Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
Exactly. Except 800K years ago you couldn't make money from an agenda.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
WMO: Carbon Pollution Touched 800,000-Year Record in 2016
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
Exactly. Except 800K years ago you couldn't make money from an agenda.
You see, we do agree on something. As I said, I believe the climate is changing, I only disagree that humans are the primary force and that though our actions we can reverse the change. I believe the major force of climate change is natural and no matter what we as humans do, we can not reverse it. What we have to do is learn how to deal with it and live through it. I am against taxing and regulating the populace to the point of ruination in an attempt to help government officials look as though they have some way to control the climate and save the world. Once they are ready to put research into how to cope with the change then I am behind it.
Name calling and the claim that there is no more discussion pretty much kills any message. Flat Earth, seriously, just because I have questions instead of blindly accepting a popular view. At one time people like me who believe the Earth is a sphere were called similar names and told "There is no more discussion" and that we should accept the fact that the Earth was flat.
I can link to articles that show that CO2 concentrations lag behind temperature changes but you will just argue that those are posted by nonbelievers in the cause. Just as I pointed out in my original post anyone who dares to disagree are ostracized and called names even if their data is credible. Such as:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
The latter even pulls a lot of its data from articles published in Science and in Nature which are peer reviewed journals.(and considered pro-anthropomorphic climate change journals)
I find this quote from the summation of the article in the first link interesting:
"Mean expertise of the UE group was around half (60 publications) that of the CE group (119 publications; Mann–Whitney Utest: W = 57,020;P<10−14), as was median expertise (UE = 34 publications; CE = 84 publications)"
UE group is unconvinced and CE group are convinced climate scientists.
What I have noticed is that 2% of climate scientists are unconvinced, but when you expand to other scientists, including chemist, physicists, mathematicians and other disciplines, does the unconvinced rate remain the same? Many quotes are simply 99% of scientists, but is that actually only climate scientists or all scientists?
Climate change is a scam of the Democratic party, which Donna Brazille just came out and said the primary election was RIGGED by Hillary Clinton to sack Bernie, through using her embezzled Uranium One money to bail out the broke DNC, because of all the money spent on the election of the Kenyan president.
The Democrats=left=socialists=communists are just a bunch of prejudice, thieving, con artists that dupe naive people into believing the government can solve all their problems. Climate change is just one of many scams to increase government control.
There is no man made climate change. Anyone who takes a SECOND to look at the science would actually realize that.
1. Fact: It is statistically impossible to predict temperature levels for 4,700,000,000 years of the planet's history based on 30 years of temperature readings. ...even if the instruments were perfectly accurate. ...and even if there was no local variation. ...and even if all the climate models weren't based on lying scientists' models who's grant money depends on maintaining the lie.
2. Fact: The ice core data shows temperature increases ~800 years before CO2 increases! You cannot show CO2 causes temperature change, if temperature change occurs first. Did CO2 invent a time machine??? This disproves the theory right here.
3. Fact: We are at one of the lowest levels of CO2 in our planet's history. The largest animals on earth lived when it was near the highest (~30x higher). Tell me again how CO2 is going to kill us all???
4. Fact: The Geocarb III model was plotted against the temperature model of our planet's history. It shows temperature increases BEFORE CO2 rises and their is no correlation. If you really wanted to definitively prove climate change, why would you not look at the geological record where you could gather meaningful data points? Why are these academics wasting time on useless temperature points that can never hope to be statistically significant? Maybe because it already disproves this BS?
5. Fact: Decreased sun activity resulted in the little ice age 500 years ago. It had nothing to do with CO2 levels. If sun activity causes climate change, ya think maybe it is THE reason for past climate change?
The Democrats=left=socialists=communists are just a bunch of prejudice, thieving, con artists that dupe naive people into believing the government can solve all their problems. Climate change is just one of many scams to increase government control.
There is no man made climate change. Anyone who takes a SECOND to look at the science would actually realize that.
1. Fact: It is statistically impossible to predict temperature levels for 4,700,000,000 years of the planet's history based on 30 years of temperature readings. ...even if the instruments were perfectly accurate. ...and even if there was no local variation. ...and even if all the climate models weren't based on lying scientists' models who's grant money depends on maintaining the lie.
2. Fact: The ice core data shows temperature increases ~800 years before CO2 increases! You cannot show CO2 causes temperature change, if temperature change occurs first. Did CO2 invent a time machine??? This disproves the theory right here.
3. Fact: We are at one of the lowest levels of CO2 in our planet's history. The largest animals on earth lived when it was near the highest (~30x higher). Tell me again how CO2 is going to kill us all???
4. Fact: The Geocarb III model was plotted against the temperature model of our planet's history. It shows temperature increases BEFORE CO2 rises and their is no correlation. If you really wanted to definitively prove climate change, why would you not look at the geological record where you could gather meaningful data points? Why are these academics wasting time on useless temperature points that can never hope to be statistically significant? Maybe because it already disproves this BS?
5. Fact: Decreased sun activity resulted in the little ice age 500 years ago. It had nothing to do with CO2 levels. If sun activity causes climate change, ya think maybe it is THE reason for past climate change?
