How I know climate change is a hoax

[Steve Case]

Oh, they'll do 'research'. But that research usually involves conspiracy blogs. This is why rightwingers are so reluctant to provide sources to their claims.

Here's the link to NOAA's Climate at a Glance and the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL),
NOAA's U.S.Hurricanes and NASA's GISSTemp. How 'bout the Wikipedia page on the Dust Bowl. You can
Google the Flood of 1900 the flood of 1901 etc. and come up with a flood somewhere for the last 123 years.

Reading blogs is fine, but you need to check out what they say. Good blogs provide links. By the way that
NOAA Climate at a Glance link above is really only good for precipitation. If you saved temperature data
from ten years ago and compare what they say today. It's pretty obvious the historical data has been rewritten:

 

[eohrnberger]

Here's the link to NOAA's Climate at a Glance and the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL),
NOAA's U.S.Hurricanes and NASA's GISSTemp. How 'bout the Wikipedia page on the Dust Bowl. You can
Google the Flood of 1900 the flood of 1901 etc. and come up with a flood somewhere for the last 123 years.

Reading blogs is fine, but you need to check out what they say. Good blogs provide links. By the way that
NOAA Climate at a Glance link above is really only good for precipitation. If you saved temperature data
from ten years ago and compare what they say today. It's pretty obvious the historical data has been rewritten:


View attachment 67455743

'It's pretty obvious the historical data has been rewritten'

That would be the same level of fraud as a scientist altering their lab data to prove their hypothesis or theory correct and confirmed, wouldn't it?

The climate change cult makes people do and say things like that, I guess.

 

[Geoist]

Here's the link to NOAA's Climate at a Glance and the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL),
NOAA's U.S.Hurricanes and NASA's GISSTemp. How 'bout the Wikipedia page on the Dust Bowl. You can
Google the Flood of 1900 the flood of 1901 etc. and come up with a flood somewhere for the last 123 years.

Reading blogs is fine, but you need to check out what they say. Good blogs provide links. By the way that
NOAA Climate at a Glance link above is really only good for precipitation. If you saved temperature data
from ten years ago and compare what they say today. It's pretty obvious the historical data has been rewritten:


View attachment 67455743

Nice gish gallop, bud.

 

[Rickeroo]

I am sure your decendants will thank you for setting us straight on the big hoax

Here is what we should be doing

That video has things like respecting indigenous land (mentioned twice) and putting in climate warning systems. How come it doesn't mention the US could cut emissions by 99% if it follows Uganda's lead?

It's pretty obvious the historical data has been rewritten:

We actually don't need to see the temperature data or graphs, since this is part of the telescreens telling us about the level of climate change. When Earth's temperature rises, ice caps melt, and oceans rise. Low-lying islands must shrink or dissapear as a result. This should easily be seen with smaller islands over multi-decade time spans. Additionally, if the left believed in the reality of a hockey-stick rise in temperature (and resulting catastrophe), they'd be calling for a massive decrease in Western consumption / economic activity. Instead we get 'solutions' like paper bags instead of plastic or other token gestures that don't befit the climate emergency.

I did a street view in Kampala, it's not too bad. It even looks like they have electricity. If the US would follow suit, we could reduce our emissions by 99% and "save" the planet:

 

[Steve Case]

'It's pretty obvious the historical data has been rewritten'

That would be the same level of fraud as a scientist altering their lab data to prove their hypothesis or theory correct and confirmed, wouldn't it?

The climate change cult makes people do and say things like that, I guess.

If you ask why the data changes over the years, here's what they say:

"...assume that a station moves or gets a new instrument that is placed in a
different location than the old one, so that the measured temperatures are
now e.g. about half a degree higher than before. To make the temperature
series for that station consistent, you will either have to lower all new readings
by that amount or to increase the old readings once and for all by half a degree.
The second option is preferred, because you can use future readings as they are,
rather than having to remember to change them. However, it has the consequence
that such a change impacts all the old data back to the beginning of the station
record."

That wasn't a response to the Los Angeles May to Oct Max Temp data, and it
wasn't from NOAA, but rather from NASA. NASA makes several hundred
changes to their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) every month. But you
might expect that NOAA would come up with a similar response.

 

[Grand Mal]

I used to take catastrophic climate change literally, thinking that liberals actually believed the world was on the edge of climate collapse from CO2 emissions. If no one is asking the US to reduce it's economy to that of Uganda or other ultra-low emission countries, then liberals can't actually believe in climate collapse.

This is how little you know about it- you think politics has something to do with it, that somehow liberals are involved.

Let me get this correct - the planet is on the verge of "climate catastrophe", but we're still permitting Americans to live rich, Western lifestyles?

 

[Steve Case]

Nice gish gallop, bud.

That's not a Gish Gallup, that is to say that it's not list of outrageous claims
that would take you a long time to debunk, it is rather a list of sources none
of which are right wing conspiracy blogs. Anyone who is interested the history
of various aspects and metrics of climate can use those web sites to verify
media claims, or do their own research.

