Does the snow storm disprove climate change?
- Thread starter ymmot31
- Start date
The Earth is 4.6 billion years old. It has warmed and cooled numerous times thruout its history, most of the times when there were no humans anywhere to influence the climate.
Humans have enjoyed roughly 250 years of industrialized society. That's nowhere near enough time to have any significant influence on such a complex ecosystem.
There may actually be a change going on in the Earth's climate...although the mean global temperature has remained roughly constant for approx. 2 decades. Any change in the climate is more likely to be caused by the single greatest influence on weather patterns, climate and life on this planet. That cause would be the Sun.
The 98% of scientists who supposedly agree on climate change....a bogus stat BTW, as the group of scientists from which that 98% number was derived, had already been identified as "believers"...NEVER mention the Sun in any research they throw out as "fact". Yet, we know that the Sun goes thru hotter and cooler periods (relatively speaking) and those changes have a large impact on the Earth.
What IS fact is that the religion of "man-caused climate change" has made a few people very wealthy, insured continued employment for a few thousand scientists and separated many millions of average folks from several billion of their hard-earned dollars. All because of something that has happened before, will happen again and NEVER because of anything humans have done.
Humans have enjoyed roughly 250 years of industrialized society. That's nowhere near enough time to have any significant influence on such a complex ecosystem.
There may actually be a change going on in the Earth's climate...although the mean global temperature has remained roughly constant for approx. 2 decades. Any change in the climate is more likely to be caused by the single greatest influence on weather patterns, climate and life on this planet. That cause would be the Sun.
The 98% of scientists who supposedly agree on climate change....a bogus stat BTW, as the group of scientists from which that 98% number was derived, had already been identified as "believers"...NEVER mention the Sun in any research they throw out as "fact". Yet, we know that the Sun goes thru hotter and cooler periods (relatively speaking) and those changes have a large impact on the Earth.
What IS fact is that the religion of "man-caused climate change" has made a few people very wealthy, insured continued employment for a few thousand scientists and separated many millions of average folks from several billion of their hard-earned dollars. All because of something that has happened before, will happen again and NEVER because of anything humans have done.
You can read this here, it is written by one of the prophets of your religion. The Hadley Center admits to a hiatus in the warming, but Z does not. Why do you deny science Z? The science is settled isn't it?
"The recent decrease in rate of temperature rise has been
independently observed in both land and sea-surface temperature records. There is also evidence of a slower accumulation of heat in the ocean down to 700 m depth since 2003."
IF CO2 was the main driver of any temperature rise, THEN the temperature would have continued to rise at a rate consistent with increasing CO2 levels.
1+2=3
2+2=4
3+2=4
4+2=4
Something must be happening with 2.
"The recent decrease in rate of temperature rise has been
independently observed in both land and sea-surface temperature records. There is also evidence of a slower accumulation of heat in the ocean down to 700 m depth since 2003."
IF CO2 was the main driver of any temperature rise, THEN the temperature would have continued to rise at a rate consistent with increasing CO2 levels.
1+2=3
2+2=4
3+2=4
4+2=4
Something must be happening with 2.
This is the entirety of the "argument" against and it is simply insufficient. This is why you've politicized this, why you fail to understand the evidence, and why your Republican leaders won't even listen to scientists who vote for them.
And it is all very very pathetic.
Is it easier for you guys to ignore scientists who are just as educated and have access to the same data as alarmists, who claim there is no proof of AGW, if you pretend that I am the only person with doubts?
You are being intellectually lazy. There is a preponderance of evidence that proves the science is not settled, yet you have no questions.
You want to impress me with your knowledge, yet you point to consequences of warming as being proof of AGW.
You attempt to argue from a position of superiority, yet your arguments are merely straw men, red herrings, circular, ad hominem, or the ever persuasive appeal to authority. I understand why you have to resort to such tactics, wish more people did.
You are being intellectually lazy. There is a preponderance of evidence that proves the science is not settled, yet you have no questions.