Fixed.
All of your facts are lies and have no proof. We are not at the lowest carbon point in our history and actually the last 100 years of human history has seen an increase in carbon in the atmosphere rivaling the last 20,000 years period. That is a fact. It is backed up by peer reviewed analysis and data. All you have to do is look at the data. Of course the Earth climate changes naturally. Think of it as a slow curving line going up and down, rather slowly, culminating in roughly 3 degree temperature change over the course of those 20,000 years, then humans start burning stuff that would not have been burned or used as fuel if humans had not been here. The nice slow curvy line takes a hard right turn now. It is now not a slow curvy line, it is a sharp bend that is not going back, and now that 100 years have passed, there is no going back.
Also, this has nothing to do with politics. This is a global problem and you keep talking about carbon taxes and Hillary Clinton. You are the one pushing an ill agenda here, no one else. The facts remain, the data remains, and just because you say it is a lie, does not make it a lie. Prove it. You want to be so smart, yet you act like you know nothing about the scientific process. You act like you have not looked at a single piece of data. It is all out there for free. You can see this stuff without being an actual scientist, but you would rather just point political fingers and lie outright.
Also as an addendum, I would like you to also show me, tell us lower beings just how much money these lying scientists are getting. I mean you act like the scientists are making millions. How much of our US budget do we spend on science, climate science, then compare that to how much we pay out to repeat flood insurance holders, like the people that just own property in flood planes to collect the government insurance. You will be surprised and shocked. PS, the budget is open for everyone to see also, so the data is easy to get.
It was not my intention of sounding ill or calling names. If you took it that way, I apologize.
On the links you put forward, yes the blog editors are "anti-climate science consulting firm" that not only blogs but does some lobbying. I have yet to see a peer reviewed paper or work from them that uses open and free data, as they generally keep it secret. I cannot confirm or retort against their data because it is not available.
Again, not denying that the Earth climate changes on its own, but the simple fact is that over the last 100 years we humans have burned and exhausted a significant amount of "fuel" that would not have been burned or exhausted had humans not been here. Of course the Earth is changing and would be changing without us and has changed without us. I'm curious at how many times we break the previous years global temperature record year over year before people will start believing it. Although it won't matter, because when everyone realizes it is a fact, it will be too late, as it is already too late. There is only coming out on the other end.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,706
Trump administration releases report finding 'no convincing alternative explanation' for climate change
See the part at the end there about observational evidence? For the deniers out there, you have to provide evidence that contradicts the overwhelming evidence showing human's are the primary factor. You can't just say "volcanoes are to blame" or "wildefires are to blame" or "climate naturally changes over time" because every one of those factors are considered in the climate change models, yet there is still an unexplainable change in our climate.
The Earth's climate does change naturally, but slowly, over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Those types of changes are facts, are not denied, and are predictable. However, when you take all of those changes into account and still cannot explain a significant difference in climate over the past 150 years there really is not another option than humans.
The correlation to increased C02 in the atmosphere and the industrial revolution sure does look pretty damning when you are trying to find "the missing piece". Who would of thought unnaturally pumping CO2 into the atmosphere would do such a thing ...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...tion-for-climate-change/ar-AAupvvD?li=BBnb7Kz
See the part at the end there about observational evidence? For the deniers out there, you have to provide evidence that contradicts the overwhelming evidence showing human's are the primary factor. You can't just say "volcanoes are to blame" or "wildefires are to blame" or "climate naturally changes over time" because every one of those factors are considered in the climate change models, yet there is still an unexplainable change in our climate.
The Earth's climate does change naturally, but slowly, over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Those types of changes are facts, are not denied, and are predictable. However, when you take all of those changes into account and still cannot explain a significant difference in climate over the past 150 years there really is not another option than humans.
The correlation to increased C02 in the atmosphere and the industrial revolution sure does look pretty damning when you are trying to find "the missing piece". Who would of thought unnaturally pumping CO2 into the atmosphere would do such a thing ...
Last edited:
While I have never heard of globalchange.org looking it up, it is a government website. http://www.globalchange.gov/ and you can see it yourself. I'm trying to find a better verification now.
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
uhh ok, so what?
One thing that I have noticed when looking at temperature graphs has been if you have one that shows the years from about 1500 to present, you see the curvature of the graph upward, then the dip through the late 1700's early 1800's known as the Little Ice Age. After that anomaly the increase begins again and then increases in slope, which is where everyone attributes the accelerated warming to human reasons. On the other hand, if you take the slope of the graph from 1500 and plot it out following that trend past the Little Ice Age period, you will then arrive at temperatures that are very near what we see now. Could it be possible that the Little Ice Age anomaly just hindered the natural warming then and what we see now is the Earth catching up to what it would have been under natural warming if that anomaly had not occurred?
Some attribute the Little Ice Age to the large volcanic eruption in the south Pacific around that time. If that acted to retard the warming trend and we are seeing nature play catch up now, that would present itself as a higher than normal rate of warming, which is what we see now. If that is true, then we really need to be working on how to adapt to a warmer Earth instead of trying to reverse it through changing something that isn't a true cause. I would hate to think we waste decades not doing what needs to be done.
