Global Warming. Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm 62 and I'm still waiting for the Ice Age.

Did you expect one within your lifetime???

Surely not. If so then you weren't listening to what the scientists are saying.

 

[Indeependent]

Did you expect one within your lifetime???

Surely not. If so then you weren't listening to what the scientists are saying.

Did you miss all the scientific studies of the 60s and 70s?!

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Sure, puppy, whatever you say.
Do you know what a Population is in a study?

I do. Because I use statistics every day. I make designed experiments and do statistical analyses on my data.

 

[Indeependent]

Did you expect one within your lifetime???

Surely not. If so then you weren't listening to what the scientists are saying.

How old are you?

 

[Indeependent]

I do. Because I use statistics every day. I make designed experiments and do statistical analyses on my data.

What industry?

 

[BackAgain]

really?

Yes indeed. Really. I say the Axis powers lost WWII. You “disagree.” Does your disagreement change the fact that the Allies did defeat the Axis? Nope. Not in the slightest.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Did you miss all the scientific studies of the 60s and 70s?!

In the 1960's to the 1970's the number of peer reviewed science articles predicting WARMING outnumbered those predicting COOLING 6 to 1.

Don't believe me?

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists...

journals.ametsoc.org

Now, in the 1960's to 1970's the scientists were actually learning more about the Milankovich Cycles which drive the ice ages (well the Cenozoic glaciation events if you will) so of course they were going to talk about that, but that was unrelated to AGW.

From the mid 1940's to the mid 1970's the northern hemisphere was actually showing a "cooling trend" which most now believe was due to human-produced sulfate aerosols which caused the "Mid-century cooling". Once we cleaned up the air a bit the warming started up again because we were still pumping Greenhouse Gases into the atmopshere.

Don't believe me?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028031

What most people are thinking of are a couple of articles in Time and Newsweek. Not the actual science of the times.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

What industry?

Chemistry.

 

[Indeependent]

In the 1960's to the 1970's the number of peer reviewed science articles predicting WARMING outnumbered those predicting COOLING 6 to 1.

Don't believe me?

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists...

journals.ametsoc.org

Now, in the 1960's to 1970's the scientists were actually learning more about the Milankovich Cycles which drive the ice ages (well the Cenozoic glaciation events if you will) so of course they were going to talk about that, but that was unrelated to AGW.

From the mid 1940's to the mid 1970's the northern hemisphere was actually showing a "cooling trend" which most now believe was due to human-produced sulfate aerosols which caused the "Mid-century cooling". Once we cleaned up the air a bit the warming started up again because we were still pumping Greenhouse Gases into the atmopshere.

Don't believe me?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028031

They didn't get the TV time or the shelf space.
They were both wrong then and my 2 Ecological Engineers say they're wrong today.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not jesus. You are blind. But I can't make you see. On this point, I doubt if even jesus could. (If you even believe all that crap to begin with)

You started a thread and you're unwilling to talk about the thing you started a thread about?

Why don't you at least have a try?

Let's start from the beginning. What would the world temperature be now if humans hadn't have industrialized? A simple one.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

They didn't get the TV time or the shelf space.
They were both wrong then and my 2 Ecological Engineers say they're wrong today.

Who was wrong about what?

 

[Indeependent]

Chemistry.

My son-in-law's mom and her brother are in Chemistry.
Avoiding hurting people and lawsuits is a good way to do business.
It's rare to falsify something that is so easily exposed, not to mention dangerous.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, you're not really interested in learning anything.

I'm interested in having a debate with YOU.

I've seen lots of website, but I can't converse with those websites. So I'm here. But you're not showing me anything I can learn. You're telling me to fuck off and go somewhere else.

 

[Indeependent]

Who was wrong about what?

I'm starting to believe that you really are a statistician.
How can you not know to what I am refererring?
The world has become neither a frozen tundra nor a burning cauldron, so knock off the bullsh!t.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm starting to believe that you really are a statistician.
How can you not know to what I am refererring?
The world has become neither a frozen tundra nor a burning cauldron, so knock off the bullsh!t.

Ummm, to my knowledge no one actually believes the next "ice age" is in the immediate offing. If you had that impression you were sorely mistaken. The next "ice age" normally wouldn't happen to us for another several thousand years.

