Remove this ad

avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#1021 [url]

Jun 13 17 9:10 AM

webkilla wrote:
Believe what you want - most of that lovely climate science is based on very heavily reproduced experiments and measurements. You might not like what it says, but that doesn't make it less true

...and honestly, why the hell would NASA lie about it? Their game is spaceships, not weather forecasts.

You never heard of US Presidents ordering government agencies to pay special attention to their political enemies?  Of falsifying data?

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#1022 [url]

Jun 13 17 9:56 AM

Very well - how about...

Eurepean sources: https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate

south america: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/feart.2016.00030/full

India: https://data.gov.in/visualize/?inst=b87590ca1ffddfab6a58726244e160d0&vid=676
https://data.gov.in/visualize/?inst=2cd8c570f37561e3b84a1b39c78f6baa&vid=781

China: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35530

If you want me to believe that government and scientific agencies from all over the world, from different power blocks, are all conspiring to make up believe a lie... ya... no. Why would China ever submit to shit like that?

I get that it can sound scary. I get that it can be difficult to see the outcome of it - but that doesn't mean that the CO2 levels haven't been rising.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#1023 [url]

Jun 13 17 11:14 AM

webkilla wrote:
Very well - how about...

Eurepean sources: https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate

south america: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/feart.2016.00030/full

India: https://data.gov.in/visualize/?inst=b87590ca1ffddfab6a58726244e160d0&vid=676
https://data.gov.in/visualize/?inst=2cd8c570f37561e3b84a1b39c78f6baa&vid=781

China: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35530

If you want me to believe that government and scientific agencies from all over the world, from different power blocks, are all conspiring to make up believe a lie... ya... no. Why would China ever submit to shit like that?

I get that it can sound scary. I get that it can be difficult to see the outcome of it - but that doesn't mean that the CO2 levels haven't been rising.

Even Crichton said that CO2 levels were rising-but added that manmade CO2 levels were insignificant, and the Kyoto treaty would have reduced CO2 levels by very little even if everybody played nice and followed the terms.  The point of the book though was less about global warming than how scientists actually know less about how nature works than is generally believed.

Another point he made was that when Yellowstone Park was first established, over the decades of its existence the park managers had no idea how the ecosystem there actually worked, and kept causing one ill effect after another.  There is no such thing as "settled science"-anyone who says so is a liar.  And yes, it includes President Obama.  No wonder Trump won despite his reputation as a pig.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohitsyou

Living Spambot

Posts: 500

#1024 [url]

Jun 13 17 11:51 AM

Yeah, I'm skepitical too of man made global warming; Earth goes through warming and cooling trends all the time, so whats happening right now is nothing special. Also, consider this. Lets say for argument that man made global warming does not exist. How do you make a profit from that?

Scientists lie becuase money talks.

C'mon, its a business.

Quote    Reply   

#1025 [url]

Jun 13 17 12:56 PM

You'll have to forgive me - but just because its not an exact science, doesn't mean its fake.

and Micheal Crichton is a movie man and writer - not a scientist. He can have all the opinions he wants in the world - but that doesn't mean that he understands the science he's talking about.

Again: I find it very dubious that global warming is supposed to be some kind of global fraud effected by scientists from all over the world, from competing power blocks. That just doesn't make sense.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#1026 [url]

Jun 13 17 2:07 PM

Shan wrote:
SmashLampjaw wrote:
Well if China is really cleaning up their act, maybe they can shoot for only having the second-highest carbon footprint in the world instead of the first. I still firmly recognize the Greenhouse Effect (under any name) as a crock, but the world stage is still using that as their main act.
How so is the Greenhouse Effect/Global Warning/Climate Change that then?
Every time I've brought up the subject and gone into detail, at most I argue with one person then the subject gets changed. It's pretty tedious to keep repeating myself.

The short version is, the movement is mostly pushed by politicians and members of the news and entertainment media. Not only is there no scientific "consensus" (and consensus isn't even how science works) but scientists who come out against it are ignored, discredited as paid shills, or even harassed by other members of the scientific community or politicians. The movement has also been caught repeatedly hiding their data/modeling code to prevent peer review, which makes it all the more hilarious when people who refer to this hoax being supported by the "best peer-reviewed science available." There are roughly three decades of predictions from this idiotic movement, none of which have come true, and which have been proven false so many consecutive years that now the bullshitters' predictions have been pushed out to several decades or centuries from now. I recommend watching the farce that is An Inconvenient Truth, if you'd like to see a collection of these false predictions all in one place, then taking a look at Mt. Kilamonjaro or Florida to see how accurate it was.

