The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[ding]

It doesn't go backwards? You've got a WHOLE lot of mathematicians who disagree.

So they can explain why the planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm?

 

[P@triot]

It doesn't go backwards? You've got a WHOLE lot of mathematicians who disagree.

It amazes me that people like you never figured out that everyone pushing "Global Warming" is heavily invested in "green" companies and stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars.

They take private jets all over the world daily, dumping unimaginable amounts of emissions into the air, while you mindlessly regurgitate the panic-induced drivel they tell you

Bloomberg Could Benefit From Climate Rules He Helped Craft

Mike Bloomberg is poised to benefit financially from proposed rules requiring climate disclosures for businesses that he had a hand in crafting.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[Crick]

It amazes me that people like you never figured out that everyone pushing "Global Warming" is heavily invested in "green" companies and stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars.

I'm not invested in green companies.

They take private jets all over the world daily,

I keep mine in its hangar and use my fleet of solar sailplanes instead

dumping unimaginable amounts of emissions into the air,

My plane actually uses solar panels on the wing to power a CO2 sequestration system. When I land I offload bricks of solidified CO2 that are then used to reinforce tunnels in Chinese coal mines...

while you mindlessly regurgitate the panic-induced drivel they tell you

I find it amusing that you think you've got a corner on the truth while the thousands of published climate papers are "drivel". Just how much science education do you actually have?

 

[P@triot]

I'm not invested in green companies.

No…you’re the minion believing whatever the people who are invested in green companies, tell you.

I keep mine in its hangar and use my fleet of solar sailplanes instead

You have to joke about it because you realize how you’ve been duped. The people screaming so loud about “Global Warming” (Al Gore, Bill Gates, etc.) all have a “carbon footprint” larger than any small town in America.

And you keep licking their boots

I find it amusing that you think you've got a corner on the truth while the thousands of published climate papers are "drivel". Just how much science education do you actually have?

I find it amusing that you deny reality, history, science, facts, etc. because Al Gore told you to

98% of all “Global Warming” projections/predictions never came to fruition. At what point do you realize you’re being duped?

 

[P@triot]

I find it amusing that you think you've got a corner on the truth…

Oh…and I find it amusing that you skipped right over the article about Bloomberg. For a guy sooooooo concerned about “Global Warming”, he hasn’t adjusted his lifestyle one bit.

Still owns multiple mansions. Still flies all over the world in a private jet, daily.

He’s laughing his ass off at rubes like you, who make it all possible.

 

[P@triot]

The conclusion in the lastes assessment report, both by models and observations, is that warming temperatures are reducing cloud cover in the subtropics and mid-latitudes. You were arguing that increased water vapour would increase cloud cover. Albedo is dropping, not increasing.

 

[P@triot]

Did you catch that, Crick, in the previous post? No meaningful correlation.

I mean, common sense already told us that. But now you have the science as well. “Trust the science”, Crick!

 

[Crick]

Did you catch that, Crick, in the previous post? No meaningful correlation.

I mean, common sense already told us that. But now you have the science as well. “Trust the science”, Crick!

And who might John Johnson be that his word should be taken over that of the several hundred PhDs that produce those assessment reports?

 

[ding]

And who might John Johnson be that his word should be taken over that of the several hundred PhDs that produce those assessment reports?

Unless those several hundred PhD's can explain why the planet cooled for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 greater than 600 ppm they are worthless. Especially if their explanation isn't feedback from increased CO2 must be net negative.

 

[Doug1943]

It would be interesting -- and informative for those of us who don't have a hard position on Global Warming -- for the two sides here to take a single fact, and discuss/debate it.

For example: has the 'average global temperature' gone up in the last 20 years? (I know that 'average global temperature' is not a simple concept, so it would need to be refined.)

In other words, let's take a single, hard, relevant question, and assemble the evidence for and against. If my suggestion of one ('average global temperature') is too vague, find another one: has sea level risen over the last couple of decades? Have ice sheets/glaciers been melting?

In other words, pick a hard, verifiable question of fact that would imply that serious global warming is happening, or that it isn't, and assemble the evidence for both sides.

 

[Stryder50]

It would be interesting -- and informative for those of us who don't have a hard position on Global Warming -- for the two sides here to take a single fact, and discuss/debate it.

For example: has the 'average global temperature' gone up in the last 20 years? (I know that 'average global temperature' is not a simple concept, so it would need to be refined.)

In other words, let's take a single, hard, relevant question, and assemble the evidence for and against. If my suggestion of one ('average global temperature') is too vague, find another one: has sea level risen over the last couple of decades? Have ice sheets/glaciers been melting?

In other words, pick a hard, verifiable question of fact that would imply that serious global warming is happening, or that it isn't, and assemble the evidence for both sides.

Natural or anthropogenic ?

 

[Stryder50]

Some common sense ...

