Jump to content

Earth Is Cooling As Radical Greens Continue To Fight Global Warming


pipedreams
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bill Gates, the pretend climatologist and expert on CO2 and medicine, is the man most responsible (along with Dr. Fauci) for pushing a massive delusional psychosis onto the human race, not only about COVID but about CO2.   Posted By: Dr. Mark Sircus via lewrockwell.com February 23, 2021

 

"Winter storms are wreaking havoc in central and southern States. The climate news has turned catastrophic. People are angry; however, the federal government is too busy with its delusional psychosis over global warming and the COVID pandemic.

People don’t realize how bad and multifaceted the situation is. We have full-scale blackouts in Mexico, millions of Americans still in the dark with no power and heat, and the biggest outage in American oil and gas history. A loss on this scale is already generating an energy crisis, meaning each and everyone one of us will be paying more for energy."

https://www.technocracy.news/earth-is-cooling-as-radical-greens-continue-to-fight-global-warming/

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/mark-sircus/earth-cooling-dramatically/

"Obviously, global warming cannot be responsible for so much cold, but for the brain compromised, anything is possible. Of course, climate change is real; it is only man-made global warming, which is the world’s biggest scam in man’s history is not. The real story of climate change has to do with the sun and its fluctuations and the reality that we are in for a few decades of cooling temperatures on Earth."

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, pipedreams said:

Bill Gates, the pretend climatologist and expert on CO2 and medicine, is the man most responsible (along with Dr. Fauci) for pushing a massive delusional psychosis onto the human race, not only about COVID but about CO2.   Posted By: Dr. Mark Sircus via lewrockwell.com February 23, 2021

 

"Winter storms are wreaking havoc in central and southern States. The climate news has turned catastrophic. People are angry; however, the federal government is too busy with its delusional psychosis over global warming and the COVID pandemic.

People don’t realize how bad and multifaceted the situation is. We have full-scale blackouts in Mexico, millions of Americans still in the dark with no power and heat, and the biggest outage in American oil and gas history. A loss on this scale is already generating an energy crisis, meaning each and everyone one of us will be paying more for energy."

https://www.technocracy.news/earth-is-cooling-as-radical-greens-continue-to-fight-global-warming/

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/mark-sircus/earth-cooling-dramatically/

"Obviously, global warming cannot be responsible for so much cold, but for the brain compromised, anything is possible. Of course, climate change is real; it is only man-made global warming, which is the world’s biggest scam in man’s history is not. The real story of climate change has to do with the sun and its fluctuations and the reality that we are in for a few decades of cooling temperatures on Earth."

 

When they talk about GLOBAL warming, that does not account for REGIONAL events like a winter storm in North America. Global worming is the average temperature rise of the air and the sea, world wide, year to year, decade to decade.

This graph is based on simple temperature measurements around the globe and the result is reality, if we like it or not:

 

Global Temperature Report for 2019 - Berkeley Earth

 

 

While we can argue all day long what exactly is causing this rise, the majority of scientists agree that it is linked to our actions and our population growth.

The majority of scientists also agree that every degree in temperature increase worldwide has an impact on our weather, sea levels, likelihood of storms and flooding.

While I know that a bunch of political parties take advantage of this scenario and yet another power grab or tax hike, it is irrational to dismiss this issue on all levels.

This planet, its resources and its environmental sustainability can't house 7.6 BILLION people in the long run, let alone the amount of humans we will see in the future, without major effects on nature.

While I'm not a tree hugger in any capacity, we would do our future generations a HUGE favor if we would start using less resources, and use resources with a better footprint for nature. Less breeding would be even better, but that should be addressed in Asia and a couple other places.

 

 

 

 

Edited by crockett
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, crockett said:

This planet, its resources and its environmental sustainability can't house 7.6 BILLION people in the long run, let alone the amount of humans we will see in the future, without major effects on nature.

