|
|
Originally Posted by Skamba
(Post 1544805)
You made a lot of good points before, shame you have to ruin that with a conspiracy theory. http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/...size=1100x1100 |
|
Originally Posted by poormxdad
(Post 1544802)
Joe, I do not believe Tyler Durden actually writes any of these articles. He's a fictional character, as you say. Click the link in that second paragraph, the italicized one. There are quite a few links.
Or this. https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doom...founding-flaw/ I doubt "John McLean" is that author's real name. I like Burt Rutan's discussions. https://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm Credible authors, writing legitimate, peer-reviewed papers, sign their own names to the finished product. They don't use a pseudonym of any kind, much less the name of a character from a movie. |
If climate science was treated like other science the researchers would be lambasted for only seeing and reporting what they wanted to see and report. Data that does not agree with the narrative is either not reported or changed. That's not the way science works.
Here is a world-renowned biologist studying endangered species using similar confirmation bias: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/73/a0/68/7...b6254eb44f.jpg |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1544809)
Credible authors, writing legitimate, peer-reviewed papers, sign their own names to the finished product. They don't use a pseudonym of any kind, much less the name of a character from a movie.
Regardless, as presented by governments, the current round of the global war on climate change is a hoax. It's brilliant, but a hoax nonetheless. Since climate changes ever so slowly, governments don't have to create climate change goals, or show any proof of progress. They can just say "See, the climate is pretty much the same this year as last year. Give us more money." It's brilliant. I apologize for misdirecting the gun law discussion. |
Let's say Dupont developed a chemical insecticide they wanted to bring to market. And let's say they issued continuing 10-year grants to hundreds of researchers to prove the chemical was harmless to the environment. Do you think that there would be a consensus that the insecticide was harmful or harmless?
|
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 1544814)
Let's say Dupont developed a chemical insecticide they wanted to bring to market. And let's say they issued continuing 10-year grants to hundreds of researchers to prove the chemical was harmless to the environment. Do you think that there would be a consensus that the insecticide was harmful or harmless?
Spoiler: Even Oil&Gas companies say that climate change is a real thing. |
Originally Posted by poormxdad
(Post 1544812)
The peer-reviewed papers are in the link(s). Articles, in my mind, are different from papers.
Regardless, as presented by governments, the current round of the global war on climate change is a hoax. It's brilliant, but a hoax nonetheless. Since climate changes ever so slowly, governments don't have to create climate change goals, or show any proof of progress. They can just say "See, the climate is pretty much the same this year as last year. Give us more money." It's brilliant. I've had this debate with sixshooter some pages back before. Seems he still believes co2 is good for plants and/or it's not that bad. Your links on the other hand seem to point towards some other myths, e.g. the Finnish paper that was bad science, that it's cosmic rays, and that man-made climate changes have occurred before or that there's no consensus. |
What I'm saying is there's fossil data going back millions of years. Ice core data. They've got core samples from underneath the depths of the oceans. There's tree ring data. Hieroglyphs. Cave paintings. Written word, etc., that describe the atmosphere/climate going back half-a-billion years. Yet, governments are telling us that the best climate we're ever going to have just happens to be the climate we're in right now. We all should play the frickin' lottery. Wouldn't it have been more believable (even if it turned out to be wrong) that the best global climate for our current lifestyles and populations is an Earth similar to say, 10,000 years ago (made up number for this discussion), that has a mean temperature of X, O2 levels at Y, CO2 levels at Z, this much water vapor and cloud cover, this much O3, this mean ocean temp, etc., etc. But then they'd have to tell us how they're going to get us there, and how much it will cost. There would need to be goals and benchmarks. We would know if what they're spending our tax money on is working.
They can't even predict the weather precisely a week from now. |
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 1544814)
Let's say Dupont developed a chemical insecticide they wanted to bring to market. And let's say they issued continuing 10-year grants to hundreds of researchers to prove the chemical was harmless to the environment. Do you think that there would be a consensus that the insecticide was harmful or harmless?
Concrete Firm Pays $1M to Settle Metro Lawsuit Over Faulty Product Used on Silver LineA concrete company is paying $1 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit alleging it falsified test data on materials used in the multibillion-dollar expansion of the Washington region's Metrorail system. Federal prosecutors in Alexandria announced the civil settlement with Universal Concrete Products of Stowe, Pennsylvania, on Monday. The lawsuit alleged the company falsified records to hide tests showing that the concrete's air content would make it more likely to crack. The concrete has been installed during Phase II construction of Metro's Silver Line extension to Dulles International Airport and Loudoun County. Metro officials say they will have to put a special coating on the concrete to keep it from cracking. The settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing, but a company manager has already pleaded guilty in a related criminal case and been sentenced to a year in prison. We have real medical doctors telling people that men can give birth. |
Trump is fear mongering!
Facebook Post |
Imagine these pussy man-babies trying to run a country:
Facebook Post |
Originally Posted by poormxdad
(Post 1544822)
What I'm saying is there's fossil data going back millions of years. Ice core data. They've got core samples from underneath the depths of the oceans. There's tree ring data. Hieroglyphs. Cave paintings. Written word, etc., that describe the atmosphere/climate going back half-a-billion years. Yet, governments are telling us that the best climate we're ever going to have just happens to be the climate we're in right now.
Abrupt vs slow change.Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change. So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth. |
Getting back to climate change; has anyone cited a study that elevated CO2 levels have caused increased homicide rates in Baltimore and Chicago?
|
Originally Posted by Skamba
(Post 1544828)
And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.
|
Originally Posted by poormxdad
(Post 1544832)
Then why isn't there some violent climate change after every volcano eruption?
|
Trump's hateful rhetoric incites violence from the alt-right:
https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...2f&oe=5DDB9E5B https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...ff&oe=5DD28B24 https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...96&oe=5DDB9ADF https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...0a&oe=5DDBE34B https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...a9&oe=5DDF4BDC |
Originally Posted by olderguy
(Post 1544830)
Getting back to climate change; has anyone cited a study that elevated CO2 levels have caused increased homicide rates in Baltimore and Chicago?
|
imagine crying like a like pussy boy while calling for death threats and someone says the same thing back to you:
https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...5b&oe=5DE43BA3 I can't believe someone emailed Rezza such hateful alt-right violent rhetoric. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1544835)
There was in fact a study which traced Chicago homicides against temperature. I'll see if I can dig it up, but the TL;DR version is that people get more murderey the hotter it is. At the lower end, blizzards which shut down roads and trains tend to curtail (or at least delay) routine homicides, however no upper-end breakpoint was observed.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:14 PM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands