• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Global warming science keeps making the same mistakes and proclaiming unrealistic tim

i'm one of those, except not "the cause" of terrorism. in third world countries, especially as resources for survival become more scarce, the political violence is typically present.

Very good. The first step towards..wait, that only works if you are not proud of it for some reason. Also, congratulations on further messing with the people you all claim to be so concerned about -

NEW YORK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Depression and anxiety afflict Americans who are concerned with the fate of the environment, according to a study of the mental health effects of climate change.

Most hard-hit are women and people with low incomes who worry about the planet’s long-term health, said the study published this week in the journal Global Environmental Change.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ked-to-depression-anxiety-study-idUSKBN1F738X

Congratulations - liberal policies have brought them poverty, helplessness, resentment, victimhood, and now this. That these people still listen to liberals, not really sure how to fix that.
 
People need to live in areas not prone to these type disasters. If if they do, they are responsible for rebuilding. And , we need less people, in general.

around the beginning of the 1800's, the world's population hit 1 billion. today it's 7.5 billion.
 
Very good. The first step towards..wait, that only works if you are not proud of it for some reason. Also, congratulations on further messing with the people you all claim to be so concerned about - .

not really proud, just rational. i do loathe 8th grade-level mockery of complex issues, that's for sure.
 
not really proud, just rational. i do loathe 8th grade-level mockery of complex issues, that's for sure.

By complex I take it you mean a hypothesis where the premise consistently fails every test but has to be right so it must be complex?
 
The foot of snow I had in my yard just melted over the last two days. Global warming! Global warming!
 
not really proud, just rational. i do loathe 8th grade-level mockery of complex issues, that's for sure.

Lol...8th grade mockery? BS. Without going into whether climate change is actually man made...

You have government and liberal funded scientists telling us there is a problem and the "solution " is more control by the people telling you that you have a problem. That, alone, ought to prick your BS meter.

These same people that tell me that all these people couldn't possibly be in cahoots are the same ones that tell me the government and scientists are in cahoots with big pharma.
 
Lol...8th grade mockery? BS. Without going into whether climate change is actually man made...

You have government and liberal funded scientists telling us there is a problem and the "solution " is more control by the people telling you that you have a problem. That, alone, ought to prick your BS meter.

These same people that tell me that all these people couldn't possibly be in cahoots are the same ones that tell me the government and scientists are in cahoots with big pharma.

forget the politics, are we experiencing more intense weather patterns? man-made or not, are we?
 
forget the politics, are we experiencing more intense weather patterns? man-made or not, are we?

Nope, the cubicle generation just freaks out whenever the "climate" isn't a thermostat controlled 72 degrees - then they get hysterical and call ALL weather "extreme weather"


Go back to the early 1700's, now that was some "extreme weather" - climate is measured over thousands and thousands of years - no "weatherman" that is less than 5000 years old should even be talking
 
forget the politics, are we experiencing more intense weather patterns? man-made or not, are we?

And ElftardBlackJewIndianPrincess has a new handle.

Not surprising considering the hundreds of IP addresses said clown has used here.
 
forget the politics, are we experiencing more intense weather patterns? man-made or not, are we?

No. Just like everything else in the digital age, you think things are happening more often because they are being reported more often, you are reading about it more often (in more places) and the media is preying on your subconscious to generate more clicks (and more revenue).

For something like 7 years the U.S. did not have one category 3 hurricane hit it's shores. For SEVEN YEARS. Which is one of the longest droughts since they started measuring hurricanes. Then, in 2017, we have 3 hurricanes hit our shores (all category 3 or higher) and all of a sudden you think "this is happening more frequently". It's not.

The exact same thing happened in this country when (for a while) child abductions were being reported like gang fire. There was a TV show about it. News were reporting them more because they generated eyeballs. And all the parents around this country said "this is a problem, we need to hyper-protect our children because there are so many bad guys out there". Same. Exact. Thing.

