The Hard Truth About Climate Change - Politics Discussion

[–] Terez (236) 4 years ago

The hard truth about climate change is that not only does it exist, but the longer we delay doing something about it the worse it gets. No videos can change these facts.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

Except these videos convey empirically verifiable facts, while you just offered nothing less than a completely unsubstantiated statement with no merit (i.e. not "facts"). Generally speaking, of course climate change exists. But the notion that it's largely human-influenced, or that CO2 is the cause instead of a byproduct is questionable. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied, nor that we shouldn't do everything possible to curtail any form of pollution planet-wide, but what's happening today isn't genuine scientific study. It's political control over a gullible population. It's time to drop the belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink and start thinking critically and scientifically.

reply

[–] Terez (236) 4 years ago

You have a point here, but neither you nor I are qualified or understand climatology enough to know what to believe. We can trust those who are qualified, or we can attempt to come to conclusions on our own with the understanding that we might not understand the concept completely.

I can prove that 2 = 1, but that doesn't mean it actually does.

x = y.
Then x2 = xy.
Subtract the same thing from both sides:
x2 – y2 = xy – y2.
Dividing by (x-y), obtain
x + y = y.
Since x = y, we see that
2 y = y.

let y = 1
2 = 1

Math allows you to make all kinds of mistakes that are hard to catch if you don't know what you're doing. The same goes for science, but with math it's easier to point out things that just don't make sense.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

Well-stated. But my point is that we should never "believe" anything at all (nor should we disbelieve to 100% either). Everything should be seen as a matter of probability, and always subject to be adjusted and adapted as new information is ascertained. Unfortunately, belief (the same cognitive process behind "practice makes perfect", leading to biases where conscious thought is no longer necessary for the sake of mental efficiency and brain energy conservation) is an evolved survival trait that leads to mental shortcut groupings that have negative consequences just as often as positive.

And right now, all the information available regarding “global warming”, “climate change”, etc., albeit not widely publicized, strongly puts doubt on it being human-caused CO2-related. The so-called "experts" (and non-experts like Al Gore who promote the notion) simply parrot the same provably false stats again and again, having set apocalyptic end-dates of disaster many times over the decades only for us to pass by them uneventfully, or as is pointed out by this Tony Heller person (who himself is an "expert" with a long history in the field) even manipulate the data to support their narrative.

My fear is that all this belief-based hoopla is causing us to bark up the wrong tree and lead us astray from reality, that we may very well be missing the true nature of a real problem, if that problem even actually exists

reply

[–] Terez (236) 4 years ago

A man after my own heart. It is quite true that we far too often substitute belief with the word "fact." I am far more extremist in my views of how we should be protecting the environment and some aspects of climate action (like prioritizing the building of renewables as a plant instead of community solar) irk me as they only create further environmental problems (continued deforestation for the sake of humans.)

Climate action coincides with many beliefs of mine, but truth is ultimately unknowable. What I do know is that humanity will continue to spread, devour resources, and drive out all other organisms until something forces us to stop and think back on our actions. Even our roadways chop up contiguous sections of forest and harm the native wildlife. Climate action doesn't want to address the "human" part of environmentalism, but it does bring environmentalism a bit more attention.

I don't see the future as being this clean and shiny paradise but being the dirty, gritty future where we've created artificial means of turning CO2 into O2 and have run out every other lifeform except humans. We're already making meat in a lab so what use would we have to waste all that space we can cram humans into on cattle?

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

Can't disagree with a single thing you said here. Again, well-stated. The overreactions to the perceived climate crisis indeed cause more harm then good, although I can't deny it's helped lead more people to be environmentally aware. And although I'm not quite as defeatist in the eventual outcome, what you describe is a very real possibility that should concern everyone as humanity continues to expand around the globe at exponential rates.

I just highly question the legitimacy of the current global "climate change" concept. Not that change isn't happening, because it always has, but I doubt the proposed cause, or that there's even truly a long-term warming trend (especially since it can be demonstrated that the data has been manipulated to fit a narrative, either intentionally or via subconscious bias), and suspect it's much more complicated, and more likely that it's something we don't have control of.

What we do have control of is how we prepare for any possible eventual catastrophe, and more short-term how we impact the environment around us on local levels, an area we can still improve on. I don't see a connection or correlation between being environmentally conscious and believing the modern day religion of "climate change", however.

reply

[–] Terez (236) 4 years ago

Interesting point to be made, Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) required that electronics stop using lead solder but did nothing about the primary source of lead seeping into the water system. Car batteries. In fact, batteries are exempt from the law so all the negatives are on what wasn't contributing to the issues to begin with.

It is the unfortunate tendency for us to first enact what might be an environmentally sound idea but then say "this will affect us negatively" and don't follow through. Plastic recycling took the same step, instead of reducing our plastic consumption it increased it and people feel good about recycling even if all of that plastic is going straight to the landfill because no one is buying recycled plastic.

So it may be right that even though it seems noble to reduce the CO2 output, we probably will just end up contributing back a different way. I remember back in 2001 when GM was talking about creating a Hydrogen Fuel Cell car. Compared to the battery economy, FuelCells do seem the cleaner approach; but we're likely to create tons of batteries that will just end up in landfills until we get the Hydrogen economy working as it should.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

You're really on roll here. I think you just nailed it again. The downside that's being revealed with all this is that it's all very complicated, but that humans lean toward the lazy end of the spectrum and tend to more readily accept easy-sounding answers, regardless of how viable they may or may not be (i.e. we want to feel comfortable in our beliefs and so lock in on them without ever questioning them).

Additionally, one way or another we're going to have impact on the Earth, and humans have a tendency to never follow through. Just as importantly, we rarely think things through to all possible future outcomes. We tend to want quick fixes, and there are none. Reality doesn't work that way. But because we have a hard time grasping the full scope of it all, we misinterpret the true nature of problems and devise solutions that just cause more problems.

Which brings me to my recurring theme: at the core of all it is mindset, namely our evolved penchant to engage in emotionally-inspired belief instead of pervasive critical thinking. Belief, a.k.a. bias, which in numbers leads to groupthink, tribalism and confirmation feedback loops, really is at the heart of most of humanity's problems.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

x2 = xy

No, 2x does not equal x^2

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17829) 4 years ago

The planet is coming out of an ice age...of course it's getting warmer.

