Sammitches? That makes women the largest contributor to global warming.
Global warming science keeps making the same mistakes and proclaiming unrealistic tim
- Thread starter madinsomniac
- Start date
Racist! Wait, wait ..sorry forgot we’re on ..sexual harassment!
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
This is among my biggest reasons to doubt man made climate change. The Warmists also like to spout the nonsense that temperature variations of this magnitude are unprecedented while telling you to ignore the Mid Evil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
from my lips to his ear
Pruitt Questions Whether Climate Change 'Necessarily Is A Bad Thing'
Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, wondered aloud Tuesday whether climate change might actually be good for humans in the long run
“We know that humans have most flourished during times of what? Warming trends,” Pruitt told KSNV’s Gerard Ramalho in an interview flagged by the Guardian. “So I think there’s assumptions made that because the climate is warming that that necessarily is a bad thing.”
“Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, in the year 2018?” Pruitt went on. “That’s fairly arrogant for us to think that we know exactly what it should be in 2100.”
Pruitt is not the only member of the Trump administration to question whether climate change might actually be a good thing. On a particularly cold day last year, Trump tweeted, “Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/p...-change-necessarily-is-a-bad-thing/ar-BBIPwPQ
Pruitt Questions Whether Climate Change 'Necessarily Is A Bad Thing'
Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, wondered aloud Tuesday whether climate change might actually be good for humans in the long run
“We know that humans have most flourished during times of what? Warming trends,” Pruitt told KSNV’s Gerard Ramalho in an interview flagged by the Guardian. “So I think there’s assumptions made that because the climate is warming that that necessarily is a bad thing.”
“Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, in the year 2018?” Pruitt went on. “That’s fairly arrogant for us to think that we know exactly what it should be in 2100.”
Pruitt is not the only member of the Trump administration to question whether climate change might actually be a good thing. On a particularly cold day last year, Trump tweeted, “Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/p...-change-necessarily-is-a-bad-thing/ar-BBIPwPQ
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Again -
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/
Trumps needs to clean house inside this agency ASAP. They would be just a comical nuisance if their **** didn't affect policy.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/
Trumps needs to clean house inside this agency ASAP. They would be just a comical nuisance if their **** didn't affect policy.
Once again, if I fiddled with data to show the CO2 emissions from a plant were a few tenths lower than they really are or a stack temperature was slightly lower using some of the same methods these chumps do to their data, Id be in jail....
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,931
- Reaction score
- 15,738
- Points
- 113
The problem with the so called consensus on climate change is that it’s not based on science. First of all, there is not actually a consensus. It’s just that they only count those who are already on board. Dissent is either ignored or worse.
That is the second problem. Scientist who dare question the theories are attacked personally, their careers threatened. That is anti-science. The whole basis of science is the search for fact. The scientific method demands that all theories be vigorously challenged and when another scientist points out a flaw in the theory, it is incumbent on the original scientist to go back to the drawing board and either adjust the theory to explain the anomoly, or disprove the critic’s findings.
None of this happens with climate change. They begin with the answer they want, then work backwards and cherry pick only the data that supports it and when there’s not enough of that, they simply make up the data as they did with the now debunked hockey stick chart.
It makes me laugh when i hear a liberal proclaim themselves as the party for science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Isn’t fracking science? They hate food science which develops pesticides and genetically engineers plants that can survive harsher climates. If everybody on the planet lived “organically" billions of people would starve.
Do some research on the pesticide DDT. Some liberal groups decided it was horrible and would kill people. They used political pressure, not science, and got it banned worldwide. Great. Unless you count that millions died of starvation because they alternative they were forced to use was not as effective as DDT. Then the kicker. Years later, it is proven they were wrong about DDT. Oops, our bad. Sorry your village died, but we meant well. We had a consensus!
That is the second problem. Scientist who dare question the theories are attacked personally, their careers threatened. That is anti-science. The whole basis of science is the search for fact. The scientific method demands that all theories be vigorously challenged and when another scientist points out a flaw in the theory, it is incumbent on the original scientist to go back to the drawing board and either adjust the theory to explain the anomoly, or disprove the critic’s findings.
