Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

So now climate change is an elaborate network of conspirators, causing all of these effects we see now?

If that's the case, then climate change would indeed be man made.
 
Misfit28 said:
So now climate change is an elaborate network of conspirators, causing all of these effects we see now?

If that's the case, then climate change would indeed be man made.
Click to expand...
the knowledge of the behaviors that influence and effect the climate provides power to those who are inclined to or persuaded to use that power to manipulate policies, cultures and social awareness or in this case social ignorance. If I know when I do x it produces y and the result of y produces fear and dependence and control (socially, culturally and politically) as well as revenue then you can be sure as **** that our government will capitalize on it.

It's funny how I so often see the smartest minds so busy using their big brains that they can't recognize their own nose in front of their face. I find it ironic how they can be so blind to simple things. And because it's simple it doesn't even register.
 
David Dunn said:
the knowledge of the behaviors that influence and effect the climate provides power to those who are inclined to or persuaded to use that power to manipulate policies, cultures and social awareness or in this case social ignorance. If I know when I do x it produces y and the result of y produces fear and dependence and control (socially, culturally and politically) as well as revenue then you can be sure as **** that our government will capitalize on it.

It's funny how I so often see the smartest minds so busy using their big brains that they can't recognize their own nose in front of their face. I find it ironic how they can be so blind to simple things. And because it's simple it doesn't even register.
Click to expand...

It just seems to me that in this age of information and around the clock media coverage that it would be pretty hard to do things that people wouldn't notice. The thing that you posted earlier would have been much easier to accomplish in the Vietnam War era. Today, not so much.

To me the fact that carbon (and methane) emissions have been exponentially increased over time by human activity is pretty simple. I suppose conspiracy theories at their core are pretty simple as well: blame some shadow government for all of the ills of the world, and that explains it all. Plus, it's more entertaining! Win win! I enjoy fantasy and science fiction as much as the next guy, but I know where to draw the line between those entertainment genres and reality.

The same tactics that you just described are used by the right to prey on the same ignorance that you are describing. Just look at a site like Breitbart to see what I'm talking about. Did you ever think maybe these conspiracy theories are the real drivers of fear?

It's quite tiring to hear about how ignorant I am because I chose to become more educated.

So, is there one particular theory here that everyone is on the same page on here about climate change? There are a multitude of them, I just want to make sure I'm following the right one.
 
Misfit28 said:
It just seems to me that in this age of information and around the clock media coverage that it would be pretty hard to do things that people wouldn't notice. The thing that you posted earlier would have been much easier to accomplish in the Vietnam War era. Today, not so much.

To me the fact that carbon (and methane) emissions have been exponentially increased over time by human activity is pretty simple. I suppose conspiracy theories at their core are pretty simple as well: blame some shadow government for all of the ills of the world, and that explains it all. Plus, it's more entertaining! Win win! I enjoy fantasy and science fiction as much as the next guy, but I know where to draw the line between those entertainment genres and reality.

The same tactics that you just described are used by the right to prey on the same ignorance that you are describing. Just look at a site like Breitbart to see what I'm talking about. Did you ever think maybe these conspiracy theories are the real drivers of fear?

It's quite tiring to hear about how ignorant I am because I chose to become more educated.
Click to expand...

Oh ALOT of people notice alright...but then the CIA created "conspiracy" slogan gets quickly thrown out by millions of DoED brainwashed minions and people turn the other way and you will never heard this side of the story on CiaNN.

Carbon can benefit the planet, its a building block of life.
 
ax1 said:
Oh ALOT of people notice alright...but then the CIA created "conspiracy" slogan gets quickly thrown out by millions of DoED brainwashed minions and people turn the other way and you will never heard this side of the story on CiaNN.

Carbon can benefit the planet, its a building block of life.
Click to expand...

Benefit the planet, as in assisting C3 plants to thrive, you mean? It may perhaps benefit the ecosystem overall, but it could make it mighty hard for people to live as they currently live. The advent of large cereal crops (primarily of the C4 variety) has been to the detriment of C3 plants over time, so a higher Carbon concentration could help in that aspect.

