Anytime “scientists“ make claims year after year about the effects of a global problem, yet they literally never come true, then it’s hard for me to not question their scientific approach or motivation. The facts I believe in are that humans control 3% of the CO2 production on earth. Even in times where we have significant reduction in man made CO2 production (2008 global recession, 2020 COVID) there were still the same levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is REQUIRED for plant life to thrive which has in fact happened the the last hundred years (no dust bowls lately right). NASA even spoke to it as a positive result of overall CO2 levels rising (reminder that 97% of any increase is the earth, 3% by humans). Scientists that actually rely on positive vs negative effect analysis state that this proves that the earth is maintaining itself and it’s an act of nature taking its course. I would be much more interested in what we are doing to protect our own fresh water sources more so than global warming. To me the levels of pollution in our water is significantly more problematic than global warming at this point, and forcing the US to go bankrupt to protect a plant that is protecting itself is a tool for control.
Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Caveman Catfan
- Start date
There's not just some predictions that have been wrong. MOST HAVE BEEN WRONG. There's zero reason to change. You cannot prove we are actually doing the world a detriment simply by measuring miniscule growth in global average temps. If you look at what "clean energy" is doing as far as pollution then all of this bullshit should be stopped. The rare earth metal mines themselves are awful for environment and health. It's far far more life threatening than any car or coal plant. If you want clean energy stop the wind farms that create landfill and noise pollution. Stop toxic mining of materials for solar panels that are not worth it. Deregulate the nuclear industry(without cutting costs for safety).
The difference of 1.5 degrees of global warming over the 1750 baseline and 3 degrees is the difference between vertebrates surviving and extinction.
There is a dramatic change happening as you read this. We are moving into a strong El Nino after a prolonged La Nina and arctic sea ice is already precariously low at both poles. I know you'll find the Spanish words funny. Playful, even. But the lives of billions are in those words.
Enjoy your summer.
If the planet is warming and the ice is melting just build the hell out desalinization facilities and it will all balance out plus never worry about a drought
Drinking water has been plentiful in this country. No so for all parts of the world. Developing ways to protect and generate sustainable clean water should be high on the list and would change huge parts of the world for the better.
Insert standard lines:
trust the experts!
98% scientists agree!
Conspiracy theory!
Science denier!
Did I miss any? Thought after your opening salvo id just skip straight to the grand finale where people just use the usual defenses when it's pointed out there is no reliable proof the globe is warming (hence the pivot to climate disruption) and certainly none that man is a substantial contributing factor.
Context to support your theory. The pretty hockey stick chart they tend to rely on so heavily is show below along with the historical temperature shifts over time. It isn't hard to find, they just need to look at it. Scientists love people that only look at what data they provide, not macro views to compare against and disprove them. It is very easy to be a scientist nowadays, way too many folks who just accept anything they spew as truth.
I actually thought Deeeefense's post was reasonable and logical. He's correct that the earth is warming. I'm not sure why you say there is no reliable proof of that. It's thermodynamics. If you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is enhanced, and more heat is trapped. We know that the ppm of GHGs has increased over pre-industrial times, so man is certainly a contributing factor. Just look at what man's reduction of CFCs did in the recovery of the ozone layer. You can't tell me the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation has had NO effect on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Is it cause for alarmism and meaningless mandates of carbon neutrality in the next decade or two? No. But there is a need for a move to cleaner energy. As Deeeefense said, that's going to take time, and fossil fuels and nuclear will need to be a big part of that transition. Our current policymakers aren't interested in that inconvenient truth; so, they virtue signal and end up cutting off our noses to spite our faces (see: Germany).
Because there is no reliable proof of it. Period. They know it and admit it which is why they had to change from global warming to climate disruption.
For any objective person, any belief in this fairy tale would've ended years ago the moment all those leaked emails came out showing how they had to completely manipulate data to get any warming trend.
Yet here we are.
Context to support your theory. The pretty hockey stick chart they tend to rely on so heavily is show below along with the historical temperature shifts over time. It isn't hard to find, they just need to look at it. Scientists love people that only look at what data they provide, not macro views to compare against and disprove them. It is very easy to be a scientist nowadays, way too many folks who just accept anything they spew as truth.