And the evidence then, like the true evidence today is that child abductions are not happening any more frequently than the 1950's or the 1960's. But the whole country and every parent didn't believe that. Why? What psychology was taking place to make parents think this? And how did it happen?

The same exact psychology is happening today with climate. The over reporting. The exaggeration by our media in the race to get clicks/eyeballs. All leads to the false premise that extreme weather events are happening more frequently and are stronger and more intense. Any study that confirms this is reported by the media. Any study that refutes it is buried and never reported by the media.

This mass hysteria has existed over many things at many times in human history. It is in our nature. Just be smart enough to call it what it is.
 
Nope, the cubicle generation just freaks out whenever the "climate" isn't a thermostat controlled 72 degrees - then they get hysterical and call ALL weather "extreme weather"


Go back to the early 1700's, now that was some "extreme weather" - climate is measured over thousands and thousands of years - no "weatherman" that is less than 5000 years old should even be talking

during that extreme weather, were there crop failures? hunger? disease? migration of population? what was the impact on our population?
 
No. Just like everything else in the digital age, you think things are happening more often because they are being reported more often, you are reading about it more often (in more places) and the media is preying on your subconscious to generate more clicks (and more revenue).

For something like 7 years the U.S. did not have one category 3 hurricane hit it's shores. For SEVEN YEARS. Which is one of the longest droughts since they started measuring hurricanes. Then, in 2017, we have 3 hurricanes hit our shores (all category 3 or higher) and all of a sudden you think "this is happening more frequently". It's not.

The exact same thing happened in this country when (for a while) child abductions were being reported like gang fire. There was a TV show about it. News were reporting them more because they generated eyeballs. And all the parents around this country said "this is a problem, we need to hyper-protect our children because there are so many bad guys out there". Same. Exact. Thing.

And the evidence then, like the true evidence today is that child abductions are not happening any more frequently than the 1950's or the 1960's. But the whole country and every parent didn't believe that. Why? What psychology was taking place to make parents think this? And how did it happen?

The same exact psychology is happening today with climate. The over reporting. The exaggeration by our media in the race to get clicks/eyeballs. All leads to the false premise that extreme weather events are happening more frequently and are stronger and more intense. Any study that confirms this is reported by the media. Any study that refutes it is buried and never reported by the media.

This mass hysteria has existed over many things at many times in human history. It is in our nature. Just be smart enough to call it what it is.

do you hold that the academy of sciences are propagating a conspiracy? should we thank the handful of billionaires and oil executives that are exposing it for what it is?
 
do you hold that the academy of sciences are propagating a conspiracy? should we thank the handful of billionaires and oil executives that are exposing it for what it is?

There is no conspiracy, just picking and choosing which papers to report on.

What paper (without exaggerations and models and massaging the numbers) says we have had MORE extreme weather events? Sure, you get the "well, it was warmer water in the Gulf of Mexico and that powered the hurricane" bullshit. But if that was the only cause than all July hurricanes would be stronger than November ones (which they are not).

You asked "do I see it with my own eyes" and I answered you I don't. You are falling for it even though you know the weather when you were a kid was just as up down and sideways as it is today.

Weather CHANGE does not mean weather EXTREME. And just picking and choosing where extreme weather occurs and saying "I told you so" doesn't work with me.

I don't understand what climate scientists want me to believe. That weather is changing? check. That the world is getting warmer? check.

The problem is the conclusions AFTER these two facts. First, that the world will never cool again (or the cycle will never reverse itself or find ways to counteract it). That I don't believe. Second, that mankind hasn't ALWAYS and ALWAYS WILL adapt to climate change and that somehow now, that adaptation is too costly or inconvenient for mankind to survive, embrace or accept as a civilization. Again, that point I don't believe either.

I mean really, are you arrogant enough to think we can STOP or SLOW climate change? Are you really buying into that answer? Because I can tell you right now 8 billion people on this world are NOT going to cooperate on that to even come CLOSE to making a difference. Not even close.