You want to impress me with your knowledge, yet you point to consequences of warming as being proof of AGW.
You attempt to argue from a position of superiority, yet your arguments are merely straw men, red herrings, circular, ad hominem, or the ever persuasive appeal to authority. I understand why you have to resort to such tactics, wish more people did.
No, because we've seen it all before. This is the Big Tobacco playbook. Buy off just enough quack scientists to try and keep the debate going. Second hand smoke is safe. Cigarettes are actually good for you. Smoke promotes healthy growth in the human body. Here, let's use cartoon characters to teach the kids about our product. You can't say for certain cigarettes are bad for us so stop trying to scare everybody.
I can get an individual quack scientist to claim anything if I pay them enough. Elvis is alive and he has a club foot and lives in Boca Raton.
What I cannot do is get a major scientific institution with a national or international standing to vouch for such utter nonsense. That's every scientific institution on earth with a national or international standing on my side and none your side. 100% for me, zero for you because you have none on your side. Zero. Not in America. Not in China. Not in Japan. Not in Great Britain. Not in Russia. Not in Italy. Not in France. Not in India. Nowhere. Across the globe in every country in every language you have no support for your foolish opinions from any legitimate scientific body.
You and your quacks and paid hacks are alone and isolated because you should be. Your opinions exist on facebook and message boards. Fodder for idiots. You are not relevant to the world around you any longer.
What I cannot do is get a major scientific institution with a national or international standing to vouch for such utter nonsense. That's every scientific institution on earth with a national or international standing on my side and none your side. 100% for me, zero for you because you have none on your side. Zero. Not in America. Not in China. Not in Japan. Not in Great Britain. Not in Russia. Not in Italy. Not in France. Not in India. Nowhere. Across the globe in every country in every language you have no support for your foolish opinions from any legitimate scientific body.
You and your quacks and paid hacks are alone and isolated because you should be. Your opinions exist on facebook and message boards. Fodder for idiots. You are not relevant to the world around you any longer.
Disprove climate change? no, but its a prettygood rebuttal of global warming.
The global warming sheep love to call it climate change now because the phrase "global warming" was becoming
laughable to clear thinkin people. The reason is simple, a person can logically make a case against g w, but you really can't refute climate change.
The left is pretty crafty with their propoganda
The global warming sheep love to call it climate change now because the phrase "global warming" was becoming
laughable to clear thinkin people. The reason is simple, a person can logically make a case against g w, but you really can't refute climate change.
The left is pretty crafty with their propoganda
Last edited:
Of course they knew cigarettes were bad and nicotine was addictive. EVERYONE did Z, Tjey were covering their asses for lawsuits.
Do you think at this point the IPCC or any other agency that has completely sold out on AGW would change their stance quick or easily? Do you realize how much money would immediately dry up, not to mention possible lawsuits.
Do you think at this point the IPCC or any other agency that has completely sold out on AGW would change their stance quick or easily? Do you realize how much money would immediately dry up, not to mention possible lawsuits.
How much money would dry up? LOL. Do you have any concept of how much money Big Energy can bring to bear on the subject of climate change? Climate Change science is poking a stick in the eye of the largest oil and coal syndicates on earth with the middle east entirely dependent on the outcome and China's very future of being able to supply power to meet the demands of their exponential growth with coal fired power plants and we haven't even gotten yet to Exxon Mobile and the US cartels. Money. LOL. You hayseeds crack me up.
Look, take this statement of yours as an example:
That is complete nonsense and provably factually ludicrous. Let's examine what the US Government taking on Big Tobacco (finally) has done:
"Fewer Americans are smoking, with the smoking rate at its lowest point in 50 years, federal health experts reported Wednesday.
Just under 18 percent of Americans are smokers, down from 21 percent in 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports.
"That is the lowest prevalence of adult smoking since the CDC's Nation Health Interview Survey began keeping such records in 1965," CDC said in a statement, with 42.1 million people still smoking in 2013."
