Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[bbb]

35 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

She did try to claim she got the Flu Manchu a few weeks ago... even though she was never tested, diagnosed, or treated for it. She *knows* she had it though.

 

It's amazing that she became not only a climate expert, but also a medical expert... all while skipping high school for the past couple years.

 

 

OMG - she's unreal.  Glad I missed that!  

[unbillievable]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

  3 hours ago, RealKayAdams said:

 

Ok, well I get the point being made here: shockingly, it is possible for scientists to be incorrect. But this particular article seems to be filled with selection bias, no? 15 listed incorrect predictions from random people in 1970, (How dare you!) ~Greta, (We only got 11 more years!) ~AOC

 

but no reference to any correct predictions made by scientists within the past 50 years. 4 of the wildest quotes came from one singular fella named Kenneth Watt. (Al Gore says hi)

 

I don’t know what the deal was with this guy. Others were vague predictions of doom and gloom too general to even be considered “testable.” Some of these predictions didn’t come from qualified scientists. (Bill Nye)

 

Others referenced global food shortages and pollution, problems which still could have conceivably come true were it not for agricultural innovations and effective environmental regulations achieved throughout the 70’ and 80’s. (Innovation stopped being a thing in the 90's?)

Nothing really happened in the 90's. "Big Hair" consumed that decade.

[B-Man]

 

 

SUPER GAFFE-O-MATIC ’76! 

 

Joe Biden asks Al Gore, “Is it too late to aggress the climate change?” 

 

And with gas currently under $1.50 in some areas, “Biden and Al Gore talk gleefully about making the internal combustion engine illegal. Democrats are coming for your car.”

 

 

 

 

Flashback to 2016: Joe Biden and Colin Powell drag race their ’67 and 2015 Corvettes, and NBC, which in 2007 was insisting that all of their viewers turn off their lights to fight global warming has nary a complaint.

 

 

 

 

.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Not quite all your puddles belong to us...
 

Supreme Court says Clean Water Act applies to some groundwater pollution
 

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Clean Water Act requires the federal government to regulate some groundwater pollutants that find their way into navigable waters such as oceans, rivers and streams.
 

The 6-3 opinion penned by Justice Stephen Breyer is a middle ground position that rejects the Trump administration's push for lesser regulation, but wipes away a lower court ruling which would have required more permits under the law.
 

</snip>

[Wacka]

22 hours ago, bbb said:

I've gotta say that I haven't seen Greta in quite a while and that's rather refreshing.  

Maybe she caught Cov ID.  She is profanely a veggie in mire ways than one  and most I have known  aren't in the best of health,

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/23/2020 at 11:34 AM, unbillievable said:

So you agree that predictions in the 70's are just as reliable as now...

 

No, not quite. I only agree that some people will make (sometimes laughably) inaccurate predictions and that this phenomenon is independent of the date in time. The overall quality of prediction-making from climatology experts has been getting noticeably better since 1970, as it probably should, since 50 years is a long time for a scientific subject to mature. The biggest variability seen in today’s climate change predictions may come from determining how exactly the methane trapped within the permafrost soil of the Northern Hemisphere tundra gets released. I do often roll my eyes, however, at some of the doomsday scenarios proposed. Yes, man-made climate change will make life different and more difficult in many ways for us, but it’s not going to end human civilization altogether.

 

Rest of my comments from posts:

 

1. Greta Thunberg, AOC, Al Gore, Bill Nye: I don’t get as worked up about them as others do. They serve a useful purpose, which is to raise public awareness of man-made climate change. You can make a fair argument that their sometimes outlandish, hyperbolic, and downright scientifically inaccurate claims hurt the cause overall…but the bottom line is that they are not scientific experts and should never be treated as such. I blame the mainstream media here for deifying these 4 as climate change authority figures. I also blame climate change scientists for harboring a culture of disdain toward science popularizers, which creates a knowledge void within the public that charlatans can fill. Oh yeah, and I also blame liberals in general for peddling nonsense like Russiagate and “Wuhan virus” racism shaming because then it makes it that much harder for the public to take anything else a perceived leftist says seriously.

