Preach! That's church right there
Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Caveman Catfan
- Start date
So when we had the little ice age from 1300 to the late 1800's human population dropped by 10% not counting disease outbreaks and famines that were partially caused by the cold. Would you rather go back to that because that is "normal"? Or were the early 1900's normal? Was the dust bowl era normal? 1970's had fears of another ice age because of a rash of cold snaps.. was that normal?
The medieval warm period saw an increase in human population. Humans fare better in warmer climates. I just don't understand all the anti humans.
Do some research on yearly high, yearly low and average temps by year and you will find they all trend flat. Again, your memory doesn't supersede data. Had the same conversation with family about Lexington weather and had to prove that it hasn't changed. The averages, the highs, lows, number of days in the range vs out of range, etc. All of the data points to normalized temps over the past 100 years. Please open your mind to the fact that what they are feeding you is hyperbole to gain further control over your mind and more importantly the money you pay in taxes so they can continue to push us into a socialistic government.
The U.S. Climate Normals collection has 10 versions: 1901-1930, 1911-1940 and so on through 1991-2020. In the image below, we’ve compared the U.S. annual average temperature during each Normals period to the 20th-century average (1901-2000). The influence of long-term global warming is obvious: The earliest map in the series has the most widespread and darkest blues, and the most recent map has the most widespread and darkest reds.
NOAA: The new U.S. Climate Normals are here. What do they tell us about climate change?
So some guy named "8titles" on a basketball message board or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Your choice.
What 8titles is telling his family as they ask him for assurance, is a lie. He will go to his grave owning that.
Last edited:
Global scientific unanimity for Anthropogenic Climate Change. Ask them to link ONE scientific organization with National or International standing anywhere on the globe in any country from Communist China to Russia to anywhere that agrees with them and they cannot provide you one because there are none. Only individual quack scientists paid off by big energy. Not because they don't know that they've killed their own families too, because they do, but because of what they are afraid you will do when you find out they've killed yours, too.
Plenty of other scientists believeThe U.S. Climate Normals collection has 10 versions: 1901-1930, 1911-1940 and so on through 1991-2020. In the image below, we’ve compared the U.S. annual average temperature during each Normals period to the 20th-century average (1901-2000). The influence of long-term global warming is obvious: The earliest map in the series has the most widespread and darkest blues, and the most recent map has the most widespread and darkest reds.
NOAA: The new U.S. Climate Normals are here. What do they tell us about climate change?
So some guy named "8titles" on a basketball message board or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Your choice.
My goodness you poor, poor soul. To think something this important and you do that. And per your own post you're reassuring your worried family with it, too.
"Friends of Science"... or FoS (I wonder if they did that purposefully)... anyway here is all you need to know: The society was founded in 2002 and launched its website in October of that year.[2][3] They are largely funded by the fossil fuel industry.[4][5]
So again, people, the scientific world in one voice is telling you something some very, very rick folks desperately do not want you to understand. It is easily obtainable and understandable if you care to work at it a little bit.
Every Scientific Institution on earth, in any country, under any political system, are all telling you something and there is not one legitimate scientific organization anywhere that will disagree.
Why would it be so hard to have 1 prestigious scientific organization anywhere, or in say, China... China wants and needs to burn more coal. It would certainly benefit the Government's policy and it would contradict and embarrass Western scientists. Plus Big Energy dollars would flow in backing their work. To have 1 credible organization such as say the Chinese Academy of Sciences to say it's all a bunch of hooey and then publish their work to the world that proves their case. Or you say "China Joe" then OK, how about Russia, or Cuba, or Iran, or North Korea, or New Zealand, or Australia, or South Africa, or England, or Canada... isn't it strange you can't get one legitimate scientific organization that is credible to just stand up to expose the Climate Change hoax and reap the full benefits that would entail as what is bigger in the entire scientific community than scooping all the others? Think of the money Big Energy would lavish upon them. Think of how happy China would be. How happy Russia would be.
But you can't. Not one. Anywhere.
But you can't. Not one. Anywhere.
Last edited:
I don’t have the time or energy to dig up my previous charts but to summarize, that NOAA chart shows an average movement of less than 1 degree across the us which has been stated before. If you look over hundreds or thousands or millions of years you will see movement like this in temps. A degree here or there. If you look at local temps just about anywhere you see a flat line over the last 100 years. Net is earths temps move but there is no indication of any drastic movement or extreme fluctuations like everyone wants to believe in. Believe what you want, I could give a shit, but there is very little data to support a significant event. Try DuckDuckGo and look at climate change myths rather than google and sucking on the proverbial gas pipe you are getting from the government and their disciples.
I agree, If you think I am going to sift through your complete nonsense in a circular argument while you run around posting this nonsense then you are mistaken as well. Every legitimate scientific institution on earth is on my side. When you say "the government and their disciples" which government? Which disciples? You mean... them all?
I am not here to debate. My entire point is cherish the time you have with your families as normal days are running out. Fast.
Isn't climate change magical? It is the one issue in earth's history that can somehow cause every government on earth along with every scientific institution on earth to all agree to fool Conservative Americans for some fantastical reason. Complete unanimity. I hope the spell doesn't break, Amazing despite global chaos we can hold our little hoax together.
I am not here to debate. My entire point is cherish the time you have with your families as normal days are running out. Fast.
Isn't climate change magical? It is the one issue in earth's history that can somehow cause every government on earth along with every scientific institution on earth to all agree to fool Conservative Americans for some fantastical reason. Complete unanimity. I hope the spell doesn't break, Amazing despite global chaos we can hold our little hoax together.
A degree here or there is a massive shift in the grand scheme of ecosystems. And shifting that much over millions of years is not even close to shifting that much in the span of a few hundred. What we're seeing now has no comparison in the history of the planet.
Climate scientists have been wrong in their predictions so far. Unfortunately they've been underestimating the rate of change.
Taxes will reverse it. Just you wait!!11
Absolutely great point. We are skewing well beyond the worst projections and doing so faster. Nobody talks about 2100 any more. It's 2050 for the optimistic and 2030 for those more on the frontlines and the 2030 folks are moving again. Much worse, much faster. Feedback loops taking hold in the arctic. When the BOE comes and the jet stream and thermohaline circulation stops... they will understand what rate of change means to life very clearly.
None of the predictions they made came true. They put up a sign at glacier national park about a famous glacier there disappearing by 2020. They took the sign down because they glacier actually got bigger.
Just saying stuff doesn't make it true and comparing now to 1970 doesn't show a pattern.
You also notice the climate change denying message shift over time. It used to be "climate change doesn't exist" then it became "climate change probably exist but it's not manmade" and soon it'll be "okay climate change is man made but there's nothing we can really do about it" and then "okay there were a few things we could do, but it's too late now so we might as well just keep living it up while we can".
If you zoom in on the chat it shows something a little different...None of the predictions they made came true. They put up a sign at glacier national park about a famous glacier there disappearing by 2020. They took the sign down because they glacier actually got bigger.
Just saying stuff doesn't make it true and comparing now to 1970 doesn't show a pattern.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/f... the Earth moved out,ice-age-recovery warming.
It also is a graph called "global 3ma temperature, sea level, and ice volume reconstruction" from NOAA. To think this guy is quoting NOAA with some graph that doesn't even represent what he is saying to try to disprove climate change and to say everything is normal...If you zoom in on the chat it shows something a little different...
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php#:~:text=As the Earth moved out,ice-age-recovery warming.
I am not spending my time with this clown in shooting down every pile of manure he can shovel and misrepresent.
This is a direct link directly to NOAA. See what they say about Climate Change: NOAA: Climate change impacts
Yea. Your graph shows 1500 years... which includes the little ice age in which much of the Earth went years without a summer. That was 1300 to the late 1800's which your graph clearly shows lower temps. My graph shows temps over a million years. Science is hard but reading a chart shouldn't be.If you zoom in on the chat it shows something a little different...