On top of all that, there hasn't been a green global climate summit that I can remember. Every last one of these lying, science-destroying pigs informed caring politicians go to their little globalist networking sessions climate summits/accords by plane, train, and/or automobile. That might have been excusable 18 years ago, during the start of the warming pause that still hasn't been explained away with the same "science" that "proves" we're cooking to death, but when everyone has high-speed internet one would think political leaders would use it to have a green virtual summit. Has anyone calculated the carbon footprint of awareness, I wonder? How serious can I be expected to take a gloom and doom sermon when none of the people peaching to the cult it act as though they believe their own words?

Yes, that's the short version. It's a movement so full of shit and regularly disproven by its own predictions that it's had to rebrand itself three times and is currently shifting names from "Climate Change" to "Climate Disruption". If you want links you can backtrack the thread yourselves. I'm not digging up everything I've referenced in this thread already for a 4th time.
.
.
webkilla wrote:
SmashLampjaw wrote:
Well if China is really cleaning up their act, maybe they can shoot for only having the second-highest carbon footprint in the world instead of the first. I still firmly recognize the Greenhouse Effect (under any name) as a crock, but the world stage is still using that as their main act.
Well - the reason that Trump didn't like the Paris accords is that it calculates emissions using forests as a deduction. China has shitloads of forests, so despite poluting like crazy, they can offset that enough via their amounts of forests to not look like the biggest poluter
Due to the forest deduction the US has been carbon negative since before this whole fiasco began. Trump pulled out because the accord unfairly punishes the US.
.
.
webkilla wrote:
its been well know since the 19th century that CO2 has a greenhouse effect - and we've only detected more of it
That is when the theory first came out; I'm not referring to that, I'm referring to the environmentalist doomsday scenario that originally had the same name. The Greenhouse Effect first debuted as an environmental movement in the early 1990s with claims that we're putting out enough CO2 to have a noticeable effect on the global temperature. These claims were based on calculations that curiously exclude water vapor, the most prevalent greenhouse gas on Earth and which humanity has zero impact on the levels of, from their predictive algorithms. It's a practice that continues to this very day.
.
.
webkilla wrote:
Believe what you want - most of that lovely climate science is based on very heavily reproduced experiments and measurements.
No, they're based on predictive computer models, not observations. When people say there is no evidence to support anthropromorphic global warming they're being literal and using the scientific meaning of "evidence".

.
.
webkilla wrote:
...and honestly, why the hell would NASA lie about it? Their game is spaceships, not weather forecasts.
Funding, the same reason all government-funded scientists have lied for decades. One of Obama's earliest acts was killing our space program, so it's not like NASA had no reason to fear further cuts. There are scientists around from as far back as Reagan's presidency who admit to having told the government what it wanted to hear for funding. Just this year it came out that NOAA crapped out false reports in 2015 that the warming pause didn't happen in order to bolster Obama's push to adopt the Paris Accord.
.
.
webkilla wrote:
Again: I find it very dubious that global warming is supposed to be some kind of global fraud effected by scientists from all over the world, from competing power blocks. That just doesn't make sense.
That is how the hoax depicts its detractors' argument. The reality is it's a global hoax pushed by media personalities and politicians with limited scientific support. How many scientists have you directly heard any of this from? Compare that to how many times the news or your local political leader has just referred to "scientists" or "the scientific community" as the source for what they then tell you themselves. I suspect you'll find you overwhelmingly receive the opinions of "scientists" third-hand but never bother to confirm the opinion exists, is credible, or is supported. The sheer volume of similar stories you also hear third-hand make it seem like common knowledge; why bother investigating something that everyone seems to believe?

It requires very few informed liars in each country to push this illusion, given how many people will just blindly believe something as long as they keep hearing it repeated or it appeals to their existing biases. It's not a hoax pushed by billions or that every scientist in the world is corrupt, it's a hoax pushed by a few thousand idiots/criminals/socialists in positions of influence who can occasionally blackmail or misrepresent a handful of scientists.

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Last Edited By: SmashLampjaw Jun 13 17 2:11 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#1027 [url]

Jun 13 17 2:30 PM

Beardfist wrote:
Well, rapid industrialization does tend to do that to a country. And while people may feel dubiously over the effect of greenhouse emissions, the immediate concerns of poisoned air, soil, water, and food are a pinch too hard for China to ignore - as well as the widespread damage to ecological species that's also resulted from all that alongside the rapid development of hitherto hinterlands.

