Biden is Mentally Fit Posted February 11 Posted February 11 3 minutes ago, Precision said: In the link above, this guy. “The world has to step up, and it has to step up now,” former President Barack Obama said. “When it comes to climate, time really is running out.” Lives here on waterfront in Martha's Vinyard. There's no hysteria among the wealthy or the political class. None of them are moving or changing their habits. Taylor Swift emitted more CO2 this weekend than a dozen typical households do in a year. The hysteria is with the poor dopes who eat this up. Their empty lives need something to think about and fill the void. A few years ago, everyone talked about a "zombie apocalypse" or "5G frying your brain". Over 20 years ago the panic was about Y2K and how all the computers around the world would crash. I can’t understand how someone can look at 50+ years of failed doomsday predictions and still buy in. It’s just weird. I guess it’s because, as they say, the science is settled. 🤦♂️ 2
Precision Posted February 11 Posted February 11 29 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: I can’t understand how someone can look at 50+ years of failed doomsday predictions and still buy in. It’s just weird. I guess it’s because, as they say, the science is settled. 🤦♂️ I think a lot of people without much on their plate have a "need to worry". You see this a lot in the elderly as they sit around and think about who will get which mementos after they pass. It happened with all of my grandparents prior to their deaths, too much time and nothing else to do. It is happening with my parents now. How many busy people like CEO's, doctors, lawyers, engineers or people who own businesses do you seeing glueing themselves to roads to "stop oil"? None, because their minds are too engaged to waste time thinking about such nonsense. It's always the people with too little in their lives like the unemployed or students. Even looking at this board, the biggest proponents of the climate change are objectively the least intelligent, some with an exceptionally large number of posts daily. People with not much to do, all day to do it and "need something to worry about". 3
Orlando Buffalo Posted February 12 Posted February 12 On 2/8/2024 at 2:55 PM, Tiberius said: Ya, we ain't doing anywhere near enough to stop this from getting worse https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/02/08/1-5-celsius-global-warming-record/ It’s official: For the past 12 months, the Earth was 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than in preindustrial times, scientists said Thursday, crossing a critical barrier into temperatures never experienced by human civilizations. According to the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, the past 12 months clocked in at a scorching 1.52 degrees Celsius (2.74 degrees Fahrenheit) higher on average compared with between 1850 and 1900. At some level, that’s not surprising — the past 12 months have been scorching, as a warm El Niño cycle combined with the signal of human-caused warming generated heat waves and extreme weather events around the globe. “This El Nino maximum is riding on top of a base climate that is continuously warming due to climate change,” Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, said in an email. “The combination of them is what’s giving us such hot global temperatures.” On 2/10/2024 at 8:36 PM, L Ron Burgundy said: Their response to just about anything amounts to "If I can't comprehend it, it's not real". For both of you I ask a simple question, what would convince you that man made climate change as described by the media is not real? I admit you can't convince God is not real, no matter happens, everything else I can consider. So what standard much be reached for it to convince you it is fact that it does not exist?
Tiberius Posted February 12 Posted February 12 10 hours ago, Orlando Tim said: For both of you I ask a simple question, what would convince you that man made climate change as described by the media is not real? I admit you can't convince God is not real, no matter happens, everything else I can consider. So what standard much be reached for it to convince you it is fact that it does not exist? What do you care? The pollution doesn't bother you, right? 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted February 12 Posted February 12 5 hours ago, Tiberius said: What do you care? The pollution doesn't bother you, right? Obviously there is nothing that could prove it to you. If your goal is to simply minimize pollution while also promoting a strong economy I would be with you but since your plan is to shut down the economy if some arbitrary numbers are not hit I will point out how stupid that is. 1
Tiberius Posted February 12 Posted February 12 7 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: Obviously there is nothing that could prove it to you. If your goal is to simply minimize pollution while also promoting a strong economy I would be with you but since your plan is to shut down the economy if some arbitrary numbers are not hit I will point out how stupid that is. Oh, I want to shut down the economy, ok 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted February 12 Posted February 12 17 hours ago, Orlando Tim said: For both of you I ask a simple question, what would convince you that man made climate change as described by the media is not real? I admit you can't convince God is not real, no matter happens, everything else I can consider. So what standard much be reached for it to convince you it is fact that it does not exist? Simple. Peer reviewed data contradicting the consensus. Have many climate scientists gotten timeliness wrong and spoken in an ultra hyperbolic nature? Yes, 100%. Does that mean the theme if their work is incorrect? No. 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted February 13 Posted February 13 2 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Simple. Peer reviewed data contradicting the consensus. Have many climate scientists gotten timeliness wrong and spoken in an ultra hyperbolic nature? Yes, 100%. Does that mean the theme if their work is incorrect? No. Remember that time when all the scientists stated that COVID started in the market? Or all the experts said Josh would suck and other Josh was better? If you let "experts" tell you what to think you are dumb. The earth has changed 40 degrees in 400 years but we are currently arguing 1.5 degrees in 150 years are unnatural and man made. I also want to ask what consensus are you referring to? 1
L Ron Burgundy Posted February 13 Posted February 13 2 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said: Remember that time when all the scientists stated that COVID started in the market? Or all the experts said Josh would suck and other Josh was better? If you let "experts" tell you what to think you are dumb. The earth has changed 40 degrees in 400 years but we are currently arguing 1.5 degrees in 150 years are unnatural and man made. I also want to ask what consensus are you referring to? Your argument is absurd. You let experts deal with things they are experts in. Do you see a banker when you need surgery? Think. Use your brain. Consensus that man made pollution is impacting global climate. From there opinions fluctuate regarding impact and timelines. You point to inaccuracies and throw the entire premise away. It makes zero sense.
