9. That Thunberg brat has quite an interesting family-tree. Look it up yourself, but let's just say she didn't just got public through grassroots and didn't coincidentally became the face of this entire propaganda.10. If the people pushing for it truly believed in it, they would make sure to be a good example and not fly to "climate-meetings" with their private-jets and all that jizz.11. The entire scientific field is heavily politicised currently and the peer-review system is flawed. Or in short, this entire thing is a mere pretence to achieve political aims. So even if climate change would be a legit problem, it will not be solved this way as it's not in the interest of those who are using the current propaganda.
-Nothing that has driven climate change in the past can explain what's driving it now.-Things that play a bigger role than humans alter over the course of thousands (if not millions) of years so they can't explain the warming that we're experiencing now.-Tree ring data not matching temperature data isn't "falsifying data"-Stations are inaccurate with regards to weather but not climate (look up the central limit theorem).-We produce very little CO2 compared to the rest of the biosphere but the CO2 produced by the atmosphere gets re-absorbed during photosynthesis so it's in equilibrium. Plants can absorb some of the excess CO2 that we produce but not all of it because when CO2 is released by the biosphere via the decomposition of plant matter, it also releases nitrates, phosphates and potassium that plants need to grow but when we burn CO2 we don't, disrupting the equilibrium and making plant growth limited by other factors. So no we aren't responsible for the release of most CO2 BUT we are responsible for the increase in the steady state concentration.-You can be sure but you're still wrong-Economic factors caused the decline of nuclear power, not environmentalists. -The risks you mentioned are a drop in the barrel when compared to the danger posed by pumping CO2 in the atmosphere. And unlike the other doomsday predictions this is backed by scientific evidence.-The peer reviewed system is flawed (no shit, no system is perfect) but it beats some random internet crank-In short, you're full of shit.-
Nobody denies what a greenhouse effect is, the argument is whether or not it's natural or manmade. All scientists following correct procedures with adequate data have found that we are responsible, even those whose employers had an agenda.
@Twalli "Nobody denies what a greenhouse effect is..."I wish that were true. There are several examples on this question."... political bias and an agenda...""... Venus and Mars have also been experiencing the same thing...""... people are getting rich off this shit...""... forces outside of human control.""... Volcanoes... The Sun is getting bigger and hotter. "etc.
@goaded They deny that we are experiencing a greenhouse effect, but they do agree on what constitutes one.
Except climate scientists have looked into what caused climate change in the past and there really isn't anything that drove it in the past that can explain what's driving it now.www.nature.com/.../s41586-019-1401-2
@Ad_Quid_Orator So, the last one occurred before science, before recordings, etc, and they couldn't understand why? Shocking. Most say they can't find a reason for it now, and attribute it to multiple other things besides human involvement, and people still say "man made"? Also, the sources for that article are, IIRC, not peer reviewed, and done while being funded by climate change organizations. That may not make all of their opinions invalid, but it sure casts some doubt as to the credibility.
Actually that article is from nature which is peer reviewed and what they found was that a global pattern of warming such that we are experiencing now isn't precedented over the course of at least the past 2000 years.
It was confusing for a lot of people who didn't understand why "global warming" was resulting in more severe winters. Even given the year-on-year rise in average temperatures "climate change" is easier to grasp. No one is removing "man made" from the equation which is why industrial combines have their knickers in a twist over it. But as the deniers like to say "It's all about making money."
Thanks for the MHO! :)
LOL, quite the facetious answer! There’s nothing like heading south on I-75 just past Detroit and smelling the smoke/vapor you see. At night, the flames are pretty.
Those called fireworks in the hood, bet you all miss out on that where you be from? And shit, far as the smell after a bit you won't even notice it, YOLO !! What doesn't kill us makes us stronger. Motor City..
People are still lighting them off. No joke, I’ve been in Oakland county, Wayne County, and Macomb County over the last 2 weeks, and people have lit them off. I was previously referring to the smoke/vapors/flames from the industrial plant just south of Detroit on I-75.
I know what you were talking about. Wow so you got none of that. ~groan~
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
There's no such thing as a free market, and the petrochemical industry gets about $8bn in subsidies from the US government every year (about 2/5 NASA's entire budget).