Global warming is far too political of a concept now to get anywhere, and I've personally long since passed the point where I think it's even worthwhile to debate. Yes, there are some people on either side who have really done their homework - but most simply adhere to their tribe's stance on it religiously. And, ironically, most would generally agree with taking steps to reduce pollution and punish people who pollute. When the BP oil rig exploded, no one said 'well, this is negligible and it's fine if it happens again.' After Fukushima, no one said 'well, it's totally fine to use these old, outdated, poorly repaired reactors that were designed for a time when the sea level was far lower than it currently is.' No one opens up a bottle of pesticide to marinade their veggies in. But scummy companies and government mismanagement leads all this kind of shit to happen, because there's so little accountability for polluting - and honest businesses that make an effort to be ecologically-minded don't often find a market reward for it, especially if they don't operate primarily in an urban center. This becomes even more evident as you climb up to corporations, which are even less responsive to any pushback to bad environmental policy (thanks to being comfortable insulated by the government from competition).
Yeah, see, a lot of people reading my previous post may think I believe the world's doing fine. I am actually very concerned about the environment.

One of the problems with the Greenhouse Effect hoax (under its many names) is environmentalists basically put all their eggs in one basket. Having control over energy use is the end-all to their problems: they can redistribute wealth, shut down any industry they dislike, crush business, end meat eating, destroy the evil that is Capitalism, get free food and housing while they pursue their art, and oh yeah almost forgot fix the planet maybe. They basically got sucked in to this scheme that looked like it would solve all their problems. Instead it's led to people becoming so jaded against environmental issues that any real crisis to arise or any of the on-going ones will be totally ignored. Worse, anyone reporting these crises will be discredited by proximity to the on-going three decade hoax, so the handful of environmental activists who aren't bullshit artists have little hope of getting traction.

Fukushima has irradiated the entire Pacific Ocean and continues leaking radioactive waste into it even though the disaster hit 5 years ago. Is the world concerned about that? Because all I hear about are SUVs and cow farts cooking us to death in 2317.

Not to pick on Japan again, but we're running out of whales and they're still illegally killing them for meat while calling it "medical research" to get around the ban. Meanwhile I'm hearing claims that global warming causes terrorism in 2016, because sure, why not.

Honey bees are dying off in droves thanks to systemic pesticides, making it all the more likely we will soon have food shortages (and making it impossible to buy honey). I occasionally hear peeps about that while the people screaming about our shrinking ice caps pause for breath (even though the Antarctic grew non-stop through Global Warming and the Arctic has been growing again for years).

Then there's everything Monsanto has been doing directly and indirectly to the food supply. Oh, and the shit they've done to farmers. The subject on them would require its own thread and make me sound like a rabid leftist if you never saw any of my posts on another political subject. Yet how often do they make the news or take flak from politicians? I didn't even know they'd had a Supreme Court decision that allowed them to patent genes until I stumbled onto a documentary about them on Netflix. You'd think that kind of idiotic claptrap would get more press than a possible 2mm rise in sea levels being detected by a single island nation, but no.

Oh, and my favorite issue, the many, many birds killed by solar farms and wind power. The wind power industry got a blanket pardon from Obama after it was revealed they'd killed thousands of endangered birds including American eagles. Talk about symbolism, eh? Of course, we can't protect birds from renewable energy because OMG CO2 REDUCTION OR WE ALL DIE, so that one barely made the news.

The list goes on and on, but nobody can be mobilized to do anything because the left's fear-mongering about CLIMATE DOOMSDAY drowns everything else out and obliterates any credibility a real environmentalist movement might otherwise have.

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Last Edited By: SmashLampjaw Jun 13 17 2:42 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   

#1028 [url]

Jun 13 17 3:02 PM

Yeah the stupid environmentalists ruin it for the smart ones. One group here put a stop to Charlotte Douglas International's plan to use coal ash as part of the bedding that would sit under the new fourth parallel runway. Something about it washing into the water ways that aren't even near enough for a rain to do that nevermind the tons of asphalt that would keep it from being possible for the ash to wash away in the first place.

Instead that coal ash will be sold to farmers as fertilizer for farmers. Because that makes sense.

On the other hand CDI is "storing" a large amount of dirt right now that's being poured out and compacted in a suspicious runway like shape. But they haven't done an environmental analysis required to start construction so its important to note they're only storing the material not building.

_____________________________________________________________________

People have a common defense mechanism they employ to defend themselves from the threat of contrary viewpoints. This shield they wield is the act of dismissing such contrary viewpoints by arbitrarily undermining their validity.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,962

#1029 [url]

Jun 13 17 3:11 PM

webkilla wrote:
You'll have to forgive me - but just because its not an exact science, doesn't mean its fake.

and Micheal Crichton is a movie man and writer - not a scientist. He can have all the opinions he wants in the world - but that doesn't mean that he understands the science he's talking about.

Again: I find it very dubious that global warming is supposed to be some kind of global fraud effected by scientists from all over the world, from competing power blocks. That just doesn't make sense.

