anyone that feels that we are putting too much co2 into the atmosphere is more than welcome to stop breathing.
Maggie’s Climate change is real!
- Thread starter hermosabeach
- Start date
We could have been long past this "issue" ages ago if it was actually about doing something rather than just making the rich richer, the poor poorer and the government more powerful.
If we had built decent new generation nuclear power plants and reprocessing plants and storage facilities, then used that energy to separate hydrogen to power our vehicles, we could have been most of the way towards eliminating a lot of fossil fuels long ago. Or for that matter make carbon fuels out of atmospheric CO2 just for grins and giggles if you have enough spare power.
If we had built decent new generation nuclear power plants and reprocessing plants and storage facilities, then used that energy to separate hydrogen to power our vehicles, we could have been most of the way towards eliminating a lot of fossil fuels long ago. Or for that matter make carbon fuels out of atmospheric CO2 just for grins and giggles if you have enough spare power.
Models in which the outcome is a pre-determined conclusion where the bias is directly correlated to the political agenda of those funding it. I have an advanced degree in production and resource economics with a heavy emphasis in statistics and econometric modeling and have a pretty good understanding on how bias effects the outcome.
I’d be more worried about gmo food then climate ifn I was one of the greenies.. bad stuff is happening right now because of it. Don’t have to wait 50 or 100 years. Most of our food is not legal in other countries because of this.
Care to provide evidence of bias? On all the various models out there that all show the same things. Also I would like to see the bias in the NASA assisted review of the models that showed the models are getting better
Our existence is increasing greenhouse gases which were primarily produced by volcanos back in the day. This increase is delaying the start of the next ICE AGE when the earth's polar caps meet at the equator to form a snowball. We are saving our future generations from a horrible extinction, well not saving them actually delaying the process a few more years. If you really believe in saving the earth then YOU should walk into the ocean to remove your carbon footprint, let me say in advance thank you for your sacrifice.
With all the pharmaceuticals and gmo in their system that would be bad for the crabs!
Just follow the money.
^^^^^This.
Also, have a look at “the models”:
I can't wait for the climate change religion to declare the earth is over occupied. I am sure they have a population size that they believe is sustainable by mother earth.
Interesting article...issue is it’s a bit of a straw man as it relies on satellite data...
“To summarize, on the basis of the best understanding of the record providers themselves, the surface temperature record appears to be the better source of trend information. The satellite record is valuable for its uniform geographical coverage and ability to measure different levels in the atmosphere, but it is not our best source of data concerning temperature change at the surface.”
“To summarize, on the basis of the best understanding of the record providers themselves, the surface temperature record appears to be the better source of trend information. The satellite record is valuable for its uniform geographical coverage and ability to measure different levels in the atmosphere, but it is not our best source of data concerning temperature change at the surface.”
Surface Temperature or Satellite Brightness?
There are several ways to take the temperature of the earth. We can use direct measurements by thermometers to measure air or sea surface temperatures. We can measure the temperature of the surface itself using infrared cameras, either from the ground or from space. Or we can use satellites to...
skepticalscience.com
They better start thinking of a plan to insulate the surface of the earth, the earth is losing heat to space and once the core goes cold thats it one big frozen marble. Unless we can use rockets to propel the earth into a closer obit around the sun but then I thought what happens when the sun burn outs which it will . Why worry about it right AOC said last year we only have 12 years left which is 11 years now before we will all die.
They are already on it if you look up at chem trails and can tell them apart from contrails..
Does a Single Volcanic Eruption Release as Much CO2 As All of Humanity Has to Date?
Faulty science claims the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by volcanoes vastly outstrips the amount produced by human activity.www.snopes.com
snopes called you out hard. Everything you state means nothing to me know. Mountains don't cause pollution near the scale of automobiles and the fact that you state this is laughable.
Snopes is a lying leftist shill site. That has been proven countless times.
And I never said CO2, just pollution. Nearly 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were injected into the stratosphere in Pinatubo's 1991 eruptions. The info I stated above was reported by the Sierra Club 15+ years ago, about the same time that they still admitted that humans were the source of less than 3% of global CO2 emissions.
The "religion" of climate change has perverted much of the scientific information available today, with multiple scandals where so-called "expert" research facilities have lied or fabricated information to protect their government grants.
