According to AOC, isn't climate change now the result of cow farts?
For all of you tree hugging leftists.....
- Thread starter TwinDegrees2
- Start date
According to AOC, isn't climate change now the result of cow farts?
If you want to get a real read on what the Sun has been up to, you need to look into Dr Willy Soon. He's proven that the Sun's activity can account for the insignificant warming we've had.
Morons in the Climate Alarm side only site TSI, but TSI is an insignificant part of how the Sun effects our climate in relation to ALL of the ways the Sun plays it's part.
Morons in the Climate Alarm side only site TSI, but TSI is an insignificant part of how the Sun effects our climate in relation to ALL of the ways the Sun plays it's part.
Last edited:
Liar? WTF are you talking about? I work from home and drive an electric car. Those are facts.
Torment would imply that there is some sort of effect that your idiocy has on me. The fact that every single one of your childish insults misses the mark is kind of at odds with your sadistic goal, Chief.
LOL ... you've been proven wrong so many times, it's just sad at this point. What incentive is there for climate change deniers to deny? Is trying not to destroy the environment that disruptive to your way of life? It's absolutely bizarre.
The thing is, nothing you say has any value. Calling others stupid for proving your points wrong is not a good look, FYI.
Another smug Democrat worshiping Democrat! Your parents must be proud
No, I haven't been proven wrong at all. That's what's hilarious.
What a stupid argument. I care about the environment just as much as the next person. I just believe in ACTUAL environmentalism and not this fake politically driven garbage that is going to kill more people (it already has killed people). We want actual science to happen. Not this agenda driven drivel.
Again, nobody has proven anything wrong that I've said so... not sure why you seem to think that.
Wrong about what??
About natural climate change over the millennia?
About the question of why after millions of years of natural global warming and cooling, man is somehow responsible for mother nature.
Am I wrong in worrying about the Tree Huggers wanting to stagnate the economy, pay competing Nations millions to turn Green, let these competing Nations run rough shot over us, all over faulty speculation?
Natural climate change over millennia is a gradual process. It's changing at a much more rapid pace. This data is out there and readily available.
Yes, you're wrong about your worries about the economy stagnating due to green initiatives. The other countries will "run rough shot" (sic) over us if we sit back and say that we want to stay rooted in outdated technology. You sound like someone who was against the automobile because it would put blacksmiths and saddle manufacturers out of business. Obviously going to green energy and other green initiatives would create additional jobs. How can't you see that?
There's a poster - Droid1234 - who had numerous articles debunking basically every one of your claims. So I don't know why you're playing ignorant unless you conveniently forgot that whole back-and-forth.
Hmm, NASA is lying?
Evidence
Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...
climate.nasa.gov
Apparently you didn’t read Twin’s post. It’s not about International trade. Read “ransom”
Good one, "Bruce." How many drafts did you go through to land on this one? Did you consult bonefish1?
NASA and every other international body that studies it has released proof that it is.
Note that Earth's environment is a massive system with millions of constantly changing variables. When you take one variable, CO2, and make a rapid change to it (on the time scale Earth is used to) it injects volatility into the system. That volatility can cause different impacts depending on where in the system you're looking; it's why in some areas we're seeing record breaking high temperatures, and in others were seeing record breaking cold temperatures. Nonetheless if you take the global average temperature is going up, and it is doing so much faster than we've ever witnessed. Earth will be fine of the north pole melts and turns into to perfect 70F weather, but those living in warm weather climates today (most of population) would be screwed.
No they haven't, LOL. Their "science" is absolute garbage. They change their data to match the theory vs the other way around
We aren't even rapidly changing C02. There was a HUGE drop in C02 output by man last year and the increase in C02 didn't change at all. You do understand that we only produce 0.04% of ALL C02 world wide right? We aren't doing shit rapidly.
Global ave temps aren't going up either. That's made up data and you need a history lesson in climate. Did you know that 60% of the US temperature data is made up? They don't take the temp at the thermometer because it is too far out of what they expect so they estimate it with computer models. Computer models are all they use to say AGW is real and they have been proven to be absolute garbage.
Yes, yes they are. They've been cooped by fanatics. First of all, they have the causal relationship backwards between temps and C02 in that article.Hmm, NASA is lying?
Evidence
Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...
That's why the former NASA scientists that took us to the moon wrote a letter to them to stop the junk science.
Are 49 Former NASA Astronauts, Scientists and Engineers Climate Change Deniers?
The blogosphere is buzzing about a letter sent to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden by 49 former NASA astronauts, scientists, and...
reason.com
Actually it is literally about international trade. Nations importing/exporting goods between each other and the negotiations therein are what's known as international trade. Keep up.
@DG Boiler I know that people don't want to acknowledge it, but a lot of "science" has been corrupted. Medical science has this issue as well.
So we should just abandon science and trust what or whom? Are you doing your own independent climate research? I know you've spoken out against the dangers of scientific consensus in favor of random studies with no peer review, but your claim that climate and medical science is mostly biased doesn't hold much water.
Wow....I'm impressed. An electric car. Every real man's dream.
Ah, you're one of those people. What a sad, sorry person you are.
No, we shouldn't abandon science. But anytime people claim that there is no more debate to be had and every single prediction they've made comes nowhere even close to being true. I think there's a debate to be had.
Yes, scientific consensus is not science. Anyone that claims it is is a moron.