I wonder who the idiot is who rejects science and downvoted me?
Sorry to inform you its all in vein when oil companies like bp and exxon pollute more than you can recycle in tens of thousands of years. Grow up
@Jackieboi Well I also go on to say that I don't believe humanity has all that much impact on Global Warming, so it's more about me trying to do my small part than it is about actually making a big impact...
Not trying to shit on you, just think you're utterly wasting your time. You wanna make a difference? Educate yourself before you vote, pay attention to politics.
@Jackieboi I'm a political science guy, myself, so yeah. For future reference, telling someone to grow up makes it seem like you are shitting on them.
I apologize. It comes so natural because most enviromentalists i meet dont have a f clue.
Correction; the loudest voices THAT YOU'VE HEARD. In the developing world people are struggling because of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl4Uv9_7KJE
Some newspapers might have been, but scientific literature was not.journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1"An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
The atmosphere is but a thin whisp on the planet and we have released enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to increase the concentration to levels that are higher then they've been in the past 20 million years (and back then the world was a lot warmer).
I agree with everything you said, except for the Earth existing after humanity is gone from Earth. Humanity and Earth will disappear from this location at about the same time.
@mrkdvsn Unlikely we're the sixth great extinction and we're sprinting towards that faster than Usain Bolt could imagine.
Except solar output is decreasing.
Humans causing climate change now doesn't mean that it couldn't have been caused by other things in the past; this is a false dichotomy.
Why look for the "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" stretch answer when there is an in your face obvious answer right in front of your nose. It's a natural cycle. Do humans have some affect on it? Probably. Let's say they do. So what? We can't even predict the weather right 2 days in a row. We are going to do something about a natural cycle that has been going on for at least 2 billion years no matter how much we have our taxes raised. MAKE ME LAUGH!
It's not A natural cycle, there are many cycles that drive the planetary climate and using algorithms like Fourier transforms we can deduce what impact each has had on the climate and how the climate would change if left to its' own devices. But guess what, the pattern of warming doesn't match unless you factor in CO2 emissions. Weather happens over a short term but climate happens over a long term. That's like saying that because I can't predict the outcome of a coin flip two times in a row I can't predict that it will come up heads 50% (+ or - 5%) with 1,000,000 flips (look up the central limit theorem).
Call me back when the world ends. Until then I think it's a political scare tactic to make people feel dependent on government and get them to part with more taxes and more liberty. Humans survived just fine for hundreds of thousands of years of climate change. In fact they thrived.
Not really, climate change has devastated human populations in the past.
Yes, as we can clearly observe today, the climate change that has been going on for billions of years wiped out the human race.
Saying that it adversely impacted people isn't saying it wiped out the human race. But once it came damn near close (look up the Toba super-volcano)
A volcano eruption is a traumatic immediate event and not the same as the cycle of gradual climate change that takes place over centuries or millennia giving people plenty of time to adapt and even improving life for many of them. So called "scientists" -- who are actually shills for the climate change political left -- have been predicting the apocalypse "within 12 years" since at least the 1970s when that fake news article came out in Time magazine about how the world was going to freeze solid within a decade. People like Al Gore don't help your cause any. Since the time he announced the world would end from climate change around 2005 I think, unless everyone gave up their homes, cars, meat, and everything else they owned and moved into caves, he has acquired probably 3 more private jets and a slew of houses on every continent. It's no surprised they changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change" right about the time they realized that every "scientific" theory they were promoting could no longer be covered because of the fact that the earth was actually cooling. Scientists know shit about long term climate trends.
According to Gore the world isn't supposed to be here anymore. Well the world didn't end, but he sure made a fortune off of the hoax.
While not as traumatic as a volcanic eruption, what we're going through now is a more rapid change than we've seen in over 2 million years. As for the predictions made in the 1970s, those were based on the assumptions that the population and carbon footprint per individual would continue to grow with increasing marginal returns. However, while the carbon footprint per individual is still increasing, it has reached and inflection point and now it's increasing with diminishing marginal returns. In short, the predictions didn't become true because they were necessarily wrong but because people listened.
If and when the world comes to a crashing end I'll be the first to admit I was wrong (that is humor). In the meantime, every day I wake up and it's still here, I feel vindicated.
