- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 7,364
- Reaction score
- 1,681
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Warning - this REAL science. There are facts here, you've been warned.
The director is great! He's the conspiracy king of directors, really has his shit down!! You're missing out!Nah, I don't want to listen to the world's most renowned scientists. I don't want to read any science journals. I don't even want to take any science courses.
I will just watch a video and get my beliefs about climate from that.
I prefer not to have brain rot, thank you.The director is great! He's the conspiracy king of directors, really has his shit down!! You're missing out!
LOL confession noted.Nah, I don't want to listen to the world's most renowned scientists. I don't want to read any science journals. I don't even want to take any science courses.
I will just watch a video and get my beliefs about climate from that.
Everyone should watch that, it presents some valid views from real climate scientists.
Agreed.All the experts warned all the vegetation would die from global acid rain in the 1970s.
All the experts warned of a coming ice age 50 years ago.
All the experts predicted NYC harbor would be underwater 10 years ago.
All the experts predicted all the ice caps would be gone by the 2020s
All of the experts repeatedly stated getting a Covid vaccine would protect you from getting it, and make you not contagious.
All of you are still listening to these experts who, literally, earn their living raising attention to get grant money.
I have read them, they are very limited statements, but let's look at a few for fun?You could watch a documentary, Or you could read consensus statements from every single scientific organization on the planet.
No disagreement here, but it also does not say that CO2 has some specific climate sensitivity.American Chemical Society
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4
This one is particularly good because the last sentence describes the subtractive nature of warming attribution.American Geophysical Union
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5
Yes Human activity has had an influence on the climate, and could well be a dominant cause of the observed warming since 1950.American Meteorological Society
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7
Not to mention an extremely insightful look into the true goal and tactics of the climate cultists.Everyone should watch that, it presents some valid views from real climate scientists.
Except that we are not exiting the ice-age.Agreed.
In fact, the present climate conditions, so much water frozen at each of the poles, may be more abnormal for the Earth's climate than normal, also considering that the Earth is still exiting from a period of glaciation, i.e. Ice Age, so still warming up, back to a warm period.
There were extended periods where the poles had conifers, swamps and ferns, rarely freezing, according to the science of paleontology and the fossil record, and also a much higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere than present.
Those who are making a panic about all this, can only take them with very limited seriousness. After all:
DON’T BE BUFFALOED BY EXPERTS AND ELITES. EXPERTS OFTEN POSSESS MORE DATA THAN JUDGMENT. ELITES CAN BECOME SO INBRED THAT THEY PRODUCE HEMMOPHILIACS WHO BLEED TO DEATH AS SOON AS THEY ARE NICKED BY THE REAL WORLD.General Colin Powell's Leadership Primer
The death of former Secretary of State, National Security Advisor and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Colin Powell reminded me of a hard copy file stashed away from my days in Washington. It’s a presentation by General Powell called “A Leadership Primer.www.linkedin.com
Where is their evidence? Just because both surface temperatures and greenhouse gases are increasing, where is their evidence that it is greenhouse gases driving that change?No disagreement here, but it also does not say that CO2 has some specific climate sensitivity.
They also make the claim that it is "based on extensive scientific evidence" while citing scientific consensus. Where is this so-called evidence? Consensus is merely opinion, and not evidence of anything.This one is particularly good because the last sentence describes the subtractive nature of warming attribution.
They do not have a alternative explanation.
Based on wild-ass assumptions without any evidence to support your utter bullshit. It apparently is your religion as well now.Yes Human activity has had an influence on the climate, and could well be a dominant cause of the observed warming since 1950.
Only in your vivid imagination. After all, we don't need any evidence to support those claims when a strong religious belief is enough. Welcome to the anti-science religion of the left.This still does not support a high CO2 climate sensitivity!
Also Human influence covers a lot more areas than just CO2 emissions.
Who are the scientists? What is this, and where is it from?
Nah, I don't want to listen to the world's most renowned scientists. I don't want to read any science journals. I don't even want to take any science courses.
I will just watch a video and get my beliefs about climate from that.
The director is great! He's the conspiracy king of directors, really has his shit down!! You're missing out!
This seems pretty paranoid, TBH.
Everyone should watch that, it presents some valid views from real climate scientists.
You could watch a documentary, Or you could read consensus statements from every single scientific organization on the planet.
I have read them, they are very limited statements, but let's look at a few for fun?
No disagreement here, but it also does not say that CO2 has some specific climate sensitivity.
This one is particularly good because the last sentence describes the subtractive nature of warming attribution.
They do not have a alternative explanation.
Yes Human activity has had an influence on the climate, and could well be a dominant cause of the observed warming since 1950.
This still does not support a high CO2 climate sensitivity!
Also Human influence covers a lot more areas than just CO2 emissions.