While I'm not a tree hugger in any capacity, we would do our future generations a HUGE favor if we would start using less resources, and use resources with a better footprint for nature. Less breeding would be even better, but that should be addressed in Asia and a couple other places.

Sadly though, the only group which is politically correct to force depopulation upon is white folks, who have the slowest population growth. Just as the case for carbon emissions, the worst offenders are the least likely to be targeted.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, gwalchmai said:

Sadly though, the only group which is politically correct to force depopulation upon is white folks, who have the slowest population growth. Just as the case for carbon emissions, the worst offenders are the least likely to be targeted.

 

True indeed. And this would need a world-wide effort, which brings us to the UN, and they screwed us over many times.

When it comes to using less fossil fuels in the western world through environmental policies like high taxes on gas, as being done in Europe, I do not agree with this path.

The consumption of crude oil will not be lower when western countries use less. Less demand of oil in our markets results in more supply world wide. More supply and less demand result in a lower price. A lower price means that countries with lower buying power and with less advanced emission control system can now buy more oil at a lower price, and they will use it with a worse ecological footprint.

Hence, any environmental policies will only work if all countries would be on the same page, and that will NEVER happen. The result is, that all fossil fuels will be used and burned until nothing is left. The only option we have is using and burning it in western countries where emission control system do a better job, or hand most of the the remaining resources to Asia and other places that will do a much dirtier job while doing so.

Bill Gates is right when it comes to population control, but I don't agree with any of his assumed measures.

In my perfect world, we would need more and better ecological education, world wide. Leave people with a choice. Teach them responsibility instead of making them dependent on the government by dumbing them down. Make them understand why it is better to have no kids, or one kid at max. Encourage this by offering better tax breaks for those that don't have kids or only one over those that breed like rabbits.

Granted, for this we would need a social security system that doesn't rely on future generations to pay for it, and that alone can't happen without a major economical crisis that no politician wants on his record, and nobody will vote for to begin with.

Humans are destructive predators. There is a reason why we are at the end of the food chain, even though we are not the strongest species around. In my mind there is no way out of our destiny. We will **** this planet up, one way or another.

Edited by crockett
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

we are not 'Saving The Earth' when we have damaged The Earth enough for it to notice it will simply Shake us all off like Fleas,

 

we are trying to Save ourselves and until every Nation kicks in Equally it can`t happen.

and anything Bill Gates says won`t change that.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think that man is a drop in the bucket, our delusions of grandeur don't amount to a hill of beans.

For example, one single volcano in Hawaii emits more sulfur per day than all the diesels in the US combined.

I have not seen estimates for the one in Iceland, but that will be a huge number as well. I suspect they don't mention it because anyone who can do basic math would start to ask why we bother with our silly environment worship.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If world climate warms, areas in northern Canada, Alaska, and Siberia could have growing seasons extended and become new breadbaskets.

The number one factor - by far - affecting the earth’s climate is 90+ million miles away.

The number two factor affecting the earth’s climate is underfoot. Several miles most places, not at all some places - volcanos.

”Powers that be” have taken an extremely short view of climate change because the short view provides ammunition to manipulate human behavior.

For a bit more perspective consider this graph:

82B4D9C2-BA4F-4D03-93AC-2C217C1C37D0.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also need to understand why CO2 does not act as a “green house gas”. Those who studied semiconductor or solid state physics understand that when an electron is pumped from the valence band to the conduction band it falls back to the valence band emitting a photon whose energy is a function of the band gap. This is how solid state lasers and LEDs work along with the chips that make electronics work. Now on to CO2, it has been used and continues to be used in heavy duty laser machining of metals and ceramics. When the power is removed it stops. Now if we look at the atmosphere CO2 concentrations are about 400 ppm or 4 CO2 molecules out of 10000. If a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon with sufficient energy Ike IR from the sun it emits a photon. For CO2 to hold heat all photons need to strike other CO2 molecules but with only 4 out of 10000 targets available that are a few billionths of an inch in size it isn’t going to happen. 
 