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/calling-it-quits-american-smoking-hits-50-year-low-n256711
All as a result of our Government taking on a powerful cartel bent on spreading public misinformation and advertising to children... which we stopped. An example of Government doing what it is supposed to do in looking out for the wellness of their people and preventing greedy unscrupulous interests from profiting off lies and deceit. I can make the same case for the Clean Air Act and also our government's efforts at controlling CFCs depleting the ozone layer.
But you, in your warped world, see greed and misinformation on the part of the Government instead of those that would sell your soul and that of your children if it meant more profit and more greed and more money. There is a clear unequivocal history of this.
It was a govt led shakedown, and tobacco paid up and the bad publicity slipped away. They didn't stop making their product.
That is complete nonsense and provably factually ludicrous. Let's examine what the US Government taking on Big Tobacco (finally) has done:
"Fewer Americans are smoking, with the smoking rate at its lowest point in 50 years, federal health experts reported Wednesday.
Just under 18 percent of Americans are smokers, down from 21 percent in 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports.
"That is the lowest prevalence of adult smoking since the CDC's Nation Health Interview Survey began keeping such records in 1965," CDC said in a statement, with 42.1 million people still smoking in 2013."
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/calling-it-quits-american-smoking-hits-50-year-low-n256711
All as a result of our Government taking on a powerful cartel bent on spreading public misinformation and advertising to children... which we stopped. An example of Government doing what it is supposed to do in looking out for the wellness of their people and preventing greedy unscrupulous interests from profiting off lies and deceit. I can make the same case for the Clean Air Act and also our government's efforts at controlling CFCs depleting the ozone layer.
But you, in your warped world, see greed and misinformation on the part of the Government instead of those that would sell your soul and that of your children if it meant more profit and more greed and more money. There is a clear unequivocal history of this.
Last edited:
People aren't going to stop using oil Z, or fossil fuel.
WTF is big energy? You think we can stop China from building coal plants?
You think the Govt is forcing the end of coal plants in the US, lol.
Efficiency and load swings are causing that.
In the last 10 years what has every home in the nation changed from? Vacuum tube TV's and computer screens, not to mention LED Lights.
The load for the company I work for swings from 13000 Megawatts to 27000 Megawatts. The high end isn't the problem, it's the low end.
And that's started in the last 10 years.
You see Coal and Nuke plants can't just fire up and start producing electricity, they have to build heat and steam, this takes the better part of a day, that's too long.
Where as a natural gas plant can go from idle to full load in a matter of minutes....they also happen to emit less Co2.
At this point Natural gas is as cheap and better suited than coal.
If you don't think Trillions of dollars are at stake with what the agencies put out you're a fool, and I don't believe you are Z.
WTF is big energy? You think we can stop China from building coal plants?
You think the Govt is forcing the end of coal plants in the US, lol.
Efficiency and load swings are causing that.
In the last 10 years what has every home in the nation changed from? Vacuum tube TV's and computer screens, not to mention LED Lights.
The load for the company I work for swings from 13000 Megawatts to 27000 Megawatts. The high end isn't the problem, it's the low end.
And that's started in the last 10 years.
You see Coal and Nuke plants can't just fire up and start producing electricity, they have to build heat and steam, this takes the better part of a day, that's too long.
Where as a natural gas plant can go from idle to full load in a matter of minutes....they also happen to emit less Co2.
At this point Natural gas is as cheap and better suited than coal.
If you don't think Trillions of dollars are at stake with what the agencies put out you're a fool, and I don't believe you are Z.
You are blind if you cannot see the entire world moving towards alternative energy sources. Will it happen overnight? No, but the collapse of oil prices is just the beginning. China's future cannot be more coal fired power plants even though they are building them faster than you or I can post. There will be a reckoning. Change is happening and although change on this magnitude always starts off slowly, the momentum is clearly building as is the realization that the old ways are no longer good enough. The coal and oil cartels are living on borrowed time.