The scientists themselves in those leaked emails were talking about how hard they had to work to get the data to show warming. The proof was all out there. Anyone believing it does so because they want to, not because the proof requires it
They ignore data from reputable sources like NASA and NOAA and instead rely on some bullshat sites often funded by the fossil fuel industry. It's a waste of time arguing with them.
Evidence - NASA Science
Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...
climate.nasa.gov
Man’s involvement or extent of involvement in climate changes (yes, plural, because the historical data upon which most rely is way too limited to determine whether warming is not merely cycling - in fact, some “experts” (in quotes because the data used is limited and there probably are no predictive experts) predict a cooling during the next two decades) is still theoretical, but not worth debating. What is worth debating is the fear mongering that urges the fearful to think there needs to be a dramatic “fix” or that there can be a political solution. And, the motivation for the fear mongering. If anyone believed the flawed models over the past 20-30 years, we would have moved well before now to nuclear. People on Deeefense’s side of this still push back against nuclear power and those admitting now that nukes are a “remedy” have done little to nothing with that admission. In short, the history of the climate crisis argument demonstrates it’s a ruse.
The behavior of the leading political proponents also demonstrates it’s a ruse.
The behavior of the leading political proponents also demonstrates it’s a ruse.
Last edited:
Of course, since the "scientists" say so. I guess you are on your 5th booster too right? Enjoy.They ignore data from reputable sources like NASA and NOAA and instead rely on some bullshat sites often funded by the fossil fuel industry. It's a waste of time arguing with them.
Evidence - NASA Science
Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...
Thank allah those sites funded by governments and the green energy industry that conveniently always come to the conclusion that the world is going to end unless we are saved by the governments or green energy aren’t biased.
The only side I'm on is the side of facts. I've been to operational nuclear plants and constructions sites on numerous occasions as a contracting office. I've always been an advocate of nuclear power as safe, clean and (at one time anyway) affordable. But the cost of nuclear plant construction has risen to the point that most utilities have chosen other less expensive options both fossil and alt. The cost of building a new nuc plant is between$6-$9 Billion. Utility boards are highly reluctant to pursue that kind of project authorization because it means raising utility rates.
Hey if they can build nucs that can compete cost wise with other options I'm all for it.
modular reactors can be built for less, especially if the government unties the regulatory finger traps. It’s amazing how we hear doomsday reports and then excuses why nuclear cannot be utilized.
I'm amazed at how many people still think the climate change movement is actually about changing the climate. It's about money, and a world regulating system.
Tell the utility boards that not wanting to raise rates 50% to pay for a $6 Bullion plus project is "making excuses". And that's if there are no cost overruns. There's a plant in Georgia under construction right now pushing $30 Billion. The reason nuc power has such a great safety record in the the US is the NRC regs in construction and operation. Sure that adds cost to he construction, I know I use to sign the contracts, but it pales in comparison to what a nuclear accident would cost. You see what happens when you loosen up regulations on trains and banks.
By design. A nuclear power plant is >100x more efficient, both financially and environmentally, than wind or solar. If the federal government wanted to support nuclear, the money would be there. But they don't. It's all about priorities; unfortunately, those priorities are driven by politics and narcissism. "Nuclear is too dangerous." False. "Nuclear takes too long." False. "Nuclear costs too much." False. Our policymakers are not serious brokers.
Deee, modular nukes would cost less and could be viable by 2029. And, regulations run the costs through the roof.
“One study suggests that the average US nuclear plant faces a $60 million regulatory burden each year.”
If this is an existential threat, why are we over regulating the industry? Why aren’t we promoting modern nukes?
This country is on the verge of an energy grid crisis, because of stupid regulation, the suppression of natural resources to appease politicals, and our desire to rely prematurely on unreliable sources.
A friend who used to work on a nuke sub told me YEARS ago, let the navy run the nukes.
None of us can claim to have the education, background, and experience in researching the topic in order to prove one way or another our claims. Every one of us has to depend on some other external source of information and research to inform our opinions or, as in the case of a few, they simply dismiss knowledge entirely and make childishly foolish remarks.
So we have a global scientific establishment that combined is what represents the best educated and trained work directly in the field the world's greatest scientific institutions have to offer on the subject at hand.
What they tell us overwhelmingly is that dramatic changes to earth's climate are well underway due to human activity that is clearly producing increased global temperatures over time.
