On How The Planet's Going To Shit: The Undeniability Of Climate Change

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,459
The problem with discussing issues such as anthropogenic climate change is that it's pretty much impossible for the sides to agree.

On one side, you have a preponderance of scientific evidence. It's not absolute, and there is debate about how much things are changing and about the timeframe of the change. However, the vast majority of scientists agree that it's happening - the debate is about the finer details. It's as though you've decided on a type of car, but you're still making up your mind about the alloy wheels and interior colour scheme.

On the other side, you have very few scientists, and lots of other non-scientists (or scientists who are not specialists in any climate-related fields). The people on this side tend to adopt one, or a combination, of the following arguments:
1. There's always been climate change, it's not caused by people, so it's natural and we'll deal with it.
2. There's no such thing as climate change - look at the weather - there's more snow than ever in the north-eastern US so what's all this rubbish about global warming.
3. Everyone pushing the "warmist" or "climate alarmist" argument is some sort of shill. Either they want to keep on sipping from the flow of that sweet, sweet scientific grant money, or they're a naive little girl like Greta Thunberg who has been manipulated by shadowy, behind-the-scenes people who want to push the climate alarmist argument.

People who believe in the third option also often tend to believe that climate change is a plot to get us to give up our rights and become one globalist, socialist state. George Soros, the Rothschilds, or other such wealthy people are often mentioned in these discussions.

The thing that fascinates me about this thinking is that it entirely ignores scientific peer review, except when it involves the few academics who argue against climate change.

It also entirely ignores the fact that large, shadowy interests involving incredibly wealthy people actually have much more to gain from maintaining the status quo (ie continuing to mine coal, continuing to pump oil, continuing to pollute), rather than changing things. In other words, it's actually much more likely that the shills and paid lobbyists are on the "status quo" side, rather than the "anthropogenic climate change is happening" side.

Anthropogenic climate change - lots of scientists and hippies
Status quo/everything is OK/climate change is rubbish - Oil companies, coal companies, large manufacturers

Which one of the above has large sums of money to spend and interests to protect???
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,466
Wow Rambo, l am shocked to read this "won't end well for you and i'll just get angry ". No need to worry, l won't write anything else in this thread ever again. I only wanted to have a discussion, l never wanted anyone getting angry. l never wanted to ruffle your feathers.

I think it is time l did something else.
Shooey its just not a topic for discussion. Mountain top removal is awful and destructive and there isnt any other way to talk about it. Not everything has two sides. If you want to post go ahead. We just dont have to have a conversation about each and every single thing.

plus, i was having a shit day, so i came off harsher than i meant to. i'm sorry about that.
 
Last edited:

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,734
One of my all time favourite videos where climate change scientists have a discussion.

CO2 is at one of the lowest levels in Earth's history right now.
Much of the ice melted in the 1920's and predictions were that coastal regions would be under water.

Rambo, l will address the Mountain Top Removal issue another day.
As you may know, C02 is plant food and here in the Netherlands the green houses pump C02 to twice the level that's currently in the general atmosphere as this increases the yield significantly.
 

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,431
plus, i was having a shit day, so i came off harsher than i meant to. i'm sorry about that.
Thanks for the apology Rambo, l appreciate that.

However, the vast majority of scientists agree that it's happening
What makes you come to such a conclusion?

My research has indicated that most scientists are not prepared to believe or disbelieve in the climate change disaster ideas...why?...because they are knowledgeable enough to know that climate involves expertise over many areas of which most climate scientists are experts in one or two fields. Most will not give an opinion on climate change because they simply don't know enough to say either way. Of course there are those who are for sale and will give an opinion, but most scientists seem to have enough integrity to keep out of the debate. The fact is that no-one is an expert on climate change because that would involve mastery of too many areas of climate, and that is why ALL the predictions and models have been wrong.

Journeyman said:
On the other side, you have very few scientists, and lots of other non-scientists (or scientists who are not specialists in any climate-related fields). The people on this side tend to adopt one, or a combination, of the following arguments:
That's a reach Journeyman, and a very big reach at that.


Journeyman said:
3. Everyone pushing the "warmist" or "climate alarmist" argument is some sort of shill.
Actually that is not such a bad theory. Really though, l don't think they are all shills, l think many of them don't know any better, but of course the scientists pushing these theories know better because they are for sale, and it seems a good number of scientists who turn away from the accepted theories get sacked.

