For all of you tree hugging leftists.....
- Thread starter TwinDegrees2
- Start date
It's hard to argue with a post so full of inaccuracies and anecdotes. Do you have proof that anthropogenic climate change isn't real, or just this inane drivel? Do you support the unfettered polluting of the environment in the name of "the 'conomy"?
I'm not the one that believes in fantasy politicized world global warming (even though the world isn't playing along, see the Antarctic story I linked above on coldest temps in recent history). Where our 4% contribution of a gas that is 0.04% of the atmosphere is causing catastrophic warming. People like you guys don't understand reality. When the news shows ice breaking off of a glacier, that's not from warming. Warming would cause ice to melt and you'd have rivers of water running off. When the ice breaks off, that's called calving and it only happens when the ice is GROWING.
Not only that, but we don't really know what C02 does in the atmosphere when it isn't being trapped by a glass jar. Recent experiments have indicated that C02 actually helps cool to some degree. When the C02 molecule collects the heat it convects upward and releases that heat out to the atmosphere.
There is so much that you guys do not know because you're not being allowed to hear the other side of the argument, nor do you guys have any clue of our history. Not even that distant of history but history within the last 150 years. There have been many times that were much hotter and drier than now. Much bigger fires, droughts, etc but people today don't have a damn clue.
Last edited:
No no no. I linked the NASA article just to show that the people with the right stuff don't agree with the current NASA propagandists.
You can get the raw data from the NOAA site and you can see that they are altering the data because the raw data shows cooling. ALSO, you will notice a large number of sites have an e next to them. That means they don't use the actual measurement and they "estimate" what they think the real temp is using a computer model. So in essence they are allowing urban heat islands drive the entire temperature model.
Both are fake in the man made sense.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 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.
That may be the case but the ozone was never in real danger. It only takes a matter of days for it to replenish itself.
Who here is advocating for "unfettered" polluting of the environment? This is the problem. People make an argument about one thing and then people like you take it to the extreme, which literally nobody is advocating for.
I would say that's you guys. I'm informed. You guys don't know what you don't know. I wouldn't call it embarrassingly for you guys, but definitely misguided.
What is a shame is that historically science has always welcomed dissenting views so that theories and data can be tested, vetted and corrected. Now we have woke science that call other scientists names and attempts to discredit them as people when they have differing views. . Welcome to social media science. Libs on these boards, like libs everywhere refuse to allow the plausibility of “their views” being wrong. They quickly descend into sarcasm, name calling, etc. Thank you social media.
Last edited:
Exactly. Michael Mann got all upset when some scientists were going to verify his work. He wouldn't give them the data because he said their aim was to find something wrong with it. DUH! Welcome to science. That's how it's done.
Peer review isn't the end all be all that people think it is either. Apparently GBI or YouTube is blocking me from just pasting the link so I have to obscure it and people have to copy and paste. This is how people get sucked into knowing things that are wrong. You can't discuss ideas that differ from the narrative. It's idiotic and it's not good for us to not be able to discuss ideas.
///////////https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkXZ3_ZmKzw&list=FL8LOWfUoFiug2fqzMUBcC7Q&index=13/////////
///////////https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkXZ3_ZmKzw&list=FL8LOWfUoFiug2fqzMUBcC7Q&index=13/////////
Dr Willie Soon is great. He shows there is a large amount of the lunacy that goes in to AGW alarm.
Last edited:
"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that C02 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that C02, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."
-Prof Richard Lindzen former chair of atmospheric sciences at MIT
-Prof Richard Lindzen former chair of atmospheric sciences at MIT
The NOAA website mentions biases in the data set and corrections that are done for them. They document biases in historical data, and biases that exist in the data we're still gathering today. The two most significant historical biases are 1.) an older method to collect data that actually caused readings to be colder than reality (meaning greater increase since then) and 2.) a change in what time of day readings were taken. Both data sets require correction, and in both cases the corrected values indicate a slower increase in temperature than was originally thought. But they still show temperature increasing.
