Climate Change: You can deny, but you can't hide.

2200. Prove me wrong.

 

It is exactly. How then, by that definition, is anything human beings produce unnatural? Are bird's nests "unnatural"?

 

Now I understand what you mean by "Chinese hoax".

Joe Biden claimed to have worked on the Paris Climate Deal with a dead Chinaman.

Joe Biden Claims to Have Worked on 2016 Paris Climate Deal with Chinese Leader who Died in 1997

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-...hinese-leader-deng-xiaoping-died-1997-1488915

You should have just said that.

 

What amazes me is that 3% of scientists deny that the global climate changes at all.

 

Be careful. You don't want to be the last guy to make fun of Joe Biden before his diagnosis is made public.

 

I am not getting into this conversation because it a conversation on how we define the word "unnatural" Everything is part of nature - this is where the conversation you are trying to have begins and ends.

The question I am addressing is things that damage nature - to the detriment of human wellbeing.

 

Great. We're on the same page. Human beings would net-benefit from atmospheric CO2 between 1200ppm and 1600ppm; as well as, global temperatures as warm as they were during the Roman high period or even the Phoenician high period.
One of the best ways to mitigate a real pollution problem like agricultural run off, and the side affects of putting chemicals on our crops, is to increase atmospheric CO2.

We do not live in a climatologically optimum time period, and we are not headed in the wrong direction.

 

Which does nothing to refute my point. The AGW alarmist crowd is full of greedy, power hungry bastards, who do not care a damn about people or climate. Of course corporations are greedy as well, but you must acknowledge many of them are green energy corps, who are taking advantage of all the greenbacks flooding into their pockets in the form of taxpayer funded subsides, tax loopholes and rebates.

 

I know, you cannot seem to educate yourself, I said "you should try it." Clearly you won't, and I'm just not going to hold your hand.

 

Rational Americans acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem (not the Chinese hoax of the fringe crackpots' fantasy) and responsible and knowledgeable folks at municipal, state, and federal level now recognize the need to honestly confront it but Florida, where sensible measures are especially critical and right-wing Governor DeSantis has taken on the challenge, has just suffered a serious set-back:

There is a special urgency in the 'Dangling Appendage' State.

 

Amazing as it may be, there are ideologues so hidebound to their dogma that they persist in calling gobbledegook irrefutable science, and still fantasize that anthropogenic climate change or some such loony notion is real. Hardcore crackpots have to face the ubiquitous reality that climate change is a natural phenomena and no matter how much data they invent about it being something else won't change that. Think about this, we all have to live here, do you think that if there were more to this than divisive politics we wouldn't be concerned. The earth is four and a half billion years old and has been through hundreds of thousands of climatic events up to massive wipeouts where all flora and fauna were replaced. We have only been here for a nanosecond in the earth's life and will be gone in less time than it takes to wink comparatively speaking.The earth is a huge living and breathing organism and we are not even a hair on the ass of a pathogen that could cause it to have the sniffles. You have to ask yourself who has something to gain from this farce and what will they gain. They have run out of real things to intimidate us with all of which really do have the power to exterminate us but them as well. So what is the next best thing? To create a globally threatening boogeyman that has suddenly and menacingly occurred that requires immediate action with no time for inquiry or debate. It's all so clever, it's like being able to threaten someone with an empty gun, are they willing to roll the dice and call you on it?

 

So, when is eco-doomsday, according to "rational Americans" ?

Are "rational Americans" a majority or a minority of Americans ?

 

I cite the overwhelming preponderance of empirical data compiled and studied by the most knowledgeable in climatological science - just as I would defer to such a level of consensus in medicine, biology, and other scientific disciplines.

As has been inevitable, diehard deniers in political office are now, increasingly, forced to confront reality.

It obviously is insufficient for ideologues who have an overwhelming emotional affinity for the irrational.

 

Can I start a #GoFundMe page to save myself from climate change? It's scaring the crap outta me I'm being serious I'll give a healthy percentage of it to Bernie Sanders and Greta Thunberg I swear to god.

 

But you can't answer basic questions like WHEN? ALL of the eco-doomsday dates have come and gone.
WHEN are we going to see the kind of sea level rise that Al Gore showed us in "An Inconvenient Truth" ?
WHEN is beachfront property going to sell for pennies on the dollar as woke people sell off ahead of sea level rise ?
WHEN is Martha's Vineyard going to be evacuated ?

You claim to base your opinion of precise scientific not-opinion, but you can't even answer the first question.
WHEN?

 

A very eloquent warm pile of horse flop, nice!!!!

 

What untruths have i spouted? Please let me know.
[QUOTE="557, post: 1071461590, member: 79214”]
It’s dogmatism on display. Yet you keep coming back criticizing others for behavior you exhibit over and over. [/quote]
I’m not pretending to fully comprehend the science behind global warming. I defer to the scientific consensus. Just like when I take my car to the shop, I don’t pretend to know how my car works. That’s why I’m paying people to make sure it is working properly.