Remember when the internet sprang into being? The laughable thought that it would challenge retail storefront marketplaces? Well how silly does it sound, now?
Energy is front and center. The focus of the world is on it. A revolution in the industry is coming and what's on the other side does not include fossil fuels. Their extinction is inevitable. Your oil and coal will be as useless as your empty malls and Blockbuster Movie rentals. A relic that we shake our heads at and wonder how we ever were so backwards.
Energy is front and center. The focus of the world is on it. A revolution in the industry is coming and what's on the other side does not include fossil fuels. Their extinction is inevitable. Your oil and coal will be as useless as your empty malls and Blockbuster Movie rentals. A relic that we shake our heads at and wonder how we ever were so backwards.
People stopped smoking because it's bad for them and expensive, not because the govt went after the companies.
The same reason people eat healthier today, not because the govt went after big junk food.
The collapse of oil prices is due to a flood of oil on the market due to North American production, and Saudi Arabia flooding the market.
Coal isn't going anywhere, we've got too much of it to just not ever use it.
What'll happen is natural gas prices will escalate, but the electrical demand will still be there.
Eventually we'll go away from fossil fuels, but not in our lifetime.
Man-caused global warming is complete and utter hogwash; a hoax of massive proportions based ENTIRELY on computer models fed data that itself is flawed and has been tweaked to illicit the desired outcome.
The Earth has been far warmer and far colder than it is right now. So, did non-existent humans cause either of those changes?
The man-caused global warming agenda is so hellbent on demonizing humanity and capitalism specifically as the culprits that nothing is out of bounds for them. Why do humans have to be the cause of some change in the global environment? Why is the Sun never considered? Why has there been no marked increase in global mean temps for nearly 20 years?
If...and it's a very big IF there is any movement toward wind and solar energy on a world-wide basis, it's entirely because radical agenda-driven governments (like our own) are FORCING it upon their populations. Fossil-based energy is still far more affordable than any "green energy" alternative. In fact, I would suggest that "green energy" wouldn't even exist in the US without enormous government subsidies. 3,2,1...before someone suggests that oil companies receive the same subsidies, I'll make you a deal...let's end ALL government subsidies for EVERYTHING. No oil company subsidies (very small BTW)...and no "green energy" subsidies. We will let the marketplace sort out the winner and the public can make the decision on what they want. How's that?
The Earth has been far warmer and far colder than it is right now. So, did non-existent humans cause either of those changes?
The man-caused global warming agenda is so hellbent on demonizing humanity and capitalism specifically as the culprits that nothing is out of bounds for them. Why do humans have to be the cause of some change in the global environment? Why is the Sun never considered? Why has there been no marked increase in global mean temps for nearly 20 years?
If...and it's a very big IF there is any movement toward wind and solar energy on a world-wide basis, it's entirely because radical agenda-driven governments (like our own) are FORCING it upon their populations. Fossil-based energy is still far more affordable than any "green energy" alternative. In fact, I would suggest that "green energy" wouldn't even exist in the US without enormous government subsidies. 3,2,1...before someone suggests that oil companies receive the same subsidies, I'll make you a deal...let's end ALL government subsidies for EVERYTHING. No oil company subsidies (very small BTW)...and no "green energy" subsidies. We will let the marketplace sort out the winner and the public can make the decision on what they want. How's that?
I try to stay out of these "debates" on here, but anytime somebody brings up John Coleman and touts his credentials as "founder of the Weather Channel," I have to jump in and say something. Yes, he helped start The Weather Channel, but he's not a climatologist. He's not even a meteorologist. His degree is in journalism, and he's a talking head who reads weather reports - or, he was, because he's now retired. He has no scientific background or credentials whatsoever.
What's more, as anybody who has seen his weather forecasts will tell you, he's a total flake. Picture the 'wacky weather guy' stereotype and multiply it by 100. A total on-camera goofball. I watched him for years doing the local weather and was always left just shaking my head at his lunacy.