You are not following the dollars and cents answer behind all of this. There are THREE major economic powers on this earth and TWO of them require any/all fossil fuel energy to be imported and ONE (the United States) does not. You can't wrap your head even possibly around the idea that any way those two powers can increase energy costs while they transition towards costlier non-fossil fuel energy helps their economies?

Believe me, Europe doesn't want to move away from fossil fuels because it cares about the planet. It wants to move away from fossil fuels because it has none. And it has always hated being held over a barrel (pun intended) by Russian and Middle Eastern oil producers.

And the same goes for China. They know they have to burn the hell out of fossil fuels now to catch up but they would love to have America add a self-imposed energy tax on themselves while they catch up. Wouldn't that just be GREAT for China?

The greatest bait and switch about this entire energy discussion is what Europe and China is doing with regards to fossil fuel energy. They talk about "the planet" but it has NOTHING to do with that and everything to do with the all mighty dollar and trying to compete with America.
 
Last edited:
forget the politics, are we experiencing more intense weather patterns? man-made or not, are we?

Forget politics?

OK.

Group A tells you that you have a problem with X. The only way to fix the problem is that you give control over a signification portion of the economy, your freedom and your life to Group A.

If Group A is Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Evil corporation, you question the results, right? Replace Group A with Government and you have no issues? Who is introducing politics? Not me.

Even IF you accept that there are more intense weather patterns, how confident can you be that the models that have predicted the specific consequences (certain temperature increases) are all wrong to a significant degree? The people that are wrong about this may or may not be wrong about that too, yes? OR wrong about the cause. if they are wrong about the cause, you have messed with the economy and freedoms for no reason because their "solutions" will not work.

Let's look at the Kyoto treaty. It didn't, really, limit emissions because countries could buy from countries who weren't exceeding theirs. Q: If the problem is the emissions why would this work? A: it doesn't. We all know what it is. But you don't want "politics" in what has become a political not scientific issue.
 
Oh, Group A gives you "data" that they have adjusted, but won't give you the actual data they used to "discover" your "problem" Oh, and 40 years ago, they were telling you that you had the exact opposite problem.
 
during that extreme weather, were there crop failures? hunger? disease? migration of population? what was the impact on our population?


The first mercury thermometer was invented in 1714 A.D. The barometer was invented in 1643 A.D.
This opened up a completely new scientific realm. Weather observations grew into the science of
meteorology. One of the early American meteorologists was Charles Peirce. He meticulously recorded
temperatures at three set times per day for a span exceeding 50 years. In 1847, his weather data was
published in A Meteorological Account of the Weather in Philadelphia from January 1, 1790 to
January 1 1847.

1 Additionally, this book also contained supplementary chapters that included a
chronology of early accounts of abnormal weather observations throughout the world. This weather
chronology began over 1,800 years ago. I have combined and organized these accounts in chronological
order.

The book by Charles Peirce was the initial source of the material used in this work. All other works cited
are note numbered. Because this chronology begins almost eighteen hundred years ago, part of the
purpose of including other references was to compare them against Pierce’s chronology. Examples are
the freezing of the Black Sea in 762 A.D., the heavy rainstorms in Great Britain in (553 A.D., 918 A.D.,
1222 A.D., 1233 A.D., 1330 A.D., 1338 A.D., and 1348 A.D.), and the winters in which the River
Thames froze in London.

At least that was the original intent! But as I delved deeper into validating the chronology given by
Charles Peirce, I came across so many other different but complementary chronologies, I just found it
hard to resist the desire of combining them into a greater global weather chronology. As a result, I just let
this work go where it may and I followed.

The focus of this paper is early (historic) weather events. The chronology cuts off at the year 1900 A.D.
Recent weather events are fairly well documented. Excluded from the chronology are events caused by
man (such as the 1642 Kaifeng flood which killed 300,000 Chinese, and the 1938 Yellow River flood that
caused 500,000 Japanese/Chinese fatalities) and events caused by other non-weather related catastrophes
(such as tsunami waves caused by earthquakes/volcanoes). The chronology does include major volcano
induced global cooling events.