The person I was responding to claimed that humans are not contributing to global warming. I asked him to explain why NASA scientists are telling a different story. He didn’t really have an answer to that. Which is typical of a big-mouth pretend know-it-all Trumper. Trumpets like to pretend they are geniuses but they are know-nothings. You can always tell a know-nothing by the fact that they claim to know everything.
[QUOTE="557, post: 1071461590, member: 79214“]
I’m just saying, if you cared about the issue as much as you say, you would not use such tactics.[/QUOTE]
“I’m just saying” - what every idiot says when he’s struggling to make a point.

 

For some nearly 50 years some global warming "person" (1*) has popped up and told us we would all die in 10 years if we dont go back to the stone age.

We should have died 5 times over according to them.

But we are still here. It is quite apparent they dont know what they are talking about, or just plain lied!!!!!

1* I have been warned I cant use the the actual description I would like to.

 

Hmmm. Hard to decipher this format but I’ll give it a shot.

You are calling people know nothings in a thread based on lack of knowledge. You don’t care. The fact you don’t care demonstrates facts don’t matter to you.

You didn’t expect a serious response because you erroneously assumed I’m a Trumper. I laid out the whole false premise your side believes unquestionably. Nobody has been able to dispute my demonstration of those facts. Instead they continue to launch ad hominem attacks. You don’t care. You don’t care about truth, only a narrative.

You erroneously assumed I believe AGW is a false premise based on....nothing. I’ve never stated such here. You proudly claim appeal to authority, yet you can’t read what I write and comprehend it well enough to not make grave errors in your responses.

I’ve demonstrated my point repeatedly. You can’t address my point. So you proceed to more ad hominem. This is a pattern with warmers when called out on peddling false information or being complicit in it’s dissemination. It’s as predictable as clockwork. And quite amusing I must say.

 

I can tell you why "NASA scientists" say anthropogenic global warming is real - money.

Money is probably the #1 factor, but there are more incentives than just $$. There is publishing, tenure, prestige, and groupthink.

Science is not about "consensus", it is about falsification. It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, if any aspect of the underlying assumptions are falsified - the theory is scientifically invalid.

The theory of AGW does not stand up against observations. It's that simple.

Here is a debate from intelligencesquaredus (IQ2US) from 2007, pitting one if your NOAA guys, Gavin Schmidt vs one if my favorite climate scientists MIT professor Dr. Richard Lindzen.

At the end of the debate they poll the audience to compare their pre/post debate views on the subject.

Your side lost by 16%.

More people came into the debate believing AGW was real (57%), after the debate that number had dropped to 42%.

On the other side 30% came to the debate believing AGW theiry was false. Post debate, that number rose to 46%.

 

Appealing to ignorance is a desperate plea for a panoptic paralysis, since no scientific discipline, as a human quest, can ever attain an encyclopedic understanding of natural phenomena.

Complexity is not an excuse for surrender.

Beware the fakes who bray their simplistic hokum to adoring, bobble-headed pifflewits.

"Climate change is a big scam for a
lot of people to make a lot of money!"
​

Ideological nutters can throw their tantrums over scientists, local, state and federal policymakers, the US military, and anyone else who is confronting the climate crisis, realists in general, but it is the ruthless money boys who clearly cannon afford the luxury of entertaining crackpot notions concerning Chinese hoaxes, etc.

 

Forgot to link the video...

People came away from this debate siding against the alarmists...

Sorry, when subjected to scrutiny and falsification, the science and empirical data does not support AGW.

 

Actually, it's because they're scientists and focused on empirical evidence, not because they are among those who profit enormously by peddling fossil fuels, or ideologues spouting their crackpot dogma.

When Jim Bridenstine studied the data of climatologists, he stopped parroting the fake party line of nut job politicians who pander to fanatics.

There is hope for even the most seemingly incorrigible and/or thoroughly brainwashed.

Knowledge is good!

 

I look forward to the day (which I'm brimming with confidence that I'll live to see) when the alarmists try to tell us that anthropogenic global warming "was never a mainstream idea amongst the scientific community".

 

did Weather Warfare in Vietnam.



Today I see contrails that use to not occur, not from Edward's Air Force Base considering the direction and paths taken.
Edward's home of the American Skunk Works.

More Weather Warfare science? oopsies passing as "climate change"?
Fine metallic Particles heated with HAARP ( High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program) ever so slightly can keep the rain away as happens.
"They" have other means too.
Ref.:

​

Moi
Just Because I'm A Conspiracist
Doesn't Mean It Isn't

​

Has Major HAARP Facilities ​