His views on global warming are no more valid than Blueworld 3.0's, or Z's for that matter. Just like you guys, he does nothing but parrot what he reads.
What's more, as anybody who has seen his weather forecasts will tell you, he's a total flake. Picture the 'wacky weather guy' stereotype and multiply it by 100. A total on-camera goofball. I watched him for years doing the local weather and was always left just shaking my head at his lunacy.
His views on global warming are no more valid than Blueworld 3.0's, or Z's for that matter. Just like you guys, he does nothing but parrot what he reads.
8 pages on this thread alone, count the other 100 we've had in the past, and Z has YET to make a post positing even one hard evidenced point of science. Not one. The other idiot that usually backs him has dropped out. Guess maybe he might have seen how stupid his arguments actually were.
Lek and Z continue to try and argue the point that we disagree with Climate Change, or Global Warming. No one has said that. What we have said, and continue to say, is that you cannot show one shred of actual evidence that points to man being responsible for any change in the climate.
You people allow someone to tell you that warm water sinks, and accept it as fact. Then you want to turn around and call me stupid. You are the same people that BELIEVED the Earth was flat. Why? Because someone told you it was.
Lek and Z continue to try and argue the point that we disagree with Climate Change, or Global Warming. No one has said that. What we have said, and continue to say, is that you cannot show one shred of actual evidence that points to man being responsible for any change in the climate.
You people allow someone to tell you that warm water sinks, and accept it as fact. Then you want to turn around and call me stupid. You are the same people that BELIEVED the Earth was flat. Why? Because someone told you it was.
^Nice basic review of what really is simple straightforward science and physics... but yet they will be impervious to it.
Don't forget, according to ymmot in his repeated postings co2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas so we can put all of it we want to into the atmosphere. LOL. At the 3:40 mark they literally mock people like him that claim such ignorance.
Don't forget, according to ymmot in his repeated postings co2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas so we can put all of it we want to into the atmosphere. LOL. At the 3:40 mark they literally mock people like him that claim such ignorance.
Last edited:
Homeowners insurance is higher in areas prone to natural disasters therefore hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes are not real. People are just scaring you because they want to make money.
Have you been checked for exposure to green algae as it causes cognitive dysfunction and the inability to comprehend basic 3rd grade science.
. For example, a person with AS may engage in a one-sided, long-winded speech about a favorite topic, while misunderstanding or not recognizing the listener's feelings or reactions, such as a wish to change the topic of talk or end the interaction.[9] This social awkwardness has been called "active but odd".[1
Pursuit of specific and narrow areas of interest is one of the most striking possible features of AS.[1] Individuals with AS may collect volumes of detailed information on a relatively narrow topic such as weather data or star names, without necessarily having a genuine understanding of the broader topic
AMERICAN RESEARCHERS DISCOVER 'STUPIDITY VIRUS'
American scientists have located a virus that attacks human DNA, which may cause those infected to be less intelligent, impairing brain activity, learning and memory.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the University of Nebraska have identified traces of an algal virus, known as ATCV-1, in throat swabs drawn from healthy volunteers which appeared to lessen their mental capacity...
http://www.newsweek.com/american-researchers-discover-stupidity-virus-283319
American scientists have located a virus that attacks human DNA, which may cause those infected to be less intelligent, impairing brain activity, learning and memory.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the University of Nebraska have identified traces of an algal virus, known as ATCV-1, in throat swabs drawn from healthy volunteers which appeared to lessen their mental capacity...
http://www.newsweek.com/american-researchers-discover-stupidity-virus-283319
I guess I'm the "other idiot that has dropped out"... Couldn't possibly have anything to do with it being the weekend and not wanting to spend any of it talking this nonsense with you.