They also list all of the known biases today, and what is done to compensate for them. The data sources are all actual measurements (which come from >1000 global temperature stations); for temperature tracking, you don't need to use climate modeling that is used to predict the impact of global temperature rise. It is not based on 'estimates', but actual data.
I'd love to hear more specifics on what you claim they are doing incorrect other than claims like "the raw data shows cooling" and "they don't use actual measurements", neither of which are true. Note the caveat that some regions ARE experiencing cooling; in this case we're talking about the global average, not specific locations.
It seems to me......with all the recent emphasis on science......whether it be climate or disease, that scientists make their determinations based on the data that they have. When that data changes, they adjust their theories or their conclusions based on that data. Seems reasonable to me.
But the deniers and conspiracy theorists view that as proof that the scientists are biased or incompetent.......and use the work and conclusions of others with competing views as some sort of proof.
It seems that the first conclusion or recommendation is what everyone remembers, failing to understand or accept that as more information and data is collected the conclusions do and should change. It also appears the refusal to understand or accept the changing conclusions is politically motivated, just used for talking points.
But the deniers and conspiracy theorists view that as proof that the scientists are biased or incompetent.......and use the work and conclusions of others with competing views as some sort of proof.
It seems that the first conclusion or recommendation is what everyone remembers, failing to understand or accept that as more information and data is collected the conclusions do and should change. It also appears the refusal to understand or accept the changing conclusions is politically motivated, just used for talking points.
Engrossing yourself in pseudoscience isn't being informed. I don't know what to tell you. You were either duped by someone or you're just unable to accept reality.
Again, there are numerous posts and threads dedicated to this issue that have proven you wrong time and time again. You hitch your wagon to outliers and minority opinions that are generally not using data but are desperately trying to find inaccuracies in the methods of the majority of climate scientists. There's thus no data to disprove anthropogenic climate change, merely attempts to discredit the science.
Oh, you mean the guy who was literally bankrolled by Koch Industries to have this opinion? Totally ridiculous ...
Good for you. Just act like a ****ing moron and it'll all go away. The GQP way.
I'm well aware of your position on this. I'm not gonna get in a whole thing again, but there's one glaring inaccuracy in your posts in this thread:
.04% has nothing to do with "our contribution." CO2 currently makes up .04% of the entire atmosphere. We've increased that concentration by about 47% since the industrial revolution.
The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide
Part Two: Satellites from NASA and other space agencies are revealing surprising new insights into atmospheric carbon dioxide, the principal human-produced driver of climate change.
climate.nasa.gov
Anticipating your next point, so no need to make it (or at least so I don't need to respond to it): "but .04% is barely anything!!!!!!!!!" True, but not particularly relevant. .00001% of lead in your blood is dangerous.
Lead poisoning - Wikipedia
It's not the raw percentage that matters, it's how much effect that percentage has according to the properties of the material in question.
And I'll stipulate that you don't think CO2 causes warming anyway so it shouldn't matter if it increases, as you've stated elsewhere in this thread, so no need to respond with that, either. Although, your comment about that...
...is basically a description of how the greenhouse effect works. CO2 collects heat and releases it "to the atmosphere" as you say, which, of course, would warm the atmosphere, right? Isn't a warming atmosphere what global warming is all about? I'm presuming, though, that you meant to say it radiates that heat back into space. This is, of course, must be why Venus (atmosphere 96% CO2) is so cold relative to what it should be based on it's distance from the sun...
As I said to begin the post, we've argued this out a bunch already, so don't expect any more responses from me.
That's interesting, then why is it that older data keeps getting cooled? If the older method caused readings to be colder, then why are they cooling older temps and warming recent temps?
This is absolutely 100% incorrect in climate science. They adjust the data to match the theory.
Prove to me it's pseudoscience. You can't because you don't even know what they say. Can't call something pseudoscience if you don't even know what they are saying.
Oh man, I'd love to see proof. I bet you you'll never be able to find actual proof, because there is none. This is exactly what I was referring to before. If you can't counter what a scientist says, say they take oil money and the lemmings will believe it.