2. Era of pollution regulations (like EPA) and agricultural innovation (like GMO’s): What I was intending to say is that the greatest rate of positive change occurred during the 70’s and 80’s. Progress spilled over into the 90’s and beyond, of course.

3. Decade of big hair: Wasn’t this more of an 80’s thing? I’m going by movies and music videos, primarily.

4. Weather versus climate: I know y’all having fun with this, but just make sure you understand the difference.

5. Biden and anything related to Green New Deal: Won’t happen with him as president. They are empty words to win votes from the far left. The fossil fuel industries have purchased both Republicans and establishment Democrats like Biden.

6. Hypocrisy of liberals: Agreed. You can’t proclaim man-made global warming is a problem and then behave in your own personal life like it’s no big deal. This is especially true for liberals who are public figures.

7. Supreme Court and Clean Water Act: It’s interesting how these kinds of arguments generally tend toward the left taking the side of public health over the economy, while vice versa with the right. The politics surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic seem to mirror this. In my not so controversial opinion, both matter and the devil is in the details. Each environmental health case needs to be treated as its own unique situation with its own unique set of factors. The rabid lefty in me can’t help but fear how many more Love Canals and Flint Michigans exist throughout the country but go unreported.

[Koko78]

5 minutes ago, RealKayAdams said:

1. Greta Thunberg, AOC, Al Gore, Bill Nye: I don’t get as worked up about them as others do. They serve a useful purpose, which is to raise public awareness of man-made climate change. You can make a fair argument that their sometimes outlandish, hyperbolic, and downright scientifically inaccurate claims hurt the cause overall…but the bottom line is that they are not scientific experts and should never be treated as such. I blame the mainstream media here for deifying these 4 as climate change authority figures. I also blame climate change scientists for harboring a culture of disdain toward science popularizers, which creates a knowledge void within the public that charlatans can fill.

 

I still think they'd be better served trying to promote the benefits of breathing clean air, drinking clean water, and eating food grown in clean soil, rather than the "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN 12 YEARS!!!!!!!!eleventyone11111" histrionic crap.

[unbillievable]

I'm surprised there isn't a push to ban carbonated drinks.

[Hedge]

 

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

On 4/24/2020 at 4:42 PM, RealKayAdams said:

 

No, not quite. I only agree that some people will make (sometimes laughably) inaccurate predictions and that this phenomenon is independent of the date in time. The overall quality of prediction-making from climatology experts has been getting noticeably better since 1970, as it probably should, since 50 years is a long time for a scientific subject to mature. The biggest variability seen in today’s climate change predictions may come from determining how exactly the methane trapped within the permafrost soil of the Northern Hemisphere tundra gets released. I do often roll my eyes, however, at some of the doomsday scenarios proposed. Yes, man-made climate change will make life different and more difficult in many ways for us, but it’s not going to end human civilization altogether.

 

Rest of my comments from posts:

 

1. Greta Thunberg, AOC, Al Gore, Bill Nye: I don’t get as worked up about them as others do. They serve a useful purpose, which is to raise public awareness of man-made climate change. You can make a fair argument that their sometimes outlandish, hyperbolic, and downright scientifically inaccurate claims hurt the cause overall…but the bottom line is that they are not scientific experts and should never be treated as such. I blame the mainstream media here for deifying these 4 as climate change authority figures. I also blame climate change scientists for harboring a culture of disdain toward science popularizers, which creates a knowledge void within the public that charlatans can fill. Oh yeah, and I also blame liberals in general for peddling nonsense like Russiagate and “Wuhan virus” racism shaming because then it makes it that much harder for the public to take anything else a perceived leftist says seriously.

