Climate alarmist is a mental illness

[Crick]

Does my post make you think I am a credulous retard?

It makes me think you're another example of Dunning-Kruger.

 

[Foxfyre]

It makes me think you're another example of Dunning-Kruger.

That's because you don't understand it dear. Do have a pleasant evening.

 

[Crick]

When you keep telling people that life as we know will be severely diminished or non existent if we don't do what the 'woke' climate religionist demand

Cllimate science is not a religion but it is woke. The question is why you or anyone else should be opposed to being woke. Apparently you and I and the large groups of whom we're members have very different definitions for the term. The definition I'm using is '...an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBT rights.' Do you have a different definition or do you object to that one?

a certain percentage of those are so clueless and gullible that they believe it. And yes, such people can become depressed and/or anxious. Kids are especially susceptible to that kind of propaganda because they have less inclination to search out the facts on the subject but just believe what they are indoctrinated with.

Those with the intellectual honesty and critical thinking skills who do research as well as they are able to get and evaluate all the facts on the subject are rarely depressed or anxious about climate change. They become depressed and anxious at the totalitarianism the climate religionists are forcing on us that do nothing to stop climate change but do everything to take away liberties, choices, options, opportunities.

The more knowledge you have about climate science the more likely you are to agree with the consensus; with the IPCC conclusions; because THOSE are the conclusionss of the people who know the MOST about the topic. A group of large companies has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year for many years to sell you on lies intended to create exactly the scenario you're currently entertaining in your mind. You're being used in the most crass and inhumane way possible: you are being made an unwitting pawn in a process that will do immense damage to your own species with no purpose but to allow a small group of people to remain very wealthy. AGW is not a hoax. The world's scientists are not lying to you. This is not all in the service of some political agenda. Leftists don't want to destroy modern civilization. NONE of these things even pass a sanity test. Please take off the blinders and put on an actual thinking cap and figure out what is real and what is not because you are presently a victim of deception.

 

[elektra]

I'm supplying facts, not denying facts.

If you go back in time and took measurements on a yearly basis, you will still get the same jagged graphs that you come up with. When you zoom out and view the graph over millions of years, you will see it's much more linear, smoother.

crick is looking at such a tiny part of weather, temperature, magnifying it a thousand times, and then going to bed scared

 

[Crick]

crick is looking at such a tiny part of weather, temperature, magnifying it a thousand times, and then going to bed scared

You're astoundingly not worth dealing with. There'd be more challenge having a debate with my dog. A lot more challenge. He's a pretty sharp boy.

 

[Crick]

I'm supplying facts, not denying facts.

No, you're not. You're attacking the messenger.

If you go back in time and took measurements on a yearly basis, you will still get the same jagged graphs that you come up with. When you zoom out and view the graph over millions of years, you will see it's much more linear, smoother.

I spent the majority of my professional career collecting, processing and analyzing naval weapon and sensor data and then making and publishing graphs of that data to convey system performance. I'm familiar with the effect of scaling on the appearance of data.

What I'm denying is, your stupid conclusions, your stupid predictions. And as the years roll by, your (political science) predictions keeping failing.

My conclusions or the conclusions of the world's climate scientists? My predictions or the predictions of the world's climate scientists? Climate science has long concluded that the world is getting warmer and the primary cause is human GHG emissions. Climate science predicted that CO2 levels would continue rise, that tempertures would continue to rise as a result, that sea levels would continue to rise as a result, that the world's ice masses would continue to melt as a result, that there would be follow-on effects with drinking water, crops, changes in weather patters and the intensity of weather events as a result. Which of those conclusions and which of those prediction do you think are stupid? And I know when someone learns a new word, their's a strong tendency to look for places to use it. We see you learned the words "political science" but since you do not seem to have learned their actual definition, taking every opportunity to use them where you think they fit is not improving your intellectual image around here. Know what I mean? Oh... I guess not.

And we all know the Milankovitch Cycles, volcanoes, earthquakes, sink holes, co2, jet streams etc... all drive the climate (yes, sink holes removes carbon).