Journeyman said:
People who believe in the third option also often tend to believe that climate change is a plot to get us to give up our rights and become one globalist, socialist state. George Soros, the Rothschilds, or other such wealthy people are often mentioned in these discussions.
I don't know about plutocrats like Rothchild etc, but definitely a socialist state. Once we enter into those international agreements (binding contracts) the unelected bureaucrats then tell countries what to do (sound familar?) Where do those bureaucrats come from?...the communist U.N of course....they stand for taking away sovereignty, and many of them have communist backgrounds. Naturally they are all about identity politics and "sustainable development" (in other words, forcing people to do stuff they don't want to do..usually stealing from people by force in the name of green goals).

Journeyman said:
The thing that fascinates me about this thinking is that it entirely ignores scientific peer review, except when it involves the few academics who argue against climate change.
Lots of peer reviewed is supposed to be corrupted now. A classic example is the 98% consensus that scientists agree with global warming, and it was also in peer reviewed journal despite it not being peer reviewed, but do you know how they arrived at that figure? See this video for the shocking truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMnsyXJH0oI&t=1819s very interesting video.

I will post other examples of corrupted peer reviewed science that climate change alarmists post soon. I will also post some really good stuff too. :omg:

Journeyman said:
It also entirely ignores the fact that large, shadowy interests involving incredibly wealthy people actually have much more to gain from maintaining the status quo (ie continuing to mine coal, continuing to pump oil, continuing to pollute), rather than changing things. In other words, it's actually much more likely that the shills and paid lobbyists are on the "status quo" side, rather than the "anthropogenic climate change is happening" side.
That's harder to make that point. Why? We don't really know what people are into. Better to just look at the facts.
 
Last edited:

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,431

Just so I understand - this isn't global warming / climate change?
The climate changes everyday, and each day the planet can warm or get colder, but the big dispute is that C02 warming the planet and causing all the ice to melt and that the earth is cooking and life is about to end. All these are debunked right here.

The IPCC adjusts the temperature data to hide the facts
Here is a classic example where they get caught out. In their 1990 report, deep within they show that the Earth is now in one of it's coolest ever periods. Yet they don't report those facts anymore, they only report the last 100 years so they can claim that the Earth is the hottest it's ever been in the last 100 years so they can have people wrongly believe that the planet has never been so hot.

Here is the real data before they started hiding it .


CLIMATE CHANGE The IPCC Scientific Assessment - 1990 (see page 202)

IPCC Report: Extreme Weather Events Have Not Increased

IPCC not confident about hurricane link


now it gets interesting. Time to debunk Al Gore and explain why he won't dare have a public debate on climate change.

Al Gore debunked - part 1
What about the link between CO2 and temperature??? This is perhaps the best link you will find on the subject. It looks into the science and debunks both the skeptics and the climate change crowd. The truth is, sometimes CO2 leads to increased temperature where-as other times increased temperature leads to CO2 increases hundreds of years later.
Does CO2 lead or lag global temperature?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A (reviews lots of peer reviewed science)


Al Gore debunked - part 2 (raising panic with chronic exaggerations)
There was a call to ban his film An Inconvenient Truth because it has gross exaggerations, most notably this one as said by MR JUSTICE BURTON of IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT.

"This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus"

He also gets pulled up on other stretches of the truth.

 
Last edited:

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,431
Here is some fun stuff where newspapers get caught out on their lies.

Fake news!!!
It says that crops in the Honduras are scarce because of the drought and people could be facing having to move to avoid hunger.

Ravaged by Drought, a Honduran Village Faces a Choice: Pray for Rain or Migrate

The real truth!


If you check crop yields all around the world you will find that crop yields are at record highs. As many know CO2 is good for plant growth. The earth is greening and drought is hardly killing off crops as commonly as the media and schools say it is.

Ronis also played an acting part where he told lies, BUT comments are turned off in the video so ole Ronis doesn't get called out on his fibs. Just look at his face as he is talking, the look of guilt is priceless.
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,466
When did the records start? When did they have reliable temperature gauges out in the desert?
why does that matter? lets say for instance they only had thermostats out there for 50 years. if the overall temperature has been rising for the last decade and this is the hottest day ever, isn't that evidence that the overall temperature is rising?
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
8,852
why does that matter? lets say for instance they only had thermostats out there for 50 years. if the overall temperature has been rising for the last decade and this is the hottest day ever, isn't that evidence that the overall temperature is rising?
The other two gents say everything is okay. Continue burning your coal for home heating.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,734
why does that matter? lets say for instance they only had thermostats out there for 50 years. if the overall temperature has been rising for the last decade and this is the hottest day ever, isn't that evidence that the overall temperature is rising?
In evaluating the validity of the hysteria in the headline, one needs to know when the records began and how valid are past data and what the margin of error is now and then. For example, in some studies temperature data is suspect as recorders have been placed on concrete buildings and next to air conditioning vents.