This chronology begins at 0 A.D. A few of the source chronologies actual date some weather events as
far back as 1,800 B.C. I have left these out of this chronology because the further one goes back in time,
the less certain the dates. This is because these chronologies use calendars (such as AM – Anno Mundi),
and the events in many cases were derived using a variety of ancient calendars systems. And date
uncertainty is introduced in calendar conversion. This is also due to the inexactness within the narrative
descriptions.

Why is a chronological listing of weather events of value? If one wishes to peer into the future, then a
firm grasp of the past events is a key to that gateway. This is intrinsically true for the scientific
underpinnings of weather and climate.



6 A.D. A famine struck Rome, Italy.
57, 91
7 A.D. There was a great flood in the valley of Thames in England; many persons were drowned and
cattle destroyed.47, 92
[Other sources place this event in the year 9 A.D.] The Thames destroyed a great number of the
inhabitants of its banks, 9 years after Christ.40, 41, 43
9 A.D. There was a great overflow of River Humber in England, flooding the country all round.47, 92
In the 43rd year of Augustus Caesar, a terrible famine struck Rome, Italy. Augustus sent away not only
strangers but also most of his servants out of the city.72
10 A.D. – 15 A.D. Ireland.
In Ireland, general fruitlessness [poor harvest], gave rise to famine and great mortality.57, 91
14 A.D. There was a great overflow of River Severn in England, causing great damage.47, 92
Also refer to the section 14 A.D. – 15 A.D. for information on the famine in Ireland during that timeframe.
15 A.D. In Rome, Italy, the Tiber River overflowed and did such serious damage that it was proposed in
the Roman Senate to diminish its waters by diverting some of the chief tributaries.47, 92
Also refer to the section 14 A.D. – 15 A.D. for information on the famine in Ireland during that timeframe.
29 A.D. There was a great overflow of River Trent in England.
47, 92
33 A.D. There was a great overflow of River Dee in England, caused great damage at Chester.47, 92
37 A.D. There was an overflow of River Medway in England, and many cattle drowned.47, 92
42 A.D. In Judea [Israel], the area was desolated by a famine.57, 91
Awful famine in Egypt in 42 A.D.90
43 A.D. In the year 43, a violent storm almost destroyed Emperor Claudius near the islands of the
southern coast of France [Claudius sailed from Rome to visit England. He was almost shipwrecked
twice, first off the Ligurian coast and then near Isles d’Hyères. The storms were caused by the
penetrating cold wind, known as the mistral.]79
46 A.D. In Syria, there was a very great famine.72
48 A.D. The River Thames in England flooded and 10,000 drowned
The River Thames in England overflowed. The water extended through four counties. 10,000 people
drowned and there was much damage to property.47, 92
50 A.D. There was a severe winter in England and all rivers and lakes froze from November to April.28
51 A.D. A great famine in Greece.
57, 72, 91
52 A.D. A great famine struck Rome, Italy.
72
54 A.D. A grievous famine struck England.
57, 91
68 A.D. [In England, there was a volcanic eruption followed by an inundation of the sea [tsunami]. The
Isle of Wight separated from Hampshire.92]
70 A.D. Tacitus reports that an unprecedented drought took place in the year 70. There was no water in
the north of Gaul and the Rhine River in Germany was barely seaworthy [because of the low water
level].79
76 A.D. A famine caused great scarcity in Ireland.
57, 91
79 A.D. – 88 A.D. Italy.
There was a terrible period of suffering from 79 to 88 A.D. when the Roman world seemed to be shaken
to its physical foundations. A devastating drought and famine swept over the Italian peninsula. It is said
that 10,000 citizens died in a single day at Rome during its height. Tacitus left a grim picture of the
distress and suffering. Houses were filled with dead bodies and the streets with funerals.84
80 A.D. There was a great overflow of River Severn in England; many people and cattle were
drowned.40, 41, 43, 47, 92
Also refer to the section 79 A.D. – 88 A.D. for information on the drought and famine in Italy during that timeframe.
86 A.D. In 86 A.D., there was a great overflow of River Medway in England; causing a loss of life.47, 92
[Another source place this flood in the year 87.] In the year 87, the Medway overflowed its banks, and
drowned the country.40, 43