Orlando Buffalo Posted February 13 Posted February 13 2 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Your argument is absurd. You let experts deal with things they are experts in. Do you see a banker when you need surgery? Think. Use your brain. Consensus that man made pollution is impacting global climate. From there opinions fluctuate regarding impact and timelines. You point to inaccuracies and throw the entire premise away. It makes zero sense. You are comparing environmental activists to medical doctors and I am absurd? Even among real doctors there are quacks, and they often have the loudest propaganda. My children's doctor told me in 2021 that my children should get the COVID shot, which at this point we now know was a terrible idea for healthy teenagers. But your final point that 7 billion people are affecting the climate in some ways is not some intelligent statement that helps your point. The argument is, and has always been, what rights can be taken away to "save the planet" and if your only consensus is that it is changing in some way but without a specific direction or solution the government needs to stay out of it.
B-Man Posted February 13 Posted February 13 The age of glorifying Greta Thunberg is over. Greta Thunberg spent her weekend in France supporting two environmental campaigns. On Sunday she appeared at a rally in Bordeaux against an oil drilling project; twenty-four hours earlier the twenty-one-year-old Swede was further east, adding her voice to those activists opposed to the construction of a new stretch of motorway between Toulouse and Castres. “We are here in solidarity with those who are resisting this project and this madness,” said Thunberg in English, her now familiar keffiyeh around her neck. Some French media described Thunberg as an “anti-global warming icon” and the “figurehead in the fight to protect the planet.” She might have been once. Now, however, in her ubiquitous keffiyeh, appearing to chant “Crush Zionism” or endorsing slogans such as “Palestine will be free” she has become — perhaps unwittingly — the figurehead for what conservative commentators in France call “the green alliance.” https://thespectator.com/topic/glorifying-greta-thunberg-age-over/ 1
Andy1 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 Yea, there is a lot of hypocrisy among environmentalists as they fly around the world to see beautiful natural areas or protest while they shout about climate. You can do meetings and see these areas on a screen, saving the jet fuel and associated emissions if climate is your cause. That hypocrisy doesn’t mean that man-caused climate change isn’t happening. The greenest people in America are poor country hicks. They don’t travel far, don’t consume much, eat venison or other game meat, heat their small homes with wood, don’t use air conditioning and generally live with a small carbon footprint. 1
John from Riverside Posted February 13 Posted February 13 On 2/11/2024 at 5:48 AM, JDHillFan said: I can’t understand how someone can look at 50+ years of failed doomsday predictions and still buy in. It’s just weird. I guess it’s because, as they say, the science is settled. 🤦♂️ Qnon do it all the time
aristocrat Posted February 13 Posted February 13 7 hours ago, John from Riverside said: Qnon do it all the time so you're saying the nutty ass q people are the same as the climate people? i might agree with you
John from Riverside Posted February 13 Posted February 13 1 minute ago, aristocrat said: so you're saying the nutty ass q people are the same as the climate people? i might agree with you I’m saying that too much too far to one side is never a good thing
ComradeKayAdams Posted February 13 Posted February 13 19 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Simple. Peer reviewed data contradicting the consensus. Have many climate scientists gotten timeliness wrong and spoken in an ultra hyperbolic nature? Yes, 100%. Does that mean the theme if their work is incorrect? No. THANK YOU. I’ve requested the same from them throughout the past few years: ONE SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific research paper, published since the late 1980’s, that does either of the following: 1. Contradicts the observed planetary warming phenomena. 2. Explains the observed planetary warming phenomena with any primary mechanism other than the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm. Their collective response? Crickets. But the offer still stands! I will look up the paper, read it over a weekend, and then get back to PPP to carefully explain why their paper of persuasion is total garbage (if the paper’s focus is on climate system computational models, then I’ll likely need at least an additional weekend to get access to and delve into some of the weeds of the code). Regarding allegedly poor timeline predictions: keep in mind that anthropogenic climate change denialists like to misattribute reckless claims to climate scientists, when those claims actually came from celebrities or politicians. When climate scientists speak in terms of predictive ranges with a possible minimum and a possible maximum, denialists will commonly grab the most sensationalistic limit and call it a firm prediction without any scientific context. When it comes to climate computational models that attempt to predict the future, this “scientific context” typically comes in the form of inherent uncertainty from factors like cloud cover or worldwide legislative measures that reduce various air pollutants. The climate models favored by NASA GISS, unfortunately, have been very accurate since the 1990’s. Scanning the last few pages of this thread…ugh…it’s more of the usual right-wing lunacy that keeps popping up…not understanding the difference between weather and climate, not understanding why warmer climates equate to greater weather variation, equating an established science of well over half a century with the real-time scientific predictions of an emerging pandemic…even the anthropogenic nature of the Holocene epoch extinction is apparently a liberal conspiracy…WTF…our country’s middle school science program is failing us!! 21 hours ago, Irv said: F global warming. Irv!! It used to say “Moderator” for your profile location. Did they take away your PPP moderating powers??!! Effing COMMUNISTS. 1