Also... https://extinctionclock.org/

reply

[–] TimMC (9143) 4 years ago

No matter how loudly it is screamed, a theory is not a fact.

reply

[–] Jinx (3877) 4 years ago

In science you have to have facts to get to a theory.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

No, facts can support a theory, not the other way around.
First you have an educated guess, a hypothesis.
Then you devise some experiments.
Then you get some facts that either agree or disagree with your theory.
You can never really proves a theory, but you just need one fact to disprove it.

reply

[–] Rorikon (18390) 4 years ago

Okay, I literally tuned out of this drivel. All your fucking videos are from ONE FRIGGIN source. Thought it was multiple videos from different people/subjects of it. Yeesh. I don't need someone to tell me Climate Change isn't real when I experience it myself in real life and see the changes myself.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

Examples? And I would challenge you to not tune it out. That's a large part of the problem society has today, tuning out what they think they'll disagree with, letting preconceptions rule their actions and behavior. Nothing you say will have merit until you watch and study these and attempt to argue against them with equally thorough and thought-out data and examples.

reply

[–] Rorikon (18390) 4 years ago

Where I live, during the early 90's, used to have 3-6 feet of snow during the winter. Now since 2014-ish and up we rarely get snow here anymore. What's fucked up in my area is we get snow in mid-January to early February from the usual around Nov-Dec from before. Another weird thing is it's more a mix nowadays. Some snow then right after a bit of snow comes the rain, again stuff you never seen before happening more frequently and differently. If that isn't something changing, I dunno what is.

I also remember as kid the heat used to be around 12-18c but nowadays it's up to 24c. Why do you think we keep breaking weather records? More extremes are happening. I think it's just Earth trying to correct itself from all the man-made emissions we shit out with the ever increasing population we spit out.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

I don't doubt the possibility of change in your area. The Earth is always changing. Always has. I'll refer you to the following for more:

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/604a8d65b6eeb763cc82da0d/The-Hard-Truth-About-Climate-Change?reply=604af4a65896bf2be0a1cbf2

reply

[–] TriumphReq (1857) 4 years ago

LOL yeah it's like fk it was friggin 72 degrees today in the winter!

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

That's not really how the proposed "climate change" phenomenon works (similar to how deniers look at feet of snow and subzero temps in their area and dismiss the idea out of hand). Plus, we're only a couple of weeks away from Spring. Only a dataset that encompasses a long period of time can be considered a valid scientific snapshot, though. Cherry-picking isn't a viable measure. But if you want to compare and chart the temp records in your area, plug your zip code into this (or a similar online tool):

https://www.almanac.com/weather/history.

In my zip code in 1945, for example, just picking some random dates as I go along here, the mean temperature for March 10 was 49 degrees. In 1950 it was 36. Yet in 1955 it was 64. 1960 it was 27. In 1965 it was 30. 1970 it was 34. 1980 it was 45. 1990 it was 68. 2000 it was 34. 2008 it was 35. 2010 it as 53. 2019 it was 36. 2020 it was 43. It's easy to see that it jumps up and down, and at least in my zip code it absolutely does not depict a steadily growing warming trend.

Unfortunately, that site doesn't go back further than 1945. However, in the late 1920's to 1930's all across the country there was a few years of abnormally high temps that contributed to the infamous and quite devastating dust bowl of 1930 (which was exacerbated by misguided farming methods by a large influx of inexperienced farmers). Thousands of people died from the heat, in part because more people had to work outdoors in that unbearable heat, and crop yields were decimated.

As Tony Heller points out, the original data doesn't show a warming trend, but a fairly steady evenness overall. It may even depict a gradual cooling trend since the 1930's, but that's probably because there was a large warming spike at that time. It also indicates that CO2 levels could be influenced by temperature, not necessarily the other way around. Meaning, nothing is “settled”.

Is something climate-related occurring? Possibly, and we need to understand it. Studying it without bias is imperative. But instead of genuine science, it's become a dangerous cult-like religion that obfuscates real study on the matter. It's become about belief instead of persistent skepticism, a mindset that has also led to more intense tribalism and division worldwide.

If you don't mind me asking, what's your zip code? I understand if you don't want to reveal that.

I'm not saying to buy everything this guy is claiming, but it's worth our while to not ignore it.

https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

reply

[–] swanstep (2769) 4 years ago

As Tony Heller points out, the real data doesn't show a warming trend. In fact, a gradual cooling trend since the 1930's. It also indicates that CO2 levels are influenced by temperature, not the other way around.

Tony Heller sounds like a real idiot. There is a global heating trend and, yes CO2 levels are influenced by warming temperatures - there are all sorts of positive feedbacks caused by warming oceans not absorbing as much C02, lots of permafost melting unlocking CO2 and methane deposits, etc.. What would be truly amazing would be if a cooling trend led to higher C02 levels (which seems to be what Heller is committed to). But, heck, if you're Heller I guess you have to somehow deal with the "mystery" of a cooling trend that allows for glacial retreat all over the world, changed (mainly away from the equator) flora and fauna patterns all over the world, and so on.

There's something sinister about the creative skepticism and heroic openminded-ness warriorpoet is urging - there are all sorts of unresolved questions within climate science but none of the basic trend data is disputable at this point, fossil-fuel-industry-funded sophistry notwithstanding. Pretending otherwise is just *time-wasting* w.r.t. the crisis that has to be faced. Fossil fuel industries desperately *want* us to waste our time on sophistry, often under spurious headings like 'teaching the controversy', 'being open-minded', rather than bear down on the tasks of de-carbonizing economies. Indeed a whole *branch* of climate science contrarianism these days argues precisely that because so much time has been wasted (thanks to their funders!) that now it's too late to do anything useful to stop the massive climate change that's now coming. Antiregulatory contrarians don't have to be consistent, they can back all sorts of rhetorical horses, and all sorts of useful idiots to help achieve their anti-regulatory goals. Don't fall for any of it people.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

So even though it can be demonstrated that the data has been altered it doesn't give you pause? You just blindly believe? No one should believe the opposite either. Question everything. Be persistently skeptical. Of everything.

reply

[–] swanstep (2769) 4 years ago

So even though it can be demonstrated that the data has been altered it doesn't give you pause?

Not really. Statistics and data analysis are hard. They're easy to demagogue or just plain misunderstand. So, even if Heller was serious and well-intentioned, which he isn't (see e.g. here https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/ for a summary), the working assumption should be that Heller has misunderstood and is inadvertently cherry-picking the material on which he's commentating. Moreover, basic temperature (and other) trends and phenomena over past 100 years are global in character and do not depend on any one nation's data or scientists, so even if Heller did have a really good gotcha about a particular US data-set (or group of data-sets) and its (their) analysis, the reality of warming would survive. It's now incredibly well-established across the planet and is appealed to in explanations throughout the biological sciences. There's literally a mountain of science and observations now (and more is added to the pile every week) that would make *no sense* at all if the earth as a whole were cooling.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

It's never productive to lock in on just one viewpoint. Always keep an open mind and consider all possibilities. Be persistently skeptical, and always question everything, especially anything presented by those in a position of authority and power. Never just believe what you're told. In fact, never believe anything... period. Always carefully consider and ponder all possibilities, never forming a 100% conclusion yay or nay. Believe nothing, dismiss nothing.