And no, I am not in favor of government subsidies for the oil industry, or any other industry for that matter. That's another piece of "information" that gets perverted. A tax writeoff for incurred business expenses isn't a subsidy. A tax credit for doing what the government wants you to do absolutely is a subsidy.
Maybe you could search a few articles regarding data faking by East Anglia and other so-called "reputable" sources. Or just read a few papers by Dr. Judith Curry and others in her industry who happen to disagree with the "settled science"
Is this ^^^ a joke?US Military certainly takes it seriously:
UPDATE: Chronology of U.S. Military Statements and Actions on Climate Change and Security: Jan 2017- Oct 2019
Since January 2017, at least thirty-five senior officials at the U.S. Defense Department (DoD) have publicly raised concerns about, and recommended actions to address, the security implications of …climateandsecurity.org
R
You are one of the following: joking, high, tarded or all three.Does a Single Volcanic Eruption Release as Much CO2 As All of Humanity Has to Date?
Faulty science claims the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by volcanoes vastly outstrips the amount produced by human activity.
snopes called you out hard. Everything you state means nothing to me know. Mountains don't cause pollution near the scale of automobiles and the fact that you state this is laughable.
Volcanic eruptions produced a "little ice age" not long ago.
Look it up, I suggest google...
R
Yep, the number they say we should "get down to" population wise is rather small..... and you are not part of who the cult of carbon (which is actually just a front for a much more sinister group), would like to survive.
That right there is why I don't believe their lies. Banks are not stupid and would not lend money out they never expect to see. Banks still lend money to people who buy homes in Fla which should have been under water by now with all the false predictions.
You know that’s a joke, right?
Yes, I know you were joking. However, I really don't believe in their lies because of that.
So true.
I need to start adding {sarcasm} after some of my posts since we don't have a sarcasm font.
I am waiting for the day when they just out right say that the train cars are going to take you to Paradise because you are deemed unnecessary and are the problem.
I am waiting for the day when they just out right say that the train cars are going to take you to Paradise because you are deemed unnecessary and are the problem.
Cooling. Here:
Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?
Does one major volcanic eruption generate more climate-altering gas than that produced by humans in their entire history?
Have seen this article.Cooling. Here:
Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?
Does one major volcanic eruption generate more climate-altering gas than that produced by humans in their entire history?www.scientificamerican.com
Here you go:
Volcanic origin for Little Ice Age
The Little Ice Age began in the 1300s due to the cooling effect of massive volcanic eruptions, and was sustained by changes in Arctic ice cover, scientists conclude.
www.bbc.com
Strangely it hasn't happened during industrialized human history.
If one was truly interested in the climate I'd check the difference of terawatts the sun delivers
to the surface of the Earth a day compared to a year of our efforts.
R
Fire for effect:
www.indiatimes.com
R
Irony Just Died Because 1500 Private Jets Took World Leaders To Davos To Discuss Climate Change
These are the people telling you to carpool, but they won't even plane-pool.
www.indiatimes.com R
I don’t understand climate change deniers.
mae can all agree that the planet goes through swings and fluctuations.
We can all agree things like the ice age occurred.
We can all generally agree that significant changes in temp for consistent periods of time would be problematic.
I’m 41 yrs old I lived in NY for 18 years. Michigan for 17 and the remainder here in TEXAs and in my life time I’ve experience a weather shift. In Michigan the hRsh winter be came shorter and more severe.
we can all agree generally that this type of change has consequences. If you live on an island that is at sea level you May see a shift when the water rises three inches that I here in texas wouldn’t feel the effect of.
the oil companies have been charting shifts for decades so that they can ultimately stay ahead of the curve.
I commute in a Prius because I drive 100 miles a day I get 57mpg the care is very safe and stable and perfect for dallas traffic. On the weekend I drive a gas guzzler because I have to move family friends and stuff from A-B
make good decisions. If the option is do something good for the environment due it. Because a clean environment is better than a dirty one. Andy hunters, fisherman or air breathers here? You don’t have to up end your life you don’t have to be a vegan. But stop standing in the way of good shit because you want to stand in opposition of someone who you think is taking it too far.
shooting yourself in the foot doesn’t help you to prove a point that someone else is ridiculous.
is coal bad....well shit it’s not good. Are there better options...yup. If your 5th generation coal minor I’m going to guess you told your kid go do something else it’s better for you.
mae can all agree that the planet goes through swings and fluctuations.