Follow the money? Not a bad idea. Who's getting richer, scientists or petrochemical companies?
@goaded Oh smack-down!!!
@goaded Scientists being fed millions to research something. Nah, nothing to gain there.
Right. There isn't. Refuse collectors get paid millions to collect refuse, it's a job that needs to be done. Scientists would be happy to research anything, but they need equipment, and they expect to be paid, just like anyone else. Not many scientists are millionaires.
Carbon and nitrogen in the soil is an essential nutrient for plants to grow. That is true. TOO MUCH carbon/nitrogen in the soil is toxic (try to grow tomatoes in soil with too much nitrogen/carbon and see what happens). Similar to our atmosphere: there's a balance that naturally occurs over thousands of years but with the introduction of the automobile and destroying natural resources that help mitigate damage to the atmosphere, we're producing TOO MUCH of these elements.
-The majority of warming occurred after 1940-As the concentration of CO2 increases, the temperature will increase with diminishing returns but as the temperature increases the impact increases with increasing marginal return.-Drought induced by climate change will offset the benefits provided by increasing CO2www.nasa.gov/.../nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops-The primary nutrients that limit plant growth are N, P and K, not carbon dioxide availability.-Most models have underestimated climate change.https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm-The sea ice in Antarctica is increasing because melting ice from the continent has been dumping fresh water into the Southern Ocean dropping the salinity which in turn rose the freezing temperature.-The apparent pause was caused by the orbital decay of the satellites. They measured the temperature later and later in the day (when it was cooler) and when it was corrected for that, the pause went away.
No, a supervulcan was
@DamnSam It was still a natural cause, just as the warming of the Earth is natural.
Milankovich cycles were and using forier transforms, we can deduce that what drove the ice ages (alterations to the Earth's orbit) are not what's driving the recent warming trend.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Are you so sure about that? Stories about the Ice ages always contain legends of long hot summers preceding them.
Which stories are you talking about?
@Ad_Quid_Orator Stories told by the American Indians, the Inuit, and other peoples who still remember their ancient traditions.
That's a generic statement; which stories are you talking about.
It’s not only record hot days. There is much more to the process which points to humans such as new flora developing that killing out pre existing flora that help sustain certain ecosystems and the migration of animals from their natural habitats.
@AuroraRoseat So, What is the solution in your book?
The earth can change its temperature, but not rapidly, not nearly to the degree it is changing. The change is slow enough animals can adapt. This rapid change is not allowing that to happen.
@Twalli No living organisms dont adapt to such harsh environments over time. Life exists on earth because it was the perfect conditions Life doesn't adapt to survive on venus. It just dies
With smaller and slower changes, lives do adapt. That's why animals exist even though we aren't in an ice age. They adapted to warmer climates that came about naturally.
Hmmm... Isn't that our modern civilization is based on hydrocarbons?
Are you retarded?
@jojouzumaki That is true, but human activity only account for 4% of CO2. Also, at only one part of in 300 of the atmosphere, CO2 is a trace gas and has no measurable effect on temperature. The sun, which has a variable output, is the major contributor to variations in temperature. Also, earth's green house gas is water vapor; not CO2. Furthermore, for billions of years, the earth's atmosphere has been losing CO2 and is now CO2 starved. It would be better for plants and therefore us, if there 2 to 5 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere. 450 million years ago there was about 12 to times as much CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature was about the same. There is little, if any coordination between atmospheric temperature and CO2 levels. Also, we may be near the end of the 12,000 year long interglacial warm period and , when it ends, we will return to our millions of year long Ice Age. And, there are indications that we may be entering into another mini Ice Age so cold, not heat, should be our major concern.
Ow... kay... I'm yet to see your qualifications as a climatologist.
I can't predict whether a coin will be heads or tails but if I flipped it 1000 times I could predict that it won't come up heads +60% of the time.
@Ad_Quid_Orator false equivalence
No, the central limit theorem applies to climate as it does coin flips.
@Ad_Quid_Orator no sir
Actually it does. Single measurements may be unreliable but when you take more and more measurements the mean will approach the actual value.
@Ad_Quid_Orator I agree with that statement but that's not the same as predicting the future with whether models.