Just in case you dare to open your mind and imbibe other views:

http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/11/extreme-weather-not-proof-global-warming-nasa-global-cooling/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/
https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/why-i-am-afraid-of-global-cooling/
http://notrickszone.com/2018/07/07/against-the-forecasts-sea-ice-grows-surface-temperatures-fall-troposphere-cools-polar-regions-stable/
https://www.farmprogress.com/story-climate-change-yes-global-warming-earth-cooling-yes-9-118898
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/20972/20190504/expert-says-the-earth-is-actually-cooling.htm
https://www.foxnews.com/science/global-cooling-is-coming-and-beware-the-big-chill-scientist-warns
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/breaking-news-climate-cha_b_2994164
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=5CEAEDB7-802A-23AD-4BFE-9E32747616F9
https://globalnews.ca/news/3955038/danielle-smith-what-if-the-earth-is-actually-cooling/
https://www.thestreet.com/mishtalk/economics/amidst-global-warming-hysteria-nasa-expects-global-cooling
https://icantseeyou.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/05/is-the-earth-ge.html

reply

[–] legnadibrom (6520) 4 years ago

it was hotter today then yesterday
"the world is burning up!! the little redheaded child was so right!!"

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

That kind of non-thinking versus scientists looking and measurements and scientific data take for decades if not centuries.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17829) 4 years ago

Daily weather is not an indication of climate change. You should know this.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

This thread is like a Dachshund biting your at your socks trying to prove climate change doesn't exist.
There are useless people, so useless they are often replaced by robotic programs, just to annoy people and make them stupid.

reply

[–] TriumphReq (1857) 4 years ago

Yeah because we are apt to believe conspiracy theorists on Youtube over SCIENTISTS! Meanwhile it is 68 degrees outside in WINTER and I live at the 45th parallel in the midwest. I have the windows WIDE OPEN. There used to be snow on the ground until April.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

I live in Missouri. Been here 51 years. There's been times with snow on the ground in April, and times with it being very hot in April. It constantly jumps up and down, especially in the Midwest, in a cycle that becomes quite clear if looking at the collected data over the past 100 years. Your direct observations have little meaning because they're subject to illusory falsehoods, i.e. feelings in lieu of hard data. But looking at the data since it's been recorded reveals a story that's very counter to the popular narrative many now believe ("believe" being a key term). Despite what some claim, weather disasters and large weather events are actually in decline and have been for some time, with periodic fluctuations throughout. Watch these videos with an open mind. Expose yourself to viewpoints that are counter to your own. Only then will anything you state possibly hold merit.

reply

[–] TriumphReq (1857) 4 years ago

Missouri is much further south and also further within the continent. The thing is the cycles are becoming more violent and we can see it for ourselves and the lake I live near drying up. Even the jet stream is out of whack. It used to go straight across the country right down the middle. Not anymore. There are 3 or 4 broken little ones. Looks a little better today. https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/global-jetstream?PageSpeed=noscript#2021/03/11/1800Z/jetstream/surface/level/overlay=jetstream/orthographic=-90.69,44.54,432

The weather disasters haven't been in decline. The hurricanes have been only getting bigger. Right now Hawaii is having a massive flood.

My observations (I believe what I see) or not, what scientists have been saying like...
CO2 levels at highest for 3 million years -- when seas were 20 meters higher
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/health/co2-levels-global-warming-climate-intl/index.html

is convincing enough for me. I've been seeing it happen since 1988. Besides that the misplaced denial has no warrant. Why does it matter so much to people like you who are denial of the destruction to our environment? What are you so utterly overzealous about anyway? Having more trees, cleaner water, cleaner food, cleaner air is a good thing IMHO. What is it to you, do you own stock in Exxon Mobil or work for them or something? What do you have to gain from denying climate change when we have everything to gain from accepting it and taking action to reverse it and everything to lose by not acting on it?
What are you afraid of electric cars?
Afraid you won't be able to drive that POS V8 of yours that you disturb all the neighbors with and like to roar down the road because you're a goddamn attention whore? Don't worry, it'll rust before gasoline gets too expensive for you to afford. Do you like having to pay the man for gas or something? I like the idea of making my own go juice from the sun. I say that's freedom boy. That's what autonomy is.

It just doesn't make sense, unless you are politically biased. Why fight so fervently against climate change warnings but not against say disease or something. The only reason you might do it is you could be a corporate shill. Why waste your time?

How and when did science become politicized. Those denying global warming have a political agenda, those reporting on it have none. So why should we trust the politicos when their agenda is obvious? We shouldn't trust them as they are not trustworthy and only trying to kill us in every which way they can.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

First off, you're way off base. I've denied nothing. But I do question it, just as I question literally every... single. thing. And so should everyone. I also believe nothing. I simply want people to starting thinking instead of believing. They should also be thinking instead of denying. Never believe. Never disbelieve. But always, always, always question.

Also, a clean environment has nothing to do with climate change/global warming. Those are completely different and unrelated concepts that you're conflating. You’re not alone, though. Many people seem to do this for some reason.

BTW, any reference to CNN should be taken with a grain of salt. They have a bad track record when it comes to truth.

Some studies suggest the jet stream has changed constantly since the formation of the planet millions of years ago. I have no doubt that as the jet stream changes so do weather patterns. That’s just common sense because they’re all interrelated. The Earth, as all of nature in the entire universe, is in a state of constant change as described by the second law of thermodynamics. The only constant is change. Always has been, always will be. But there is no consensus on if a “wiggly” jet stream is related to the concept of human-influenced climate change, or if it’s even truly “wiggly” at all. In fact, regarding the climate, there’s no consensus about anything, despite what some have falsely claimed. It’s an ever-moving target.

Which brings me to your personal experiences. Local changes in your area do not in any way indicate a global phenomenon, at least not one related to the notion of manmade CO2-related climate change. Ponder it a moment. Think about what we know as historical fact. The Nile used to support a massive expanse of greenery, forest and wetlands. The Sahara desert used to be a lush paradise. The various continents may very well have been a single large landmass. Everything is in a constant state of change. Always has been. Always will be. So I have no reason to doubt your experiences. But I have every reason to question that the changes you’re seeing have anything to do with a manmade climate boogeyman.

