rideforever Posted April 15, 2019 I don't care about global warming (save for the British weather). But I do care about the sheepling of mankind and the emotional-imminent-doom agendas that go with it. It's become big business for the media and a certain brand of "scientists" and "academia" business. And there is a group of fat lazy oafs in the middle class who have no life except to worry and cause panic, and inflict endless new sexual ideas on the young. All such people are wrong, not because of their "views" because of who they are !!! It's much easier to assess who someone is then to assess "views". It's simply far more accurate. And I notice today that a generation of woefully misinformed young people wishes to avert the Xtinction with a Rebellion, but I am afraid you guys been lied to since birth and you are better off getting skilled up and getting a job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rideforever Posted April 16, 2019 (edited) The Xtinction Rebellion people were in Paris yesterday - did they burn down Notre Dame ? https://rebellion.earth/2019/04/14/monday-15-april-extinction-rebellions-international-rebellion-to-begin-in-over-80-cities-across-at-least-33-countries/ Edited April 16, 2019 by rideforever Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) On 4/15/2019 at 11:17 AM, joeblast said: the only unprecedented state is the political one muh warming....we're going to need every last bit of it, and the co2 conjectures will be laughed out of academia before too long. Quote the so-called Maunder Minimum - a virtual cessation of sunspots between 1645 and 1715 - and severely cold temperatures during the Little Ice Age. While he could not identify the physical mechanisms that governed solar-climate relationships, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30022714 'Little Ice Age' caused by death of 55-million Indigenous people after ... Quote https://globalnews.ca/news/.../little-ice-age-death-55-million-indigenous-people-coloni... Feb 6, 2019 - Colonization of the Americas at the end of the 15th century killed so many people, it disturbed Earth's climate, according to a new study. ... World · Canada · Local ... led to global climate change and the “Little Ice Age” of the 17th century, ... This then leads to even colder temperatures and more snow which is ... and http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/01/what-caused-the-little-ice-age/ Quote However, this study showed that even if the Sun were less active, and therefore not warming the Earth as much, it would have had little effect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261 Quote European epidemics removed 90% (IQR 87–92%) of the indigenous population over the next century. This resulted in secondary succession of 55.8 Mha (IQR 39.0–78.4 Mha) of abandoned land, sequestering 7.4 Pg C (IQR 4.9–10.8 Pg C), equivalent to a decline in atmospheric CO2 of 3.5 ppm (IQR 2.3–5.1 ppm CO2). Accounting for carbon cycle feedbacks plus LUC outside the Americas gives a total 5 ppm CO2 additional uptake into the land surface in the 1500s compared to the 1400s, 47–67% of the atmospheric CO2 decline. Furthermore, we show that the global carbon budget of the 1500s cannot be balanced until large-scale vegetation regeneration in the Americas is included. The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas resulted in a human-driven global impact on the Earth System in the two centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution. and? Edited April 17, 2019 by voidisyinyang Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) LMAO wow....so high over the shark, orbital velocity required to get there much like globalists write away unsightly portions of history for schoolbooks, by hell or high water, the "scientists" will attempt to erase inconveniences in history - what, was Mike's trick to hide the decline not potent enough? they've been trying to do away with the maunder minimum for a long time now, but there's just simply too much evidence it existed and it was because of the sun. but since co2AGW is anti sun and wishes to diminish the sun's inputs as much as possible so as to leave room to bloat the co2 warming coefficient, we can see why the Maunder minimum is such a problem. cmon man, James Hansen was trying to convince me in 2002 that his equations proved beyond a doubt that man had overtaken the sun as the primary driver of the climate. if that doesnt strike you as batshit insane, then you might be batshine insane, too. this is the poisonous mindset that the globalists programmed into academia, and it has poisoned your mind too. I hope the solar minimum we're entering isnt as bad as Dr Zharkova predicts - but even if its not, it is only a matter of time before the data overwhelms these silly conjectures and attempts to manipulate away portions of history that dont fit in with the whims of central banks and their revenue streams. Edited April 19, 2019 by joeblast 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shevek Posted April 19, 2019 (edited) How climate change is pushing Central American migrants to the US Quote The northern triangle of Central America, the largest source of asylum seekers crossing the US border, is deeply affected by environmental degradation The science is indeed political. The 10 hottest years on record Quote 2018 was the fourth-hottest year on record globally, and another near-record year for U.S. weather and climate disasters. All of the years on record that were hotter or more disaster-filled came in the past decade. Quote With the five warmest years on record happening during the past five years — and the 20 warmest occurring over the past 22 — a consistent warming trend couldn’t be clearer. Meanwhile, monthly averaged atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen to 411 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory, thanks in part to an estimated 2.7 percent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Climate Change: The Facts review – our greatest threat, laid bare Quote Fossil fuel companies are the most profitable businesses man has ever known, and they engage in PR offensives, using the same consultants as tobacco companies, and the resulting uncertainty and denial, designed to safeguard profits, has narrowed our window for action. It is unforgivable. It's so easy to find ageing scientists, pay them lots of money, wheel them in front of a camera, and put them on YouTube, to cast doubt on the scientific consensus. Plus all the lobbying against local & national governments when they