Sink holes do not notably remove carbon dioxide. Atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in condensing and falling rainwater producing weak carbonic acid and, in some locations, dissolves enough limestone to allow sink holes to form. No more CO2 is sequestered there than at any other location with rain falling on it.

The weather moves around the planet because it ain't static, never has been, never will be because of all the factors mentioned above.

The only thing you mentioned that moves weather about is the jet stream. What relevance do you believe weather's movement has with this debate?

And despite all these, the mental alarmist believes it's just co2,

I don't believe I have ever heard ANYONE suggest that CO2 was responsible for weather moving around the planet or being dynamic vice static. So, no one, "mental alarmist" or not, seems to believe that. Do you see a pattern forming here? The pattern is that you believe a lot of things that are demonstrably false.

yet, science data has shown co2 doesn't drive temperature.

Show us some of that "science data".

But all of a sudden, little spiky yearly graphs and a political narrative disses decades of science.

What "little spiky yearly graphs" and what decades of science?

Let's see if I can shorten this process. Were you to respond (and that itself is fairly unlikely) you would argue either that the isolated periods where CO2 and temperature moved in opposite directions refutes the 98% of the Earth's history when they moved in close correlation OR that the geological record always indicates that CO2 lags temperatures rising or falling, changed by other causes. Right? Well, I know you wouldn't put it that clearly and that would be way too long of a sentence for you, but let's move on.

The geological history of the Earth shows a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. Pointing out two relatively brief periods when they moved in opposition due to extraordinary events, does not refute that point. The physical processes that are the cause of that strong correlation are the greenhouse effect and the temperature dependence of gas solubility in water (or any liquid). The temperature dependence for gas solubility works in the opposite direction as the solubility of solids. Sugar dissolves more readily in hot tea than cold tea, right? But a shaken bottle of warm soda will do far more outgassing than will a shaken bottle of cold soda. So, when the state of Milankovitch cycles causes the Earth to warm, the amount of CO2 in solution in the world's oceans and waterways decreases as it moves out of the water and in to the air. When Milankovitch cycles phasing causes the Earth's temperature to cool, CO2 leaves the atmosphere and goes into solution in the world's oceans and waterways. These two effects alter the amount of greenhouse warming taking place which reinforces and extends the Milankovitch forcing and help drive the Earth through the glacial-interglacial cycles we've been experiencing for the last 2.5 million years.

You frequently hear deniers claim that CO2 always lags warming, it never proceeds it. That's not quite true, it's just hard to see.. Up until humans came along, it was exceedingly rare that any natural process other than the Milankovitch cycles could affect atmospheric CO2 levels enough to affect global temperatures. So we almost never saw CO2 and its concomitant warming rise out of the blue. But, what a careful study by Professor Jeremy Shakun and now several others found was tha the warming the planet experienced as it moved from glacial to interglacial phases extended PAST the point at which Milankovitch's orbital mechanics could have created it. The warming was greater in magnitude and duration than orbital mechanics alone could have produced and was being created by the greenhouse effect acting on the CO2 that Milankovitch forcing had driven out of solution.

 

[Captain Caveman]

No, you're not. You're attacking the messenger.

I spent the majority of my professional career collecting, processing and analyzing naval weapon and sensor data and then making and publishing graphs of that data to convey system performance. I'm familiar with the effect of scaling on the appearance of data.

My conclusions or the conclusions of the world's climate scientists? My predictions or the predictions of the world's climate scientists? Climate science has long concluded that the world is getting warmer and the primary cause is human GHG emissions. Climate science predicted that CO2 levels would continue rise, that tempertures would continue to rise as a result, that sea levels would continue to rise as a result, that the world's ice masses would continue to melt as a result, that there would be follow-on effects with drinking water, crops, changes in weather patters and the intensity of weather events as a result. Which of those conclusions and which of those prediction do you think are stupid? And I know when someone learns a new word, their's a strong tendency to look for places to use it. We see you learned the words "political science" but since you do not seem to have learned their actual definition, taking every opportunity to use them where you think they fit is not improving your intellectual image around here. Know what I mean? Oh... I guess not.

