to date has been within natural variability and absolutely nothing has been extreme considering there were conditions and events much worse even within the last 150 years.

The only thing that is damaging our economy are climate actions. It's making energy prices skyrocket, and raising the costs of everything it touches. That much is blatantly obvious to those paying attention. Not only that, almost all of the "green" fixes we're pushing are much worse for the environment or humanitarian efforts or both.

What we are doing is a travesty and needs to be reversed now!
 
Scientists don't claim to be 100% sure about anything. That's not how science works.

Agree.

But I assume our press & politicians who all went to college and took courses taught by scientists, who know how science works.......Then why does 90% of our press & 100% of Dems all the time act like climate change is settled science? An example is the article below where it and the Presidential debate referred to it as settled science...

I did appreciate part of an article in the NYT that finally admitted science isn't settled on CC. That is rare to see.....but the truth....
 
Last edited:
The article that the OP links says that it was previously believed that Greenland's ice sheet had been frozen for millions of years, but new studies show that it was ice free 400,000 years ago. Science is always changing with new data. The debate is never over. But that doesn't mean we should sit on our hands when the current data suggests that man-made climate change will cause health problems, impact food production, increase extreme weather events, damage our economy, etc.
But wonder if man has no impact on any of those things, that it’s just a natural cycle the planets go through.
 
Agree.

But I assume our press & politicians who all went to college and took courses taught by scientists, who know how science works.......Then why does 90% of our press & 100% of Dems all the time act like climate change is settled science? An example is the article below where it and the Presidential debate referred to it as settled science...

I did appreciate part of an article in the NYT that finally admitted science isn't settled on CC. That is rare to see.....but the truth....
And I agree with you. Politicians and activists regularly talk about (insert topic here) in very black and white terms, ignoring gray areas and neglecting to acknowledge that science always evolves. They have an agenda, and following the scientific method is not their #1 goal. But you didn't make a statement about politicians and activists, you made a statement about scientists.

The scientific community is not 100% sure about anything, but they understand that when carbon is burned it emits CO2. And they understand that CO2 absorbs heat. And they can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And they can trace the increase in CO2 due to burning fossil fuels. And they can monitor climate conditions over time. And they can run computer modeling to estimate future trends. All of those results could certainly be invalidated, but without new data, they seem to me to be the best conclusions to build policy around.

If you don't think man-made climate change is a threat, did you reach that conclusion because of a scientific study, or because of a politician, activist, or commentator?
 
And I agree with you. Politicians and activists regularly talk about (insert topic here) in very black and white terms, ignoring gray areas and neglecting to acknowledge that science always evolves. They have an agenda, and following the scientific method is not their #1 goal. But you didn't make a statement about politicians and activists, you made a statement about scientists.

The scientific community is not 100% sure about anything, but they understand that when carbon is burned it emits CO2. And they understand that CO2 absorbs heat. And they can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And they can trace the increase in CO2 due to burning fossil fuels. And they can monitor climate conditions over time. And they can run computer modeling to estimate future trends. All of those results could certainly be invalidated, but without new data, they seem to me to be the best conclusions to build policy around.

If you don't think man-made climate change is a threat, did you reach that conclusion because of a scientific study, or because of a politician, activist, or commentator?

We have been lied to so much about climate change over the years, how would anyone know anything for sure vs what is the next lie that won't come true?

One thing I know for sure there is NO science saying if we do X, Y or Z that the global temperature will go down one iota. For example the WSJ just said the true cost of the last climate bill was $1.2 trillion in climate subsidies. Let me know when temperature goes down due to those actions? It won't, but keep believing.
 
You're wrong. Democrats and "scientists" that they agree with are trying to denigrate and silence those that counter their narrative on climate. The facts are that there is no proof we are causing anything beyond what is natural. Everything that has occurred to date has been within natural variability and absolutely nothing has been extreme considering there were conditions and events much worse even within the last 150 years.