try to introduce measures to do something about the problem. Big Oil’s Real Agenda on Climate Change Quote How the oil majors have spent $1Bn since Paris on narrative capture and lobbying on climate The influence of these companies, (and other business and political interests) seems to have persuaded a lot of people that there is a 'globalist' conspiracy. This is just a conspiracy theory, neatly fitting into alt-right disinformation, with no facts behind it whatsoever. And then there's all the chemical pollution, plastic etc. affecting whole ecosystems, 'big agriculture', habitat destruction and so on. (But perhaps that's getting a bit 'off topic'). Although the effect of 'big agriculture' (producing cheap poor-quality food that keeps the masses in poor health), is that intensive meat production is increasing the amount of methane in the atmosphere, a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. And nature - planting forests and restoring natural habitats - may be the most powerful force we have to reduce C02. Edited April 19, 2019 by Shevek 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted April 21, 2019 good movie talks about whats really happening.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, windwalker said: good movie talks about whats really happening.... This is not science, but is a sci-fi movie about aliens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted April 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, ralis said: This is not science, but is a sci-fi movie about aliens. yep, thought it would fit here covers a lot of the ideas expressed.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted April 21, 2019 For those who watched the movie, "Ocasio-Cortez: 'World will end in 12 years' if climate change not addressed" In the movie they said 10,,, I wonder Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 23, 2019 (edited) On 4/20/2019 at 8:34 PM, windwalker said: For those who watched the movie, "Ocasio-Cortez: 'World will end in 12 years' if climate change not addressed" In the movie they said 10,,, I wonder So easy for you to confuse movies with reality! Edited April 23, 2019 by ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted April 23, 2019 (edited) Spoiler Reality's a bitch Nothing will prove the co2 catastrophe conjecture false more quickly than another Maunder But I'd be happier to have the data slowly erode it away to nothing, because its chilly enough here already Edited April 23, 2019 by joeblast Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted April 23, 2019 29 minutes ago, ralis said: So easy for you to confuse movies with reality! Common ralis, Why is it you always have to condemn others. I mean really what's the point. Sure if it makes you feel better I thought the movie was reality go for it. Always willing to help. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted April 23, 2019 (edited) 27 minutes ago, joeblast said: Reality's a bitch Yes it is, which makes it so troubling for some looking at it with an obvious bias. Don't really care for right or wrong just what has been stated and covered does not seem to accord with my understanding of what's going on. More so since in the 70s as prediction of a glacial age coming didn't pan out. Or did it ? There are some suggesting that greenhouse gases have actually prevented what's going to happen anyway, from happening at an earlier date. That is, the earth will enter into another cooling cycle as has been documented by geologists and many other disciplines that study eraths history of climatic change. Edited April 23, 2019 by windwalker 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted April 24, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, windwalker said: Yes it is, which makes it so troubling for some looking at it with an obvious bias. Don't really care for right or wrong just what has been stated and covered does not seem to accord with my understanding of what's going on. More so since in the 70s as prediction of a glacial age coming didn't pan out. Or did it ? There are some suggesting that greenhouse gases have actually prevented what's going to happen anyway, from happening at an earlier date. That is, the earth will enter into another cooling cycle as has been documented by geologists and many other disciplines that study eraths history of climatic change. Yes bias exists. Look at what you're doing. A small amount of scientists in the 1970's theorized the earth might enter a cooling phase. The majority did not. By 1980 that minority disappeared but then it became politicized. They did make a few headlines, but science marched on, and largely there was census as more data and better modeling happened. See-Please read this article written by the scientist who wrote the glacial age prediction your referring to- https://www.insidescience.org/news/my-1975-cooling-world-story-doesnt-make-todays-climate-scientists-wrong or https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm Using an old discredited minority view to justify ignoring current science is foolish. Windwalker could be right, greenhouse gases could be keeping the world warm during a cold spell. The thing is we keep pumping these gases fast and furiously into our atmosphere. If he's right, we will likely overshoot the mark and it'll lead to catastrophe. He also seems to steadily ignore modern science cause.. they're in it for the money or something.. or a subset was wrong in 1975 (see article). Again if he's right and our massive output of greenhouses is preventing and we aren't smart enough to learn in what way and how much does what. We will overshoot and devastate ourselves and planets ecosystems. Not in the short run, but not in 10,000 year run either. We can't afford to be anti-science. For some its an emotional and political issue so I don't think they'd even look at articles on the subject mentioned, even though they're the ones who brought up the 70's glacial theory, to learn the whole story hurts there paradigm. Edited April 24, 2019 by thelerner 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted April 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, thelerner said: We can't afford to be anti-science. For some its an emotional and political issue so I don't think they'd even look at articles on the subject mentioned, even though they're the ones who brought up the 70's glacial theory, to learn the whole story hurts there paradigm. Do you deny the earths climate has changed and goes through cycles. Its not about me being right or wrong. I