Sink holes do not notably remove carbon dioxide. Atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in condensing and falling rainwater producing weak carbonic acid and, in some locations, dissolves enough limestone to allow sink holes to form. No more CO2 is sequestered there than at any other location with rain falling on it.

The only thing you mentioned that moves weather about is the jet stream. What relevance do you believe weather's movement has with this debate?

I don't believe I have ever heard ANYONE suggest that CO2 was responsible for weather moving around the planet or being dynamic vice static. So, no one, "mental alarmist" or not, seems to believe that. Do you see a pattern forming here? The pattern is that you believe a lot of things that are demonstrably false.

Show us some of that "science data".

What "little spiky yearly graphs" and what decades of science?

Let's see if I can shorten this process. Were you to respond (and that itself is fairly unlikely) you would argue either that the isolated periods where CO2 and temperature moved in opposite directions refutes the 98% of the Earth's history when they moved in close correlation OR that the geological record always indicates that CO2 lags temperatures rising or falling, changed by other causes. Right? Well, I know you wouldn't put it that clearly and that would be way too long of a sentence for you, but let's move on.

The geological history of the Earth shows a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. Pointing out two relatively brief periods when they moved in opposition due to extraordinary events, does not refute that point. The physical processes that are the cause of that strong correlation are the greenhouse effect and the temperature dependence of gas solubility in water (or any liquid). The temperature dependence for gas solubility works in the opposite direction as the solubility of solids. Sugar dissolves more readily in hot tea than cold tea, right? But a shaken bottle of warm soda will do far more outgassing than will a shaken bottle of cold soda. So, when the state of Milankovitch cycles causes the Earth to warm, the amount of CO2 in solution in the world's oceans and waterways decreases as it moves out of the water and in to the air. When Milankovitch cycles phasing causes the Earth's temperature to cool, CO2 leaves the atmosphere and goes into solution in the world's oceans and waterways. These two effects alter the amount of greenhouse warming taking place which reinforces and extends the Milankovitch forcing and help drive the Earth through the glacial-interglacial cycles we've been experiencing for the last 2.5 million years.

You frequently hear deniers claim that CO2 always lags warming, it never proceeds it. That's not quite true, it's just hard to see.. Up until humans came along, it was exceedingly rare that any natural process other than the Milankovitch cycles could affect atmospheric CO2 levels enough to affect global temperatures. So we almost never saw CO2 and its concomitant warming rise out of the blue. But, what a careful study by Professor Jeremy Shakun and now several others found was tha the warming the planet experienced as it moved from glacial to interglacial phases extended PAST the point at which Milankovitch's orbital mechanics could have created it. The warming was greater in magnitude and duration than orbital mechanics alone could have produced and was being created by the greenhouse effect acting on the CO2 that Milankovitch forcing had driven out of solution.

Yet again retard, I do not read multi quote posts. Are you fucking thick on purpose or was it falling off the delivery table and onto your head that's done it?

 

[elektra]

You're astoundingly not worth dealing with. There'd be more challenge having a debate with my dog. A lot more challenge. He's a pretty sharp boy.

I do not doubt you would have a challenge, and would debate, dogs.

 

[Crick]

Yet again retard, I do not read multi quote posts. Are you fucking thick on purpose or was it falling off the delivery table and onto your head that's done it?

That's your problem, not mine.

 

[Captain Caveman]

That's your problem, not mine.

Waste your time doing replies that won't be read. Your loss, not mine.

Look under feedback, you're the idiot that prompted the Multi Quote feedback to be started. You're one of the few gormless that prompted it.

 

[Crick]

Waste your time doing replies that won't be read. Your loss, not mine.

Look under feedback, you're the idiot that prompted the Multi Quote feedback to be started. You're one of the few gormless that prompted it.

Where would I find Multi Quote feedback?