The only thing that is damaging our economy are climate actions. It's making energy prices skyrocket, and raising the costs of everything it touches. That much is blatantly obvious to those paying attention. Not only that, almost all of the "green" fixes we're pushing are much worse for the environment or humanitarian efforts or both.

What we are doing is a travesty and needs to be reversed now!
There is some similarity between this, and masks with shot(s) to stop the transmission of the Chinese virus developed and released out of the lab. What has the USA done to prevent another release out of that lab? There never was a suggestion from the shot makers that the shot would stop the transmission, and yet…
 
Never quite understood the reluctance to believe the scientist on this one. The only explanation is politics. Even if one was skeptical about climate change based on nothing more than their selective internet research, you would think that most would believe it would be a better world if we could find technologies that relied less on fossil fuels. Even of it simply led to better air quality and advancements in technology.

The cost of switching to renewables hasn't significantly impacted anyone yet and as renewables are phased in over time it probably won't long term either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MANelson85
There is some similarity between this, and masks with shot(s) to stop the transmission of the Chinese virus developed and released out of the lab. What has the USA done to prevent another release out of that lab? There never was a suggestion from the shot makers that the shot would stop the transmission, an



 

do I need to read these in that they actually state that the shot stopped the transmission which is what I stated in my last line? If they do, I'll read them, but to my knowledge NONE of the shot makers ever stated it would stop transmission AND before anyone would shut down the country or persecute those without shots wouldn't it be a strong consideration to have asked? Tell me if it stopped transmission, not that it might lessen the severity of it and then see where the numbers came from. Did the shot stop transmission...that was the topic.

"There never was a suggestion from the shot makers that the shot would stop the transmission."
 
We have been lied to so much about climate change over the years, how would anyone know anything for sure vs what is the next lie that won't come true?

One thing I know for sure there is NO science saying if we do X, Y or Z that the global temperature will go down one iota. For example the WSJ just said the true cost of the last climate bill was $1.2 trillion in climate subsidies. Let me know when temperature goes down due to those actions? It won't, but keep believing.
100% true.
The lefty libs will listen to the data from lefty libs scientists and treat it as gospel. The conservatives on the right will listen to scientists who have a different opinion, data and facts.
So, who's right?
Probably both a little bit, but not nearly to the extent their believers believe.
 
Never quite understood the reluctance to believe the scientist on this one. The only explanation is politics. Even if one was skeptical about climate change based on nothing more than their selective internet research, you would think that most would believe it would be a better world if we could find technologies that relied less on fossil fuels. Even of it simply led to better air quality and advancements in technology.

The cost of switching to renewables hasn't significantly impacted anyone yet and as renewables are phased in over time it probably won't long term either.
Do you drive a gas powered car or ride a bike?

Ever fly anywhere for work or vacation?

Run a gas powered lawnmower?

How do you heat your home?

Gas or electric oven and stove?

Do you have solar panels on your roof?
 
The cost of switching to renewables hasn't significantly impacted anyone yet and as renewables are phased in over time it probably won't long term either.

You sure about that?

The regulatory costs this admin has added to all energy, particularly coal fired plants, & other regs, to pave the way for this seem significant to my annual budget now and will continue to for years unless it is changed.

I am all for free market wind and solar. But as far as EV I am all for making the choices available and then those interested can roll on. I might be one of the interested? As I say, I am an outdoorsman environmentalist at heart. But the underhanded way they are doing it through regulations hurts the budgets of poor & middle class the most.
 
Last edited:
Never quite understood the reluctance to believe the scientist on this one. The only explanation is politics. Even if one was skeptical about climate change based on nothing more than their selective internet research, you would think that most would believe it would be a better world if we could find technologies that relied less on fossil fuels. Even of it simply led to better air quality and advancements in technology.

The cost of switching to renewables hasn't significantly impacted anyone yet and as renewables are phased in over time it probably won't long term either.
The reluctance is the fact that there are plenty of scientists out there that don't believe in AGW as a catastrophe in any way. Not only that, but the solutions are worse environmentally as well as costing trillions of dollars to implement, killing economic growth. Minor things, but you know, reasons why we're reluctant to back the alarmist scientists on this one.
 
