Questioning the Climate-Change Narrative

[watsup]

Neither you nor anyone else can say with any certainty that temperatures would have risen, but that is a deflection on your part.

If temperatures had risen, then temperatures measured against that period would show no increase or minuscule in the hundredths of degrees.

You didn’t answer question directly. Yet more deflection .

 

[watsup]

It sure seems like a dangerous mix of religion and politics.

Have you seen how they treat scientists who stray away from the dogma like Judith Curry?

Is this the same Judy Curry who has done consulting work for Big Oil? That Judy Curry?

 

[watsup]

It sure seems like a dangerous mix of religion and politics.

Have you seen how they treat scientists who stray away from the dogma like Judith Curry?

Judy Curry recycled post.

 

[watsup]

Which scientists?

Your god: Carl Sagan.

He's not the only one.

Regional nuclear war could trigger global cooling and famine​

https://www.nationalgeographic.com › culture › article

Oooops....

What now? Are you going to scream, "Kock Brothers!....Right-wing blog!.....Big Oil....Blue Meanies!"

'Cause, that;s your other god.....National Geographic.

Atmospheric tests are different than surface and sub-surface bursts, because atmospheric tests eject un-fissioned Pu239/240, and un-fissioned U235/238 (when used as a tamper, a reflector or both), daughter products (93% of Pu239 fissions create Zirconium and Xenon), the Aluminum weapons casing and the electronics package into the stratosphere.

The effect is the same as a catastrophic volcanic eruption like Mt St Helens, Mt Pinatubo or Krakatoa which ejected particulate matter into the stratosphere.

The particulate matter reflects UV-, UV-B and UV-C radiation back into Space, which results in cooling. That is, in fact, the theory behind "nuclear winter" notwithstanding Dr Carl Sagan's misunderstandings and outright lies.

That there was a slight temperature decrease is well-documented.

NASA is comparing temperatures today against a period of time when there was a known artificial decrease in temperatures and then claiming temperatures are rising when in fact they are not.

Show the source or cite where NASA says that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Is this the same Judy Curry who has done consulting work for Big Oil? That Judy Curry?

I smell a logical fallacy by a turd.

 

[vegas giants]

Which scientists?

Your god: Carl Sagan.

He's not the only one.

Regional nuclear war could trigger global cooling and famine​

https://www.nationalgeographic.com › culture › article

Oooops....

What now? Are you going to scream, "Kock Brothers!....Right-wing blog!.....Big Oil....Blue Meanies!"

'Cause, that;s your other god.....National Geographic.

Atmospheric tests are different than surface and sub-surface bursts, because atmospheric tests eject un-fissioned Pu239/240, and un-fissioned U235/238 (when used as a tamper, a reflector or both), daughter products (93% of Pu239 fissions create Zirconium and Xenon), the Aluminum weapons casing and the electronics package into the stratosphere.

The effect is the same as a catastrophic volcanic eruption like Mt St Helens, Mt Pinatubo or Krakatoa which ejected particulate matter into the stratosphere.

The particulate matter reflects UV-, UV-B and UV-C radiation back into Space, which results in cooling. That is, in fact, the theory behind "nuclear winter" notwithstanding Dr Carl Sagan's misunderstandings and outright lies.

That there was a slight temperature decrease is well-documented.

NASA is comparing temperatures today against a period of time when there was a known artificial decrease in temperatures and then claiming temperatures are rising when in fact they are not.

Well he is not my god and if he has the backing of almost 200 scientific agencies I will take a look at what he is saying. He does not so I will ignore it.

But when almost 200 scientific agencies tell me about AGW .......I listen

 

[watsup]

I smell a logical fallacy by a turd.

Psychological projection BIGTIME!

 

[Mircea]

Well he is not my god and if he has the backing of almost 200 scientific agencies I will take a look at what he is saying.

Agencies backed and funded by governments. How convenient of you to forget that governments also backed the science of Eugenics.

So, do you believe in Eugenics?

 

[Mircea]

Show the source or cite where NASA says that.

I already did. Look back a few posts.

 

[Mircea]

You didn’t answer question directly. Yet more deflection .

Then the answer is no, since humans are not causing the temperature to rise.

 

[watsup]

Agencies backed and funded by governments. How convenient of you to forget that governments also backed the science of Eugenics.

So, do you believe in Eugenics?

Red herring. Right wing denier talking point. What we always expect from them.

 

[watsup]

Then the answer is no, since humans are not causing the temperature to rise.

Who to believe? The research and data of climate scientists on a worldwide basis or a chatter in an online forum?
That one is easy.

 

[watsup]

I already did. Look back a few posts.

Says the person who thinks that a few months of “global cooling” will suddenly wipe out decades of global warming. Uh-huh.

 

[watsup]

I already did. Look back a few posts.

Do you have a source or a cite that shows global cooling from atmospheric nuclear tests other then your own supposition?

 

[watsup]

Did you go to the website and read?

Nope, you didn't because you're afraid.

NASA: “This map shows Earth's average global temperature from 2013 to 2017, as compared to a baseline average from 1951 to 1980.

[emphasis mine]

Since you don't have the courage to visit NASA's website, the baseline range in NASA's own words is 1951 to 1980.

That is unethical, because NASA is cherry-picking the date range. A reputable science organization would compare temperature changes to the entire period of recorded temperatures, and not cherry-pick a date range to bolster their false claims.

The fact NASA has to resort to such tactics should be a big friggin' clue that there is no global warming.