None of this happens with climate change. They begin with the answer they want, then work backwards and cherry pick only the data that supports it and when there’s not enough of that, they simply make up the data as they did with the now debunked hockey stick chart.
It makes me laugh when i hear a liberal proclaim themselves as the party for science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Isn’t fracking science? They hate food science which develops pesticides and genetically engineers plants that can survive harsher climates. If everybody on the planet lived “organically" billions of people would starve.
Do some research on the pesticide DDT. Some liberal groups decided it was horrible and would kill people. They used political pressure, not science, and got it banned worldwide. Great. Unless you count that millions died of starvation because they alternative they were forced to use was not as effective as DDT. Then the kicker. Years later, it is proven they were wrong about DDT. Oops, our bad. Sorry your village died, but we meant well. We had a consensus!
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,078
- Reaction score
- 11,812
- Points
- 113
You mean like Rachel Carson, with her well intentioned books/thoughts that have led to systematic death and suffering -- genocide for decades?
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Global warming is going to "cool the North Atlantic and north-west Europe"..
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43713719
The contortions these warmists get into with their "models" and explanations is pathetic. There is literally no climate outcome that they won't find a global warming cause for. These "scientists" are a joke.
I await the protestations from the useful idiots about how this is very complex and you can't just make a simple assumption that the earth won't get colder from warming.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43713719
The contortions these warmists get into with their "models" and explanations is pathetic. There is literally no climate outcome that they won't find a global warming cause for. These "scientists" are a joke.
I await the protestations from the useful idiots about how this is very complex and you can't just make a simple assumption that the earth won't get colder from warming.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,598
- Reaction score
- 29,974
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
"Goddammit, you are not a climate scientist so you cannot talk about this ****!! It's waaaaay over your head, Neanderthal!!!"
/ElfiePoloOtherFakeUserName
"Elfie, you are constantly commenting on global warming, err, cooling, uhh, climate change. Are you a climate scientist??"
Weathermen can't accurately project the weather 24hrs out, do you think it's easier to project climate change over years with all the shifting currents and jetstreams? It's a tough job for sure.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,598
- Reaction score
- 29,974
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
No doubt. Look, I do not question - never have - that CO2 is a thermal agent. I don't doubt that climate scientists do their damndest to generate models that do the job. I don't doubt that massive CO2 emissions tend to warm the planet.
But for about that twentieth time, I ask: "Warm the atmosphere how much? 1[SUP]0[/SUP] centigrade?" If so, then the multi-trillion dollar burden on the developed world makes no sense. None.
2[SUP]0[/SUP] centrigrade??? Okay, time to talk ... but what about non-first world countries like India and China that build coal power plants like Starbucks builds ****** coffee houses?? Oh, China is committed to battling global warming. Yeah, committed to selling billions of dollars of government-subsidized solar panels to America and Western Europe while simultaneously building hundreds, or thousands, of petroleum and coal power plants.
Even if there was global warming, which there isn't, and if it was man-made, which it is not, I don't see why that's a bad thing. Winter is bad, summer is good. Can't grow food in the winter.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
What do you mean CO2 is a thermal agent? I don't know what massive CO2 emissions are, but whatever we are doing isn't changing the climate. I agree that climate scientists are trying to do their job. Unfortunately they think their job is to prove global warming.
CO2 is plant food.
Realistically the sun is entering a low sun spot cycle which means colder weather. If there was global warming, which there isn't, but if there was, it's simply Mother Nature's defense against the coming colder weather from the low sun spot cycle.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
C'mon, you can't, possibly, believe the sun has anything to do with the climate on Earth. FLAT EARTHER!!
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Get rid of all those belching CO2 machines!
Kill off a billion or two. Save the planet!
EPA Declares Human Breath (CO2) a Pollutant
How much does breathing contribute to climate change?