Yes I've heard this argument about how easy it is to poison your body, but you're talking about a tightly controlled system vs the vast chaotic climate with outside input all the time.I'm well aware of your position on this. I'm not gonna get in a whole thing again, but there's one glaring inaccuracy in your posts in this thread:
.04% has nothing to do with "our contribution." CO2 currently makes up .04% of the entire atmosphere. We've increased that concentration by about 47% since the industrial revolution.
The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide
Part Two: Satellites from NASA and other space agencies are revealing surprising new insights into atmospheric carbon dioxide, the principal human-produced driver of climate change.
Anticipating your next point, so no need to make it (or at least so I don't need to respond to it): "but .04% is barely anything!!!!!!!!!" True, but not particularly relevant. .00001% of lead in your blood is dangerous.
Lead poisoning - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It's not the raw percentage that matters, it's how much effect that percentage has according to the properties of the material in question.
And I'll stipulate that you don't think CO2 causes warming anyway so it shouldn't matter if it increases, as you've stated elsewhere in this thread, so no need to respond with that, either. Although, your comment about that...
...is basically a description of how the greenhouse effect works. CO2 collects heat and releases it "to the atmosphere" as you say, which, of course, would warm the atmosphere, right? Isn't a warming atmosphere what global warming is all about? I'm presuming, though, that you meant to say it radiates that heat back into space. This is, of course, must be why Venus (atmosphere 96% CO2) is so cold relative to what it should be based on it's distance from the sun...
As I said to begin the post, we've argued this out a bunch already, so don't expect any more responses from me.
Yes, sorry I was mistaken. ALL of the worlds C02 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. We produce only 4% of that. There is no way in hell you can claim we've increased C02 by 47%. You would have to know exactly how much C02 is being taken in and out of the system naturally to know our exact contribution and we don't know those that well.
The world had it's greatest explosion of life when C02 was at 7,000 ppm. Spare me any other arguments on this matter. It's all total bullshit.
Actually NO! That's not what the greenhouse effect is doing. The greenhouse effect is radiating heat from the surface to the air and then heat is radiating back from the air to the surface to further warm the surface. That is literally what they claim the greenhouse effect does and it defies the laws of thermodynamics!
There are before and after glacier pictures showing some have shrunk in North America. Then there are stories of increasing Antarctic ice but a couple years ago reports showed it decreasing. Again, Climate Change has always happened but is it all caused from human activity? The problem I have is the Global Warming crusaders like Al Gore who got rich preaching the dangers but at the same time produces a larger Carbon Footprint than the average Joe which gets in the way of the message of whether humans cause Climate Change
Don't really get into the climate stuff. But I think it's 100% correct when it comes to Covid and the vaccine.
Prove it isn't pseudoscience. You can't, because there's no proof out there.
Five key ways the Koch brothers pushed their rightwing agenda
Charles and David Koch spent millions to promote conservative candidates and causes, provoking anger – and devotion
You're seriously disputing that this guy was part of the Cato Institute, of which the Kochs we're a major benefactor? Sorry, I'm right and you're not.
Yes, there are a lot of hypocrites out there. Gore seems to be one of the worst offenders. I'd say Bezos is another.
Your understanding of the greenhouse effect is laughably inaccurate. Nobody claims energy is magically created. Heat from the sun is trapped under a layer of CO2 and can't reflect back into space.
Where's your proof of this? If that were the case, medications wouldn't work. You VERY CLEARLY don't have a technical degree of any kind.
Antarctica reached an all time maximum not all that long ago, yet people like Gore has been telling us that the Arctic would be ice free in 2010, no 2012, wait 2013, 2014, 2017 etc etc etc. We're still nowhere near being ice free in the Arctic and people can't see the fallacy for what it is. These people don't know what the F they're talking about.
You sure about that? I just saw an undercover video of a Pfizer scientist that said they did at test of the vaccine on someone early on and the person didn't produce any antibodies. Later his boss just said it didn't work and he didn't care.