Last edited:
The article says Greenland "was ice free 400,000 years ago, when temperatures were similar to those the world is approaching now."

If the world was hotter then, how are scientist 100% sure that cars & factory emmissions are responsible for our current temp rises? Obviously, no cars & factory emmissions back then. Yet the world got naturally hotter on its own. Thoughts?

Now I am against car & factory emissions, just because I like fishing, hiking, canoeing, boating camping & everything outdoors....and those seem to harm that experience.

But tell me again, given history how we are 100% sure it's these emissions & not natural warming that history shows happens in earth cycles? Thoughts?

It's surprising that more people haven't figured out this is a scam yet.

Just a little history: In the 1900's, we had a 50+ year period, where temperatures were dropping and it got to the point that in 1975 there were concerns that we were entering an ICE AGE. Newsweek, Time and the NYTimes each wrote articles about the impending Ice Age. The decline in temperature ended in 1978 and they started rising back to normal again.

A NASA Scientist named Hanson noticed the rise in temperatures in 1982. The rate that temperatures were rising caused Hanson some concern. He graphed the rate of temperature increase, projected that rate of increase to the future, which ultimately gave birth to the fear of Global Warming.

Dem Politicians, who NEVER want to let a crisis go to waste, recognized an opportunity to capitalize on fear. Since then, Al Gore told us in 1992 that we only had 10 more years, before we were doomed. In 2006, Al Gore told us again that we only had 10 more years, before we were doomed. I believe that AOC told us we only had 12 more years, before we were doomed in 2013. Is anyone detecting a trend here?

During all this fear mongering about our planet melting, the Dems worst fears were realized. We started to have some unseasonably COLD periods, which flew in the face of their Global Warming narrative. Never missing a beat, the Dems morphed Global Warming into Climate Change, so no matter what happened to temperatures, they had it covered. Now they draw your attention to every significant WEATHER event on the planet and try to convince us that it's more proof that Climate Change is real. They're lying to us.

I actually agree with them in one respect. Climate Change is real and has occurred long before mankind inhabited the planet and it will occur long after we're gone. Climate has ALWAYS changed and the planet has adapted, but they want us to fear Climate Change, because it gives them power over us, while making them & their donors Billions of dollars.

Biden wanted to spend over $5 Trillion on the Green New Deal, but Congress balked at the high price tag, so Pelosi fed it to us in smaller chunks and with more palatable labelling. The $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure bill was less than 30% Infrastructure and over 70% GND. The $700 Billion Inflation Reduction Act was 100% GND and does nothing to reduce inflation. Dems have always been good at misrepresenting what they were doing.

It's ALL ABOUT CONTROL. We're being mandated to get Electric Vehicles by 2035. Mining all the minerals necessary to build the batteries puts more carbon in the atmosphere, than driving internal combustion engines and makes us dependent on China, who controls most of those minerals. They also want to outlaw ALL gas appliances. Why? Natural gas is plentiful and poses no threat to the planet.

When Global Warming morphed to Climate Change we all should have realized we were being scammed. Unfortunately, too many people have been indoctrinated. It's about exerting control.

Last word: I've always found it's important to watch what people do, then compare that to what they've said. Are they walking the walk or just talking the talk.

-- Joe Biden is mandating that we all transition to Electric Vehicles, He owns ZER0 EVs.
-- John Kerry (Climate Czar) Attended the Climate Conference in Davos, Switzerland. The Elites flew in on the private jets, so they could confer on how to make the little people sacrifice, while they virtue signaled. There were over 400 private jets at the last Conference. (imagine that Carbon footprint) Kerry was made aware of his hypocrisy and his wife sold her private jet about 6 months ago. Kerry says he's flying commercial now, but I'll bet he's "borrowing" a private jet from someone.
-- Al Gore - Has the distinction of being the largest energy consumer in the state of Tennessee (private residence), but he's telling us to conserve. He's also made Millions of dollars by selling carbon offsets. Probably planted one tree and it has millions of owners...lol
 
It's surprising that more people haven't figured out this is a scam yet.