But CLIMATE models have been reliable.https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
@Ad_Quid_Orator they can't predict the recurrence of ilnina or el Nino. That a much shorter time frame to work with.
Two papers failed to predict them but others did.www.technocracy.news/.../
oops wrong linkwww.scirp.org/.../paperinformation.aspx
@Ad_Quid_Orator I don't follow links but lets just agree to disagree.
@DDpsy Boy, that escalated quickly!
@Ad_Quid_Orator What do you mean, "How so?". How do you think? They made it all up! Just like any other story you make up... Snow White, Little Red Riding Hood, Alice In Wonderland, the bible.
Whoa! You went one too far there.
@dandee55 What, Snow White?
Is that why as CO2 increased temperature increased as well and the thermal stratification of the atmosphere is consistent with a greenhouse effect?
@Ad_Quid_Orator No, it's why you listen to bullshit "scientists" that don't know what they're talking about! What'd you want everyone to do, stop exhaling? The planet's been going through heating up and cooling phases for BILLIONS of years!! Now, all of a sudden, it's OUR fault!! Gimmie a break!!!
Yeah our planet has gone through climate change for billions of years but did it ever occur to you that climate scientists actually looked at what was causing those changes and utilized algorithms like Fourier transforms to determine how each was affecting the climate? And guess what, nothing that drove climate change in the past can explain what is happening now.
@Ad_Quid_Orator BULLSHIT!! So, how is what we're doing here on this planet causing the other planets to heat up, too? YOUR "scientists" aren't TELLING you THAT are they? My driving 2 miles to the store instead of walking it is causing Saturn to heat up? I don't think so!!
Mars and Jupiter aren't getting warmer and solar output is decreasing www.technocracy.news/.../ Not only that, if it was the sun, the upper layers of the atmosphere would be heating faster than the lower ones but instead they're cooling while the lower layer is warming. This is because infrared radiation is re-absorbed by CO2 in the lower atmosphere warming while not reaching the upper layers, causing them to cool down. So I can't say what's causing the warming on Saturn (or find a source that actually said it was warming) but I can tell you it's CO2 on Earth.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Yeah, sure!! That's what BULLSHIT scientists say! It IS the Sun that's getting warmer, not us!! It goes through phases every 30,000 years (if I remember correctly). It gets warmer, then it gets cooler, then it gets warmer again. Right now, it's getting warmer!Well, if its CO2 (which it isn't!!), stop exhaling!! That will cause all the plants to die and that will be the end of our air supply! Then, you won't need to worry about exhaling!!
You remembered incorrectly. According to scientists, he sun doesn't go through as 30,000 year cycle, Earths' axial precession goes through 25,000 year cycles with a temperature difference of up to 7 degrees C. With this pattern following a sin wave function the maximum rate of temperature change would be.04 degrees C per century. The Earth is warming 25 times faster. "Well, if its CO2 (which it isn't!!), stop exhaling!!" In order for me to breathe, I have to eat and that food would have had to have been produced by a plant that took CO2 from the atmosphere so breathing doesn't release a net quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. But unless you're using biofuels, we don't have to grow anything to burn fuel.
@Ad_Quid_Orator Here, kid, learn something from a REAL scientist!! https://youtu.be/RZlICdawHRA
Actually, the "pause" never happened. What did happen was that the orbital velocity of the satellites measuring the sea surface temperature decreased slightly so they measured the temperature of a given location later in the day making the average sea surface temperature seem increasingly cooler than it actually was. When they corrected for this, the pause went away. Well, I guess we know why this guy only lasted one semester at CU Boulder and it's not because of the liberal environment; it's because when it comes to understanding how the Earth works, we're next to none [https://www. usnews. com/education/best-global-universities/geosciences] and his BS couldn't handle the scrutiny (I mean come on, I'm a grad student and even I could tell he was full of shit). I mean maybe he could try to peddle his garbage at some mediocre planetary science department (like the ones at Berkeley, Harvard, Princeton, MIT, etc...) but try that in Boulder and we'll roast you alive with an electric broiler. #GoBuffs
[https://www. carbonbrief. org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998]
To some degree yes, but not to the degree it is at now.