The other two gents say everything is okay. Continue burning your coal for home heating.
I don't say everything is okay, what I do say is, as Climategate revealed, there's bad science and scientists being used by politicians to infringe and prohibit individuals. That is the issue I have.

Here in the Netherlands the farmers in their tractors were out again yesterady . As you may know, the government here is committed to stringent nitrogen emission targets and part of the plan is to reduce livestock farms by 50%. They want livestock farming rationed and also on the plate. At this stage, they're only targetting livestock farmers. However, indoor farming with the industrial sized greenhouses will not be immune. When they realise that these agriculture farmers pump C02 upto 1000ppm into their greenhouses as this is a massive growth booster (40%) then they will be targetted too. Early next year, as part of the same target, they are to reduce motorway speed down from 130 to 100kph.

The eco-tyranny state is being set-up and there is no joy to be had where this leads.
 
Last edited:

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,431
In evaluating the validity of the hysteria in the headline, one needs to know when the records began and how valid are past data and what the margin of error is now and then. For example, in some studies temperature data is suspect as recorders have been placed on concrete buildings and next to air conditioning vents.
I was planning to make a short post about that soon. Indeed the measurements for temperatures leave a lot to be desired, and some are placed around concrete areas like car parks that reflect sun off the concrete and give false readings that are higher than they should be.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
8,852

"Any journalist who has interviewed climate activists has encountered those who say the real problem is eating meat, for example, or that climate change is an inevitable product of capitalism.

But if we have to convert everyone to vegetarianism or overthrow the capitalist state before moving on to the fight against climate change, it is likely we'll never get to the main job. Certainly not in time.

Among things to strike off the list is the idea that humans must transform their behaviour. Declaring that we must wait for people to stop flying in planes, stop driving cars, eat only vegetables and end economic growth before we can make progress offers an easy out to the powerful forces that would be happy for us to take no action at all.

He is also horrified by those who keep telling us that market forces or innovation by business will do the job for us. Jaccard says that view ignores how useful fossil fuels have been to humanity as a source of concentrated energy and how essential they will continue to be as we make the transition, one that will be far from effortless.

While business can perform a valuable role, with fossil fuels so cheap and easy to use, the economic pressure to act must come from government regulation."

Pimpernel Smith Pimpernel Smith is laughing here

"The trouble is changing your own personal behaviour by say, selling your car or refusing to fly, may make you feel like you are doing something useful, but the effect is tiny when all your neighbours drive SUVs and air travel continues to soar. In fact, rather than trying to assuage your guilt at flying or driving by buying carbon offsets as many are now doing, Jaccard recommends taking the money and donating it to a pro-climate groups..."

So you just want my money...

"But if you need a practical New Year's resolution to get yourself started, you could do worse than ordering a copy of Jaccard's book and reading it before passing it on to friends."

And I have to buy your book...
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,734
Pretty much, yes. I was glad to see that most of my family back in the UK are sussed to this scheme to elevate taxes to infinity and beyond.

As I keep stressing: there has never been an energy revolution less efficient or effective than the one before. If your card is end of economic growth and flood your country with refugees you better be prepared for chaos and disorder.
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,466
The Shooman The Shooman i'm curious about your take, as someone who doesn't believe in this, on what's going on in your own country at the moment. Average temp yesterday was 105 and the entirety of the coast looks like something out of Dune.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
8,852
The Shooman The Shooman i'm curious about your take, as someone who doesn't believe in this, on what's going on in your own country at the moment. Average temp yesterday was 105 and the entirety of the coast looks like something out of Dune.
I thought your conclusion was he doesn't care because he will let the next generation deal with the fallout.
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,466
I thought your conclusion was he doesn't care because he will let the next generation deal with the fallout.
It is which is why im curious about how half the country being on fire is going to do for his current views
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,466
im sure this is all due to the thermostats being placed near a parking garage

 

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,431
The big problems the skeptics and climate alarmists have with their arguments. The ultimate arguments they can't get around



Climate alarmists - the stuff they can't get around

1). The Earth is still at one of it's all time coldest periods in history.