Just a little history: In the 1900's, we had a 50+ year period, where temperatures were dropping and it got to the point that in 1975 there were concerns that we were entering an ICE AGE. Newsweek, Time and the NYTimes each wrote articles about the impending Ice Age. The decline in temperature ended in 1978 and they started rising back to normal again.

A NASA Scientist named Hanson noticed the rise in temperatures in 1982. The rate that temperatures were rising caused Hanson some concern. He graphed the rate of temperature increase, projected that rate of increase to the future, which ultimately gave birth to the fear of Global Warming.

Dem Politicians, who NEVER want to let a crisis go to waste, recognized an opportunity to capitalize on fear. Since then, Al Gore told us in 1992 that we only had 10 more years, before we were doomed. In 2006, Al Gore told us again that we only had 10 more years, before we were doomed. I believe that AOC told us we only had 12 more years, before we were doomed in 2013. Is anyone detecting a trend here?

During all this fear mongering about our planet melting, the Dems worst fears were realized. We started to have some unseasonably COLD periods, which flew in the face of their Global Warming narrative. Never missing a beat, the Dems morphed Global Warming into Climate Change, so no matter what happened to temperatures, they had it covered. Now they draw your attention to every significant WEATHER event on the planet and try to convince us that it's more proof that Climate Change is real. They're lying to us.

I actually agree with them in one respect. Climate Change is real and has occurred long before mankind inhabited the planet and it will occur long after we're gone. Climate has ALWAYS changed and the planet has adapted, but they want us to fear Climate Change, because it gives them power over us, while making them & their donors Billions of dollars.

Biden wanted to spend over $5 Trillion on the Green New Deal, but Congress balked at the high price tag, so Pelosi fed it to us in smaller chunks and with more palatable labelling. The $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure bill was less than 30% Infrastructure and over 70% GND. The $700 Billion Inflation Reduction Act was 100% GND and does nothing to reduce inflation. Dems have always been good at misrepresenting what they were doing.

It's ALL ABOUT CONTROL. We're being mandated to get Electric Vehicles by 2035. Mining all the minerals necessary to build the batteries puts more carbon in the atmosphere, than driving internal combustion engines and makes us dependent on China, who controls most of those minerals. They also want to outlaw ALL gas appliances. Why? Natural gas is plentiful and poses no threat to the planet.

When Global Warming morphed to Climate Change we all should have realized we were being scammed. Unfortunately, too many people have been indoctrinated. It's about exerting control.

Last word: I've always found it's important to watch what people do, then compare that to what they've said. Are they walking the walk or just talking the talk.

-- Joe Biden is mandating that we all transition to Electric Vehicles, He owns ZER0 EVs.
-- John Kerry (Climate Czar) Attended the Climate Conference in Davos, Switzerland. The Elites flew in on the private jets, so they could confer on how to make the little people sacrifice, while they virtue signaled. There were over 400 private jets at the last Conference. (imagine that Carbon footprint) Kerry was made aware of his hypocrisy and his wife sold her private jet about 6 months ago. Kerry says he's flying commercial now, but I'll bet he's "borrowing" a private jet from someone.
-- Al Gore - Has the distinction of being the largest energy consumer in the state of Tennessee (private residence), but he's telling us to conserve. He's also made Millions of dollars by selling carbon offsets. Probably planted one tree and it has millions of owners...lol
here is a little quote that articulates what "not enough" understand..

"In short, media outlets accomplish the pollaganda effect by first indoctrinating viewers with "reporting" that reflects a particular bias, then conducting "opinion polls" that, of course, reflect that indoctrination. Then the media uses poll results to proselytize further by treating the results as "news," which, in turn, induces "bandwagon" psychology — the human tendency of those who do not have a strong ideological foundation to aspire to the side perceived to be in the majority — and thus further drives public opinion toward the original media bias, ad nauseam."
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT