[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Normal

Global warming kooks need to introduce true science into the subject, not Al Gore wanna bees who only do google searches and look for campaign dollars. There are two plausible causes mentioned in most articles. The orbital path of the Earth and carbon emissions. Neither has been proven, although there can’t be much argument against Earth’s history and orbital concerns. Then you have spinning with the conflation of terms like “warming”, “climate change” and “weather” interchanged with “climate”. Fortunately most are aware of the ploys.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The science is there, but you may find it doesn't match your preconceptions.

And, a broken clock is Only correct twice a day. And, only for a moment. Also, without a working clock you will never know when those fleeting moments occur seems that with a broken clock even when it is correct, it is still worthless.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The science is there, but you may find it doesn't match your preconceptions.

And, a broken clock is Only correct twice a day. And, only for a moment. Also, without a working clock you will never know when those fleeting moments occur seems that with a broken clock even when it is correct, it is still worthless.

Right back at ya

[MrChip72]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

You really believe that?????

Who's the "denier" now??????

Your argument against climate change is that a guy that got fired from teaching at a third rate college for saying things that you believe to be true? So you're saying the several thousands of other scientists around the world that haven't been fired are just making crap up for fun and that one guy who is now unemployable is correct in his findings?

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by MrChip72

Your argument against climate change is that a guy that got fired from teaching at a third rate college for saying things that you believe to be true? So you're saying the several thousands of other scientists around the world that haven't been fired are just making crap up for fun and that one guy who is now unemployable is correct in his findings?

No, my argument is not against "climate change", the climate has been changing for millions of years. My argument is against anthropomorphic climate change, and particularly that the powers that be have somehow managed to convince the ignorant and weak minded public that this is a "fact" and that we should spend a hundred TRILLION dollars to "combat" it, which you can be sure will only benefit them'.

One way to accomplish this is by bribing and threatening the experts that could educate the public as to the truth by creating the culture that Blue's son, a climate scientist experienced----loss of tenure for not signing on to the party line, as well as losing government grants and publications. I realize that the truly indoctrinated into this manmade climate myth will disagree, but consider this: Try to apply for a government grant for your research that intends to prove that climate change has nothing to do with fossil fuels----rotsa ruck---be honest, we all know the outcome of that. And since these are the professors that teach our young people, they get to indoctrinate a new generation.

Next, since the media are already in bed with their misguided philosophy, use them to mislead the public. Then, the corporations, reading the mood of their customers, start in with "electric vehicles", "reduced carbon footprints", "alternative fuels" and "renewable energy". And all along, those in power promoting this garbage are laughing all the way to the bank.

Now, if you want to talk science, here it is: We are currently in an ice age that began about 4.5 million years ago. During this time there have been over a dozen periods of glaciation and interglacial thaws in cycles of 60-100,000 years (and humans/hominids have survived all of them). Twenty thousand years ago, New York was under 2 miles of ice, since then we have had "global warming" and the city is ice free----so what kind of SUV did Fred Flintstone drive and did Bedrock have a coal burning power plant???? Obviously, at least to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex, this warming has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY.

Now, to throw the true believers a bone: Is it possible that human activity since the industrial revolution is altering the climate trajectory of the last 4 million years??? Sure, it's possible, but we don't have enough data to draw any conclusions. A century of weather records on one side and a chart showing 7 years of cooling on the other prove nothing about cycles that last 100,000 years. Nobody knows. But to spend $ 100 TRILLION????? We don't have the technology to fight the driving forces of the sun, Earth's orbit, and Earth's axis variations. All we can do for $100 trillion is change from burning fossil fuel in our cars to EV's that use electricity from burning fossil fuels at power plants. That and line the pockets of the powers that are benefiting from this myth and perhaps enrich warlords in the countries that supply 95% of the world's lithium.

[Kelevision]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

No, my argument is not against "climate change", the climate has been changing for millions of years. My argument is against anthropomorphic climate change, and particularly that the powers that be have somehow managed to convince the ignorant and weak minded public that this is a "fact" and that we should spend a hundred TRILLION dollars to "combat" it, which you can be sure will only benefit them'.

One way to accomplish this is by bribing and threatening the experts that could educate the public as to the truth by creating the culture that Blue's son, a climate scientist experienced----loss of tenure for not signing on to the party line, as well as losing government grants and publications. I realize that the truly indoctrinated into this manmade climate myth will disagree, but consider this: Try to apply for a government grant for your research that intends to prove that climate change has nothing to do with fossil fuels----rotsa ruck---be honest, we all know the outcome of that. And since these are the professors that teach our young people, they get to indoctrinate a new generation.

Next, since the media are already in bed with their misguided philosophy, use them to mislead the public. Then, the corporations, reading the mood of their customers, start in with "electric vehicles", "reduced carbon footprints", "alternative fuels" and "renewable energy". And all along, those in power promoting this garbage are laughing all the way to the bank.

Now, if you want to talk science, here it is: We are currently in an ice age that began about 4.5 million years ago. During this time there have been over a dozen periods of glaciation and interglacial thaws in cycles of 60-100,000 years (and humans/hominids have survived all of them). Twenty thousand years ago, New York was under 2 miles of ice, since then we have had "global warming" and the city is ice free----so what kind of SUV did Fred Flintstone drive and did Bedrock have a coal burning power plant???? Obviously, at least to anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex, this warming has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY.

Now, to throw the true believers a bone: Is it possible that human activity since the industrial revolution is altering the climate trajectory of the last 4 million years??? Sure, it's possible, but we don't have enough data to draw any conclusions. A century of weather records on one side and a chart showing 7 years of cooling on the other prove nothing about cycles that last 100,000 years. Nobody knows. But to spend $ 100 TRILLION????? We don't have the technology to fight the driving forces of the sun, Earth's orbit, and Earth's axis variations. All we can do for $100 trillion is change from burning fossil fuel in our cars to EV's that use electricity from burning fossil fuels at power plants. That and line the pockets of the powers that are benefiting from this myth and perhaps enrich warlords in the countries that supply 95% of the world's lithium.

To think that pollution hasn’t directly affected the atmosphere is naive and ignorant.

[ChicagoNative]

Interesting article related to this subject.

Divesting from Big Oil Is an Empty Gesture

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

To think that pollution hasn’t directly affected the atmosphere is naive and ignorant.

Naive and ignorant???? Your basis for this assertion?????

"Pollution" may be affecting "the atmosphere", but then again, our planet is quite resilient. Think about the amount of "pollution" put out by a single volcano, yet the planet is still here. Who's naive and ignorant now??????

[Normal]

All this controversy is over with the single eruption of a large volcano. What a waste of scientific resources to line politicians pockets. Move on…

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Naive and ignorant???? Your basis for this assertion?????

"Pollution" may be affecting "the atmosphere", but then again, our planet is quite resilient. Think about the amount of "pollution" put out by a single volcano, yet the planet is still here. Who's naive and ignorant now??????

From USGS courtesy of Scientific American:

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.

But of course, those are simply two more sources that are manipulating data in support of the Global Warming Alarmists.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Naive and ignorant???? Your basis for this assertion?????

"Pollution" may be affecting "the atmosphere", but then again, our planet is quite resilient. Think about the amount of "pollution" put out by a single volcano, yet the planet is still here. Who's naive and ignorant now??????

"Resilient". That means that if (big "if") we stopped destroying and polluting and gave the planet a chance, it might have a chance to recover. Like a person that is buried in an ant hole and has been overwhelmed by ants, that normally resilient human can only exhibit their resilience if the onslaught ceases. Otherwise, they will slowly be consumed.
Science gives us the details of how the planet or human is being damaged and consumed and can try to calculate survival to the point of no return. But the sight of the destruction caused by the ants on the human or of humans covering the earth should be obvious that, if something doesn't change, the human and the planet will both meet a sad end.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

"Resilient". That means that if (big "if") we stopped destroying and polluting and gave the planet a chance, it might have a chance to recover. Like a person that is buried in an ant hole and has been overwhelmed by ants, that normally resilient human can only exhibit their resilience if the onslaught ceases. Otherwise, they will slowly be consumed.
Science gives us the details of how the planet or human is being damaged and consumed and can try to calculate survival to the point of no return. But the sight of the destruction caused by the ants on the human or of humans covering the earth should be obvious that, if something doesn't change, the human and the planet will both meet a sad end.

The warnings about AI going Terminator on us humans is very real IMHO. I know these are just many movies that kind of have that plot. But AI but want to save the planet instead of putting up with us humans. Some James Bond villains had the same idea.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

The warnings about AI going Terminator on us humans is very real IMHO. I know these are just many movies that kind of have that plot. But AI but want to save the planet instead of putting up with us humans. Some James Bond villains had the same idea.

Maybe Drax was right

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

From USGS courtesy of Scientific American:

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.

But of course, those are simply two more sources that are manipulating data in support of the Global Warming Alarmists.

Except, volcanic eruptions are infrequent and usually small scale. On the other hand, let's take Krakatoa-----the years following it's eruption we're among the coolest of the last 200 years, including the blizzard of '88. We were talking pollution, NOT CO2. Then there was Vesuvius and Santorini

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Except, volcanic eruptions are infrequent and usually small scale. On the other hand, let's take Krakatoa-----the years following it's eruption we're among the coolest of the last 200 years, including the blizzard of '88. We were talking pollution, NOT CO2. Then there was Vesuvius and Santorini

Paragraphs four and five of the article.

[Bay Kid]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

To think that pollution hasn’t directly affected the atmosphere is naive and ignorant.

Yet they allow "controlled burning" that the smoke will effect 100,000 people.