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php#:~:text=As the Earth moved out,ice-age-recovery warming.
I don't know why I do this as I know you are incapable of listening.
Right now, today, as a starting point for scientist to agree to understand how fast and how impactful we are changing our atmosphere, they established what is an agreed upon baseline. We have to establish some point in time from which to understand how humans have impacted the atmosphere and to do so it makes sense to pick a point that begins around broad human industrialization.
So we concur the gyrations of earths previous cycles are "normal" and not influenced by Anthropogenic activity as humans were not even around engaged in pumping GHGs into the atmosphere for virtually your entire graph. That's the whole point of say an 1850 baseline.
What was agreed upon was that if human activity increased beyond a baseline by 1.5 degrees then we would experience severe consequences with an increasing range of effect. An increase 3-5 degrees beyond the baseline is a rate of change too great for life to adapt to and will result in extinction.
So the focus from say 1850 forward is not a trick it is an attempt to understand how much and how fast human activity is changing our climate from what would otherwise be expected.
The problem is we are changing faster than even occurred in the Permian Extinction.
Last edited:
Then why did the earth have ice ages when the co2 levels were much higher and how the hell did the Earth not burn up when we had over 2000ppm co2? Also plants die under 200 ppm co2. If you follow this chart without the intervention of humans.... all plant life on Earth dies in the not so distant future... but we can't tax that.
but when you say normal for 1850 forward you are leaving out a huge volcano that cooled the Earth to the point of entering a small ice age. You just want to pick a time that best proves your point. If you were truly making your point then it would show with all the data across the life of the Earth... it doesn't.
And we move further into the endless circular argument.
Then why did the earth have ice ages when the co2 levels were much higher and how the hell did the Earth not burn up when we had over 2000ppm co2? Also plants die under 200 ppm co2. If you follow this chart without the intervention of humans.... all plant life on Earth dies in the not so distant future... but we can't tax that.
but when you say normal for 1850 forward you are leaving out a huge volcano that cooled the Earth to the point of entering a small ice age. You just want to pick a time that best proves your point. If you were truly making your point then it would show with all the data across the life of the Earth... it doesn't.
OK. You want me to just keep knocking down nonsense after nonsense and when I do you just move onto more nonsense. Been there done that. It's a tired game on social media.
We have entire bodies that do this professionally. They are the combined scientific bodies within the greatest scientific institutions on earth. The only thing they have are their good name and their reputations.
If you have information they need then please submit your research for critique in a a peer reviewed publication. I'm sure they will find your misstated graphs, misrepresented data, and paid hack flat out lies very credible and if you work hard maybe you can get one published and the Big Energy hacks will shower you with money.
Here is a simple question: if you have the answers and proof, why hasn't some young scientist shocked the world with his incredible discovery that climate change is all a hoax? Think that might be a scientific find of the century? To disprove EVERY scientific institution on earth all wrong?
You're onto something with your work. I think if you keep at it then National Geographic should be knocking on your door any day now. A Nobel Prize isn't out of the question. Here the whole world thought there was this problem but hmt5000 had a graph he googled and just like that everything changed. Don't know how we missed it? I think he has a special "G" on his keyboard that googles better than anyone else does. I wonder what color it is? Maybe he painted it gold and presto this secret graph of his that disproves climate change popped up.
Because this is about control and money and not the environment. "my work" lol. I'm just reading the charts and graphs and coming up with different theories.
Since you are clearly more educated on this than I am can you explain how Earth came out of the little ice age before human industrialization. Shirley you've read a paper that explains this.