Is that what you mean?
 
IMO, here's the real "conspiracy": Between 2003 and 2010, more than $7 billion dollars was spent by conservative billionaires such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

These people have huge interests in keeping the petroleum infrastructure as is, despite overwhelming evidence that we need to address dependence on fossil fuels. Ever heard of the internal memo that Exxon issued back in 1995? The one that recognized that burning fossil fuels was causing climate change and that the science was "well established and cannot be denied"? It's very similar to the tobacco industry trying to persuade people that cigarettes were healthy back in the day. Not to mention the whole leaded gasoline thing.

The corporate shill S. Fred Singer is a prime example of a "scientist" who sold his soul to spread misinformation with bunk science. I'm sure Singer makes far more than a government funded climatology professor at a university. The real money is from the petroleum industry, not the federal government.

Of course, here is where we get into conspiracy theorists telling other people that they are guilty of spreading conspiracy theories simply to discredit the "honest scientists".

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
Misfit28 said:
IMO, here's the real "conspiracy": Between 2003 and 2010, more than $7 billion dollars was spent by conservative billionaires such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

These people have huge interests in keeping the petroleum infrastructure as is, despite overwhelming evidence that we need to address dependence on fossil fuels. Ever heard of the internal memo that Exxon issued back in 1995? The one that recognized that burning fossil fuels was causing climate change and that the science was "well established and cannot be denied"? It's very similar to the tobacco industry trying to persuade people that cigarettes were healthy back in the day. Not to mention the whole leaded gasoline thing.

The corporate shill S. Fred Singer is a prime example of a "scientist" who sold his soul to spread misinformation with bunk science. I'm sure Singer makes far more than a government funded climatology professor at a university. The real money is from the petroleum industry, not the federal government.

Of course, here is where we get into conspiracy theorists telling other people that they are guilty of spreading conspiracy theories simply to discredit the "honest scientists".

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Its good you bring these things up, but that is pure frivolous pocket change that is being spent compared to whats really at stake. Im not even exaggerating.
 
So its been leaked in Hitleries emails that she was seeking Parkinsons treating drugs.

Julian Assange now says they have thousands of more hacked documents including a heavy game changer and all will be leaked all the way up until November 9th.

Speaking of Assange, I remember a couple weaks ago after he suggested that the murdered DNC staffer in Washington was assassinated and hinted he was one of his leakers, he also hinted that there will be an assassination attempt on him. Now, just a couple days ago someone was arrested scaling the Ecuadorian embassy, and then he only stayed at the police station for about 3 minutes before they let him go.
 
ax1 said:
Oh ALOT of people notice alright...but then the CIA created "conspiracy" slogan gets quickly thrown out by millions of DoED brainwashed minions and people turn the other way and you will never heard this side of the story on CiaNN.

Carbon can benefit the planet, its a building block of life.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

This is a good read, worth your time if you can spare it.

Carbon dioxide is an important component of life, but to an extent. Like all things, issues arise when these things become in abundance of what can be utilized for other means. And this is what we are seeing the effect of now.

In an era where vegetation is constantly depleted to make room for more humans, and during colder months where respiration and not photosynthesis dominate vegetation consumption of atmospheric CO2, CO2 consumption decreases and has to end up somewhere, which is within the atmosphere. The southern hemisphere is majority sea mass and not vegetation life and so this is even more pronounced in the southern hemisphere.

I live in NZ where the 'hole' in the ozone puts us at extreme risk for sunburn, and I can assure you this is absolutely not a conspiracy (Invalid Link Removed)

back to the topic at hand; the amount of heat trapped in the troposphere determines the heat of the earth, and the amount of heat trapped depends on the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the troposphere. The greater the concentrations, as we are seeing, the greater the heat trapped, and the more problems that arise. This was first noted in the early 1900's when some guy predicted we would have issues if these concentrations increased; and what do you know, he was right.