We have to put it all in proper perspective, not plucking out narrow bands of examples and somehow attributing it to global warming. Sure, it’s a global phenomenon. Everything on the planet is connected. There have been periods of extreme weather all throughout history due to any variety of causes that are completely out of our control. That doesn’t mean we aren’t influencing global climate. But it also doesn’t mean we are. It must all be considered within the full and proper context.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/blaming-a-wiggly-jet-stream-on-climate-change-not-so-fast/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200219152855.htm

One piece I’m attempting to address is specifically if CO2 causes warming as has been proposed, or if CO2 levels are a byproduct of warming. Actual science points to the latter (not loudmouth alarmists or those corrupted by politics, but actual climatologists who tend to keep their mouths shut so they can keep their jobs for fear of being cancelled), but this information tends to get suppressed by those in power whose agenda it doesn’t serve, while zealots proclaim without question the former. We should of course be attempting to ascertain to what degree we humans are amplifying any natural processes.

Anything that pollutes is of course a bad thing. If we can get off of coal, the environment is better for it. But wind farms and solar power are not the solution. In fact, they cause more problems than they fix, destroying wildlife habitats, and directly the wildlife itself. Their ultra-low efficiency levels simply don’t make them worth the cost and fallout.

My problem is that alarmists panic people into thinking the world is going to end in 10 to 12 to 15 years, or wait it was supposed to end back in 2000, or wait also in 1960, and… the list of supposed apocalypses goes back forever. And yet none ever happened. Wasn’t even close. And it still isn’t. It’s the same ol’ gag over and over and over again like chicken little screaming the sky is going to fall. Do you really not question the current run at this despite the plethora of past prediction failures? Doesn’t mean you should deny the possibility. But you should absolutely be questioning it. And not just this. Anytime anyone proclaims anything whatsoever with 100% conviction you should be questioning it. And that’s my point here.

Question… absolutely… everything.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

Of course, a cleaner planet can only be a good thing. Everyone should support continuing to strive for that goal even more so than we have in the past few decades (and we have improved this in a major way in the U.S.—not so much in some other countries like China). You might take note that the Earth has more green plant life on it now than in decades past. Plants “breath” CO2, after all. It's crucial for them to even live. The more CO2 there is, the better it is for plant life (even as we ponder the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect). And the Earth is the cleanest it's been since the 60's (when pollution really was starting to have visible and measurable effects on at least certain localized environments), by all measures.

One note I’ll add as an addendum here. There is evidence of warming in certain regions of the Arctic (several of the articles I link to also mention this). I don’t see much that can dispute this. The evidence is there, so it’s a high probability. Of course, we know for a fact that at multiple times in the past the Arctic was full of tropical greenery, and as systems cycled over time ice ages came and went, impacting different regions of the planet. So why is it a surprise the Arctic could be warming just like it has many times in the past throughout the history of the planet? But it seems to be localized at this point to the Arctic.

In fact, in the Antarctic sea ice volumes have increased by a significant amount. While studies ponder the possibility that Arctic warming is the result of manmade CO2-related climate change, there has been no direct correlation made (yet). It’s possible, but it’s not fact, and is really just speculation at this point, despite what Al Gore and other alarmists try to claim. My own suspicion is that it has something to do with the magnetic pole shifting. The poles have flipped many times over the millennia, and would drastically impact weather and climate. THIS is what we should be more heavily studying.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/antarctic-sea-ice/#:~:text=The%20Arctic%20regularly%20reaches%20ever,a%20record%20for%20maximum%20extent.

Just for another perspective to consider (remember, always question):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/08/sorry-global-warmists-but-extreme-weather-events-are-becoming-less-extreme/?sh=488014bc55a4

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/02/hiding-the-decline-in-extreme-weather/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/despite-what-youve-heard-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-more-extreme/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-global-warming-study-casts-doubt-on-medias-climate-change-fairy-tale/

https://www.investors.com/politics/global-warming-hoax-climate-change-facts/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-extremists-try-to-silence-science-again/

https://reason.org/policy-study/decline-deaths-extreme-weather/

https://www.wave3.com/2020/09/04/behind-forecast-how-jet-stream-affects-weather-flight-times/

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

> First off, you're way off base. I've denied nothing. But I do question it,

Questioning at this point ... and also your kind of questioning, and the guy whose links you are pointing to questioning is the same as denial. Trotting out people who are unfamiliar with the facts and making up their own QANON-ish like conspiracy theories is worse than denial, it is deliberate disinformation.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

"My problem is that alarmists panic people into thinking the world is going to end in 10 to 12 to 15 years, or wait it was supposed to end back in 2000, or wait also in 1960, and… the list of supposed apocalypses goes back forever."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjgZdXJGGmw

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

A very interesting viewpoint backed up by verifiable information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyjMgoJH-64
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17829) 4 years ago

Scientists are people that are able to lie like everyone else. If you are claiming "Scientists" are always right and never wrong, you may as well replace scientists with Gods. Because you sound like a religious zealot.

Day to day weather doesn't prove nor disprove climate change. This has been well established.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11965) 4 years ago

How dare you.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15113) 4 years ago

From what I recall, the earth has been experiencing climate change the moment she formed an atmosphere 3.6 billion years ago (about a billion years after birth). There were even times in her past that she was hotter than she is now!

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

Over billions, millions and hundreds of thousands of years. Today the whole Earth is chopped up and squeezed for every bit of land and energy there is in the system - for humans. Your comment is just not relevant.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15113) 4 years ago

I'm trying to explain that the term "climate change" is not adequate in describing what's wrong with our planet right now. Years ago in the 70s, people warned of doom and gloom about the planet freezing into a new ice age, because of all the polluting we were doing. When that didn't happen, they switched the name to "Global Warming" in the 80s and 90s, and warned all of us about how we were going to heat up our planet to a point where it would be uninhabitable, the ice caps would melt, continents would be flooded, and the oceans would stagnate. When that didn't happen in the early 2010s, they changed the title to "Climate Change," probably because that suited their ever-changing narrative, despite the fact that the earth's climate (as I said earlier) has been changing for billions of years. In fact, we're still coming out of the last Ice Age, it's just taking longer than we thought.

"Climate Change" is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetuated on human history. This entire thing is a global scheme to squeeze First World nations for money, and yet the 3rd-world ones can pollute all they want. Doesn't sound very equal in treatment, does it? Is that relevant enough for you?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

What is wrong with the planet is humans have eaten it up, burned it up and killed most of the life on the planet, interfering with the ecological balance to the point that things are so out of whack there is no room left or resources left for nature to recover.