Also refer to the section 79 A.D. – 88 A.D. for information on the drought and famine in Italy during that timeframe.
95 A.D. The Humber River in England overflowed and laid the adjacent country for 50 miles (80
kilometers) under water.40, 41,43, 47, 92
115 A.D. There was an overflow of River Severn in England; a great loss of life and cattle.47, 92
The River Severn in England overflowed and drowned 5,000 head of cattle and people in their
125 A.D. There was an overflow of River Humber in England.
41, 43, 47
[Another reference give the year as
123 A.D.40]
130 A.D. A great hailstorm struck England with hailstones 12 inches (30 centimeters) in diameter.28
In England, there were a hailstorm with hailstones 12 inches “about”, fatal to people and cattle.57, 93
131 A.D. In Dorsetshire England, there was an inundation of the sea, which came 20-miles inland. Great
loss of life and property.47, 92
134 A.D. A severe winter struck England and the River Thames was frozen for 2 months.28
The River Thames in England frozen for two months.47, 93
153 A.D. England experienced three months of frost and the River Thames froze.28
The River Thames and all rivers in England frozen nearly three months.47, 93
167 A.D. A great inundation of the Tiber River in Italy.
72
173 A.D. In England, three month’s frost followed by dearth.47, 93
A famine struck England after severe frost and snow.57, 91
207 A.D. In England, hail, “bigger than ducks’ eggs.” 57, 93
214 A.D. The River Trent in England, flooded and overflowed its banks 20 miles (32 kilometers) on each
side and drowned many people.
28, 40, 41, 43
In England, the Trent valley overflowed. Great destruction, extending 20 miles from normal course of
stream.47
218 A.D. In Northumberland, England, there was a great flood of the River Tweed; much damage. 47, 92
In England, the River Tweed had a sudden inundation, and destroyed a considerable number of the
inhabitants on its banks.40, 41, 43
220 A.D. The winter was very severe in England in 220 A.D. with a frost lasting five months.28, 40, 41, 42, 43
In Britain, frost lasted five months continuously.47, 92
[Another source places this event in the year 202, which I believe is a misprint.] The winter in 202 was
intensely cold for four months. The River Thames in England was frozen for 9 weeks.1
.250 A.D. In England, the River Ouse in Bedfordshire overflowed and drowned many people and
cattle.40, 41, 43, 47
The winter was very similar to the winter of 220 A.D. and the River Thames in England was frozen for
approximately the same length of time.1
The River Thames in England frozen nine weeks.2, 40, 41, 43, 47, 93
Severe winter struck England. The River Thames was frozen for 9 weeks.28
264 A.D. In Britain, hail; each stone one pound or above in weight.57, 93
268 A.D. In England, the River Humber overflowed and did great damage.47, 92 [Other sources place this
flood in the year 269.
40, 43]
271 A.D. Of Rome in 484, or in the year 271 of the Christian era, the winter was so severe, that the snow
covered the square in Rome, Italy to a height of several feet for 40 days.
276 A.D. In the year 276, the climate in Britain was significantly warmer than present. Wines were first
made in Britain in this year.128
277 A.D. In London, England, a storm killed several people.40, 41, 43, 56
288 A.D. A famine struck all through Britain.
57, 91
Winter of 290 / 291 A.D. The winter was very similar to the winter of 220 A.D. and the River Thames in
England was frozen for approximately the same length of time.1
Most of the rivers in Britain frozen six weeks.
2, 40, 41, 43, 47, 93
The winter in England was very cold. Most rivers froze for 6 weeks.28
298 A.D. In Wales, there was a great drought.47
A famine struck Wales.
57, 91
299 A.D. Towards 299, the winter was very harsh in the north of Gaul [During the time of Ancient
Rome, Gaul was a region of Western Europe encompassing present day France, Luxembourg and
Belgium, most of Switzerland, the western part of Northern Italy, as well as the parts of the Netherlands
and Germany on the left bank of the Rhine.].
62
300 A.D. - 336 A.D. Cyprus
In Cyprus, there was a thirty-six year drought; expelled all the inhabitants.47
The great island of Cyprus was 36 years without rain. A great famine ensued. Inhabitants forsook the
island and fled.72
301 A.D. In the winter, the Black Sea was frozen entirely over.
1
In Winchester, England, there was a major storm.40, 41, 56
Also refer to the section 300 A.D. – 336 A.D. for information on the drought and famine in Cyprus during that
timeframe.

