Jump to content

Global warming err Climate change HOAX


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

21 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

"The study's best estimate is that global temperatures will change by 2.8 ºC (5 ºF) by 2100."

 

That's still very significant.

 

They are often significantly wrong about the temperature 12 hours into the future

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

They are often significantly wrong about the temperature 12 hours into the future

 

 

 

 

But in this case, there's consensus - which we all know makes it settled science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

local weather : gorgonzola cheese  ::  climate : brie time baby

 

Stinks of a big cheese fart

 

they have no real clue with any degree of honest scientific integrity what will happen tomorrow and they scream about 49 years from now

 

what a total farce

It’s metaphysics, not hard science.

 

 

Edited by row_33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Stinks of a big cheese fart

 

they have no real clue with any degree of honest scientific integrity what will happen tomorrow and they scream about 49 years from now

 

what a total farce

It’s metaphysics, not hard science.

 

 

 

Even the source that B-Man linked just a few posts ago--that was intended to debunk this global warming business--confirms a global temp increase of 4 - 6 ºF by the end of the century.

 

It seems the case that our planet is more resilient than some alarmists (and many scientists) had initially estimated.  That's a good thing and I'm glad to hear it.  However, there is definitely something very real and very significant going on.  Our climate is warming.  It's true that it's impossible to project with certainty, but global temps are rising for sure.  You can continue to cherry pick examples of bad science here and there and it's true that there are people on the left who act like idiots on this topic.  But the truth remains, that our planet is gradually warming and that there will be serious consequences for future generations.

 

Anyone who still stands in denial of this is simply blinded by ideology.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't most people somewhere in between the change deniers and the doomsday folks regarding Global Climate Change?

 

I mean, I hate hearing the stupid term "climate deniers" or "Global warming." They are both equally stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Probably.  But I'd say most of the posters in this forum are firmly in the denier category.

It does tend to seem like if someone even questions a doomsday report they are call "deniers," pejoratively. I mean, do the folks here deny smog and its effects on the climate in the area? !@#$ yeah, that **** changes the climate in the area. It is inarguable. So, is the fact that the climate is constantly changing. IDK, I think there are the vocal 5% on the extreme of each side of the issue, and all we hear are those folks making 99% of the noise.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Paulus said:

It does tend to seem like if someone even questions a doomsday report they are call "deniers," pejoratively. I mean, do the folks here deny smog and its effects on the climate in the area? !@#$ yeah, that **** changes the climate in the area. It is inarguable. So, is the fact that the climate is constantly changing. IDK, I think there are the vocal 5% on the extreme of each side of the issue, and all we hear are those folks making 99% of the noise.  

 

The dialogue is hopeless because it's been politicized to the point where neither "side" will listen to the other, and almost nobody involved in the shouting match understands anything about climate science.

 

It doesn't seem to occur to many people that maybe the earth has warming and cooling periods (like when we had the freaking ice ages) that cycle on their own, nor do they seem to think that computer models can be inaccurate or incorrect.

 

And the big one - science is not determined or defined via consensus. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

It doesn't seem to occur to many people that maybe the earth has warming and cooling periods (like when we had the freaking ice ages) that cycle on their own, nor do they seem to think that computer models can be inaccurate or incorrect.

 

If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

The dialogue is hopeless because it's been politicized to the point where neither "side" will listen to the other, and almost nobody involved in the shouting match understands anything about climate science.

 

It doesn't seem to occur to many people that maybe the earth has warming and cooling periods (like when we had the freaking ice ages) that cycle on their own, nor do they seem to think that computer models can be inaccurate or incorrect.

 

And the big one - science is not determined or defined via consensus. Period.

Agreed, for the most part. I am just offended by those on both sides who claim smog doesn't exist/affects the climate, or those that claim every "scientist" is correct when they tell stories of doom. Too many people not even trying to think for themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People realize that the climate is changing. They just don't agree that it's worth spending money to try controlling it without more proof. That's why the propaganda from alarmists is that it's "settled science", so they can spend with impunity

 

16 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles.

 

The computer models didn't account for anything. They basically pumped CO2 in a jar and measured if it got hotter. Then started asking for money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles.

 

That wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

29 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Agreed, for the most part. I am just offended by those on both sides who claim smog doesn't exist/affects the climate, or those that claim every "scientist" is correct when they tell stories of doom. Too many people not even trying to think for themselves. 

 

I don't think it's worth being offended over - ignorance is everywhere, and it'll drive you insane if you let it get to you.

 

But since you appear to have a thing about smog, I would suggest that it's as much a product of weather, climate, and geography as it is of man.

Edited by Azalin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...