Yes carbon is important, but I suggest reading up on why it is also a danger to the planet when CO2 emissions rise :thumbsup:
 
Jiigzz said:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

This is a good read, worth your time if you can spare it.

Carbon dioxide is an important component of life, but to an extent. Like all things, issues arise when these things become in abundance of what can be utilized for other means. And this is what we are seeing the effect of now.

In an era where vegetation is constantly depleted to make room for more humans, and during colder months where respiration and not photosynthesis dominate vegetation consumption of atmospheric CO2, CO2 consumption decreases and has to end up somewhere, which is within the atmosphere. The southern hemisphere is majority sea mass and not vegetation life and so this is even more pronounced in the southern hemisphere.

I live in NZ where the 'hole' in the ozone puts us at extreme risk for sunburn, and I can assure you this is absolutely not a conspiracy (Invalid Link Removed)

back to the topic at hand; the amount of heat trapped in the troposphere determines the heat of the earth, and the amount of heat trapped depends on the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the troposphere. The greater the concentrations, as we are seeing, the greater the heat trapped, and the more problems that arise. This was first noted in the early 1900's when some guy predicted we would have issues if these concentrations increased; and what do you know, he was right.

Yes carbon is important, but I suggest reading up on why it is also a danger to the planet when CO2 emissions rise :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Ive read stuff like that as well as other scientific explanations that say something different, its endless, lol.

Now, for HAARP, governments experiments with the atmosphere among other things...thats what I wanna know. This is stuff most scientists dont have access too and doesnt get accounted for.
 
ax1 said:
Ive read stuff like that as well as other scientific explanations that say something different, its endless, lol.

Now, for HAARP, governments experiments with the atmosphere among other things...thats what I wanna know. This is stuff most scientists dont have access too.
Click to expand...

Of course, but it makes sense. Co2 emissions rise as we use it for so many things and remove so many trees. It doesn't just 'disappear', it needs to be recycled for other means, and that simply cannot be balanced naturally like it has been for the past millennia.

Invalid Link Removed


It is unlikely our use of CO2 will decrease over time, but rather we need to increase the tools required to consume it: Invalid Link Removed

Our oceans are also beocming more acidic due to increased CO2: Invalid Link Removed

If you deny climate change, it's because you don't understand it. Here's some research papers on why it's a problem for the ocean:

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

and how it contributes to rising global temperatures:

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

FTR: I emailed a lecturer for the papers provided, and he told me to ask for papers showing that rising CO2 emissions is not a threat (not website links from conspiracy theorists I might add). I will be happy to add his commentary on what you provide, if you are able to provide that evidence.
 
Jiigzz said:
I live in NZ where the 'hole' in the ozone puts us at extreme risk for sunburn, and I can assure you this is absolutely not a conspiracy (Invalid Link Removed)
Click to expand...

I wonder how much of the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons by a handful of countries heavily from the 40's to 60's, and continuing all the way up into 1980 (China being the last to stop) had on that hole being over your country? Did you hear much about this at your home?

I havent looked deep into this but if I have time (I need to focus on work and home schooling right now) Id be researching this right now.
 
Jiigzz said:
Of course, but it makes sense. Co2 emissions rise as we use it for so many things and remove so many trees. It doesn't just 'disappear', it needs to be recycled for other means, and that simply cannot be balanced naturally like it has been for the past millennia.

Invalid Link Removed


It is unlikely our use of CO2 will decrease over time, but rather we need to increase the tools required to consume it: Invalid Link Removed

Our oceans are also beocming more acidic due to increased CO2: Invalid Link Removed

If you deny climate change, it's because you don't understand it. Here's some research papers on why it's a problem for the ocean:

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

and how it contributes to rising global temperatures:

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

FTR: I emailed a lecturer for the papers provided, and he told me to ask for papers showing that rising CO2 emissions is not a threat (not website links from conspiracy theorists I might add). I will be happy to add his commentary on what you provide, if you are able to provide that evidence.
Click to expand...

There are papers contradicting all of this, but thats for those CIA labled tin foil hat people, not you.
 
ax1 said:
There are papers contradicting all of this, but thats for those CIA labled tin foil hat people, not you.
Click to expand...