All those billions of bodies exhaling carbon dioxide with every breath really starts to add up...
8 percent of man-made worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are due to simple human breathing. The EPA says they do not want to regulate this activity … for now. But there's no chemical difference between CO2 emitted from a gasoline engine and that emitted from a human lung.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6685-epa-declares-human-breath-co2-a-pollutant
Kill off a billion or two. Save the planet!
EPA Declares Human Breath (CO2) a Pollutant
How much does breathing contribute to climate change?
All those billions of bodies exhaling carbon dioxide with every breath really starts to add up...
8 percent of man-made worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are due to simple human breathing. The EPA says they do not want to regulate this activity … for now. But there's no chemical difference between CO2 emitted from a gasoline engine and that emitted from a human lung.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/6685-epa-declares-human-breath-co2-a-pollutant
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
That article is from 2009.... come on....
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,078
- Reaction score
- 11,812
- Points
- 113
It is below freezing up here in the Great White North.
Spray your aerosols into the air!!
Sent from my SM-N950W using Steeler Nation mobile app
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
Here's the thing....
I don't care WHERE we get our energy. I really don't. The evolution of energy, on it's own supply/demand forces, will lead to non-fossil fuels. The sun is a GREAT source of energy. Hell, it's what makes all the plants on this planet grow and thus fuel our planet. We can harness it just like them EVENTUALLY....
But not now.
Right now, fossil fuels are cheaper.
So what is the argument against them, exactly. First, there is pollution. Not CO2. Just pollution. It is real. Fossil fuels cause pollution in China and India right now (note, not in the U.S. too much). But eventually, like America, fossil fuels become pretty "clean". Certainly not something the environment can't deal with on a pollution scale from burning clean oil or clean gas.
Second, the CO2 argument, which isn't really there. We all know that. Warming the globe might actually be BETTER for humanity. More crops. More agricultural land. We don't know yet.
Here is what GLOBAL governments (if you believe in that) should be doing. Make sure EVERYTHING is fair. Don't let BIG OIL (and I admit they exist) squelch non-carbon ideas or innovation. Let the cheapest energy see the light without interference. As I've said time and time again, "regulation" from government should only be governed by the ideal to create free markets and competition. Any attempt, in any industry, from the "big companies" to buy up small competition should be treated very suspiciously and regulated.
In the long run, if government let free market decide on energy, keeping realistic pollution standards, while watching out for "big oil" inhibiting competition from non-fossil fuels, then we will ALL be better off. Nothing about "global warming" in that scenario by the way. Just let technology go.
I don't care WHERE we get our energy. I really don't. The evolution of energy, on it's own supply/demand forces, will lead to non-fossil fuels. The sun is a GREAT source of energy. Hell, it's what makes all the plants on this planet grow and thus fuel our planet. We can harness it just like them EVENTUALLY....
But not now.
Right now, fossil fuels are cheaper.
So what is the argument against them, exactly. First, there is pollution. Not CO2. Just pollution. It is real. Fossil fuels cause pollution in China and India right now (note, not in the U.S. too much). But eventually, like America, fossil fuels become pretty "clean". Certainly not something the environment can't deal with on a pollution scale from burning clean oil or clean gas.
Second, the CO2 argument, which isn't really there. We all know that. Warming the globe might actually be BETTER for humanity. More crops. More agricultural land. We don't know yet.
Here is what GLOBAL governments (if you believe in that) should be doing. Make sure EVERYTHING is fair. Don't let BIG OIL (and I admit they exist) squelch non-carbon ideas or innovation. Let the cheapest energy see the light without interference. As I've said time and time again, "regulation" from government should only be governed by the ideal to create free markets and competition. Any attempt, in any industry, from the "big companies" to buy up small competition should be treated very suspiciously and regulated.
In the long run, if government let free market decide on energy, keeping realistic pollution standards, while watching out for "big oil" inhibiting competition from non-fossil fuels, then we will ALL be better off. Nothing about "global warming" in that scenario by the way. Just let technology go.