Now see webkilla, this is what I was afraid of. You can't just drop some links and not have this happen. You've been here long enough to know that by now, surely?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#1030 [url]

Jun 13 17 4:17 PM

Shan wrote:

webkilla wrote:
You'll have to forgive me - but just because its not an exact science, doesn't mean its fake.

and Micheal Crichton is a movie man and writer - not a scientist. He can have all the opinions he wants in the world - but that doesn't mean that he understands the science he's talking about.

Again: I find it very dubious that global warming is supposed to be some kind of global fraud effected by scientists from all over the world, from competing power blocks. That just doesn't make sense.

Now see webkilla, this is what I was afraid of. You can't just drop some links and not have this happen. You've been here long enough to know that by now, surely?

Smashlampjaw already answered most of your points, but I was talking about Crichton himself.  He did receive a scientific education.  The book I mentioned did point to a large number of scientific references.  And widely-believed scientific ideas have been proved false.  Remember cold fusion or room-temperature superconductivity?  Two examples.  Another one is phlogiston from centuries ago.  Logical, but proven wrong.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,962

#1032 [url]

Jun 14 17 12:05 AM

webkilla wrote:
What about things like ozone depletion? Is that also fake? Just curious

I think we're much more on the same side than not but we're not going to win this way.

Regroup! Regroup!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#1033 [url]

Jun 14 17 12:42 AM

webkilla wrote:
What about things like ozone depletion? Is that also fake? Just curious
Ozone depletion by CFCs? No, that was scientifically proven back in the 90's, resulting in a worldwide ban on CFCs. The ozone hole has been closing up for... what, a couple decades now? If I remember correctly the hole's expected to close up entirely around 2080. Basically the shit keeps refreezing and defrosting in Antarctica, so it's going to take a long time to get processed out of the environment. It's late and I'm going off memory so don't hold me to specifics on that one.

The point is if something is going to destroy the world, people who have to live on Earth won't oppose fixing it for any amount of money.

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,962

#1034 [url]

Jun 14 17 12:45 AM

SmashLampjaw wrote:

webkilla wrote:
What about things like ozone depletion? Is that also fake? Just curious

Ozone depletion by CFCs? No, that was scientifically proven back in the 90's, resulting in a worldwide ban on CFCs. The ozone hole has been closing up for... what, a couple decades now? If I remember correctly the hole's expected to close up entirely around 2080. Basically the shit keeps refreezing and defrosting in Antarctica, so it's going to take a long time to get processed out of the environment. It's late and I'm going off memory so don't hold me to specifics on that one.

The point is if something is going to destroy the world, people who have to live on Earth won't oppose fixing it for any amount of money.

No, I think you're correct on that one.

It's still a rather big hole, though.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-07-01/hole-in-the-ozone-layer-is-finally-healing/7556416

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,962

#1036 [url]

Jun 14 17 1:40 AM

webkilla wrote:
fair enough

I've encounted climate change deniers who refused to believe in ozone depletion as well

Remember webkilla, it's a tough crowd, you will be forged in battle here.

I'm just biding my time waiting to strike.

In this crazy-mixed up world ...

UP IS DOWN
LEFT IS RIGHT
RIGHT IS WRONG

SMITE THE RIGHT
SMITE THE RIGHT!
SMITE THE RIGHT!

ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA!

*ahem*

Soon.

But not yet.

(got ahead of myself a bit there)

Quote    Reply   

#1037 [url]

Jun 14 17 3:09 AM

Shan wrote:

webkilla wrote:
fair enough

I've encounted climate change deniers who refused to believe in ozone depletion as well

Remember webkilla, it's a tough crowd, you will be forged in battle here.

I'm just biding my time waiting to strike.

In this crazy-mixed up world ...

UP IS DOWN
LEFT IS RIGHT
RIGHT IS WRONG

SMITE THE RIGHT
SMITE THE RIGHT!
SMITE THE RIGHT!

ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA!

*ahem*

Soon.

But not yet.

(got ahead of myself a bit there)
 

[left]soon?

oh no

Tonight, you

[url=

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#1038 [url]

Jun 14 17 3:32 AM

There was a hysteria over acid rain decades ago, before research concluded that it was not a problem.  Like Smashlampjaw said, there are real environmental problems out there, and we should concentrate on those instead of dubious ones such as climate change.

Quote    Reply   

#1040 [url]

Jun 14 17 5:15 AM

"Tonight, you"

hehe - this place needs need a signature function.


and acid rain wasn't proven false - it was solved via environmental regulations in the late 70s: http://www.enviropedia.org.uk/Acid_Rain/Europe.php

https://prezi.com/__fzq1opgilb/acid-rain-in-norway/ - its still a bit of an issue in certain places in Europe, chiefly due to shitty chimney-filters on easter european factories

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help