More significantly I may add, weather Co2 is good or bad, the primary case here is how much man made C02 is put out anyways which with Ive read is rather insignificant.

My understanding the most significant factor in our weather is the sun and potentially government science, not hamburgers and corvettes.
 
Anyways the climate changes, from the beginning of the planet up to its end, you all need to get used to it if you havent done so already.
 
Misfit28 said:
Dare I ask who authored these papers?
Click to expand...

There is alot of info over the years Ive run into, i do not have time right now to go through this and start posting links, article, names, etc....other than to stop in here and vent my voice....sorry bro.
 
Just to be clear on my stance guys, my stance is we dont know for sure what the f' is going on and far more significant research is needed. There are politics and money into play on both sides of the debate. What I can say for sure is if the people are sheep these politicians/corporations will wholeheartedly take advantage of this as a power grab. Solutions such as cap and trade, and leaked documents of manipulated data and public deception have unveiled there is no interest in doing anything about this other than fill their pockets and expand their control. This doesnt go for every politician and businessman, Im not a total pessimist but what Ive seen from the top has been terrible.
 
ax1 said:
I wonder how much of the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons by a handful of countries heavily from the 40's to 60's, and continuing all the way up into 1980 (China being the last to stop) had on that hole being over your country? Did you hear much about this at your home?

I havent looked deep into this but if I have time (I need to focus on work and home schooling right now) Id be researching this right now.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure, but we definitely have it hard here in terms of sunburns, even on extremely overcast days.
 
ax1 said:
I wonder how much of the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons by a handful of countries heavily from the 40's to 60's, and continuing all the way up into 1980 (China being the last to stop) had on that hole being over your country? Did you hear much about this at your home?

I havent looked deep into this but if I have time (I need to focus on work and home schooling right now) Id be researching this right now.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. I do wonder how much nuclear weapons have had the atmosphere. However, i think it would be pretty hard to prove/disprove this theory.
 
rtmilburn said:
This is a good point. I do wonder how much nuclear weapons have had the atmosphere. However, i think it would be pretty hard to prove/disprove this theory.
Click to expand...

ALOT!

We can prove it, lets start nuking the sky again, lol We can expose our solders and vets again too so we can get more real live human testing done and find out how bad radiation is.
 
Jiigzz said:
I'm not entirely sure, but we definitely have it hard here in terms of sunburns, even on extremely overcast days.
Click to expand...

I remember learning about the giant hole in the ozone back in the 80's in elementary school...I would really question how much "Co2" contributed to that vs. high atmospheric nuclear testing (far far bigger than hiroshima bomb) back then when all the "scientists" were focused on global cooling. That movement was led by former Secretary General of the United Nations Maurice Strong (who later was caught in the oil for food in Iraq scam) and finished his life living in Beijing coaching their government how to capitalize on "climate change" through deception.

Anyways, nukes are just 1 part of a contributor, you have to question US governments HAARP program which involves pushing directed energy up in the high atmosphere (the other name whatever it is) which may have disastrous consequences but Ill leave it at that among other things with directed energy weapons, death rays and the star wars program. Thats what these scientists need to start looking into it, but just like Nikoli Tesla's curious niece and many other scientists, if you and outsider and get too close to directed energy weapons they may blow you up and finish you for good.

Have a good day folks, time to chill with the wife out and abouts!
 
ax1 said:
Just to be clear on my stance guys, my stance is we dont know for sure what the f' is going on and far more significant research is needed. There are politics and money into play on both sides of the debate. What I can say for sure is if the people are sheep these politicians/corporations will wholeheartedly take advantage of this as a power grab. Solutions such as cap and trade, and leaked documents of manipulated data and public deception have unveiled there is no interest in doing anything about this other than fill their pockets and expand their control. This doesnt go for every politician and businessman, Im not a total pessimist but what Ive seen from the top has been terrible.
Click to expand...
Invalid Link Removed
 
Gutterpump said:
What's everyone up to for the Labor Day weekend in here? I'm still trying to figure out what I'm doing.
Click to expand...