mentioned the 70s as one data point among many as part of a discussion. The climate has changed The climate will change The climate is changing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted April 24, 2019 Just now, windwalker said: Do you deny the earths climate has changed and goes through cycles. Its not about me being right or wrong. I mentioned the 70s as one data point among many as part of a discussion. The climate has changed The climate will change The climate is changing I take it you didn't read either article. Uh huh, the climate has changed drastically over millions of years. Thats no reason to ignore human pollution and output creating disastrous affects on the planet. In the 1800's in England a town produced enough deadly smog that people died in there beds. Likewise in the 60's and 70s' many American towns were covered in smog. Today there are many cities with blackened skies, horrible smog that we, mankind, our factories are responsible for. Life spans in those cities are less, people die early, life is degraded. We can do better. In the US we solved some of the worst of it. The choking smog, acid rain, dead rivers and lakes. We did it with regulation, banning lead in gasoline, putting in catalytic converters, limiting dirty coal. Your thinking is based on eons, mine is based on recent history. The industry revolution is under 300 years old, a blink of an eye, but our output is incredible. We can choke our cities with smog and make green lands desert easily. We can listen to science, put in intelligent methods, the earlier, the less costly. Or we can put our heads in the sand, say in the 70's a minority of scientists were wrong (then they corrected themselves) or that millions years ago there inlands seas and ice ages, that's true, but it doesn't mean we ignore and not study the ways humanities vast output affects the climate; our air, our water. Mother nature may eventually deal us a bad hand in but that doesn't mean we should do it to ourselves. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted April 24, 2019 14 minutes ago, thelerner said: I take it you didn't read either article. I glanced at it. co2 levels are now reported at 411.97ppm by this site https://www.co2.earth/ Quote In the IPCC’s most pessimistic scenario, where the population booms, technology stagnates, and emissions keep rising, the atmosphere gets to a startling 2,000 ppm by about 2250. (All the IPCC scenarios presume that mankind’s impact on the atmosphere levels out by 2300.) That gives us an atmosphere last seen during the Jurassic when dinosaurs roamed, and causes an apocalyptic temperature rise of perhaps 9 degrees C (16°F). https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters The problem is not climate change, its human population which when the climate is changed enough will tend to take care of itself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 24, 2019 37 minutes ago, windwalker said: Do you deny the earths climate has changed and goes through cycles. Its not about me being right or wrong. I mentioned the 70s as one data point among many as part of a discussion. The climate has changed The climate will change The climate is changing Give it a break! To reiterate, the biosphere is a complex non-linear dynamic system which is sensitive to initial conditions. In other words, one small change in a variable such as a rise in CO2 will absolutely cause massive changes in the entire system. Everything is connected and all processes interact on some level with all other processes. That is a simplistic way of putting it or perhaps such an explanation is far too complex. Either read and learn or take your hahaha emoji's somewhere else! Also that means your Breitbart, Prager U and other propaganda BS that suits your fancy. BTW, the so called scientist that claimed that sea levels are not rising in the Pacific has been proven wrong again. Hawaii is experiencing rising ocean levels. 2 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted April 24, 2019 1 minute ago, ralis said: Hawaii is experiencing rising ocean levels. ok ralis, lets go...how much did the ocean rise? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taoist Texts Posted April 24, 2019 29 minutes ago, thelerner said: Likewise in the 60's and 70s' many American towns were covered in smog. Today there are many cities with blackened skies, horrible smog that we, mankind, our factories are responsible for. Life spans in those cities are less, people die early, life is degraded. We can do better. In the US we solved some of the worst of it. The choking smog, acid rain, dead rivers and lakes. All of this has absolutely nothing to do with global climate change. A disingenuous red herring. 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, windwalker said: I glanced at it. co2 levels are now reported at 411.97ppm by this site https://www.co2.earth/ https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters The problem is not climate change, its human population which when the climate is changed enough will tend to take care of itself. I read the paper. However, one must factor in the dynamic effects as CO2 rises. Obviously, you really don't want to understand it in which your entire worldview would be in question! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, windwalker said: ok ralis, lets go...how much did the ocean rise? You can Google it so I don't need to do your homework for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said: All of this has absolutely nothing to do with global climate change. A disingenuous red herring. You always want to make accusations and yet fail to produce one cogent rational argument. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windwalker Posted April 24, 2019 1 minute ago, ralis said: Obviously, you really don't want to understand it in which your entire worldview would be in question! Oh my you really dont know much about my world view nor do I about yours...ask me if I care your whole thing seems to be about dissing those you dont know... Dont get it....not good if you happen to do it in real life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 24, 2019 1 minute ago, windwalker said: Oh my you really dont know much about my world view nor do I about yours...ask me if I care your whole thing seems to be about dissing those you dont know... Dont get it....not good if you happen to do it in real life. What is the reason for increased human population over the last century? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
