Climate Hoax

[mspart]

Yes of course.   It's what all the greenies don't seem to understand.   You can't replace the current grid that gives reliable energy with a grid that does not provide reliable energy.    People won't stand for it.   Does that mean we shouldn't move to more efficient types of energy.   No.   But to give a mandate of it has to be done by a certain year means the reliable aspects of the grid will go away by that time.   Then we are left with an unreliable grid.   That is not a serious solution that any serious minded individual would conjure up.  

mspart

[red viking]

Whether man is causing global warming is irrefutable. We are 100% responsible for what is happening. Now, what we do about it is a different story, and particularly complicated when you get varying amounts of cooperation from other countries. Two completely different subjects. 

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

Whether man is causing global warming is irrefutable. We are 100% responsible for what is happening. Now, what we do about it is a different story, and particularly complicated when you get varying amounts of cooperation from other countries. Two completely different subjects. 

SHM...does man have an impact on the environment, absolutely!  Is man solely responsible for the slight change in weather currently, absolutely not!  

And you do make a good point...to have any sort of significant impact on things, it would take a coordinated global effort.  However, as the saying goes, is the juice worth the squeeze...aka, would it be financially beneficial, I am not sure.  But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try and not pollute the environment as much as possible.

[JimmyBT]

I’ve been saying for years now that young Greta needs to go protest in places like China, India and Pakistan.  Until the entire world is involved it’s no different than pissing in the wind. 

[JimmyBT]

30 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

SHM...does man have an impact on the environment, absolutely!  Is man solely responsible for the slight change in weather currently, absolutely not!  

And you do make a good point...to have any sort of significant impact on things, it would take a coordinated global effort.  However, as the saying goes, is the juice worth the squeeze...aka, would it be financially beneficial, I am not sure.  But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try and not pollute the environment as much as possible.

This !!  Anyone saying humans are 100% responsible is 100% drinking a certain kind of kool aid. 

[red viking]

All indications are that we are 100% responsible, or very close. the best source of info is the climatologists at NOAA or others that are reputable/published at universities. 

Yes, there are other non-anthropogenic factors that influence temps, but those are taken into account in climate models and we have a very solid understanding of what those are and where we are in the respective cycles. 

The right-wing whack jobs conveniently ignore them because their analyses don't fit with their agenda. 

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

All indications are that we are 100% responsible, or very close. the best source of info is the climatologists at NOAA or others that are reputable/published at universities. 

Yes, there are other non-anthropogenic factors that influence temps, but those are taken into account in climate models and we have a very solid understanding of what those are and where we are in the respective cycles. 

The right-wing whack jobs conveniently ignore them because their analyses don't fit with their agenda. 

Your previous post and this post's first sentence...     How do you say you don't know what you are talking about without saying you don't know what you are talking about

The left-wing whack jobs conveniently ignore the true historical record of the climate and the changes on earth...BEFORE humans were even a thing because that doesn't fit their agenda.

By the way...I used the word "left-wing whack jobs" to emphasize a point...I personally hate when people use labels such as left-wing whack jobs/right-wing whack jobs/MEGA/libtards/etc...to me that weakens any argument because labeling people is just stupid and lumping huge groups of people together to claim they ALL think exactly the same way is laughable and shows a very shallow thought process.

[JimmyBT]

43 minutes ago, red viking said:

All indications are that we are 100% responsible, or very close. the best source of info is the climatologists at NOAA or others that are reputable/published at universities. 

Yes, there are other non-anthropogenic factors that influence temps, but those are taken into account in climate models and we have a very solid understanding of what those are and where we are in the respective cycles. 

The right-wing whack jobs conveniently ignore them because their analyses don't fit with their agenda. 

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

All indications are that we are 100% responsible, or very close. the best source of info is the climatologists at NOAA or others that are reputable/published at universities. 

Yes, there are other non-anthropogenic factors that influence temps, but those are taken into account in climate models and we have a very solid understanding of what those are and where we are in the respective cycles. 

The right-wing whack jobs conveniently ignore them because their analyses don't fit with their agenda. 

What’s your favorite bug recipe?

[Husker_Du]

4 hours ago, red viking said:

Whether man is causing global warming is irrefutable. We are 100% responsible for what is happening. 

surely you can cite a study.

[red viking]

2 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

surely you can cite a study.

There are literally thousands of places you can go. I think NOAA is the most reputable source. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/planet-stewards/webinar-three-crucial-facts-regarding-man-made-climate-change.html

[red viking]

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause

[red viking]

"....Finally, no other known climate influences have changed enough to account for the observed warming trend. Taken together, these and other lines of evidence point squarely to human activities as the cause of recent global warming."

That's per NOAA. But go ahead and disregard that and listen to whatever cherry-picked whackjob you can find that will tell you what you want to hear. 

[mspart]

Everyone listens to their cherry picked whack job of choice. 

mspart

[red viking]

18 minutes ago, mspart said:

Everyone listens to their cherry picked whack job of choice. 

mspart

Not really. All you have to do is listen to what the vast majority of climatologists tell you. It's very simple. Instead of what the fossil fuel companies, Fox News, or other non-climatologists (that have an obvious agenda) say. 

[mspart]

When all the money says to find these results, they find those results.   Science has been politicized and any naysayers are ostracized.  And even those that say the effects are in the future are ostracized. 

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2022/04/my-views-on-climate-changeglobal.html

Dr. Mass is not on the radar of climatologists.   He agrees with some of the agenda but not with other parts of the agenda.   For that he is all but ostracized. 

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/06/how-climate-change-exaggeration-can.html

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2023/07/is-global-warming-causing-massive.html

Dr Mass is a thoughtful data driven climatologist that does not subscribe to hysteria.   He looks at the facts and data.    He's pretty much my cherry picked whack job of choice.   And not much of a whack job either.  Very reasoned and steeped in the data.  

He was an integral contributor to the local NPR station but they canned him.   He wondered aloud (on his blog) about what had happened to Seattle that it was a jewel a few years ago and crap now.   NPR couldn't handle that and he was gone.   I quit listening to that NPR station as a result.   They didn't fire him over his weather and climate discussions, it was his gentle push back on the woke policies of Seattle that turned it into a cess pool that they couldn't tolerate.   Too bad too because they had a great Blues broadcast Fri and Sat night 6-12am.   You might say that was a bit reactionary of me, but I had been moving that way for quite some time and that was the straw. 

mspart

Edited February 27 by mspart

[jross]

14 hours ago, red viking said:

Whether man is causing global warming is irrefutable. We are 100% responsible for what is happening. 

[ionel]

14 hours ago, red viking said:

 We are 100% responsible for what is happening. 

Then why don't you stop cows from fluctuating?  

[Husker_Du]

[Husker_Du]

 

[Lipdrag]

Fido beware!  After farting cows are eliminated the Climateers are coming after you next. 

Studies like the often-cited 2017 paper titled “Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats” by UCLA’s Geography Professor Gregory S. Okin have helped shape the story that our four-legged friends are a burden to the earth’s future. Why? In addition to “rising infectious diseases from pathogens caused by climate change,” the globalist cabal has declared that the pet and pet food industries contribute to “increasing heatwaves and pathogens.” 

“An average-sized cat can produce 310 kilograms (CO2e) annually. An average-sized dog generates 770 kg of CO2e, and an even bigger dog can emit upwards of 2,500 kilograms of CO2e, which is twice as much as the emissions deriving from an average family car per year.”

 

If only our cats and dogs would simply start driving EVs to save the environment everything would be fine.  Selfish racist homo-trans-islamo-xeno - phobic sexist pets keeping on eating.

[Husker_Du]

lmfao. i'm definitely using this one, lipdrag.

[uncle bernard]

On 2/28/2024 at 5:11 AM, Husker_Du said:

 

This is the guy who is famous for saying that climate scientists are making it up for research money, but his hundreds of thousands in payments from and investments in the mining industry "don't affect his beliefs."

 

[uncle bernard]

On 2/28/2024 at 5:11 AM, Husker_Du said:

 

I'm begging you to start googling things you see on twitter. Here's an article breaking down the misleading chart he's working from in the video: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/

"This graph is misleading for a number of reasons. First, the x-axis is mislabelled. In fact, it should say “Years before 1950”, rather than “Years before present (2000 AD)”. The GISP2 ice core only extends up to 1855 – 95 years before 1950. This means that none of the modern observational temperature period overlaps with the proxy reconstruction. (Easterbrook’s graph shows the uptick in the final 100 years or so of the record – shown in red – incorrectly indicating that it is the observational temperature period.)"

"Scientists reconstructing past Greenland temperatures now use estimates from many different ice cores, which reduces the uncertainties associated with any single one and gives a more accurate picture of changes over Greenland as a whole.

Alley made this point explicitly, telling Revkin:

“So, what do we get from GISP2? Alone, not an immense amount. With the other Greenland ice cores… and compared to additional records from elsewhere, an immense amount… Using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.”

 

 

[mspart]

https://visitgreenland.com/articles/10-facts-nellie-huang/

[Greenland] actually got its name from Erik The Red, an Icelandic murderer who was exiled to the island. He called it “Greenland” in hopes that the name would attract settlers. But according to scientists, Greenland was actually quite green more than 2.5 million years ago.

And how many humans were around then?

mspart