2. Era of pollution regulations (like EPA) and agricultural innovation (like GMO’s): What I was intending to say is that the greatest rate of positive change occurred during the 70’s and 80’s. Progress spilled over into the 90’s and beyond, of course.

3. Decade of big hair: Wasn’t this more of an 80’s thing? I’m going by movies and music videos, primarily.

4. Weather versus climate: I know y’all having fun with this, but just make sure you understand the difference.

5. Biden and anything related to Green New Deal: Won’t happen with him as president. They are empty words to win votes from the far left. The fossil fuel industries have purchased both Republicans and establishment Democrats like Biden.

6. Hypocrisy of liberals: Agreed. You can’t proclaim man-made global warming is a problem and then behave in your own personal life like it’s no big deal. This is especially true for liberals who are public figures.

7. Supreme Court and Clean Water Act: It’s interesting how these kinds of arguments generally tend toward the left taking the side of public health over the economy, while vice versa with the right. The politics surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic seem to mirror this. In my not so controversial opinion, both matter and the devil is in the details. Each environmental health case needs to be treated as its own unique situation with its own unique set of factors. The rabid lefty in me can’t help but fear how many more Love Canals and Flint Michigans exist throughout the country but go unreported.

The issue with Climate Change is that scientists are never present to answer hard questions and always turn to computer models. I personally know many people who went ESF and graduated with environmental science degrees from there and more than half call Greta and the like stupid and even the ones who agree humans are a major source of the warming believe we need to prep for it since we can't stop 90% of the world's population.

[3rdnlng]

13 hours ago, Hedge said:

 

 

I wonder if any of those pictures come from times a few years ago. I'm old enough to remember that there were times that you could clearly see the San Gabriel Mountains from downtown LA. In fact a few hundred years ago LA was called "The Valley of Smoke". 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

In just over 1 months time the skies are clear to see sights not seen in decades across the globe.  

 

So .... does cutting down on pollution help or not?  

[Deranged Rhino]

15 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

In just over 1 months time the skies are clear to see sights not seen in decades across the globe.  

 

So .... does cutting down on pollution help or not?  

 

Is putting more people out of work since the great depression worth it?

[Koko78]

6 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Is putting more people out of work since the great depression worth it?

 

This is quite upsetting to me. We're going to wait another 15-18 years until we've only got 12 more years to live.

[SydneyBillsFan]

 

Renewable energy myth smashed, debunked, buried and cremated by....MICHAEL FRIGGIN' MOORE!! Yes, that's right....one of their own has fully exposed the world's greatest sham!!

 

You just couldn't make it up ?

 

Well worth watching, except that even after taking a bite out of their own global warming crap sandwich, they still cannot admit that global warming policy is a complete waste of time and money.

 

Grab some popcorn from your eco-microwave and enjoy!

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by SydneyBillsFan

[Orlando Buffalo]

9 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

In just over 1 months time the skies are clear to see sights not seen in decades across the globe.  

 

So .... does cutting down on pollution help or not?  

Cutting down on pollution is good, but seeing as most of it comes from China and other Asian countries we have no control over it. 

[B-Man]

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 4/27/2020 at 12:47 PM, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

 

In just over 1 months time the skies are clear to see sights not seen in decades across the globe.  

 

So .... does cutting down on pollution help or not?  

You can see across the globe?  Can you see the Pyramids?  Look for three pointy structures on a beach.  

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 4/24/2020 at 4:46 PM, Koko78 said:

I still think they'd be better served trying to promote the benefits of breathing clean air, drinking clean water, and eating food grown in clean soil, rather than the "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IN 12 YEARS!!!!!!!!eleventyone11111" histrionic crap.

 

But general pollution and greenhouse gas pollution are two distinct classes of problems, both of which are too important to ignore. General pollution is much easier to explain to the public because the safety thresholds for heavy metals, pesticides, and industrial chemicals are comparatively tiny and easily demonstrable. Greenhouse gases are much more difficult to explain because of their “boiling-frog-slowly” effects and because the big names (water, carbon dioxide) are still completely harmless in incredibly large amounts. Hence the motivation for all the global warming histrionics to capture the public’s attention.