Scientific understanding changes, and ability to measure changes, as well as computing. You used that for a pathetic excuse to doubt stuff there is no scientific doubt about. It's like saying don't trust science ... they might find out in a few years that smoking is good for you. You do not know how to think rationally or scientifically, you are thinking in a political way, and a corrupt political way too.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15113) 4 years ago

Humans have not eaten the whole planet. There are still places that humans can't even go because it's too dangerous, places that hold much in the way of scientific discovery. We have also not killed all life on this planet. There are still plants, animals, and a biosphere. For every human on this planet, there are at least a few hundred insects. For every human on this planet, there are thousands of plants. At the moment, Earth has roughly 7 billion people, meaning there are trillions of insects and plants, and billions of animals still alive at this very moment.

Whoever told you otherwise was lying, or you've been living in a city too long. You seem to underestimate how resilient nature can be when recovering from an ecological disaster. You also don't seem to have any idea how many conservation efforts that are already underway, including replacing forests that have been cut down, wetlands being rebuilt, cleaning up rivers and lakes, and preserving endangered species of animals. I have seen the realistic efforts people have made, and I find them much more effective than fining people and guilting them to death over "being bad" environmentally. Are you even aware that the production of batteries for electric cars pollutes more than the newer gas-burning engines we use in cars today? Are you aware of just how far America and Europe have come in cleaning up our environment? We are light years ahead of places such as China and India, whose pollution is so disgustingly bad, it would make your average fake greenie want to commit suicide if they saw the truth!

I would advise you to shut off your tv and your computer for a few days and crack open a fucking book for a change, one that has real scientific data and historical facts.

Uh huh. My doctor said I have a severe tar deficiency and need to puff away as much as possible in the next 6 months. I also don't have enough toxins and carcinogens in my system. We'll have to put asbestos back into houses everywhere and lead paint on the walls of every basement in America.

No, I am a true scientist that sees things as they are. You have been listening to political hacks on tv and online that often only know half the story, or have been lying to suit the narrative their politician masters have told them. If you need any proof of this, look up the companies your favorite scientists work for, as well as their educational background, and you'll know for certain. You don't have to be a doctor in actual science for the media to call you a "doctor."

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

> Humans have not eaten the whole planet.

Yeah, they have relative to how much water, land, resources used to be available to the natural world. But thanks for saying that because it tells me where you are coming from - a denialist point of view.

> We have also not killed all life on this planet.

That's why natural scientists call this the sixth great extinction event.

> There are still plants, animals, and a biosphere.

I see, it will only be when everything is dead that there is a problem according to you.

Your comments are so uninformed I think you must just be trolling.

> You seem to underestimate how resilient nature can be when recovering from an ecological disaster.

You seem to overestimate it to the point of completely dismissing it. You really know nothing of this subject and are using dismissive hand-waving logic and no facts.

You are no kind of scientist, but if you were you would be an incompetent one. Scientists look at data and have no need for trolling smart remarks.

I suggest you look up and watch Sir David Attenborough's last nature series. Maybe go look at how the habitat for gibbons or orangutans has shrunk to to the point where there is not enough to support a population that will have genetic collapse. Same with all of the other great primates. Don't like primates, same with anything in the Amazon. There is no room left for even the human tribes that live in the forests and not enough trees and forests to support them.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15113) 4 years ago

Well, I tried telling you the truth, but you refuse to see it. It's not my fault you have Rectal Cranial Inversion Syndrome. Perhaps someday someone will cure you of it, but until then, you're not gonna believe what anyone tells you unless it's something you want to hear, so I'll leave you to your sad delusions. Goodbye, sweet, sad little asshole. Enjoy your private rubber room and a lifetime of being alone.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

> Well, I tried telling you the truth

Nah, what you do is to try to pretend you are an authority and what you say is truth.
But it is obviously not. When you talk like that I know it is you that is alone and out
of practice having any social contact. Maybe that is why you are so mean and
ignorant? You do realize to break out of your misery you are going to have to let go
of all that bile and toxic energy you have in your craw?

reply

[–] Bloodworth79 (5739) 4 years ago

The climate will change? Isnt that a natural part of the world.

Before climate change they orginally wanted to go with global warming.

But that kind of data wasnt having as hard of effect.

Why are there rivers now where there use to be oceans?
Why were there periods of ice ages and dry spells when humans were not large enough to make those changes?

Today the world will naturally warm or cool and the Democrats want to blame you for that.

Too hot, your fault.
Too cold, your fault
Earth quake, your fault, never mind the science of plate tectonics.
Hurricanes,.your fault

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

Giant meteors falling on Earth and destroying the planetary ecosystem is also a natural part of the world ... so what?

reply

[–] Bloodworth79 (5739) 4 years ago

But Democrats want to throw enormous amounts of money thining they can control these things.

They want to alter the way the world operates thinking they can control things.

Democrats would literally make the u.s. go broke change everything about the country and not even realize there are other countries out there. Only America needs to change

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

> But Democrats want to throw enormous amounts of money thining they can control these things.

That's like saying homeowners want to throw enormous amounts of money at having an exterminator come in to kill the termites in their house ... the longer they wait, the worse it gets for everyone, and the more expensive ... and if you wait long enough you are homeless ... but in the case of Global Warming it means we are PLANETLESS.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

Richard A. Muller (born January 6, 1944) is an American physicist and emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He was also a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

In the 1980s, Muller joined the JASON advisory group, which brings together prominent scientists as consultants for the United States Department of Defense.[7] He was named a MacArthur Foundation Fellow in 1982. He also received the Alan T. Waterman Award in 1978 from the National Science Foundation "for highly original and innovative research which has led to important discoveries and inventions in diverse areas of physics, including astrophysics, radioisotope dating, and optics".

His work has included attempting to understand the ice ages, dynamics at the core-mantle boundary, patterns of extinction and biodiversity through time, and the processes associated with impact cratering. One of his most well known proposals is the Nemesis hypothesis suggesting the Sun could have an as yet undetected companion dwarf star, whose perturbations of the Oort cloud and subsequent effects on the flux of comets entering the inner Solar System could explain an apparent 26 million year periodicity in extinction events. In March 2011, he testified to the U.S. House Science, Space and Technology Committee that preliminary data confirmed an overall global warming trend.[2] On July 28, 2012, he stated, "Humans are almost entirely the cause."[3]

Muller is a founder and board member of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature ("BEST") project, which has published an independent analysis of the Earth's surface temperature records.