Going to a family friend's yearly party to drink, eat good food, and shoot guns. Maybe a little too republican-like for you Gutter...there will be no martinis, vegan food, or kumbaya singing there
 
jswain34 said:
Going to a family friend's yearly party to drink, eat good food, and shoot guns. Maybe a little too republican-like for you Gutter...there will be no martinis, vegan food, or kumbaya singing there
Click to expand...

You're forgetting I grew up in the country, and prefer it there. Give me a good pig roast and bonfire at a lake, some archery and rifles, a four wheeler and a dirt bike over the city any day I hate martinis, I hardly even drink, and when I do it's usually just stout

I'll probably just end up going to Montauk (beach town at tip of Long Island) though. Wish I knew people around NY into the same stuff as me lol
 
I'm pretty ignorant of the science on climate change, so I don't truly have much to add.



With that said, I would like to know if there is any definitive evidence that our Co2 emissions are actually causing climate change?


I've seen a lot of evidence of correlation, but haven't seen much (read:any) evidence of actual causation.
 
Trump for sure if i go out and vote actually which i never have

democrats want to create more democrats and they will do that by bringing in more immigrants and refugees and taxing the middle class even more in effort to create poor people and keep those people poor so they must rely on the government


but idk much about politics im neither republican or democrat if i vote its more so i cant stand Hillary but i can see why certain people equally cant stand trump..
 
The difficult thing is is that it is damn near impossible to prove direct causation with so many other factors potentially at play. Its hard (maybe even impossible at this point) to create a "climate" in a lab and then have co2 emissions be the variable that is manipulated - that is really the only way to PROVE direct causation.
 
jimbuick said:
I'm pretty ignorant of the science on climate change, so I don't truly have much to add.



With that said, I would like to know if there is any definitive evidence that our Co2 emissions are actually causing climate change?


I've seen a lot of evidence of correlation, but haven't seen much (read:any) evidence of actual causation.
Click to expand...

Whether -or not climate change is man made -or really happening, it doesn't matter. It should be in everyone's interest to reduce pollution -and to protect the environment. Of course politicians will use the "climate change" to push for new taxes they pull out of their azzes -and yes, the industry will fill their pockets by selling you expensive electric-cars.
At the end, less pollution is good for health and mankind's future
 
hairygrandpa said:
Whether -or not climate change is man made -or really happening, it doesn't matter. It should be in everyone's interest to reduce pollution -and to protect the environment. Of course politicians will use the "climate change" to push for new taxes they pull out of their azzes -and yes, the industry will fill their pockets by selling you expensive electric-cars.
At the end, less pollution is good for health and mankind's future
Click to expand...
Totally agree with everything you said. However, as ive already pointed out, hybrid and electric cars are worse for the environment then standard gas or even diesel. This is due to the strip mining used to get the meterials needed for the batteries, that releases more "green house gasses" and pollutants the any modern day car. Also people forget to account for the power that is created to charge the batteries.
 
jimbuick said:
I'm pretty ignorant of the science on climate change, so I don't truly have much to add.



With that said, I would like to know if there is any definitive evidence that our Co2 emissions are actually causing climate change?


I've seen a lot of evidence of correlation, but haven't seen much (read:any) evidence of actual causation.
Click to expand...

Jiigzz said:
Of course, but it makes sense. Co2 emissions rise as we use it for so many things and remove so many trees. It doesn't just 'disappear', it needs to be recycled for other means, and that simply cannot be balanced naturally like it has been for the past millennia.

Invalid Link Removed


It is unlikely our use of CO2 will decrease over time, but rather we need to increase the tools required to consume it: Invalid Link Removed

Our oceans are also beocming more acidic due to increased CO2: Invalid Link Removed

If you deny climate change, it's because you don't understand it. Here's some research papers on why it's a problem for the ocean:

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

and how it contributes to rising global temperatures:

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

FTR: I emailed a lecturer for the papers provided, and he told me to ask for papers showing that rising CO2 emissions is not a threat (not website links from conspiracy theorists I might add). I will be happy to add his commentary on what you provide, if you are able to provide that evidence.
Click to expand...