But we SHOULD be cooling as we head into the next one...but we aren't cooling. And that warming we are seeing cannot currently be attributed to natural cycles alone. The warming can ONLY be explained completely if we consider human activities.

And AGW won't necessarily lead to burning cauldron situation across the globe (not sure where you got that hyperbolic extremism) but rather a significant impact to our society and economy. Imagine collapsing your agricultural infrastructure and trying to deal with migrants coming in from the coastal cities. Imagine the AMOC in the North Atlantic re-organizing or shutting down completely driving western Europe into a dramatically cooler climate than normal for them (yes even as the globe warms, there can be local cooling!) and the collapse of one of our main trading partners.

Famine, collapse of trade, I honestly don't know why that doesn't bother you.

 

[Flash]

Inconvenient truth for globalists: Arctic ice at 30-year high | WND | by Art Moore

The World Economic Forum and the globalist movement it helps lead have used the "climate crisis" and the COVID-19 pandemic as pretexts for measures to redistribute the wealth of nations. But this week, as WEF convenes is annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, the Arctic sea ice expanse so far...

www.wnd.com

Inconvenient truth for globalists: Arctic ice at 30-year high​

But this week, as WEF convenes is annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, the Arctic sea ice expanse so far this month is at a 30-year high, according to data from intergovernmental European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, points out climate-change skeptic Tony Heller.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Inconvenient truth for globalists: Arctic ice at 30-year high | WND | by Art Moore

The World Economic Forum and the globalist movement it helps lead have used the "climate crisis" and the COVID-19 pandemic as pretexts for measures to redistribute the wealth of nations. But this week, as WEF convenes is annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, the Arctic sea ice expanse so far...

www.wnd.com

Inconvenient truth for globalists: Arctic ice at 30-year high​

But this week, as WEF convenes is annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, the Arctic sea ice expanse so far this month is at a 30-year high, according to data from intergovernmental European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites, points out climate-change skeptic Tony Heller.

Do YOU know the difference between sea ice and multi-year sea ice?

I bet you don't.

 

[Indeependent]

Ummm, to my knowledge no one actually believes the next "ice age" is in the immediate offing. If you had that impression you were sorely mistaken. The next "ice age" normally wouldn't happen to us for another several thousand years.

But we SHOULD be cooling as we head into the next one...but we aren't cooling. And that warming we are seeing cannot currently be attributed to natural cycles alone. The warming can ONLY be explained completely if we consider human activities.

And AGW won't necessarily lead to burning cauldron situation across the globe (not sure where you got that hyperbolic extremism) but rather a significant impact to our society and economy. Imagine collapsing your agricultural infrastructure and trying to deal with migrants coming in from the coastal cities. Imagine the AMOC in the North Atlantic re-organizing or shutting down completely driving western Europe into a dramatically cooler climate than normal for them (yes even as the globe warms, there can be local cooling!) and the collapse of one of our main trading partners.

Famine, collapse of trade, I honestly don't know why that doesn't bother you.

How old are you?
It’s obvious you missed the 60s and 70s.
Not so bad if you were in school.

How old are you?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

How old are you?
It’s obvious you missed the 60s and 70s.
Not so bad if you were in school.

How old are you?

I'm 58.

Not only do I remember the 70s...I STARTED MY UNDERGRADUATE in geology in the early 80's. So I'm EXTREMELY familiar with all of this topic.


Would you like to talk about Cenozoic glaciation? Would you like to talk about ocean currents? Would you like to talk about rocks? Would you like to talk about geochemistry? Coal? Petroleum? Anything in particular?

 

[Indeependent]

I'm 58.

Not only do I remember the 70s...I STARTED MY UNDERGRADUATE in geology in the early 80's. So I'm EXTREMELY familiar with all of this topic.


Would you like to talk about Cenozoic glaciation? Would you like to talk about ocean currents? Would you like to talk about rocks? Would you like to talk about geochemistry? Coal? Petroleum? Anything in particular?

I can my have daughter and her mother in law discuss those subjects.
We are discussing the fact that you somehow forgot about the Global Freezing Agenda.