In the summer especially in the south and east we don’t go out on a summers evening and say man the CO2 is really high tonight, it’s the humidity and that cannot be taxed nor do the big industrial giants make any new money sucking humidity out of the atmosphere.

 

 

Edited by jmax
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Fog said:

I really think that man is a drop in the bucket, our delusions of grandeur don't amount to a hill of beans.

For example, one single volcano in Hawaii emits more sulfur per day than all the diesels in the US combined.

I have not seen estimates for the one in Iceland, but that will be a huge number as well. I suspect they don't mention it because anyone who can do basic math would start to ask why we bother with our silly environment worship.

 

Volcanoes are not active continuously and these are factors we can't control. What we can control is the amount of emissions that we add to the mix.

Earth was in balance for the longest time, until we started our industrial revolution, and our population exploded in the last 200 years. The ecological trail we are leaving behind is astronomical. What we do in the US is only one part of it. Did you see how other countries deal with their trail? In person?

Watch the video below, completely and without skipping. What you see in the end is called a disproportionate parabolic run. This population explosion with all the emissions and demands we create is not sustainable on so many levels.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by crockett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, railfancwb said:

If world climate warms, areas in northern Canada, Alaska, and Siberia could have growing seasons extended and become new breadbaskets.

The number one factor - by far - affecting the earth’s climate is 90+ million miles away.

The number two factor affecting the earth’s climate is underfoot. Several miles most places, not at all some places - volcanos.

”Powers that be” have taken an extremely short view of climate change because the short view provides ammunition to manipulate human behavior.

For a bit more perspective consider this graph:

82B4D9C2-BA4F-4D03-93AC-2C217C1C37D0.jpeg

 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

 

 

TL;DR: According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

 

 

volcano-v-fossilfuels-1750-2013-lrg_0.pn

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Global Warming is so 1990's. It is Climate Change now, and every Greeny and their minions fly on private jets to lands far obscure to pat each others virtue on it.

All it takes is taxing Americans ,who have very low emissions overall, to make China and other third world $h!+holes to change their polluting ways.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, crockett said:

 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

 

 

TL;DR: According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

 

 

volcano-v-fossilfuels-1750-2013-lrg_0.pn

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities

 

If you quote government sources I'll dismiss it right off, they have been caught cooking the books, they don't give grants to anyone that won't toe the line. 

The numbers in the chart are wrong and deliberately misleading, it is a lie.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Fog said:

If you quote government sources I'll dismiss it right off, they have been caught cooking the books, they don't give grants to anyone that won't toe the line. 

The numbers in the chart are wrong and deliberately misleading, it is a lie.

 

 

Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

 

 

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3


American Chemical Society
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4


American Geophysical Union
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5


American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6


American Meteorological Society
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7


American Physical Society
"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8


The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

 

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International Academies: Joint Statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10


U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11

 

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”

 

 

That was 2015. new study finds 100% agreement:

We are talking INTERANTINAL scientist!

 

Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

https://www.zmescience.com/science/denialists-100-consensus-anthropogenic-global-warming/

University of Florida researcher James Powell looked at 11,602 articles, analyzing their titles, abstracts, and content. Initially, he only found a few handfuls whose titles left an open possibility of their authors rejecting man-made climate change. Then, on closer analysis, none did.

 

 

OVER 10,000 articles from international scientists. It is literally impossible to dismiss the work of over 10,000 scientist world wide. The word naïve comes to mind.

Many get funding from private hand. In countries like Germany, many instances of research are not allowed to be funded by any parties.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, crockett said:

 

Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

 

 

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3


American Chemical Society
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4


American Geophysical Union
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5


American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6


American Meteorological Society
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7


American Physical Society
"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8


The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

 

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International Academies: Joint Statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10


U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11

 

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”

 

 

That was 2015. new study finds 100% agreement:

We are talking INTERANTINAL scientist!