CLIMATE CHANGE The IPCC Scientific Assessment - 1990 (see page 202)

2). CO2 doesn't always cause temperature increases
Does CO2 lead or lag global temperature?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A (reviews lots of peer reviewed science)

3). Ice melting will not cause the Earth to flood for another 1,000 years
The melting of large ice sheets would release a massive amount of water, but it would not cause the the beach fronts to flood for about 1,000 years. This is why banks are still funding ocean front investments and why the rich climate alarmists still buy mansions on the beach, they know the water isn't going to rise for a long long time.

"This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus"

He also gets pulled up on other stretches of the truth.
Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)


Climate change skeptics - the stuff that screws their arguments completely up
The skeptics claims that only 3% of CO2 comes from humans. This originally came from this chart:


The author says 3.225% of CO2 comes from humans because he divided 11,880/368,400 to get .03225

However there is one of many problems with the skeptics claims. First is the figure for 68,520 "natural additions" as shown in the table above. The fact is that the science simply doesn't support this. The carbon flux modelling shows that CO2 that is released into the atmosphere is absorbed back by the land and oceans.

and that is why the Earth has always had a stable C02 level over history:


The even bigger problem skeptics have is that CO2 has risen with the burning of fossil fuels (see chart above), and this has now been proven. How? The excess of CO2 has come from the burning of fossil fuels because very little of the carbon in oil and coal contains the isotope carbon 13 where-as the carbon in volcano and oceans comprises of about 1% carbon-13. SO if the extra CO2 is coming from the burning of fossil fuels rather than vocanos and ocean degassing then the proportion of c-13 should go down, and it has been proven to do so. The 13C/12C ratio decreases.


Evidence for preindustrial variations in the marine surface water carbonate system from coralline sponges
F. Böhm A. Haase‐Schramm et al

In easier English my last two points (CO2 rising from fossil fuel burning and decrease in 13C/12C ratio) can be read from here:

The problem is that excess CO2 has been built up in the atmosphere and the carbon flux is unable to absorb it all. The real issue is that CO2 can sometimes lead temperature, and it has been in some areas of the world.


Conclusion
The science has been presented. I have no reason to side with one or another. I will admit the truth and l will scoff at the alarmists when they use emotional arguments lacking any common sense and perhaps science. Actually, having done my research, l will also scoff at the skeptics when they bring up fairy tales too.
 

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,431
The Shooman The Shooman i'm curious about your take, as someone who doesn't believe in this, on what's going on in your own country at the moment. Average temp yesterday was 105 and the entirety of the coast looks like something out of Dune.
Science shows that we are still at one of the lowest temperature averages in history. Only 6 or 7 weeks ago it was one of the coldest days in our history with snow. The last couple of days have been extremely cold for summer. Next week is supposed to be perhaps the coldest day ever in summer, and i'll need a thick coat.

So what is it with the 120 degree days? It's just a hot day just as there are cold days. The weather changes everyday. CO2 doesn't always lead temperature, BUT about 27 studies show that the days are getting warmer in the last 12 years despite what skeptics try to say who always quote the one and only flawed study showing otherwise.

Yes Rambo, things are warming up slightly, and the man caused CO2 is a huge addition. Am l worried? Not one bit. Why? Earth has been going on for billions of years with advanced civilisations that likely burned fossil fuels. The Earth continues to this day with new advanced civilisations.

Helicopter hieroglyphs

Man invents the telescope 65 millions years ago
Man builds a nuclear reactor 2 billion years ago


Obviously man had cars and air planes and telescopes and nuclear reactors etc, so what happened when the Earth got full of pollution and junk? The Gods cleaned it up, of course. They will probably open up a hole to let the excess CO2 out imo. The earth will always be here as long as we are good people and give reason for the Gods to look after us. Man has always had a connection with Gods for a reason, but as soon as that connection is severed the connection to being human is broken, one will no longer be looked after. So many miracles for some of the believers, but so much hardship for the discarded ones. I sigh and wish it could be different, but this world has lead so many astray, they have forgotten their own home.
 

Mattrick

Well-Known Member
Messages
76
Climate change skeptics - the stuff that screws their arguments completely up
The skeptics claims that only 3% of CO2 comes from humans.
I don't think this forms a major part of the skeptic's position and certainly doesn't screw their arguments up.
 

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,431
I don't think this forms a major part of the skeptic's position and certainly doesn't screw their arguments up.
It's not, but it leads into the important area that skeptics can't get around. It's not 3%, it's actually about 30%, and much of it is not absorbed by the carbon flux system, and that's why there is a build up of carbon isotope 13. That's the moment when l realised that l needed to take a more balanced position. I new my days as a hardcore skeptic were over when l encountered that in the research.