323 A.D. In England, the inhabitants of Ferne Island off the coast of Northumberland were destroyed by
an inundation of the sea.47
In England in 323, there was a flood that destroyed all the inhabitants in Ferne Island, 7 miles southwest
of Holy Island.40,
329 A.D. The winter was severe in England. Most rivers were frozen for 6 weeks and there was deep
snow in Wales.28
341 A.D. The snow in Britain was 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep and stayed on the ground for 6 weeks.28
344 A.D. In England, hailstorm, “stones much bigger than hens’ eggs.” 41, 43, 56, 57, 93
349 A.D. In England, 420 houses in Carlisle, blown down by a storm and many people killed.40, 41, 43, 56
352 A.D. In England, the Severn valley flooded; great loss.47, 92 [Other sources place this flood in the
year 350.
40, 43]
353 A.D. In 353, there was an inundation in Cheshire, England by which 3,000 persons and an
innumerable quantity of cattle perished.90
354 A.D. In 354 in northern Gaul, the spring rains, were more frequent than usual, causing the streams to
swell.79
355 A.D. The harsh winter of 355 in northern Gaul caused a large number of people to freeze to death.79
Winter of 356 / 357 A.D. During the winter of 356-357 in northern Gaul, the Meuse River was frozen
during the months of December and January. The winter had been preceded by a hot, dry summer.79
357 A.D. The summer drought of 357 allowed individuals to ford and cross the Rhine River in
Germany.


500 more pages - go read

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/weather1.pdf
 
This is because the snowflake generation sees "history" as anything that happened in the previous 24 hours, no further - they have the attention span of a gnat.
 
There is no conspiracy, just picking and choosing which papers to report on.

What paper (without exaggerations and models and massaging the numbers) says we have had MORE extreme weather events? Sure, you get the "well, it was warmer water in the Gulf of Mexico and that powered the hurricane" bullshit. But if that was the only cause than all July hurricanes would be stronger than November ones (which they are not).

You asked "do I see it with my own eyes" and I answered you I don't. You are falling for it even though you know the weather when you were a kid was just as up down and sideways as it is today.

Weather CHANGE does not mean weather EXTREME. And just picking and choosing where extreme weather occurs and saying "I told you so" doesn't work with me.

I don't understand what climate scientists want me to believe. That weather is changing? check. That the world is getting warmer? check.

The problem is the conclusions AFTER these two facts. First, that the world will never cool again (or the cycle will never reverse itself or find ways to counteract it). That I don't believe. Second, that mankind hasn't ALWAYS and ALWAYS WILL adapt to climate change and that somehow now, that adaptation is too costly or inconvenient for mankind to survive, embrace or accept as a civilization. Again, that point I don't believe either.