Peer review is nice and all but it's not how the world works. Real science is done in the field. Peer review is for academia.
Everything you're saying points to your employment in the oil and gas industry.
Literally the dumbest argument with zero basis in reality. This is what the alarmists say when they can't counter the data real scientists produce and stupid people fall for it with zero evidence.
Seriously? Your statement describes your arguments to a T.
Yes, yes they are. They've been cooped by fanatics. First of all, they have the causal relationship backwards between temps and C02 in that article.
That's why the former NASA scientists that took us to the moon wrote a letter to them to stop the junk science.
Are 49 Former NASA Astronauts, Scientists and Engineers Climate Change Deniers?
The blogosphere is buzzing about a letter sent to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden by 49 former NASA astronauts, scientists, and...
Your proof that the global temperature data that shows rising temperatures is fake stems from a letter from 49 people to NASA in 2012?
Which of the two data sets NASA/NOAA use do you have an issue with? Is it the Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly (GHCN-M) data set or the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS)? What do you claim is wrong with the data?
It really is easy DG. Libs on this board do a lot of whining these days. We need to make them feel better. LOL
Try reading about other countries ransoming goods to the US. That was the post.
It's not whining so much as pointing out the embarrassing ignorance of the RWNJs on here.
I think there is a reason they no longer use "Global Warming" and replaced it with "Climate Change". Fact remains the climate is constantly changing but where it gets murky is how much is caused by human activity. For the record, we are scheduled to have solar installed that will have 2 Tesla battery backup banks that will allow for us to be able to run our house during the day and after dark. I'm also planning on planting several fruit trees and install bee hives in the back yard after we install fencing around our entire perimeter. Just proves not every conservative is against the environment. By the way, Kauai had ZERO hurricanes in the area this season which proved the "experts" wrong who said climate change would increase the hurricane threat.There is zero evidence that we are causing anything now either. In fact the RAW data shows that we've been cooling. There have been a lot of cold events around the world, but the "news" mostly reports the hot ones. They get it right rarely, but it's drown out by the rash of over pushing AGW.
Antarctica's last 6 months were the coldest on record | CNN
In a year of extreme heat, Antarctica's last six months were the coldest on record.www.cnn.com
Here are some that should be known by all.
Western Sydney Suffers Coldest October Day in 26 Years, Sudden Drop In Temperature Leads to Early Snow in China, Heavy Flurries Batter MT, UT and CO, as the Global Energy Crisis Worsens - Electroverse
This is looking increasingly like a controlled demolition of society. Get out of the cities. Become self-reliant. GSM.electroverse.net
Western Australia Logs Fifth Snowfall of the Year (Second-Highest on Record), A Foot of Spring Snow Hits New Zealand, Record Cold Sweeps Seattle, + Half of Kashmir is Currently 'White' - Electroverse
The NH winter of 2021-22 is shaping up to be brutal. Energy shortages are all-but guaranteed. Prepare now.
They're Measuring Snow In The FEET Across The Rocky Mountains, Coldest Early-October Day In [At Least] 125 Years Strikes Seattle, as Historic Cold Keeps China Coal Prices High - Electroverse
"We’ve got a cold winter dead ahead, and it’s going to be painful." Many will be unable to heat their homes, and some will freeze to death.
Guess no one told you the hole in the ozone.....it's damn near closed.
This isn't actually true, and, interestingly, "climate change" was actually in use before "global warming" and has ALWAYS been used more frequently:
Global warming vs climate change
<p>There have long been claims that some unspecificed
skepticalscience.com
And a JSTOR search for the term "global warming" returned 23,488 articles in academic journals, 9,111 book chapters, and 2,376 research reports -- all published since 2010 -- that use the term. "They," whoever they are, have clearly not stopped using the term.
"Global warming" refers to rising global average temperature only. "Climate change" refers to changes in all aspects of climate (temperature, precipitation, atmospheric conditions, etc.), largely as a result of global warming. So, both terms are acceptable and are both still used frequently. But, they are not, strictly speaking, interchangeable.
I didn’t realize there were sophisticated instruments that were monitored and their data recorded by reptilian life forms 10’s of millions of years ago.
Or are you talking about the CO2 data taken from glacier ice bores dating back 10’s of millions of years.
FYI, these ice samples give generalized data averaged over 10’s of centuries, not yearly.
The data is analyzed by the same meteorologists that can’t tell me if I need to wear a sweater or winter coat tomorrow.
I was referring to Dem politicians. I seldom hear them say Global Warming anymoreThis isn't actually true, and, interestingly, "climate change" was actually in use before "global warming" and has ALWAYS been used more frequently:
Global warming vs climate change
<p>There have long been claims that some unspecificedskepticalscience.com
And a JSTOR search for the term "global warming" returned 23,488 articles in academic journals, 9,111 book chapters, and 2,376 research reports -- all published since 2010 -- that use the term. "They," whoever they are, have clearly not stopped using the term.
"Global warming" refers to rising global average temperature only. "Climate change" refers to changes in all aspects of climate (temperature, precipitation, atmospheric conditions, etc.), largely as a result of global warming. So, both terms are acceptable and are both still used frequently. But, they are not, strictly speaking, interchangeable.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Other Purdue Sports Purdue Men's Golf finishes third in B10 Championship- Latest: Casey Bartley
-
-