Climate change arguments are often emotional and truth can be pushed aside in order to argue points, but l prefer to see it how it really is.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,734
Exactly how will Amsterdam Airport be ''climate-neutral'' by 2030, perhaps no flights at all or some elaborate carbon trading scheme which will be harvested from the person flying:


This is a good one too, new homes to have no car park spaces, or only one in 3 houses get one, of course there will be a premium paid to get one:


You can see an eco-tyranny feudal system being set-up in the EU. Diminished lives with seriously reduced chance to travel to places of work, or on holidays. They'll have you where they want you, seriously curtailed, monitored and controlled.
 

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,431
Seriously worth watching:
I am listening to this as l do stuff, but l note he has already made a mistake. He says CO2 never leads temperature, but that is incorrect. In more recent times the science does show that CO2 has been leading temperature under certain conditions, and l did link to a link showing the science. Sometimes it leads and sometimes it lags.

Btw, l did listen to it. Despite some mistakes it is a good video./


We also need to be careful of the media. There has been a trend of articles published where it is seaid immigrants nbeed to move because of crop failure. I posted one about Honduras recently. Here is another one, and now the U.N is getting into the act and ruling on propaganda.


Climate refugees cannot be sent back home, UN rules in landmark decision

We need to be careful of propaganda articles like that one quoted. The media always likes to talk about rising ocean levels and immigrants moving due to crop failure, but properly done peer reviewed studies and statistics have proven that these things are lies. For eg, l showed studies showing that ocean levels have not risen in the Pacific Islands (an earlier post on this forum), nor will ice melting cause the oceans to rise significantly for about 1,000 years, and that would explain why banks load billions out to fund coastal development.

Al Gore and many have been caught out on their lies about the world flooding because it is not in line with accepted science, and a judge ruled against Al Gore when a case was brought against him to ban his propaganda film `an inconvenient truth'. .
Sea-level rise caused by climate change and its implications for society
Nobuo MIMURA


Now lets debunk the immigrant moves due to crop failure. The media tries to do this a lot lately because they know most people won't both to check the facts. But I DO!!!


Debunking more climate change propaganda - catching the United Nations out on it's lies about crop failure
Like with most countries, the crop yields are increasing. We can see this when we check the data for Pacific Island crop yields.



https://ourworldindata.org/search?q=...d+crop+yierlds

Even more updated is the crop yields of Fiji (another Pacific Island)


If you check crop yields all around the world you will find that crop yields are at record highs. As many know CO2 is good for plant growth. The earth is greening and drought is hardly killing off crops as commonly as the media and schools say it is.
 
Last edited:

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,431
Seriously worth watching:
The second mistake he made is when he talks about the high CO2 level of 4,000 ppm. He assumes this high level proves that man is not causing CO2 to rise, but it isn't that simple. He needs to look at the particular CO2 isotopes and the carbon flux model in order to put it into proper context. A person can't take a figure and conclude what he thinks it means,there is more to it than that.

but he does tell the truth when he shows it was much hotter over the history of the Earth than it is now, and this is something the IPCC does try to hide and manipulate the data.

he also makes a good point about the Earth's crust rising and falling, and hence ocean levels rising and falling in some areas. He also makes a good point about storms not getting worse and polar bear populations thriving.

Once again at 11:43 he isn't taking into account the types of carbon isotopes and carbon flux. Many bloggers and scientists are said to mess these issues up.

In sum, their is disinfo on both sides of climate change, so lets try and get it straight here.

The best points he brings up is about one world government, the club of rome and agenda 21. I hope people wake up to this stuff. I also hope people realise who Maurice Strong is.
 
Last edited:

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,734
I thought you were keen on capitalism.

If capital markets can fund "green" energy and innovation, isn't that a good thing?

If Prince Charles has changed his mind and is now taking a more moderate stance, isn't that a good thing, too?
It's a shake down. I have zero respect for doomsayers who suddenly change their prophesying and proselytizing that the end is nigh, to give us your taxes and here comes the revolution. A revolution that is about control and limiting the lifestyle, choice, travel chances and quality of life of my kids. The targets are all Soviet era strategies that will deliver nothing but misery and certainly not have any positive benefit on such issues as cleaning the oceans of plastic. Bad science makes good policies not. Managed economies in the commie style however painted green will deliver sad and diminished lives.

This what we are talking about:

 
Last edited:
Top Bottom