We can all agree things like the ice age occurred.
We can all generally agree that significant changes in temp for consistent periods of time would be problematic.
I’m 41 yrs old I lived in NY for 18 years. Michigan for 17 and the remainder here in TEXAs and in my life time I’ve experience a weather shift. In Michigan the hRsh winter be came shorter and more severe.
we can all agree generally that this type of change has consequences. If you live on an island that is at sea level you May see a shift when the water rises three inches that I here in texas wouldn’t feel the effect of.
the oil companies have been charting shifts for decades so that they can ultimately stay ahead of the curve.
I commute in a Prius because I drive 100 miles a day I get 57mpg the care is very safe and stable and perfect for dallas traffic. On the weekend I drive a gas guzzler because I have to move family friends and stuff from A-B
make good decisions. If the option is do something good for the environment due it. Because a clean environment is better than a dirty one. Andy hunters, fisherman or air breathers here? You don’t have to up end your life you don’t have to be a vegan. But stop standing in the way of good shit because you want to stand in opposition of someone who you think is taking it too far.
shooting yourself in the foot doesn’t help you to prove a point that someone else is ridiculous.
is coal bad....well shit it’s not good. Are there better options...yup. If your 5th generation coal minor I’m going to guess you told your kid go do something else it’s better for you.
The IPCC is as effective at defining and fighting against the Earth’s climate, as is UNICEF at helping children living in poverty, which is to say not at all. If “The United Nations” doesn’t immediately trigger your gag reflex then you are likely just the sort of evil, bloodthirsty, communist who populates it.
You probably don’t understand “climate change deniers” because it’s a made up thing. There are probably 5 in the US. Anyone who has been to highschool understands the climate changes, but you have to be a moron to believe that we are controlling it, or that a trace gas controls the climate of the entire planet. What’s really to blame is that bright star we’re orbiting and water, but of course that isn’t man made so we’re not going to talk about it.
You probably don’t understand “climate change deniers” because it’s a made up thing. There are probably 5 in the US. Anyone who has been to highschool understands the climate changes, but you have to be a moron to believe that we are controlling it, or that a trace gas controls the climate of the entire planet. What’s really to blame is that bright star we’re orbiting and water, but of course that isn’t man made so we’re not going to talk about it.
maybe that's because almost nobody actually denies that the earth's climate changes over time.
what is arguable is whether or not man made C02 is making a significant difference, compared to natural causes....and whether we can make substantive changes that might affect that difference.
i telecommute.
I must have posted this exact graph on here at least half a dozen times:
No one is really arguing that climate doesn't change.
If it didn't you would of had a helluva time driving through the glaciers.
The Great Lakes are kinda cool as well.
Those that have/would bamboozle have played this game before.
Here are some buzz words to remember: Ozone, Coastal flooding, Acid Rain, Polar Bears, Carbon storage in the Taiga Forest...
If you feel better by doing your part, not really any skin off my back.
If you'd like to tax me for the difference, I'll likely have a problem.
As seen in the above graph we've experienced quite a range of temp averages since the last
ice age.
I've yet to meet someone who spends their days polluting.
Another axiom to consider, the orders of effect more than some of the proposed regulations will have.
I once heard a profound statement concerning "hallowed ideals".
"I find it hard to take direction of personal restraint from a man that weights over 350 pounds".
Once you've witnessed a couple of dozen failed predictions the bullshit meter gets active.
R
I ride a gay, vegan, polar bear to work and I’m horrified by your coal powered Prius!
You are living in denial. Does your Prius have lithium ion batteries or nickel metal hydride? Do some reading on how those are mined and processed. How many different countries provided parts? How did they get to the assembly location? So you drive 100 miles a day huh? Wouldent it be better for the environment if you lived in a cardboard box behind your work? How many solar panels do you have? How many wind turbines? Hydro dams? Do you have cable and internet? Your worse then the average idiot because you think your doing good for the environment while your trashing it worse than most.
The science community is so focused on global warming because it is a sure-fire way to get grant funding and ultimately get your work published (as long as you stick with the prevailing narrative). In academia, money and publishing make the world go round.