House votes to kill Biden’s ‘woke’ ESG investment rule that props up ‘phony climate movement’​

House votes to kill Biden’s ‘woke’ ESG investment rule that props up ‘phony climate movement’

 

[Doug1943]

Natural or anthropogenic ?

I think what you're suggesting is: assuming that there is global warming, is it natural or man-made? (Of course, it could be both.)

That's a good question, but the problem with it is, it's not quite a question of stark fact the way the others are.

That is to say, we could argue about, say, sea level rise by reference to the various formal and informal measures of sea level around the world -- are they influenced by things like tides, ocean currents, El/La Ninx, etc.

Definitely worth trying to establish all the relevant information, but less definitive than, say, has 'average' (there's a problem there in itself, of course -- how do we want to use the word 'average'?) temperature around the world increased/continued to increase over some relevant time period?

Threads where people just exchange insults are pointless. Presumably most of us believe what we do about Global Warming -- and almost everything else -- because we trust a certain set of 'experts' in the subject... and both sides have their own experts.

But trust in 'experts', over the last couple of decades, has eroded., for good reasons or bad, or both.

So ... let's have a succinct presentation -- by either side -- of what it believes are incontrovertible facts. "All measures of sea-level have shown an average increase of X cm in it since YYYY, and the rate of increase is itself growing: " [Primary source 1, Primary Source 2] (Primary sources, not the opinion of this or that group of experts. References to the hard data which are the reason they have their particular opinion.]

This won't settle anything, since we can then argue about the reliability of that data. But it would be a lot of illuminating than "Your mother wears army boots" arguments.

 

[P@triot]

And who might John Johnson be that his word should be taken over that of the several hundred PhDs that produce those assessment reports?

PhD’s whose livelihoods depend on “Global Warming” panic? Those “PhD’s”? And why do you dismiss the zillions of PhD’s who have debunked the “Global Warming” scam?

 

[P@triot]

Undeniable proof that the “Global Warming” crowd doesn’t even remotely believe their scam. No way in hell he “hurts” the environment like this if he actually believes we’re all going to die soon.

CNN's 'chief climate' reporter flies more than 6,000 miles to warn about melting ice, climate change | Blaze Media

CNN's chief climate correspondent purportedly flew more than 6,000 miles to report on climate change. On Wednesday, CNN correspondent Bill Weir appeared on "CNN This Morning," reporting from the Tierra de Fuego region of Argentina, the southern tip of South America. In his report, Weir...

www.theblaze.com

 

[Sunsettommy]

Undeniable proof that the “Global Warming” crowd doesn’t even remotely believe their scam. No way in hell he “hurts” the environment like this if he actually believes we’re all going to die soon.

CNN's 'chief climate' reporter flies more than 6,000 miles to warn about melting ice, climate change | Blaze Media

CNN's chief climate correspondent purportedly flew more than 6,000 miles to report on climate change. On Wednesday, CNN correspondent Bill Weir appeared on "CNN This Morning," reporting from the Tierra de Fuego region of Argentina, the southern tip of South America. In his report, Weir...

www.theblaze.com

His report is deceptive and stupid since the slight reduction barely change the total mass balance as these charts makes clear:

They NEVER tell you the whole story which is why the truth isn't in them.

 

[Doug1943]

His report is deceptive and stupid since the slight reduction barely change the total mass balance as these charts makes clear:

They NEVER tell you the whole story which is why the truth isn't in them.

Okay! This is the kind of argument we need, over hard quantifiable facts. Some say the polar ice caps, and the Greenland ice sheet, are melting. Others say they're not. Here is evidence for the 'not' side.

Now let the 'they are melting' side present its evidence.

Over to you!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Okay! This is the kind of argument we need, over hard quantifiable facts. Some say the polar ice caps, and the Greenland ice sheet, are melting. Others say they're not. Here is evidence for the 'not' side.

Now let the 'they are melting' side present its evidence.

Over to you!

There is some melting, but the significance of the small melting gets blown waay out of proportion in relation to the total mass.

In the previous interglacial which was significantly warmer than now Greenland was partially melted down far more than the very small meltdown seen in this interglacial.

 

[ReinyDays]

Now let the 'they are melting' side present its evidence.

NASA is reporting a slightly above average melting in Antarctica for January ... the Southern Hemisphere's summer ... this is normal every summer ... I suppose it's too much to ask for you to go look at your own local glaciers ... but you'll see then how much they've grown since the thermal maximum at the beginning of the Holocene ... even with the recent warmth, these glaciers are still growing towards the size they'll be during thermal minimum in 115,000 years ...

Nothing to worry about ... our fossil fuels won't last that long ...

 

[Doug1943]

Okay, we're waiting for the pro-Warming side to present some counter evidence. Or to interpret the evidence presented above differently.

C'mon, guys! It's my side that're supposed to be the heavy-brow-ridge green-toothed rednecks, mindlessly repeating what Fox News tells us, unable to understand the True Science even if we stumbled across it.

Settle some of that Settled Science on us here: are the ice caps and glaciers melting away? Let's see some facts and figures.