I mean really, are you arrogant enough to think we can STOP or SLOW climate change? Are you really buying into that answer? Because I can tell you right now 8 billion people on this world are NOT going to cooperate on that to even come CLOSE to making a difference. Not even close.

You are not following the dollars and cents answer behind all of this. There are THREE major economic powers on this earth and TWO of them require any/all fossil fuel energy to be imported and ONE (the United States) does not. You can't wrap your head even possibly around the idea that any way those two powers can increase energy costs while they transition towards costlier non-fossil fuel energy helps their economies?

Believe me, Europe doesn't want to move away from fossil fuels because it cares about the planet. It wants to move away from fossil fuels because it has none. And it has always hated being held over a barrel (pun intended) by Russian and Middle Eastern oil producers.

And the same goes for China. They know they have to burn the hell out of fossil fuels now to catch up but they would love to have America add a self-imposed energy tax on themselves while they catch up. Wouldn't that just be GREAT for China?

The greatest bait and switch about this entire energy discussion is what Europe and China is doing with regards to fossil fuel energy. They talk about "the planet" but it has NOTHING to do with that and everything to do with the all mighty dollar and trying to compete with America.

it's my understanding that it's pretty well scientific concensus that climate change is occurring, so i don't know how accurate your assessment is that people are picking and choosing what articles from the scientific community moreso than they are choosing which media outlets they choose to hear from. nasa has pretty well established that they hold as fact that there are trends in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the global temperature is rising, artic ice is diminishing and sea levels are rising. my main point being i don't see the scientific community in discord or divided about these factors.

i'm with you on the end result, i don't think anyone can make any full conclusions up front. science builds data and makes predictions. if those predictions continue with accuracy, then i argue that their explanations hold validity.

even if man is a culprit, like you i think the damage is already done. i'm not too worried about the political ramifications as much as i am concerned that we're headed for some (for lack of a better word) apocalyptic ramifications. i don't know that the earth will never cool again, i think an ice age scenario is more plausible than a scorched earth. there have been mass extinctions before, those are my fears.
 
it's my understanding that it's pretty well scientific concensus that climate change is occurring, so i don't know how accurate your assessment is that people are picking and choosing what articles from the scientific community moreso than they are choosing which media outlets they choose to hear from. nasa has pretty well established that they hold as fact that there are trends in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the global temperature is rising, artic ice is diminishing and sea levels are rising. my main point being i don't see the scientific community in discord or divided about these factors.

i'm with you on the end result, i don't think anyone can make any full conclusions up front. science builds data and makes predictions. if those predictions continue with accuracy, then i argue that their explanations hold validity.

even if man is a culprit, like you i think the damage is already done. i'm not too worried about the political ramifications as much as i am concerned that we're headed for some (for lack of a better word) apocalyptic ramifications. i don't know that the earth will never cool again, i think an ice age scenario is more plausible than a scorched earth. there have been mass extinctions before, those are my fears.

The problem with climate science is that none of the previous predictions (like those in 1995, 2000 and 2005) are happening. The "sky is falling" rhetoric is outrageous and has been from the very beginning. You admit it yourself, you are worried about an "apocalyptic" change. And there is NO SCIENCE to back this up. None. It is on the fringes of the debate and the most wacko of the crazed scientists.

We are not going to have an apocalyptic event when if comes to CO2 emissions. We might have an apocalyptic volcano. We might have an earthquake. We might have category 5 hurricanes. But that is NOT avoidable. Taxing the hell out of fossil fuels, providing billions or trillions of dollars from 1st world nations to 3rd world nations to pay for the difference between cheaper fossil fuels vs. alternative energy isn't going to stop the great earthquake or great volcano or great hurricane. It's just not.

Global environmentalists keep arguing the same nonsense. "Look at all the damage caused by weather that could be avoided". And it just can't. We want to live on the beach, we will have to understand nature will knock it down and we will have to rebuild. We want to live in hurricane allay? We will have to rebuild. We want to live downwind from an active volcano? We will have to rebuild. On top of a fault line? Rebuild.