 

[Oddball]

I was wondering why the climate alarmist wouldn't follow settled science, but they go with the political science instead -

Climate anxiety and PTSD are on the rise. Therapists donât always know how to cope

Many psychologists say they feel unequipped to handle a growing number of patients despairing over the state of the planet. A new contingent of mental health professionals aims to fix that

www.theguardian.com

Many psychologists say they feel unequipped to handle a growing number of patients despairing over the state of the planet. A new contingent of mental health professionals aims to fix that.

There you go, it's a known psychological problem, so I can see why Jordan Peterson was correct in saying -

People have things more on their personal purview that are more difficult to deal with and that they are avoiding and generally that the way they avoid them is by adopting pseudo moralistic stances on large scale social issues that it makes them look good to your friends and neighbours.

So conclusion is, if you know of a climate alarmist, be compassionate and try to help them through this difficult time in their life.

Most of the modern "anxieties" are out of control neuroses.

The theory I find most persuasive is that the brain's paleocortex (where the five "F"s live) is still looking for threats to existence (i.e. panthers jumping out of the dark to eat you), when modern industrialized life has made them next to nonexistent....The lizard brain hasn't caught up to moidern life, so it's creating things for people to be terrified of.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Many climate change fanatics, Crick for example, preach their pseudo-morality on one hand, but fail to practice it on the other. Crick proudly features a photograph of himself in Paris at the Louvre Glass Pyramid. He created many tons of carbon dioxide flying there and back and taking taxis around town.
Instead he should move to Cuba, the world's only sustainable country.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I'm supplying facts, not denying facts.

If you go back in time and took measurements on a yearly basis, you will still get the same jagged graphs that you come up with. When you zoom out and view the graph over millions of years, you will see it's much more linear, smoother.

What I'm denying is, your stupid conclusions, your stupid predictions. And as the years roll by, your (political science) predictions keeping failing.

And we all know the Milankovitch Cycles, volcanoes, earthquakes, sink holes, co2, jet streams etc... all drive the climate (yes, sink holes removes carbon). The weather moves around the planet because it ain't static, never has been, never will be because of all the factors mentioned above. And despite all these, the mental alarmist believes it's just co2, yet, science data has shown co2 doesn't drive temperature. But all of a sudden, little spiky yearly graphs and a political narrative disses decades of science.

As we head into summer, the people of Phoenix expect it to get HOT.

Last year, we had a lot of 110+ degrees in a row, but only one day set a record and we never got close to the overall record set back in 1990 (34 years ago when CO2 was at what level ?).

Nobody is worried. Just getting the pools squared away.

 

[elektra]

Record averages are so much different than record temperatures. Record averages mean literally nothing. Records period mean nothing.

 

[ChemEngineer]

The Scary Temperature Graph

The same data with perspective, honesty:

By the same token, Al Gore presents this Scary Graph:

When you change the scale and add THE dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, it turns flat:

 

[ChemEngineer]

crick is looking at such a tiny part of weather, temperature, magnifying it a thousand times, and then going to bed scared

Crick is the eco-hypocrite who preaches the panic of climate change while proudly posting the picture of him in front of the Louvre in Paris, where he flew in a gas-guzzling commercial jet, then took a gas-guzzling taxi from the airport to downtown. He's Al Gore in miniature and on the cheap, like this guy on his telephone:

 

[elektra]

Crick is the eco-hypocrite who preaches the panic of climate change while proudly posting the picture of him in front of the Louvre in Paris, where he flew in a gas-guzzling commercial jet, then took a gas-guzzling taxi from the airport to downtown. He's Al Gore in miniature and on the cheap, like this guy on his telephone:

View attachment 938338

Crick is a moron.
Co2 is at a record low, historically. Just above the level required for life.
The scientists look at the last 0.25% of the co2 levels in earth's history ignoring the billions of years of co2 levels that came before.

We have increased the use of the chemical industry dramatically, emitting millions of tons, billions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere to build wind turbines and solar panels. Heavy industry can never quit manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels. They are too inefficient and they are short lived.

Wind turbines have already broke, and been replaced, 3 times, in some cases 4 times. We are beginning or 4th generation of replacements in 30 years.

Forever manufacturing by heavy industry, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, emitting co2.

The heavy industry is none other than BIG OIL!!!!!