 

[Geoist]

That's not a Gish Gallup, that is to say that it's not list of outrageous claims
that would take you a long time to debunk, it is rather a list of sources none
of which are right wing conspiracy blogs. Anyone who is interested the history
of various aspects and metrics of climate can use those web sites to verify
media claims, or do their own research.

You list sources and then make a series of claims to gaslight us into thinking those sources support your claims.

 

[Rickeroo]

This is how little you know about it- you think politics has something to do with it, that somehow liberals are involved.

The US already knows how to slash it's emissions by 99% (Uganda and several other countries have already achieved this). Why isn't this happening, given the severity of the climate crisis?

 

[Grand Mal]

The US already knows how to slash it's emissions by 99% (Uganda and several other countries have already achieved this). Why isn't this happening, given the severity of the climate crisis?

Because liberals. Obviously

 

[Cameron]

By "climate change", I mean the social and political phenomenon that purports it to be a catatrosphic issue. First is the gaslighting with sea level rise. No one is moving away from coastlines, Midway looks the same as in WWII, Kivalina didn't go underwater in 2018, etc. People at the shoreline have to turn on the news before they realize their house went underwater 10 years ago.

Next, and this is the big one, look at the proposed solutions: rich countries with high per capita CO2 emissions throwing money at the problem. There are already 24 countries that emit less than 1.2% of the per capita emissions that the US does, mostly in Africa. Given the catatrosphic issue of climate change (I've heard it's been really hot this past week), one wonders why there are no calls to reduce the US economy and standard of living to that of Uganda or Lesotho.

If it's "not practical" that the US reduce consumption to Ugandan levels, then how catatrophic can climate change be? Lifestyle comes before "saving the planet", it would seem.

This is idiotic but believe what you want I guess.

 

[Rickeroo]

Because liberals. Obviously

There are pros and cons to the left's delivery of climate propaganda. The bad part is that society is exposed to gloom and doom about the climate, and there are some social pressures with going against the grain - the "deniers".

The good part is that we can put leftists to the test. If doom is upon us, there should be a requisite call to action. I would submit that anyone that doesn't call on the US (and its middle class consumer base) to slash economic activity so as to reduce emissions by 99%, is basically a climate denier. One is denying the climate emergency.

 

[Grand Mal]

There are pros and cons to the left's delivery of climate propaganda. The bad part is that society is exposed to gloom and doom about the climate, and there are some social pressures with going against the grain - the "deniers".

The good part is that we can put leftists to the test. If doom is upon us, there should be a requisite call to action. I would submit that anyone that doesn't call on the US (and its middle class consumer base) to slash economic activity so as to reduce emissions by 99%, is basically a climate denier. One is denying the climate emergency.

Why the hell you think this is a 'left vs. right' issue is beyond me but anyone you can get to play your stupid 'put leftists to the test' game probably knows no more about the topic than you do.
Eyes squinted shut, faces turned away, slapping at each other with both arms, yeah, that'll be worth about 3 seconds of anyone's attention.

 

[Rexedgar]

By "climate change", I mean the social and political phenomenon that purports it to be a catatrosphic issue. First is the gaslighting with sea level rise. No one is moving away from coastlines, Midway looks the same as in WWII, Kivalina didn't go underwater in 2018, etc. People at the shoreline have to turn on the news before they realize their house went underwater 10 years ago.

Next, and this is the big one, look at the proposed solutions: rich countries with high per capita CO2 emissions throwing money at the problem. There are already 24 countries that emit less than 1.2% of the per capita emissions that the US does, mostly in Africa. Given the catatrosphic issue of climate change (I've heard it's been really hot this past week), one wonders why there are no calls to reduce the US economy and standard of living to that of Uganda or Lesotho.

If it's "not practical" that the US reduce consumption to Ugandan levels, then how catatrophic can climate change be? Lifestyle comes before "saving the planet", it would seem.

Tell us you have never been to NC’s Outer Banks, without saying the words……..

 

[Geoist]

There are pros and cons to the left's delivery of climate propaganda. The bad part is that society is exposed to gloom and doom about the climate, and there are some social pressures with going against the grain - the "deniers".

The good part is that we can put leftists to the test. If doom is upon us, there should be a requisite call to action. I would submit that anyone that doesn't call on the US (and its middle class consumer base) to slash economic activity so as to reduce emissions by 99%, is basically a climate denier. One is denying the climate emergency.

Do you have evidence that it would require 99% reduction of emissions to avert climate catastrophe?

 

[Rickeroo]

Tell us you have never been to NC’s Outer Banks, without saying the words……..

I'm not sure what 'without saying the words' mean, but any local examples of climate catastrophe can be leftist-tested. I'll assume the Outer Banks are to be held up as an example of climate change. The severity of whatever is happening to them should produce a requisite call to action. I've not been there, but one thing is certain: the Outer Banks situation isn't serious enough to call for a 99% reduction in CO2 emissions.