Irv Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 14 hours ago, B-Man said: The age of glorifying Greta Thunberg is over. Greta Thunberg spent her weekend in France supporting two environmental campaigns. On Sunday she appeared at a rally in Bordeaux against an oil drilling project; twenty-four hours earlier the twenty-one-year-old Swede was further east, adding her voice to those activists opposed to the construction of a new stretch of motorway between Toulouse and Castres. “We are here in solidarity with those who are resisting this project and this madness,” said Thunberg in English, her now familiar keffiyeh around her neck. Some French media described Thunberg as an “anti-global warming icon” and the “figurehead in the fight to protect the planet.” She might have been once. Now, however, in her ubiquitous keffiyeh, appearing to chant “Crush Zionism” or endorsing slogans such as “Palestine will be free” she has become — perhaps unwittingly — the figurehead for what conservative commentators in France call “the green alliance.” https://thespectator.com/topic/glorifying-greta-thunberg-age-over/ 100%. Who pays for this moron Thunberg to spew her blabbering nonsense? What a mess. 35 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said: THANK YOU. I’ve requested the same from them throughout the past few years: ONE SINGLE peer-reviewed scientific research paper, published since the late 1980’s, that does either of the following: 1. Contradicts the observed planetary warming phenomena. 2. Explains the observed planetary warming phenomena with any primary mechanism other than the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide ppm. Their collective response? Crickets. But the offer still stands! I will look up the paper, read it over a weekend, and then get back to PPP to carefully explain why their paper of persuasion is total garbage (if the paper’s focus is on climate system computational models, then I’ll likely need at least an additional weekend to get access to and delve into some of the weeds of the code). Regarding allegedly poor timeline predictions: keep in mind that anthropogenic climate change denialists like to misattribute reckless claims to climate scientists, when those claims actually came from celebrities or politicians. When climate scientists speak in terms of predictive ranges with a possible minimum and a possible maximum, denialists will commonly grab the most sensationalistic limit and call it a firm prediction without any scientific context. When it comes to climate computational models that attempt to predict the future, this “scientific context” typically comes in the form of inherent uncertainty from factors like cloud cover or worldwide legislative measures that reduce various air pollutants. The climate models favored by NASA GISS, unfortunately, have been very accurate since the 1990’s. Scanning the last few pages of this thread…ugh…it’s more of the usual right-wing lunacy that keeps popping up…not understanding the difference between weather and climate, not understanding why warmer climates equate to greater weather variation, equating an established science of well over half a century with the real-time scientific predictions of an emerging pandemic…even the anthropogenic nature of the Holocene epoch extinction is apparently a liberal conspiracy…WTF…our country’s middle school science program is failing us!! Irv!! It used to say “Moderator” for your profile location. Did they take away your PPP moderating powers??!! Effing COMMUNISTS. That’s none of your business. What a mess. Edited February 13 by Irv 1 1
AlBUNDY4TDS Posted February 13 Posted February 13 On 2/11/2024 at 8:42 AM, Precision said: In the link above, this guy. “The world has to step up, and it has to step up now,” former President Barack Obama said. “When it comes to climate, time really is running out.” Lives here on waterfront in Martha's Vinyard. There's no hysteria among the wealthy or the political class. None of them are moving or changing their habits. Taylor Swift emitted more CO2 this weekend than a dozen typical households do in a year. The hysteria is with the poor dopes who eat this up. Their empty lives need something to think about and fill the void. A few years ago, everyone talked about a "zombie apocalypse" or "5G frying your brain". Over 20 years ago the panic was about Y2K and how all the computers around the world would crash. Rules for thee, not for me. 17 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Your argument is absurd. You let experts deal with things they are experts in. Do you see a banker when you need surgery? Think. Use your brain. Consensus that man made pollution is impacting global climate. From there opinions fluctuate regarding impact and timelines. You point to inaccuracies and throw the entire premise away. It makes zero sense. Experts can be bought, should be the conclusion. See covid. 1
Irv Posted February 13 Posted February 13 16 minutes ago, AlBUNDY4TDS said: Rules for thee, not for me. Experts can be bought, should be the conclusion. See covid. Agree. These climate change whimps are just looking for another government handout. Nobody is dumb enough to believe the hoax. What a mess.
Recommended Posts