First of all you can go touch yourself for that baseless ad hominem. Second of all, you've shown repeatedly (albeit unknowingly) an inability to comprehend basic science so I don't really have any interest in engaging you, least of all about science. I really don't care what you believe about the science, my overarching point in this thread is that the science is independent of politics or what you may like to be true or how you chose to define your wording. That, and the shear audacity of some you to think your armchair quarterback bloggers have it all figured out. That the scientists must just be forgetting the Sun or some other fundamental obvious piece of science.
First of all you can go touch yourself for that baseless ad hominem. Second of all, you've shown repeatedly (albeit unknowingly) an inability to comprehend basic science so I don't really have any interest in engaging you, least of all about science. I really don't care what you believe about the science, my overarching point in this thread is that the science is independent of politics or what you may like to be true or how you chose to define your wording. That, and the shear audacity of some you to think your armchair quarterback bloggers have it all figured out. That the scientists must just be forgetting the Sun or some other fundamental obvious piece of science.
I'll probably regret this, but here is an extension of one of those videos posted earlier.
It is a four minute video. This is really all the science you need; everything else is just added and added and compounded and compounded evidence.
What she is discussing is a conservation of energy"argument" evidence that global warming due to the greenhouse effect is occurring. What she doesn't mention is that the source of this deficit can be determined using spectroscopy.
So heating has to be occurring, that is what energy deficit means. By comparing the incoming to the outgoing light, you can determine why.
It is a four minute video. This is really all the science you need; everything else is just added and added and compounded and compounded evidence.
What she is discussing is a conservation of energy
So heating has to be occurring, that is what energy deficit means. By comparing the incoming to the outgoing light, you can determine why.
Wasn't talking about you. Sorry you thought I was.
You're right, there is no reason for us to discuss science when all you want to do is discuss certain parts of science and ignore others. You deny the fact that concrete and asphalt collect, hold, and release more heat than areas covered by trees and grass. I know that you understand the concept, but you refuse to accept it.
You've been told to ignore it and you do. I can't respect that.
You're right, there is no reason for us to discuss science when all you want to do is discuss certain parts of science and ignore others. You deny the fact that concrete and asphalt collect, hold, and release more heat than areas covered by trees and grass. I know that you understand the concept, but you refuse to accept it.
You've been told to ignore it and you do. I can't respect that.
Yep. Right over his head. Didn't leave a scratch. I told you. The answer to his CO2 ignorance is posted plainly enough for a 3rd grader to comprehend and he just keeps spinning his same old circular "arguments" round and round. As soon as one gets shelled then just move onto the next. Now it is heat islands.
If it were an issue with heat islands meaning we were just measuring temperature differently now that we have before and thus the increase in warming, then in what way would that raise global co2 levels? If concrete cities are radiating the heat then why is CO2 being produced and added at a rate never before seen by any living human? Heat islands are yet another completely discredited idiotic idea proffered for fools because it sounds good to the ignorant. Problem is it doesn't hold up to even a Jr. High level scrutiny.
See how easily your childish ramblings are destroyed? Now move onto the next one because we all have seen it before. As I said, round and round you go because you are not interesting in knowledge you are interested in only in perpetuating ignorance and you have a ripe audience here among this kelp pod.
If it were an issue with heat islands meaning we were just measuring temperature differently now that we have before and thus the increase in warming, then in what way would that raise global co2 levels? If concrete cities are radiating the heat then why is CO2 being produced and added at a rate never before seen by any living human? Heat islands are yet another completely discredited idiotic idea proffered for fools because it sounds good to the ignorant. Problem is it doesn't hold up to even a Jr. High level scrutiny.
See how easily your childish ramblings are destroyed? Now move onto the next one because we all have seen it before. As I said, round and round you go because you are not interesting in knowledge you are interested in only in perpetuating ignorance and you have a ripe audience here among this kelp pod.
Why don't you lobby your country to stop cutting down trees? Trees are needed to convert CO2 into oxygen.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Calipari ''“I’m not letting [Zvonimir Ivisic] shoot any threes,"- Latest: BigBlueManSouthCentralKY
-