It's about control and money. So the scientific institutions of every country are controlling their host countries exactly how? Exactly in what way does this one issue cause every country on earth to all do the same thing? You think Cuba has the same desires as Rwanda? Does Turkey and Erdogan allow themselves to be dictated to by The Turkish Academy of Sciences? As does say Switzerland? Seems like a strange theory this broad global conspiracy that defies the normal way everything else is done. They must all really hate American Conservatives to put up such a broad front when at any moment somebody might stumble upon the golden internet graph that proves Climate Change is all a hoax.
But set all of that aside. If I can explain to you how Earth came out of the Little Ice Age then I win? What do I win because I sense yet another strange question will pop up? Then another? Like in a circle?
Amiright?
OK. I hope you live in city that is environmentally neutral and not being a huge hypocrite. I hope you are ready to eat bugs for your protein and never travel again. All these groups putting out this stuff are telling us how they view future life. I'm just wondering where the 6.5 billion extra people are going to go from what they say is acceptable human population? You're smarter than me so I'll just trust you to figure it out for me. You'll own nothing and be happy.It's about control and money. So the scientific institutions of every country are controlling their host countries exactly how? Exactly in what way does this one issue cause every country on earth to all do the same thing? You think Cuba has the same desires as Rwanda? Does Turkey and Erdogan allow themselves to be dictated to by The Turkish Academy of Sciences? As does say Switzerland? Seems like a strange theory this broad global conspiracy that defies the normal way everything else is done. They must all really hate American Conservatives to put up such a broad front when at any moment somebody might stumble upon the golden internet graph that proves Climate Change is all a hoax.
But set all of that aside. If I can explain to you how Earth came out of the Little Ice Age then I win? What do I win because I sense yet another strange question will pop up? Then another? Like in a circle?
Amiright?
Look into Sri Lanka farmers this year. Look into European farmers this year. Where are you making up that food?.... or are you just getting rid of demand?
Actually, “there is nothing we can do about it” position was stated by global warming alarmists 15 years ago. But, that never stops the politicals from taking advantage of tragedies and perceived tragedies. And, everyone has always agreed that the climate changes. But, why it is changing on Neptune is somehow a quandary.
Preach! More church. On a Monday no lessIt's about control and money. So the scientific institutions of every country are controlling their host countries exactly how? Exactly in what way does this one issue cause every country on earth to all do the same thing? You think Cuba has the same desires as Rwanda? Does Turkey and Erdogan allow themselves to be dictated to by The Turkish Academy of Sciences? As does say Switzerland? Seems like a strange theory this broad global conspiracy that defies the normal way everything else is done. They must all really hate American Conservatives to put up such a broad front when at any moment somebody might stumble upon the golden internet graph that proves Climate Change is all a hoax.
But set all of that aside. If I can explain to you how Earth came out of the Little Ice Age then I win? What do I win because I sense yet another strange question will pop up? Then another? Like in a circle?
Amiright?
Here I thought Deeefense was the guy with info, and then you came along. Bravo. Educate us. I’m serious. You know your shit
I mean that's kind of the major issue with climate change, right? How do we become more sustainable as a society to keep the standard of living we're used to, or at least close to it. Alternative and renewable energies, more efficient crops that increase yield and wasting less of what is produced, changing the diets of our livestock to cut greenhouse gas emissions or coming up with things like lab-grown meats. Things that really smart people have been working on for decades and get resistance at every turn from a good portion of the population who turn around and yell "AOC says you can't eat burgers no more!"
We either make these changes now and keep what we can, or the climate will make the tougher decisions for us. Sure, maybe you can have a lobster roll in 20 years if we do nothing now, but it'll cost you $100.
The ones that said masks stop viruses? That the Covid “vaccine” was effective? That social justice riots outweighed the risks of a killer virus? The ones who use the term “settled science”? That claim that climate change causes strokes and heart attacks?
The ones who are subsidized by the same politicians that benefit from the narrative that “science” supports?
You have the gall to tell us to follow the money, but not when it comes to big science?