James Lawrence Powell: The Curious Case of Richard Muller, Former Climate Change Critic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSHDDteCBXw

Skeptic No Longer Doubts Human Role in Global Warming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BanPvuodgQ

Climate Skeptic Richard Muller Admits Global Warming is Real and Humans are the Cause
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqPuKxXUCPY

---

Another thing Robert A. Muller, the author of the "Physics For Future Presidents" and "Energy For Future Presidents" books trying to give the layman and understanding of the main points of physics and science to understand policy ... is a thing branded "Deep Isolation" where his company proposes to dispose of nuclear waste down miles deep holes bored with oil drilling equipment. It is a pretty fascinating concept and nuclear waste 5 miles understand in cement lined vaults in stable rock formations is pretty safe from disturbance.

DEEP ISOLATION
Deep Isolation’s nuclear waste repository method leverages directional drilling expertise to isolate spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in horizontal drillholes located deep underground in suitable rock formations.
https://www.deepisolation.com/our-story/

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

Good research, and interesting information. I've seen all this before, and I don't think we should dismiss out of hand Muller's or anyone else's conclusions. But we should question them. Just like we should question Tony Heller's. We should not, however, believe either of them, and we should refrain from the worldwide climate change cult. Question everything. But the information Heller presents, especially the comparisons to alterations in data models, and that today's conclusions by climate change advocates are based solely on models instead of real data, can't be summarily dismissed. There's something to what he's portraying.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

It is not just Muller ... he gathered a lot of very famous and accomplished scientists in varying fields to look at the data, and it is incontrovertible ... the temperature only tracks with one variable - CO2 and the the COs tracks with humans burning fossil fuels.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

I should note, which I didn't mention in my previous reply (although I have in some others), that I'm absolutely in favor of getting off fossil fuels. Although I question the human-caused CO2-related climate change narrative and see how the groupthink cultish nature of it is being abused by people in power to help maintain and garner even more power, reducing pollution is a good thing and fossil fuels without doubt pollute, especially certain localized areas.

And the only viable alternative I see is nuclear power. Muller's proposal regarding disposal is worth considering, and I wish more would take it seriously. I also think, and I'm not being wacky here but quite serious, that an even better although at this point still costly solution would be to shoot the waste off into space, as long as it could be done in away to ensure it leaves the solar system.

Hydropower solutions, in regions where that's possible, are quite effective, and could also be expanded as long it can be done without destroying habits in those areas.

We need to stop the push for wind and solar farms, though. They're destructive and not anywhere close to their cost in value (monetarily and otherwise), and yet designed to line the pockets of corrupt businessmen and politicians.

Now if only we'd ever crack fusion...

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

Although I question the human-caused CO2-related climate change narrative and see how the groupthink cultish nature of it is being abused by people in power to help maintain and garner even more power, reducing pollution is a good thing and fossil fuels without doubt pollute, especially certain localized areas.

You are way to emotional to be a scientist. Facts are not influenced by who is in power, nor are the analytical skills of a scientist. There are facts ... that's it. You can question them. You can find systemic faults and adjust them. But that is all you have.

The people in power and all that stuff are all to influence people with fake facts and lie so they stay our of the political process and those who make tons of money can continue their thievery.

The subject is climate change ... I put out some very good data and places to look if you want to find out what Muller used to think and what changed his mind. That's it.

Political questions are something else. But the main reason people go into political stuff is to avoid the facts.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

"Emotional"? Everyone I know calls me a robot because I'm the exact opposite, far too made of logic than emotion (admittedly to a fault, and to the detriment of relationships).

I've studied Muller's stuff over the years (hadn't ever heard of him until he changed his tune and blew up in the news), and find his conclusion questionable. I know he gathered a team that did their own independent study, but it’s not a slight warming I doubt as much as their conclusions about why, and possible future impacts. Especially with the studies that controvert it, that don’t show a meaningful warming trend, or that show a slight cooling. In other words, it should still be an open question, and yet this other data is somehow completely ignored and dismissed.

However, much of what Muller says has merit, especially regarding China and how climate science has been corrupted and coopted by alarmists and people who realized they can profit off of it, or garner more power.

There's clear evidence of past data being altered based solely off of models that time and time again have been proven wrong as time marches on, dates pass by, and predictions fall flat on their face. Doesn't mean people like Muller, who are truly trying to understand it without bias, aren't needed. It definitely needs to be understood better.

But it absolutely has become a political football, and a tool for control and power gain, that was emboldened by Al Gore’s hokum. Talk about denying very obvious and empirically observable facts. The entire conversation about the possibility and field of study has been corrupted to such a state that it'd be very hard to revert it back into an area of genuine science. It's all about modelling a narrative to keep grants flowing and for some, fearmongering.

For a voice discussing the crazy nature of climate alarmism (whether his warming conclusion is correct or not):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Te5al2APrQ

This quote (portions in [] added by me) epitomizes the problem:

“But it’s, again, a very powerful [virtue] signal. And that’s the problem with much climate policy. It’s not so much about how much good it does [if any]. It’s about how much good it makes us feel.”

“Or in other words, politics.”

Nailed it! It’s no longer climate science. It’s become a climate religion for true believers, and a method of control for disingenuous powermongers. If you don’t think politics has corrupted the climate science scientific process, turning it into something that barely resembles science anymore, you are very, very wrong and need to wake up to reality.

I'd suggest taking a look at the late (and great) Michael Crichton's novel “State Of Fear”, and anything he said about it in the past prior to his death. I'm not sure he was completely accurate about everything, but I'm even more sure that so-called modern climate scientists are even less accurate, and prone to predisposition for a variety of reasons that just keep snowballing via confirmation bias. Opposing information should never be summarily dismissed.

Hate to bring this guy into it again with the video below (and again, I'm not saying he's right about everything, but it's worth listening to the argument--it's ALWAYS worth listening to arguments on all sides of a subject matter, and only then formulating a probability based on that data, with a willingness to change as the data does).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGhLbKIW7Yg

The important thing is to not deny, but to consider all information and possibilities. Anyone outright denying the possibility of global warming is in the wrong. Anyone believing in it full tilt is in the wrong. After years of researching and studying this, there's a lot of "evidence" that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. But I see it as still an open question.

Has human activity warmed the planet a bit? Possibly, but if so, probably not in any meaningful way that will have long term effects, or result in anything disastrous, which is the part that's become a belief, a religion, and has escalated out of control. It absolutely needs to be studied, but truly studied, and not spurred on by belief and bias.

There has been some "happy" incidental outcomes from this movement that can indeed serve to mitigate pollution, but the danger comes in the belief. No one should ever believe. Anything. No one ever should disbelieve. Anything. Purge ideology. Slough off preconceptions and bias. Put your mind into a constant state of adaptation and adjustment, imbuing every thought with skepticism about everything, from all ends of every spectrum.