If you don't agree with and understand what I just posted up to this point you are useless to this thread because the above is certain and below is where the thread should begin:
Now, what we know is that every IPCC report has been watered down. The rate of change has been faster and more severe than predicted. The reports have been understated.
The trends are all faster and sooner. All of them.
So whether you choose a more conservative approach to say thinking it won't be until 2050 that dramatic irreversible change occurs or 2030, the trends are all moving that way.
I am not in the broad spectrum of scientific consensus but there are many well respected scientists like Peter Wadhams that believe as I do. I believe that as soon as the arctic goes ice free that a number of feedback loops will immediately plunge the planet into runaway warming resulting in complete planetary extinction and that the 480 nuclear power plants left around the globe will meltdown and produce ionizing radiation that will strip away our atmosphere and leave the planet a dry featureless rock stripped bare once our protective atmosphere is gone. I believe there will be somewhere on the order of 18 degrees of warming by 2026 when a mere 3 degrees above 1750 baseline will kill every vertebrate on the planet. Whether it be 2026 or 2030, it will be one late summer when we experience our first Blue Ocean Event in the Arctic.
So there you have it. You can debate and find legitimate productive argument in the spaces between Defense and myself, but if your intention is to just magically say nothing is happening then you are not participating meaningfully at all in the thread discussion. It is as simple as that.
So we have a global scientific establishment that combined is what represents the best educated and trained work directly in the field the world's greatest scientific institutions have to offer on the subject at hand.
What they tell us overwhelmingly is that dramatic changes to earth's climate are well underway due to human activity that is clearly producing increased global temperatures over time.
If you don't agree with and understand what I just posted up to this point you are useless to this thread because the above is certain and below is where the thread should begin:
Now, what we know is that every IPCC report has been watered down. The rate of change has been faster and more severe than predicted. The reports have been understated.
The trends are all faster and sooner. All of them.
So whether you choose a more conservative approach to say thinking it won't be until 2050 that dramatic irreversible change occurs or 2030, the trends are all moving that way.
I am not in the broad spectrum of scientific consensus but there are many well respected scientists like Peter Wadhams that believe as I do. I believe that as soon as the arctic goes ice free that a number of feedback loops will immediately plunge the planet into runaway warming resulting in complete planetary extinction and that the 480 nuclear power plants left around the globe will meltdown and produce ionizing radiation that will strip away our atmosphere and leave the planet a dry featureless rock stripped bare once our protective atmosphere is gone. I believe there will be somewhere on the order of 18 degrees of warming by 2026 when a mere 3 degrees above 1750 baseline will kill every vertebrate on the planet. Whether it be 2026 or 2030, it will be one late summer when we experience our first Blue Ocean Event in the Arctic.
So there you have it. You can debate and find legitimate productive argument in the spaces between Defense and myself, but if your intention is to just magically say nothing is happening then you are not participating meaningfully at all in the thread discussion. It is as simple as that.
Takes 20-30 years to shut one down. Even though theoretically they can operate unattended eventually in an unstable climate and with no power or water something will get to one producing ionizing radiation.
The nuclear power plants don't kill anyone or anything. We'll be long gone. But eventually, unattended, they melt down. Doesn't really matter if it is in 20 years or 200 if everything is already dead, it just means nothing ever is going to come back and that the planet is a dry waterless rock like Mars.
Earth has experienced 5 mass extinction events and recovered each time. Even though in the Permian it took millions of years. The nukes mean nothing comes back and we're already in the midst of the 6th mass extinction event. Good luck finding any reporting on the number of species going extinct daily. What you don't think can happen is already happening.
Highly controversial (Defense probably hates him) Professor Guy McPherson making the detailed case citing peer reviewed scientific literature that human extinction is already locked in:
Find any scientist anywhere that can refute what Guy is saying and you'll have your hands full. He is willing to debate any scientist anywhere anytime on Climate Change and near term human extinction.
Oh, he despises Barack Obama and is distinctly apolitical. He even mentions Obama (among others) in the video.
Guy is not a climate scientist. He is a professor emeritus of natural resources and ecology and evolutionary biology formerly at the University of Arizona before he resigned. He got into the climate change debate because he understands in his expertise on habitat that rate of change is everything and that the current rate of change in the environment already outstrips vertebrates ability to adapt fast enough to it, therefore extinction is already locked in. Essentially the climate is changing at a rate that outpaces life's ability to adapt to it fast enough.