Last edited:
That is the lie. We can't keep our standard of living. We have to go backwards to go green... at least until we have a huge leap in tech. Instead of using our wealth to help innovate the green movement just wants to burn it all down and hope for the best. They litter tell you what the plan is. Eat bugs, own nothing, no travel... I mean.. that isn't what I call a good standard of living. that sounds like dystopian sci fi to me.
The ones that said masks stop viruses? Is that really an attempt to discuss or understand climate change? I am not aware of any consensus statements issued by the Science Academies globally in unison confirming their unanimity on the subject, but I could certainly make a credible case for mask usage if I wanted to waste my time and derail the topic at hand. Since I am not ignorant nor gripped by some extremist polarizing political fever then I will spare the thread my evisceration of your complete ignorance. If you still find yourself gripped with misplaced rage on this subject then I recommend a starting place of say here to at least begin to rationally understand what you clearly desperately want to take a hatchet to for some fairly insane reason.
That social justice riots outweighed the risks of a killer virus? Please start a thread on this topic, link your sources so that I can see where you've obviously misinterpreted them, then I will attempt to once again explain why you simply are not a rational person. I would of course do so in the political thread but for reasons still unknown to me they don't allow me to post there. It would seem me thumping them all over the place on political topics is not welcome. They like to slap liberals around there and well, I slap back.
The ones who use the term “settled science”? Finally, at least a passably relevant question. Settled Science is an important concept similar to settled law and with similar implications. It does not mean that credible argument cannot change it nor that it is unwelcomed, it means that the scientific consensus behind the settled science is so clear and compelling that no legitimate arguments have been brought forward to it over time. It doesn't mean they can't be, but it will be a revolutionary argument that changes the foundation of our understanding of the science to do it and that is a very good thing as it advances mankind, kind of like hmt5000's magical googled graph that the rest of the world knows nothing about, I guess.
That claim that climate change causes strokes and heart attacks? It causes a lot worse than those things. Obviously any change in the environment of a living organism might change it for the worse, lethally so even, so you balking at that simply means on a grade school level you have not the slightest comprehension of what you're talking about. Do you know what a wet bulb temperature is? There are a lot of things you don't know and then exponentially after that things you will not be able to understand. I get that but alas you do not.
The ones who are subsidized by the same politicians that benefit from the narrative that “science” supports? Science supports the advancement of humankind. To understand and build knowledge about the natural world to the benefit of us all. Unlike, say religion or politics, which again are entirely different threads that would be more suited for you to be wrong in than this one.
You have the gall to tell us to follow the money, but not when it come to big science? I didn't have the gall to do anything other than recommend you cherish the time you have with your loved ones purposefully. If you were offended by that then I simply do not care. Sorry. I don't really know why you chose to engage me at all? Clearly you have nothing to offer me in the way of argument and equally clear is that you will not consider appropriately my reply. You've already decided what you believe. You are in the grip of it.
Deflect on each point. Wow.
I’ll be succinct: Science absolutely lost the trust of anybody with a brain during the pandemic, for good reasons that I won’t link for you or start another thread about, since they’re easily accessible.
The high priests of science are as fallible as anybody else and that’s become clear. Browbeating people over climate change with “the science” is now suspect. You can ponder over whose fault that is, but we are right to question this narrative.
Thank you for that. Sometimes I feel a bit groggy and need a pick-me-up. The succinct perfection of that simple blindingly ignorant sentence conveys more than I could in an ocean of words.
You insult so loosely the likes of Carl Linnaeus, Richard Feynman, Lucretius, and Galileo Galilei like you were casually disappointed with your egg McMuffin. The staggering foolishness of that statement is humbling.
The 45 boosters you took have warped your mind.
I’m as anti vax as can be, but this dude knows his shit
Well this is an improvement over your copypasta of 100 nebulous global agencies.
Your list is a great reminder of people who value the scientific method. And an even starker reminder that big science today has been politicized, maybe beyond repair.
Again, a reminder: trust has been lost, for reasons that are becoming more clear every month.