As I’ve stated in other posts, I absolutely deem certain alternatives like natural gas/fracking and especially nuclear much cleaner and should be the way of the future. Hydroelectric, where feasible, can also be effective. Wind farms and solar, however, are useless, offering negligible output for far too destructive and costly impacts.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

Plus, some other links I’ve posted previously offering a different take:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/08/sorry-global-warmists-but-extreme-weather-events-are-becoming-less-extreme/?sh=488014bc55a4
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/02/hiding-the-decline-in-extreme-weather/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/despite-what-youve-heard-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-more-extreme/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-global-warming-study-casts-doubt-on-medias-climate-change-fairy-tale/
https://www.investors.com/politics/global-warming-hoax-climate-change-facts/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-extremists-try-to-silence-science-again/
https://reason.org/policy-study/decline-deaths-extreme-weather/
https://www.wave3.com/2020/09/04/behind-forecast-how-jet-stream-affects-weather-flight-times/
http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/11/extreme-weather-not-proof-global-warming-nasa-global-cooling/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/
https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/why-i-am-afraid-of-global-cooling/
http://notrickszone.com/2018/07/07/against-the-forecasts-sea-ice-grows-surface-temperatures-fall-troposphere-cools-polar-regions-stable/
https://www.farmprogress.com/story-climate-change-yes-global-warming-earth-cooling-yes-9-118898
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/20972/20190504/expert-says-the-earth-is-actually-cooling.htm
https://www.foxnews.com/science/global-cooling-is-coming-and-beware-the-big-chill-scientist-warns
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/breaking-news-climate-cha_b_2994164
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=5CEAEDB7-802A-23AD-4BFE-9E32747616F9
https://globalnews.ca/news/3955038/danielle-smith-what-if-the-earth-is-actually-cooling/
https://www.thestreet.com/mishtalk/economics/amidst-global-warming-hysteria-nasa-expects-global-cooling
https://icantseeyou.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/05/is-the-earth-ge.html

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

READ THIS STUFF NOW!!! Or forever hold your peace, because your close-minded worldview is imploding society.

Maybe that's the point?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

Way too much BS here ... sorry, not reading it.

> I've studied Muller's stuff over the years (hadn't ever heard of him until he changed his tune and blew up in the news), and find his conclusion questionable.

This tells me you did not read Muller's stuff, because it is not Muller's opinion, he collected a group of the most highly renowned scientists to go over the data. I can see you know nothing of that or what his argument was, you just want to write and write and write and go off track away from stuff you have no understanding of.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

I guess you truly didn't read it, since the very next sentence after what you quoted was "I know he gathered a team that did their own independent study, but..." But it IS his opinion, based on their interpretation of the data.

Questionable data.

You can choose to not think, and instead believe, to ignore those with opinions or information that may be counter to a belief you've established as part of a programmed worldview. Most people take this path. It's easier and more emotionally comfortable, as opposed to questioning what you think may be true.

That's a certainly an available choice, just not a wise one, whether concerning this subject matter or any other.

Plus, how can you call something B.S. if you don't actually read it?

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

The data is not questionable - it needed to be systemically analyzed for error, and when they agreed on a method to do that and analyzed the data there was one big signal - the broad change responsible for the massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere correlated only with human activity, and only with industrial human activity.

Your second paragraph is pretty close to the worse thing someone can do online that happens all day, it is called being so proud of your ignorance that you think you can condescend to others to pretend authority ... and if you realized how laughable that is you's never speak again.

Basically you are no one to question Muller and his team, and the mere fact that you do, and especially in the way you do it a waste of time joke.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

Open your mind and question everything. Don't believe; think.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

Don't change the subject, I was questioning you. The problem is I don't are about the answer because all you can say is the pompous windbag stuff like you do.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

In fact, you offered a statement that is directly in conflict with other information, while being partially in sync with some of what I've provided (which reiterates that you're not even trying to digest anything I've presented). I didn't change the subject. I just had nothing else to add.

But I will say this, since you missed it: notice I never directly addressed the possibility that CO2 levels are higher due to industrial escalation. Why? Because there's a solid basis for it, and it's just common sense. What I question is the temperature data itself, and that CO2 levels correlate to or solely cause global warming of any meaningful or dangerous nature, that even if there is global warming, which I leave open as possible despite a lot of data and studies suggesting otherwise (again, read those links, watch those videos), there's little indication that it's a threat to us.

What I've been doing is expressing an opinion via thorough exposition as to why I question a variety of factors about the premise. I see no value in repeating it over and over again, because you haven't read it the first, second or third time. If you'd actually read through or watched the many links and videos I've provided you just might realize that the data is questionable.

If it wasn't, there wouldn't be opposing studies and opinions on the matter, and the "settled science" (which is a complete oxymoron since by it's very nature science can never be settled, and always open to change) wouldn't have been proven wrong time and time again as apocalyptic end-dates passed by one after the other many times over the past few decades.

Absolutely everything is questionable. Always question. Never believe.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

> What I've been doing is expressing an opinion via thorough exposition

Is that what you think you are doing? Exposition is a comprehensive description and explanation or an idea. I'm not seeing it.

When you say you question the temperature data? Is it really you that question it? Where is the data. What kind of analysis did you do on it?

Then after talking about data you say you accept the possibility ... which what does that even mean, "Because there's a solid basis for it, and it's just common sense". Which is it data or common sense? My nephew in high school can express himself better, and without trying to sound like a know it all or that he just stumbled onto "THE HARD TRUTH" ... pleez!

Ultimately you want what? No action taken on climate change? The conversation has been help up by you troglodytes for decades, and it past that now. Be part of the solution or be part of the problem.

> Absolutely everything is questionable. Always question. Never believe.

I can tell from you comments you are not a Zen master.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

Wow, really didn't read any of it, did you? Just took out specific bits and mix-matched it to different points I made out of context without attempting to comprehend the full picture I presented. Or, is this just an intentional tactic to avoid the discussion? Because without actually reviewing all the information I've thrown out there, a discussion isn't even possible and resorting to name-calling and attacks is all you have left. Very typical.

But that's okay. You're choice.

Hints of the data are in the many links and videos I provided, and there's much more out there. You just have to look.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

I looked, you just accepted. If you accepted those links and that reasoning you do not have the qualifications to understand them.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

You still don't get it, despite me repeating it multiple times. I have "accepted' nothing at all. And neither should you. That's the entire point. Don't believe. Ponder all information from all sources. And even then don't hone in on one single conclusion. Assign probabilities to them. Then change those probability factors as information is updated.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

> You still don't get it, despite me repeating it multiple times.