 

Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

https://www.zmescience.com/science/denialists-100-consensus-anthropogenic-global-warming/

University of Florida researcher James Powell looked at 11,602 articles, analyzing their titles, abstracts, and content. Initially, he only found a few handfuls whose titles left an open possibility of their authors rejecting man-made climate change. Then, on closer analysis, none did.

 

 

OVER 10,000 articles from international scientists. It is literally impossible to dismiss the work of over 10,000 scientist world wide. The word naïve comes to mind.

Many get funding from private hand. In countries like Germany, many instances of research are not allowed to be funded by any parties.

 

 

The late Jerry Pournelle was a skeptic about the global warming aka climate change for several reasons. A major one being that the base information from which the projections were supposedly made was not released for peer review because it was proprietary - even though it was generated primarily using tax dollars. He suggested that about 10% of the money used to fund such studies be devoted to disproving them. When research grant renewal depends upon the grantee finding what the grantor expected/hoped would be found, is it really surprising that the findings fit

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the money. The environmental movement starting in the late fifties and early sixties was funded by the USSR and Middle East countries. They used a variety of ways to get the money spent, not least of which was funding research. With the USSR the aim was get us to cripple ourselves, with the Middle East it was to keep us buying their oil. They used the money to get a strong and easy foothold in our humanist minded universities.

As the cult of environmentalism gained traction in the universities the Democrat party got the idea they could use it to advance their control of the country. By the seventies it was firmly entrenched and the march to have government save us with a bunch of laws was basically a stampede.

Once we reached the nineties enough people had been snookered that they had pretty much free reign to get anything as long as they claimed it helped the environment. China had watched all of this and made sure to keep funding and promoting the cult of environmentalism, while cozying up to and buying politicians from both sides of aisle. 

The drive to "save the environment" has been one of the big guns that has pounded away at our national strength. It will be our demise if we don't wise up and realize it's a sham.

It would be really neat if we could all wear organic cotton, and live off of fruits and berries we pick, as we dance along the path of life, without so much as stubbing our toe.

That isn't reality. 

Reality is that if we are not the biggest meanest dog on the block we will be the slaves of whoever is. We have to have the most food, the most energy, the most weapons and the most productive people or we lose. 

They want us to neuter ourselves and can't even demonstrate it will help.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, railfancwb said:

The late Jerry Pournelle was a skeptic about the global warming aka climate change for several reasons. A major one being that the base information from which the projections were supposedly made was not released for peer review because it was proprietary - even though it was generated primarily using tax dollars. He suggested that about 10% of the money used to fund such studies be devoted to disproving them. When research grant renewal depends upon the grantee finding what the grantor expected/hoped would be found, is it really surprising that the findings fit

 

Did you read my entire post? Over 10,000 studies and articles from around the world are in agreement that humans cause the climate change, the majority from outside the US.

Jerry Pournelle is dead, and he was a journalist for the most part. What studies did he do on the matter? Nada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Fog said:

Follow the money. The environmental movement starting in the late fifties and early sixties was funded by the USSR and Middle East countries. They used a variety of ways to get the money spent, not least of which was funding research. With the USSR the aim was get us to cripple ourselves, with the Middle East it was to keep us buying their oil. They used the money to get a strong and easy foothold in our humanist minded universities.

As the cult of environmentalism gained traction in the universities the Democrat party got the idea they could use it to advance their control of the country. By the seventies it was firmly entrenched and the march to have government save us with a bunch of laws was basically a stampede.

Once we reached the nineties enough people had been snookered that they had pretty much free reign to get anything as long as they claimed it helped the environment. China had watched all of this and made sure to keep funding and promoting the cult of environmentalism, while cozying up to and buying politicians from both sides of aisle. 

The drive to "save the environment" has been one of the big guns that has pounded away at our national strength. It will be our demise if we don't wise up and realize it's a sham.

It would be really neat if we could all wear organic cotton, and live off of fruits and berries we pick, as we dance along the path of life, without so much as stubbing our toe.

That isn't reality. 