Causation is hard to prove because it happens over a period of time. But what we do know is that a build up of gases in parts of the atmosphere trap in heat, and contribute to our ever-changing climate. If the atmosphere did not exist, or was to fail at it's job, the earth would stay considerably colder than what it does, even under direct sunlight.

Obviously you don't have to read the link spam, but if it is something you are interested in, the article links might give a brief summary that you prefer: Invalid Link Removed
 
Jiigzz said:
Causation is hard to prove because it happens over a period of time. But what we do know is that a build up of gases in parts of the atmosphere trap in heat, and contribute to our ever-changing climate. If the atmosphere did not exist, or was to fail at it's job, the earth would stay considerably colder than what it does, even under direct sunlight.

Obviously you don't have to read the link spam, but if it is something you are interested in, the article links might give a brief summary that you prefer: Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I'll try to give some of them a look this weekend.


However, I have seen before that scientists were able to show that the Earth regularly goes through periods of cooling and heating throughout history.


I'm just wondering if there is any proof that the "climate change" we are experiencing now is any different than the climate change that has been occurring all throughout history.
 
jswain34 said:
The difficult thing is is that it is damn near impossible to prove direct causation with so many other factors potentially at play. Its hard (maybe even impossible at this point) to create a "climate" in a lab and then have co2 emissions be the variable that is manipulated - that is really the only way to PROVE direct causation.
Click to expand...

Introducing the global warming speedometer

 A single devastating graph shows official climate predictions were wild

 By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

 The new global warming speedometer shows in a single telling graph just how badly the model-based predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have over-predicted global warming.

Invalid Link RemovedInvalid Link Removed​

The speedometer for the 15 years 4 months January 2001 to April 2016 shows the [1.1, 4.2] C°/century-equivalent interval of global warming rates (red/orange) that IPCC’s 1990, 1995 and 2001 reports predicted should be occurring by now, compared with real-world, observed warming (green) equivalent to less than 0.5 C°/century over the period.

Observed reality

​
RSS and UAH monthly near-global satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomaly values for each month from January 2001 to April 2016 were assumed to be broadly accurate and were averaged. The least-squares linear-regression trend on their mean was determined and found equivalent to 0.47 C°/century.

 Predictions in IPCC’s Assessment Reports

 IPCC (2007, 2013) are too recent to allow reliable comparison of their predictions against reality.

 IPCC (2001), on page 8, predicted that in the 36 years 1990-2025 the world would warm by 0.75 [0.4, 1.1] C°, equivalent to 2.1 [1.1, 3.1] C°/century. This predicted interval is 4.5 [2.3, 6.6] times observed warming since January 2001.

 IPCC (1995), at fig. 6.13, assuming the subsequently-observed 0.5%-per-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, predicted a medium-term warming rate a little below 0.4 C° over 21 years, equivalent to 1.8 C°/century, or 3.8 times observed warming since January 2001.

 IPCC (1990), at page xxiv, predicted near-linear global warming of 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] C° over the 36 years to 2025, a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] C°/century. This predicted interval is 6.0 [4.0, 8.9] times observed warming since January 2001.
Conclusion​

Fifteen years is long enough to verify the predictions from IPCC’s first three Assessment Reports against real-world temperature change measured by the most sophisticated method available – satellites.

The visible discrepancy between wild predictions and harmless reality since January 2001 demonstrates that the major climate models on which governments have relied in setting their mitigation policies are unfit for their purpose. Removing the exaggerations inbuilt into the models eradicates the supposed climate problem.

 The real-world evidence shows that global warming mitigation policies are based on predictions now exposed as having been flagrantly and baselessly exaggerated.

All global-warming mitigation policies should be forthwith abandoned and their heavy cost returned at once to taxpayers by way of cuts in energy taxes and charges.