Part of my job includes publication in scientific journals. You would be horrified to learn how political and non-rigorous the process actually is. Science and the peer review process is touted as being objective and self-correcting. It’s not. You can pay to publish about anything. I get spammed every day by new journals that will publish whatever you send them for a fee of $2-3k.
Peer review? Many reputable journals now let you pick your own peer reviewers. I see lots of circular reviewing where people often review each others work without actually subjecting it to appropriate scrutiny. What about accountability? Most peer reviewers elect to stay anonymous so you don’t even know this circle is going on. These shortcuts, often due to the pressure to publish, add up to a lot of shoddy and self-reinforcing science.
Does that mean all climate science is bogus? No. It just means that there is always an agenda, even in supposedly objective science. In this case, the more alarming the climate predictions, the more money gets injected into the academic system.
Bjorn Lomborg wrote a really interesting book about the best way to spend $75billion to make the world a better place. Fighting climate change is way down the list in terms of real benefits per dollar spent.
Part of my job includes publication in scientific journals. You would be horrified to learn how political and non-rigorous the process actually is. Science and the peer review process is touted as being objective and self-correcting. It’s not. You can pay to publish about anything. I get spammed every day by new journals that will publish whatever you send them for a fee of $2-3k.
Peer review? Many reputable journals now let you pick your own peer reviewers. I see lots of circular reviewing where people often review each others work without actually subjecting it to appropriate scrutiny. What about accountability? Most peer reviewers elect to stay anonymous so you don’t even know this circle is going on. These shortcuts, often due to the pressure to publish, add up to a lot of shoddy and self-reinforcing science.
Does that mean all climate science is bogus? No. It just means that there is always an agenda, even in supposedly objective science. In this case, the more alarming the climate predictions, the more money gets injected into the academic system.
Bjorn Lomborg wrote a really interesting book about the best way to spend $75billion to make the world a better place. Fighting climate change is way down the list in terms of real benefits per dollar spent.
yup
'Real' fake research hoodwinks US journals
Three US researchers have pulled off a sophisticated hoax by publishing fake research with ridiculous conclusions in sociology journals to expose what they see as ideological bias and a lack of rigorous vetting at these publications.
Here is another at on
journals.plos.org
Ha! I forgot about the fake psychology paper experiment. Here is another one that is even more scary since it is from the hard sciences:yup
'Real' fake research hoodwinks US journals
Three US researchers have pulled off a sophisticated hoax by publishing fake research with ridiculous conclusions in sociology journals to expose what they see as ideological bias and a lack of rigorous vetting at these publications.phys.org
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, says Ioannidis, with ensuing confusion and disappointment.
journals.plos.org I flew on the MIRAGE and Intex-B missions, which measured atmospheric composition above Mexico and along the jet stream coming from Hong Kong*. I was surprised that most of the scientists on the missions didn't believe in global warming/climate change. They thought it was easy money. I believe Carlin just might be right, but I'm fairly conservative and I'd like to build infrastructure to use the energy from the sun and tides so that we can conserve crude oil. Dudes like 1J04 will be wanting to buy blow up dolls for millennia so crude is important for more stuff than making your 69 Z-28 get rubber in all 4 gears.
*: Atmospheric CO2 is rising, no doubt about it. But we don't yet know what it means. We know there were ice ages and warming cycles long, long ago. Trying to bankrupt the planet to fix a problem we don't know exists is questionable. But what do I know - I only conducted climate change research...
*: Atmospheric CO2 is rising, no doubt about it. But we don't yet know what it means. We know there were ice ages and warming cycles long, long ago. Trying to bankrupt the planet to fix a problem we don't know exists is questionable. But what do I know - I only conducted climate change research...
I doubt you’ll find any outdoorsman who isn’t a conservationist. Its common sense. It’s environmentalism that’s an evil religion.
Burnt rubber smells like freedom, hot chicks and Chuck Norris movies with Tornados...
R
How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.
That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.
Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.
For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.
www.heritage.org
That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.
Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.
For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.
Follow the (Climate Change) Money
The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This explains, oh, about 80 percent of what goes on in Washington. Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded...
www.heritage.org 
Water vapor is much bigger influence on the climate than the Co2.
history of the earth shows that Co2 has been astronomically higher than it is now.
we barely know anything about the sun and it’s cycles. Because it’s what drives our climate, not a following indicator, Co2.
Similar threads