 

But we agree that Bill Nye climate alarmist types are only embarrassing themselves with the “OMG we have 12 years before we all die!!” talk. I prefer a more stoic and intellectually honest strategy like “X ppm of carbon dioxide will lead to Y degrees Celsius temperature rise and Z meters of sea level rise that will create an estimated D dollars of global damage and an estimated N number of related human deaths within an estimated T years of time.” Or something like that.

 

On 4/26/2020 at 9:42 PM, Buffalo Timmy said:

The issue with Climate Change is that scientists are never present to answer hard questions and always turn to computer models. I personally know many people who went ESF and graduated with environmental science degrees from there and more than half call Greta and the like stupid and even the ones who agree humans are a major source of the warming believe we need to prep for it since we can't stop 90% of the world's population.

 

The scientists are there answering hard questions, but “there” is almost always a science conference or a scientific journal article. Between the jargon-laden scientists and the public is supposed to be this amazingly efficacious pipeline of communication consisting of popular science journalists, mainstream media personnel, public science promoters, and politicians. Something has gone awry among these communication middlemen. I believe the cause is a combination of widespread scientific illiteracy and the corruptible influence of money.

 

Computer models are ubiquitous throughout every subject of science and engineering these days, so it is not unusual or suspicious for climatologists to lean heavily on them.

 

Even if we all agreed that global warming (man-made or natural) is both occurring and unavoidable, it still leads us into a similarly contentious conversation of what role government has in helping our country adapt to a new Earth.

 

On 4/27/2020 at 10:05 PM, SydneyBillsFan said:

Renewable energy myth smashed, debunked, buried and cremated by....MICHAEL FRIGGIN' MOORE!! Yes, that's right....one of their own has fully exposed the world's greatest sham!!

 

You just couldn't make it up ?

 

Well worth watching, except that even after taking a bite out of their own global warming crap sandwich, they still cannot admit that global warming policy is a complete waste of time and money.

 

Grab some popcorn from your eco-microwave and enjoy!

 

As it turns out, I was in agreement with many of Moore’s takes on the subject before watching the documentary:

 

1. Renewable energies like solar and wind are overrated when you look at their entire energy life cycle (beginning from material production) and including their location limitations, gross energy production, and deleterious impact on certain aspects of the environment.

2. Biomass fuels are no good, for the most part, especially when the biomasses are forests.

3. Overpopulation, overconsumption, and unrestrained capitalism are the true problems.

4. Prominent environmental activists and organizations are corrupt and hypocritical in many instances (surprised by Bill McKibben though…).

 

My biggest complaints with the documentary:

 

1. No countervailing references to the many more ways that government and the media are corrupted by fossil fuel industry money (as opposed to the ways that renewable energy industries are shown in the documentary to be favored).

2. Ridiculously superficial coverage of Green New Deal progress made in Europe.

3. Did not really address potential solutions. Just off the top of my head: nuclear energy industry investments, research into thorium-based nuclear power plants, research into nuclear fusion reactors, latest research into replacements for the internal combustion engine and the jet engine, terraforming possibilities, and the impact of veganism. Moore could have left the documentary on a more hopeful note by spending 15-30 additional minutes on solutions. Or maybe Moore’s intention was to leave the viewers on a pessimistic note so to galvanize them into action?

4. This seemed to be more of a polemic directed within the internal environmental left community. I would have reframed the movie’s content with the general American public as the intended audience. Seems like a major lost opportunity here.

 

FWIW, this is a very controversial documentary that is already getting viciously attacked for inaccuracies. Something to keep in mind.

[Deranged Rhino]

Not sure if the full movie was posted or not... but here's Michael Moore's latest on this topic.