Do you have evidence that it would require 99% reduction of emissions to avert climate catastrophe?

Since a 99% reduction in CO2 emissions is already shown to be achievable (a few African nations are sustaining those low levels), I would think it would make sense given the severity of the climate issue. What would avert catastrophe in your estimation?

 

[Geoist]

Since a 99% reduction in CO2 emissions is already shown to be achievable (a few African nations are sustaining those low levels), I would think it would make sense given the severity of the climate issue. What would avert catastrophe in your estimation?

Just because something is achievable (and I'd argue what you're talking about isn't) doesn't mean it should be done.

A 45% reduction by 2030 is the goal according to the Paris Agreement. This is what scientists argue is necessary to avert a 1.5 C increase.

 

[Rexedgar]

I'm not sure what 'without saying the words' mean, but any local examples of climate catastrophe can be leftist-tested. I'll assume the Outer Banks are to be held up as an example of climate change. The severity of whatever is happening to them should produce a requisite call to action. I've not been there, but one thing is certain: the Outer Banks situation isn't serious enough to call for a 99% reduction in CO2 emissions.

Not sure what all the gibberish means, but in my personal experience, the shoreline has been disappearing at a pretty good clip for the last 40 years. I have no idea what the remedy is, or if there even is one. When is the last time you were on Midway?

Since a 99% reduction in CO2 emissions is already shown to be achievable (a few African nations are sustaining those low levels), I would think it would make sense given the severity of the climate issue. What would avert catastrophe in your estimation?

 

[DCCougar]

Why should anyone care about the opinion of a random layman that has never spent even one full day of his life dedicated to atmospheric and climate research?

I swear to god this snowflake generation that thinks they know everything despite being total ignorant morons is contributing to the death of truth and facts.

I couldn't say it much better than that!

 

[beefheart]

The OP is the one who said, back in mid 2020, that he thought the whole Covid thing was pretty much over....

 

[gboisjo]

It was announced yesterday the world temp 4 days in a row last week were the hottest on record.

As the ice continues to melt in the Arctic regions the reflective white ice and snow is being replaced heat absorbing rock.

Ocean temps are rising, good luck with the hurricanes.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/4th-july-breaks-record-highest-temperature-measured/story?id=100702850

 

[Rickeroo]

Just because something is achievable (and I'd argue what you're talking about isn't) doesn't mean it should be done.

A 45% reduction by 2030 is the goal according to the Paris Agreement. This is what scientists argue is necessary to avert a 1.5 C increase.

Assuming they are using 2016 as a baseline (35.52 billion tons of CO2), we need to have emmissions at 15.27 billion tons in 2030 for the 43% Paris reduction. 8 years into the program in 2022, emissions stood at 37.49 billion tons. All things equal, not only have we increased emissions by 5%, but half the time to the 2030 goal is gone. Not much progress has been made.

The Paris Agreement reaffirms that developed countries should take the lead in providing financial assistance to countries that are less endowed and more vulnerable, while for the first time also encouraging voluntary contributions by other Parties. Climate finance is needed for mitigation, because large-scale investments are required to significantly reduce emissions.

The US would help climate a lot more effecticly by slashing it's emissions rather that providing "climate finance". I don't understand how CO2 emissions remain acceptable given the climate.

I have no idea what the remedy is, or if there even is one. When is the last time you were on Midway?

Wouldn't the solution be less emissions? If you've seen the Outer Banks shrinking, shouldn't we call on the US to reduce it's emissions drastically?

The OP is the one who said, back in mid 2020, that he thought the whole Covid thing was pretty much over....

True, it was worse than a standard flu. Thankfully it wasn't anywhere near the 1918 flu's death toll, despite being specifically engineered by China.

It was announced yesterday the world temp 4 days in a row last week were the hottest on record.

As the ice continues to melt in the Arctic regions the reflective white ice and snow is being replaced heat absorbing rock.

Ocean temps are rising, good luck with the hurricanes.

Easy fix. The US and the EU drop their economies to Uganda's level.

 

[gboisjo]

Easy fix. The US and the EU drop their economies to Uganda's level.

Pay now or risk paying big time in the future when its to late.

 

[Rickeroo]

Pay now or risk paying big time in the future when its to late.

Exactly. Why are people still buying iPhones and living in huge houses when the US should be working on slashing it's economy to that of Uganda? It makes no sense to me.

 

[Credence]

Why the hell you think this is a 'left vs. right' issue is beyond me but anyone you can get to play your stupid 'put leftists to the test' game probably knows no more about the topic than you do.
Eyes squinted shut, faces turned away, slapping at each other with both arms, yeah, that'll be worth about 3 seconds of anyone's attention.

Many Republicans; moderates and especially the younger ones under 40 support climate change as well. It is predominantly the older conservatives and far right that don't -- and I won't even mention the extremists.

Bottom line is if you believe in Science, chances are you support climate change; right, left or in the middle