Industries such as coal mining and generation should be fully compensated for the needless loss and damage that ill-considered government policies inflicted on them.

Subsidies for global warming research should be ended and IPCC dissolved.
 
jimbuick said:
I'll try to give some of them a look this weekend.


However, I have seen before that scientists were able to show that the Earth regularly goes through periods of cooling and heating throughout history.


I'm just wondering if there is any proof that the "climate change" we are experiencing now is any different than the climate change that has been occurring all throughout history.
Click to expand...

It does seem to, but the big question is if this is out of the ordinary or not. Pass it off as not and do nothing, you're in for a shock if it is a real thing and continues continue to rise. Id rather exercise caution, as the alternative is potentially catastrophic.
 
jimbuick said:
I'll try to give some of them a look this weekend.


However, I have seen before that scientists were able to show that the Earth regularly goes through periods of cooling and heating throughout history.


I'm just wondering if there is any proof that the "climate change" we are experiencing now is any different than the climate change that has been occurring all throughout history.
Click to expand...

I'm too am a bit skeptic of the supposed science behind global warming, as there is a lot of financial interests behind it, like with big pharma.
Even though if earth goes through warming/cooling cycles, any man made pollution would have at least an accumulative effect.
It's like saying: "Smoking maybe bad for my lungs, but look at all the pollution from the cars, this can't be good for my lungs either."
 
Jiigzz said:
It does seem to, but the big question is if this is out of the ordinary or not. Pass it off as not and do nothing, you're in for a shock if it is a real thing and continues continue to rise. Id rather exercise caution, as the alternative is potentially catastrophic.
Click to expand...

That's not an unreasonable position at all.



It seems a lot of people believe that anyone who doesn't feel the same way is somehow unintelligent. Not just with climate change, of course.


I don't know enough about the science to have an educated opinion, but it doesn't sound like there is anything conclusive.
 
jimbuick said:
That's not an unreasonable position at all.



It seems a lot of people believe that anyone who doesn't feel the same way is somehow unintelligent. Not just with climate change, of course.


I don't know enough about the science to have an educated opinion, but it doesn't sound like there is anything conclusive.
Click to expand...

It's a topic of fierce debate. Working at a university I'm fortunate to be in contact with, we sent a few people to the recent conference held in france and when they got back I asked how it went, 2 of them summed it up pretty much the same, "we are fkd".

Lol
 
jimbuick said:
I don't know enough about the science to have an educated opinion, but it doesn't sound like there is anything conclusive.
Click to expand...

Most definitely isnt, which is my position. There is alot of factors that cause climate change since the beginnings of time.

Its primarily politics for the most part...we are talking trillions of dollars and a big global power grab. Remember Al Gore predicted the north pole would be completely melted by 2013 back in 08, and years before showed images on Opera's show that california would mostly be under water in no time? His position openly has been this can be all "enforced through global governance." I say F' global government, the only government should be our elected officials, not some overseas unelected big bank bureaucracy. Another note, Al Gore has millions invested in carbon measuring drones while he zips around his private jet back and forth from his mansion that takes up more energy than the republic of Congo (the very last statement about Congo is not a fact, lol) Global government is key to having his carbon measuring drones put to use too through global regulation on all nations.

Then we have the leaked documents before the Copenhagen treaty that showed the inner coverup that data showed nothing significant has changed over the past decade and this needs to be kept internally away from the public and other scientists because it will put a halt the the agenda.

Climate change itself is a funny word, they got tired of being wrong about global warming, then global cooling, then global warming so they changed it to climate change because you cant go wrong with that! Wow the climate changes holy shiatzz!
 
jswain34 said:
You really, truly believe this?
Click to expand...

I dont think I want to be around when that needs to happen, lol

I mean like I wake up every day thinking ok, drop a nuke on me or near bye let my thyroid explode. I may not be fine but the earth will live to tell about it another day after some self maintenance. Its all good!
 
Sure the earth will still exist no matter what we do, but in what kind of state?

Common sense dictates that we can't just do whatever we please
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top