I searched and could not find anyplace where you actually linked to the NASA article. Basically, you are taking a single sentence out of context by not providing the link so that we can see said context. All you say is “go to the NASA website”. It’s a big website with lots of articles and information, Which specific one do you want us to read?

 

[vegas giants]

Agencies backed and funded by governments. How convenient of you to forget that governments also backed the science of Eugenics.

So, do you believe in Eugenics?

They also backed tons and tons of other medical advances.


Yet you ignore those

 

[watsup]

The whole "Climate Change" (snicker) narrative is propounded by a group of people who have an extreme hatred for the developed world and want them to transfer all of their wealth to the undeveloped world.

"Climate Change" is normal and has been occurring for the last 23 Million years, ever since the Panamanian Isthmus was created and the Antarctic Continent reached critical mass in the Antarctic Circle.

The sea levels are 3 meters to 14 meters lower than any of the 8 previously recorded Inter-Glacial Periods spanning the last 800,000 years.

That is proof nothing is happening very slowly. On top of that, the global temperatures are lower than any of the 8 previously recorded Inter-Glacial Periods.

If anything, we should be asking, "Why is it so damn freaking cold during this Inter-Glacial Period?"

But, that will never happen because the IPCC's stated mission is to investigate man-made global warming to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

That is tantamount to a cancer research facility investigating tobacco as the sole cause of cancer to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

We can all see how stupid (and unethical and scientifically invalid) that would be, right?

When people go to NASA's website, they never see the fine-print buried on the page.

The fine-print is that when NASA says temperatures have, um, "increased," it is basing that claim by comparing temperatures to a very narrow window, from 1953 to (if I recall correctly) 1975.

That's part of the propaganda. NASA cherry-picked that date range to support its own self-serving conclusions. NASA cannot use dates outside that range, like 1950 or 1951, 1952 or 1945 or 1930, because compared against a larger date range, NASA's claims disintegrate (much like the two space shuttles did).

Hey, Lord! You are always complaining that discussion points are not backed by scientific papers, and yet not a peep from you when your fellow denier Mircea posts an article from Yahoo! news, for goodness sakes, which then refers back to the original article in NATIONAL REVIEW, whIch is a POLITICS-BASED mag. But no criticism from you on this case. Double-standard?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hey, Lord! You are always complaining that discussion points are not backed by scientific papers, and yet not a peep from you when your fellow denier Mircea posts an article from Yahoo! news, for goodness sakes, which then refers back to the original article in NATIONAL REVIEW, whIch is a POLITICS-BASED mag. But no criticism from you on this case. Double-standard?

I''m not the one who is always crying about showing a study the is little better than proving 2 x 2 = 4. That's what you do.

He didn't reference blogs or articles in this post to make his claims. What I see look s like it is correct, but I have no reason to check the details.

As the Greenland ice sheets retreat, we are seeing old farming communities.

Not far from where I love, it used to be under water.

Everything I have seen in his statement, appears true. Sure, he might be wrong on the finer points, but in general, what he said is fact that you can find in the sciences.

Please note. He never said CO2 levels were higher than today.

He stated what is obvious to those who have seen such sciences. Maybe you should stop denying the sciences and learn a thing or two, instead of believing the narrative.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I searched and could not find anyplace where you actually linked to the NASA article. Basically, you are taking a single sentence out of context by not providing the link so that we can see said context. All you say is “go to the NASA website”. It’s a big website with lots of articles and information, Which specific one do you want us to read?

Like when you and your buddies link the whole IPCC web site?

Hypocrite...

 

[watsup]

I''m not the one who is always crying about showing a study the is little better than proving 2 x 2 = 4. That's what you do.

He didn't reference blogs or articles in this post to make his claims. What I see look s like it is correct, but I have no reason to check the details.

As the Greenland ice sheets retreat, we are seeing old farming communities.

Not far from where I love, it used to be under water.

Everything I have seen in his statement, appears true. Sure, he might be wrong on the finer points, but in general, what he said is fact that you can find in the sciences.

Please note. He never said CO2 levels were higher than today.

He stated what is obvious to those who have seen such sciences. Maybe you should stop denying the sciences and learn a thing or two, instead of believing the narrative.

I see. So it actually IS okay to use news articles from Yahoo! and the far right political rag National Review rather than the “papers” that you always whine about. That is, until I do so.
You do know that all that you have done is to prove my comment about your double-standard, right? Thanks!

 

[watsup]

Like when you and your buddies link the whole IPCC web site?

Hypocrite...

Psychological projection.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I see. So it actually IS okay to use news articles from Yahoo! and the far right political rag National Review rather than the “papers” that you always whine about. That is, until I do so.
You do know that all that you have done is to prove my comment about your double-standard, right? Thanks!

I didn't see that following the discussion backwards.

 

[watsup]

I didn't see that following the discussion backwards.

Double-standard double-down: more excuses as to why fellow denier Mircea gets a pass for his Yahoo!/National Review article, Anyone else would have immediately been met with a totally opposite reaction .

 

[Tahuyaman]

Here’s really all you need to know about the global warming issue. Virtually every occurrence on earth, even things unrelated to the climate, can be caused by global warming.

The bottom line is that global warming is not an issue of science. It’s a political issue and it’s a hoax.

warmlist

A complete list of things caused by global warming

 

[watsup]

Here’s really all you need to know about the global warming issue. Virtually every occurrence on earth, even things unrelated to the climate, can be caused by global warming.

The bottom line is that global warming is not an issue of science. It’s a political issue and it’s a hoax.

warmlist

A complete list of things caused by global warming

Common denier talking point.