Reality is that if we are not the biggest meanest dog on the block we will be the slaves of whoever is. We have to have the most food, the most energy, the most weapons and the most productive people or we lose. 

They want us to neuter ourselves and can't even demonstrate it will help.

 

All generalized drivel, and you know that.

There is no 'follow the money' on over 10,000 studies, coming from well over 100 countries. It comes from countless different sources. Claiming that all of them must be biased in the same single way is impossible, and ignorant.

Its now just getting to a point of believe systems. As long as you want to believe that humans don't have a major negative impact on nature, nothing will change that.

Not everything is black or white, and not everything has to do with US Democrats or liberals. If you would come with these claims in Europe, nobody would take you serious. Not every country is ridden by political bias and agenda driven funding.

I'm not talking about how we can or should deal with ecological problems or how this is politically twisted, I'm only talking about the proven fact that we - as humans - have a huge negative impact on nature, including our climate, world wide, by excessively burning and using our fossil fuel resources at a high rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, crockett said:

 

Did you read my entire post? Over 10,000 studies and articles from around the world are in agreement that humans cause the climate change, the majority from outside the US.

Jerry Pournelle is dead, and he was a journalist for the most part. What studies did he do on the matter? Nada.

Who funded the studies?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/7/2021 at 6:02 PM, crockett said:

 

When they talk about GLOBAL warming, that does not account for REGIONAL events like a winter storm in North America. Global worming is the average temperature rise of the air and the sea, world wide, year to year, decade to decade.

This graph is based on simple temperature measurements around the globe and the result is reality, if we like it or not:

 

Global Temperature Report for 2019 - Berkeley Earth

 

 

While we can argue all day long what exactly is causing this rise, the majority of scientists agree that it is linked to our actions and our population growth.

The majority of scientists also agree that every degree in temperature increase worldwide has an impact on our weather, sea levels, likelihood of storms and flooding.

While I know that a bunch of political parties take advantage of this scenario and yet another power grab or tax hike, it is irrational to dismiss this issue on all levels.

This planet, its resources and its environmental sustainability can't house 7.6 BILLION people in the long run, let alone the amount of humans we will see in the future, without major effects on nature.

While I'm not a tree hugger in any capacity, we would do our future generations a HUGE favor if we would start using less resources, and use resources with a better footprint for nature. Less breeding would be even better, but that should be addressed in Asia and a couple other places.

 

 

 

 

This is what we call confirmation bias. It's looking for that which supports our pre-conceived notions. Here we take a 169 year slice of information, and decide it's reliable in what it represents.

Which it isn't. It's just catching temps on one of their normal upwards swings, which will inevitably be followed by a downward swing, as it always does.

How about looking at 2000 years of temp data??image.png.ee29e8027fbc1e7487c7f175d0f8638e.png

 

Temps of this planet rise and fall. Looking at 169 years of information is like looking at one hair on someone's head, and deciding you know enough to understand that person.

How about looking at an even longer time span?

Global Warming

Only ignorant hubris makes humans believe they effect the earth's temperatures.

Want the truth??? What really effects our temps, other than the earth's natural cycles?

May be an image of text that says 'You live here...'

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry but majority rule consensus is not science as in real science a hypothesis is developed and tested with real data. Albert Einstein published a paper after WWI where he stated that the atmosphere in would re radiate absorbed IR radiation. We have to remember that he was awarded the Nobel Prize for the photo electric effect where different colors of light (energies) could cause different materials conduct. Fast forward to the 50s and the understanding of quantum mechanics was in full steam with the development of lasers and semiconductors (chips). Radiation is a particle the behaves like a wave so heat radiated by the sun is what warms us and the planet and that heat comes from photons. If a solid is heated by the sun it holds its heat for a period of time because it is a constrained system where absorbed photons are emitted with numerous atomic targets in close proximity. That solid will cool as photons are emitted at the surface back into the atmosphere where their energy is basically lost.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Please Donate To TBS

    Please donate to TBS.
    Your support is needed and it is greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...