All we can hope as a civilization is every time we rebuild it's with newer and better technology and smarter than it was before. Galveston has NEVER rebuilt from the 1900 hurricane.

You want to promote something that actually could save lives? Quit taxing fossil fuels and tell all those millions of people that mass migrated out of the Rust Belt to sunnier and warmer areas to come back. The northeast will take them.

There isn't enough ******* water in Las Vegas and Arizona. California is a disaster waiting to happen. Seattle will be annihilated when Mt. Rainier blows it's lid. New Orleans and Florida are just waiting for a big hurricane to hit.

Why the **** did people move there in the first place? Native American's didn't live the **** on the beach. Natives in Puerto Rico KNEW not to live down on the water. Why? Because they had hurricanes too. Way the **** before humanity built it's first combustible engine.

All we have in the Northeast is snow. And it's not even that bad. Burn your ******* (cheap) gas heat, stay at home and wait it out. No one dies. No economy flops. Jobs will still be there in the morning.

This isn't about weather. It's about mankind's ability to ADAPT and sometimes adaptation isn't easy or what pansy assed environmentalists want.
 
GLOBAL COOLING ALERT!


Scientists Get Buried In Snow At Davos While Lecturing On Global Warming

Scientists have once again set up a mock Arctic base camp to educate world leaders about man-made global warming at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Climate scientists hope their mock camp illustrates how global warming could impact the Arctic, but the “Gore effect” may make it harder to get the message across. Davos has seen frigid temperatures along with about six feet of snow in the last six days.

There was so much snow, authorities evacuated some neighborhoods due to avalanche concerns, CNBC reported. Global elites headed to the conference had to force their way through heavy snow drifts.

CNBC reported that “heavy snow had already blocked the rail line through the Alps from Zurich, and villages along the route were at the highest level of avalanche alert.” Davos visitors were forced off trains and onto “a half-hour bus trip on back roads around the blockage and then loading them onto a crowded red commuter train that ran the rest of the way into Davos.”

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/23/davos-scientists-snow-switzerland-world-economic-forum/

RTX4HTFA-e1516735367572.jpg


-------------------

It just doesn't get any funnier than this
 
Scientists at the University of Manchester have found a surprising global warming culprit – sandwiches. In the first study of its kind, the researchers carried out an in-depth audit of various sandwiches throughout their life cycles and found the triangular meals could be responsible for the equivalent annual carbon emissions of 8.6 million cars in Britain alone.

https://newatlas.com/sandwiches-global-warming/53128/

Hard to believe this is the first study of it's kind.

Sandwiches. If I made this up I'd be accused of absurdity. What a criminal waste of resources this AGW scam continues to be. Would anyone be studying the carbon footprint lifecycle of sandwiches if the driving premise wasn't man-made global warming?
 
https://newatlas.com/sandwiches-global-warming/53128/

Hard to believe this is the first study of it's kind.

Sandwiches. If I made this up I'd be accused of absurdity. What a criminal waste of resources this AGW scam continues to be. Would anyone be studying the carbon footprint lifecycle of sandwiches if the driving premise wasn't man-made global warming?

I always suspected sandwiches as being a key component of global warming, hurricanes, extreme cold, drought, excessive rain, crop failures, and the ultimate end of human life on earth.

The Earl of Sandwich was well-known as a genocidal maniac, devout in his belief that humans needed to be expunged from the planet. He brilliantly devised his murderous invention, the sandwich, which would exact its toll of death and destruction over the course of many years. Hey, he didn't want to be one of those killed by his own invention.

Unfortunately for the Earl of Sandwich, the Duke of Mustard intervened with his tasty component. Mustard is a well-known minimizing agent for the horrendous costs of sandwiches. But for the Duke of Mustard, Sandwich's nefarious scheme to exterminate humans would have reached its denouement in the early 19th century.

https://sandwichesneedmustardandthisisfake
 
Top