Find any scientist anywhere that can refute what Guy is saying and you'll have your hands full. He is willing to debate any scientist anywhere anytime on Climate Change and near term human extinction.
Oh, he despises Barack Obama and is distinctly apolitical. He even mentions Obama (among others) in the video.
Guy is not a climate scientist. He is a professor emeritus of natural resources and ecology and evolutionary biology formerly at the University of Arizona before he resigned. He got into the climate change debate because he understands in his expertise on habitat that rate of change is everything and that the current rate of change in the environment already outstrips vertebrates ability to adapt fast enough to it, therefore extinction is already locked in. Essentially the climate is changing at a rate that outpaces life's ability to adapt to it fast enough.
My own beliefs on Climate Change are influenced greatly by Guy above obviously, Dr. Andrew Glikson (who is mentioned in the video) and Professor Peter Wadhams (ScD, emeritus professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge) who is one of the world's foremost experts on polar sea ice.
Last edited:
18 degrees of warming by 2026?
Anyone, ANYONE, here believe that? If
you do, give up. Because nothing can be done in that time frame to stop it.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function”
uh, no one has to understand your prediction, because it is inevitable, if true. Something in me says that in 3-4 years, your prediction shifts to sometime in the mid-30s. As you say, LOL.
I'm skeptical that man can't hang on for 20 years during global warming. You're basically assuming everyone drops dead at once. That doesn't seem realistic to me under virtually any scenario.
Also you realize mass extinction doesn't mean everything is dead?
SMRs aren't available right now but sure, if they are rolled out utilities should seriously consider them as an option. Also the Microsoft/Gates TerraPower project is encouraging.
I totally disagree that the regulations are "stupid" they are a necessary evil so to speak, but I agree that politics certainly plays a roll in the Fed backing of energy but that goes to both sides of the political spectrum.
When I worked at TVA many of the engineers and operations managers were X-Navy some with backgrounds in nuclear physics. The Navy has a great safety record with their nuclear powered fleet.
Last edited:
There's a trillion tons of methane in the shallow bottom of ESAS.
None of the warming bros gave any pause to their position when the doomsday dates repeatedly came and went? One would think this should cause someone to question their position.
But I guess nothing will shake the allegiance if you're willing to look beyond the emails where you can see them literally conjuring a warming pattern that sold this whole bill of goods.
But I guess nothing will shake the allegiance if you're willing to look beyond the emails where you can see them literally conjuring a warming pattern that sold this whole bill of goods.
Looks like you're wrong.
The research examines the accuracy of 17 models published over the past five decades, beginning with a 1970 study and including 1981 and 1988 models led by James Hansen, the former Nasa climatologist who testified to the US Senate in 1988 about the impacts of anthropogenic global heating. The study also includes the first four reports by the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC).
“We found that climate models – even those published back in the 1970s – did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred,” said Zeke Hausfather, of the University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of the paper, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Climate models have accurately predicted global heating, study finds
Findings confirm reliability of projections of temperature changes over last 50 years
New York will demolish and elevate a waterfront park to fight floods, angering some neighbors
The Battery Park City Authority, as part of a major climate resilience plan, will tear down Wagner Park and elevate it by 10 feet to address flood risk.
Looks like you're wrong.
The research examines the accuracy of 17 models published over the past five decades, beginning with a 1970 study and including 1981 and 1988 models led by James Hansen, the former Nasa climatologist who testified to the US Senate in 1988 about the impacts of anthropogenic global heating. The study also includes the first four reports by the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC).
“We found that climate models – even those published back in the 1970s – did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 model projections indistinguishable from what actually occurred,” said Zeke Hausfather, of the University of California, Berkeley, and lead author of the paper, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Climate models have accurately predicted global heating, study finds
Findings confirm reliability of projections of temperature changes over last 50 yearswww.theguardian.com
Every single piece of "data" all flows from the same manipulated data set I discussed here more than once. The data set where the climate "scientists" emails were hacked and exposed showing how hard they had to work to manipulate the data set to show a warning trend.
That was all created data. Everything that flows from it is knowingly using fake data in the same vein.
The real question is why. They know it's fake data, we know it's fake data, they know we know it's fake data. Yet they continue to push it. Is it for power? Prestige? To further a political cause? Or is it as simple as the money is too good to pass up?