Some attribute the Little Ice Age to the large volcanic eruption in the south Pacific around that time. If that acted to retard the warming trend and we are seeing nature play catch up now, that would present itself as a higher than normal rate of warming, which is what we see now. If that is true, then we really need to be working on how to adapt to a warmer Earth instead of trying to reverse it through changing something that isn't a true cause. I would hate to think we waste decades not doing what needs to be done.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,706
People tend to "take sides" on this issue aligning with their political party rather than the evidence.
Nafensoriel
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2015
- Messages
- 382
Not really taking sides here but as an actual scientist.. We might not make money but the people who employ us certainly do. Large labs don't run on charity.
I'd also argue that deforestation and painting concrete and asphalt over every square inch of land is and has been more damaging to local and global climates than any amount of coal burning. Hell harvey would have been considerably less damaging to human civilization had we not completely buggered the watershed in Texas.
I'd also argue that deforestation and painting concrete and asphalt over every square inch of land is and has been more damaging to local and global climates than any amount of coal burning. Hell harvey would have been considerably less damaging to human civilization had we not completely buggered the watershed in Texas.
Which is why we have these arguments about the Earth being flat I suppose.
As for the politicizing, while I understand what you are saying, I have never brought politics into it, and in my opinion, the original topic was not a political one. Just several people keep saying that it is a left, communist, socialist lie, when it is in fact a fact. We need to start dealing with it now, or continue to spend hundreds of billions on rebuilding peoples houses that will just continue to flood every year. We need to start being proactive as a species instead of political.
I was just being snide about it, my point is the issue has become OVERWHELMINGLY political, which is why we've had debates on this for decades now. The science is about as close to verified as you can get, but if you've been conditioned to associate your stance on the issue with your tribal identity, then the evidence for or against something doesn't actually matter, it's just window dressing then.
Agreed, last place I want to see it is on [H] leave it to fucking reddit /r/politics or some other hellhole where people can endlessly hate on each other. At least our hardware hobby brings us together I thought. Fucking politics they ooze their shit into everything. If you have a different opinion than I on anything, that's fine, I don't have you you are still a fellow enthusiast. I find that I can get along with people that have a hobby that I do regardless of other differences. In short I love you guys /gush
Ahh, good ol' global cooling, er warming er climate change. Probably one of the top socio-political issues that grinds my gears the most.
I'll take it seriously when I don't have rent seekers who have the arrogance to knock on my front door trying to get me to pay extra each month to the power company to buy "green renewable" energy. Taxes have already subsidized the change over to led/cfl bulbs and in a few situations I've been burned badly on being an early adopter (by a whole 1-2 years lolz) on led bulbs. The kitchen br30 bulbs I bought two years ago for $7 a pop (vs $5 for incandescent) are now down to $1.25 at my local costco. Gonna take more than a year now to break even there. I'm doing my part by dropping 1kw/h+ per day of electricity use just with light bulb changes. 250w to 50w in the kitchen. Office dropped 98w. 100w for outdoor lights. Funny how my monthly bill dropped about $3.75 on average and yet here comes along twice in 3 years a jackass trying to guilt trip me into saving the earth more by only getting solar and wind power sent to my house for just about tree fiddy extra. Yeah, no thanks.
Carbon offsets are a tax scam and thus reasons #1-1000 why I do not trust at all the global climate argument. Its starting to really chap my hide seeing a lot of so called [H]'ers who go on and on about overclocking and TDP efficiency then talk about saving the earth through various idiot laws. Go down the eco nuts path and you'll be lucky to afford charging up your favorite android tablet to play the latest phone game or you know, stop overclocking which will save even more power.
I'll take it seriously when I don't have rent seekers who have the arrogance to knock on my front door trying to get me to pay extra each month to the power company to buy "green renewable" energy. Taxes have already subsidized the change over to led/cfl bulbs and in a few situations I've been burned badly on being an early adopter (by a whole 1-2 years lolz) on led bulbs. The kitchen br30 bulbs I bought two years ago for $7 a pop (vs $5 for incandescent) are now down to $1.25 at my local costco. Gonna take more than a year now to break even there. I'm doing my part by dropping 1kw/h+ per day of electricity use just with light bulb changes. 250w to 50w in the kitchen. Office dropped 98w. 100w for outdoor lights. Funny how my monthly bill dropped about $3.75 on average and yet here comes along twice in 3 years a jackass trying to guilt trip me into saving the earth more by only getting solar and wind power sent to my house for just about tree fiddy extra. Yeah, no thanks.
Carbon offsets are a tax scam and thus reasons #1-1000 why I do not trust at all the global climate argument. Its starting to really chap my hide seeing a lot of so called [H]'ers who go on and on about overclocking and TDP efficiency then talk about saving the earth through various idiot laws. Go down the eco nuts path and you'll be lucky to afford charging up your favorite android tablet to play the latest phone game or you know, stop overclocking which will save even more power.