Yeah, the Earth isn't flat no matter how many times you repeat it.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

You realize that in this scenario it's actually you trying to claim the Earth is flat, i.e. that there's only one very narrow way of looking at things... right? While I'm attempting to convey that a more well-rounded approach is better, to not just accept what you're told by those who hold your fate in their hands. I'm the one challenging the forced narrative of the authority (not denying it, challenging it), an act for which those who do so in a more public manner than I am on this board risk persecution (i.e. cancellation) by those in power. Do you truly not see the reality of this? My hope is that someday something will jolt you out of locked-in belief, that you'll open your eyes to a broader spectrum of possibilities, and see beyond the scope of the framework of social control that's been established.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Denying climate change is like denying evolution: foolishness

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

Actually it's not. Evolution is supported by a lot of evidence. Details are always changing and fluid, which is why it's good to always question, but there's a pretty good picture established. I have NOT denied climate change. But I question it, and find the evidence for it so lacking that I deem specifically manmade CO2-accelerated climate change as a very low probability.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

> Actually it's not.

Actually Actually it is, and you are. And actually you have no point except you just like wasting your and other's time by telling us what you "deem". Pompous windbag stuff.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

Technically, I'm not wasting your time at all. That's physically impossible. The only one who can possibly waste your time is you. I suggest you set me to ignore so you're not tempted to give me power over how you feel and behave that I don't actually possess.

No, that's fully on you. That's your choice to make, and yours alone.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

> Technically, I'm not wasting your time at all. That's physically possible. The only one who can possibly waste your time is you.

This meaningless pointless phrase is a great example of your typical comment. It has some meaning to you presumably, but who cares. It is you talking to hear yourself talk because you cannot stick to the point, and you have nothing to say. Then you make a clever original type of comment only made about half a million times a day by people with the same problem. Why is it you think that someone is going to discuss global warming with you so you to toss these trolling lines around and post links. You, you're the one that has to have something to say to show that you have brain enough actually hold a discussion, but you simply want to play authority or point to someone else's authority. You seem to respect authority, but offhand you ignore same really smart scientists who are experts in their fields, are working together paid for by the Koch brothers, and yet going against what their original hypothesis was. Who knows or cares about what your links say because you do not bother to summarize or explain them.

Do you not think people on the net get enough BS thrown at them every day in popup ads, spam email, etc ... make a fuggin effort, or have people just assume you cannot.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

No, it is me trying to teach you a valuable life lesson about the mindset that is directly relevant to the discussion.

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

You can may yourself, but you can't fool me.

reply

[–] Rorikon (18390) 4 years ago

At the end of the day, the longer we ignore it, the more we'll suffer from it. We've been avoiding it for so long and not progressing. The so-called slow transition should've started happening some time ago but people keep rebutting it then are complaining now that Biden wanted drastic change. You had 4 years of Trump then 8 years of Obama to transition but they said, NOPE and now they're just paying the price of their lost jobs.

The whole point of this whole climate change fiasco is the frequency of these drastic weather changes, no one is denying that change hasn't happened before eons ago but you should know those events happened longer times apart than what it is doing now. We've only accelerated the process of the weather phenomenon, but is it accelerating just weather changes or is it accelerating the effects of extreme weather occurrences?

https://youtu.be/myxVsYI4WZk
https://youtu.be/DTRb6G9c9wU

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

Good videos, with good info in them regarding CO2, but the climate did not warm by 6 degrees (as one interviewee states) as a result of it. Even the models (the ones I highly question) show it at about 1.5 degrees.

CO2 changes are almost certainly to some extent enhanced by human activity. The question is if that CO2 change has warmed the planet in any meaningful way that constitutes alarmism, i.e. that is actually harmful (other than pollution, which is a genuine concern in localized areas), or if CO2 is the cause of warming, or a byproduct in part caused by warming.

And the evidence for warming is very questionable, especially once realizing that the temperature data that suggests this type of warming is these days entirely based on constantly shifting models and not real data, and that the real data that used to exist has been altered to match the CO2 level change.

Is there warming at all the past 100 years? Possibly, but many studies and datasets show otherwise, and yet others depict a natural slight upward trend due to non-human factors. And yet the only one being pedaled is the one showing a massive hockey stick spike, the one that's based on very questionable temperature data, the one that might incite the public to panic and accept extraordinary measures that greatly diminishes the quality of their lives and uses their tax dollars to make the 1% and relatives of the 1% even richer.

Even if your belief in warming can't be altered, you should take note of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Te5al2APrQ

This quote (portions in [] added by me) epitomizes the problem:

“But it’s, again, a very powerful [virtue] signal. And that’s the problem with much climate policy. It’s not so much about how much good it does [if any]. It’s about how much good it makes us feel.”

“Or in other words, politics.”

And then look at these (and other sources showing similar results):

https://notrickszone.com/2017/02/13/more-data-manipulation-by-noaa-nasa-hadcrut-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/
https://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#An%20overview%20to%20get%20things%20into%20perspective
https://books.google.com/books?id=fs44CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=global+temperature+the+unaltered+data&source=bl&ots=jwZHrMbUad&sig=ACfU3U2tD68DXpHQX2D8myKyeNuxRKzsCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJl42HnLrvAhXdB50JHXDKAy84RhDoATACegQIBBAD#v=onepage&q=global%20temperature%20the%20unaltered%20data&f=false
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

Also, there has not been an escalation in severe weather. Once looking at the full, unaltered record over, the severity and frequency has fluctuated in a cyclical pattern. It's not worse. Perception has just been manipulated to make people believe it is using fearmongering tactics (and confirmation bias plays a large roll also).

They’ve done the same thing regarding wildfires. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJPhrXbhgdk

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9443) 4 years ago

> The question is if that CO2 change has warmed the planet in any meaningful way that constitutes alarmism

No the question is do we know enough to change basic characteristics of the planet without any knowledge of what it is going to do. The answer from virtually all of human history is, absolutely not.

When you phrase the question in a way that says let's experiments with no hypothesis or precedent and just assume things will continue as before, and disregard warning signs, and make that decisions unilaterally for all the people and life on the planet, and all the future - you are an ignorant toxic danger.

reply

[–] warrior-poet (1369) 4 years ago

That is indeed another question. These questions are not mutually exclusive. And I'd also agree with your answer, which at this point should be obvious, despite me leaving the conclusion open and you settling on a belief without question. The very term "question" in fact lies at the very core of my entire purpose here.

reply