Temperatures broke records, with the coldest temperature ever recorded at −30 °F (−34 °C) on January 31, 2019. Wind chills got dangerously low as −58 °F (−50 °C) on January 30, 2019.
Meanwhile, Top Scientists say Earth is getting warmer.
Just raise taxes so the well-off don't relatively have to pay much and the rest of us do and suffer. Meanwhile, climate change is happening and arrogant people don't care because they'd rather ignore it and funnel money to rich folks rather than do something for the rest of us.
So then why do you Lefties hastily cite any occasion of aberrant weather to support your #ClimateChangeHoax? Weather is simply the daily manifestation of Climate.
For thousands of years the climate has warmed & cooled in continuous cycles, which has nothing to do with human activity.
As far as actual pollution is concerned, go lecture the countries that are causing 95% of it, like India, China and similar regions.
I didn't say "early manifestation," I said daily manifestation of climate. And, yes, that's basically what weather is. Only a LIEberal tries to make arguments against obvious facts, like the biological difference of males & females and the fact of two genders.
And why didn't you answer my question: If it's so wrong to cite a case of weather to support a point concerning climate, why do you Lefties readily cite any occasion of aberrant weather if it seems to supports your #ClimateChangeHoax?
No I didn't. (If I did I'd readily admit it). Maybe you're mixing my post up with someone else's comment; if not, you're just a liar and, now, a slanderer (publicly accusing me of doing something I didn't do).
And why do you keep avoiding my simple question that illustrates the double standards of Climate crazies?
Also, I'd like to hear your explanation of the following quote from "scientist" Stephen Schneider from Discovery magazine 30 years ago (which gives an inkling of how long wacky Climate alarmists have been around):
"we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
yes you did. your comment is completely different from the last one. Again you are embarrassing man. you clearly don't understand how science works if you think offering a quote form one guy proves anything.
go back to high school and learn the basics of science. once you are done go take philosophy and learn about logic and integrity and morals. you slimy rat. so embarrassing
You speak to me of integrity and morals while blatantly lying about what I wrote? Get real.
Like I said, if I had edited my post I would readily admit it; after all everybody makes typos and has to fix 'em. So you're either outright lying or confusing my post with someone else's comment.
My point with quoting that "scientist" from 30 years ago is to show via documentation that climate alarmists screaming "The sky is falling!" have been around for a looong time with the same loony tactics.
Let's go back waaay further:
- In February, 1895, the New York Times reported: "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again."
- In 1902 the Los Angeles Times reported: “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.”
- In 1923 the Chicago Tribune reported on the findings of Yale's Professor Gregory: “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."
Need I go on? You guys have been concocting this crap for a looong time and passing it off as "scientific fact" to apprehend funds (from taxpayers) to keep your jobs/make more money, get headlines and the corresponding fame, practice your secular #ClimateChangeHoax religion (lol), or whatever. Right there you have three key human motivations: greed, recognition, religion.
you clearly don't understand how science works
I understand and recognize bulls*** like the #ClimateChangeHoax.
reply share
You said something earlier about how I need to take a philosophy class, but you're the one who lacks even elementary debating skills. Your posts have no substance and are basically just hollow bluster with the corresponding ad hominem bits.
You deify science as holy scripture and scientists as prophets (with lil' Greta being your messiah, lol). So I've quoted your own prophets from 30-125 years ago and they were saying the same basic crap way back then, not to mention using the same scare tactics that modern Climate alarmists use.
Your only (lame) answer so far is to say that I "don't understand science," lol.
What's to understand? The Climate Change narrative is a crock of sheet.
Laugh all you want, but your "Climate Change" obsession has taken on all the earmarks of religion because that's in essence what it is -- your (secular) religion.
The climate changes, everyone knows this. Its been changing for millions of years. The big question is: are humans causing global warming? Since the Earth has been warming since the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago, its hard to say if the Earth is naturally warming or if we are causing the warming. Keep in mind the Earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years without human interference.
Humans pump massive amounts of co2 into the atmosphere. CO2 warms the planet. CO2 levels have spiked since the industrial revolution. To see a chart of the levels of CO2 in the last 800,000 years is shocking. So yes, quite obviously humans are a big cause of warming.
Since there is no way to scientifically to measure CO2 800,000 years ago, scientists are just guessing it was lower. The first measurement started in 1958. Since the last ice age just ended, then more than likely we are in a warming phase.
If humans are causing global warming or climate then what You and everyone else doing about it? Good luck getting 7 billion people to help out.
The Pleistocene Epoch is typically defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago and lasted until about 11,700 years ago. The most recent Ice Age occurred then, as glaciers covered huge parts of the planet Earth.
There have been at least five documented major ice ages during the 4.6 billion years since the Earth was formed — and most likely many more before humans came on the scene about 2.3 million years ago.
And then millions of years later, the CO2 level dropped.
The last time the planet had a concentration of 300 to 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere was during the mid-Pliocene, 3 million years ago — recently enough for the planet to be not radically different than it is today. Back then, temperatures were 2 degrees C to 3 degrees C (3.6 to 5.4°F) above pre-industrial temperatures (though more than 10 degrees C hotter in the Arctic), and sea levels were at least 15-25 meters higher.
To find a time when the planet’s air was consistently above 400 ppm you have to look much farther back to the warm part of the Miocene, some 16 million years ago, or the Early Oligocene, about 25 million years ago.
Of course you would attack the process. Typical climate change denier. When you don't like the results you call the process a scam. The fact is 99% of the climate scientist agree that humans are a cause for the warming planet. The science is there. These aren't politicians. They are scientists.
Just a short while ago the claim was 97%. In any case, this "fact" has been disproven.
These aren't politicians. They are scientists.
Yeah, scientists partly funded through the money of taxpayers funneled via Liberal politicians. With more coming through wealthy sponsors/donators that are duped into support via "scientific" propaganda and scare tactics.
Here's an example from "scientist" Stephen Schneider quoted in Discovery magazine 30 years ago (which gives an inkling of how long wacky Climate alarmists have been around screaming "The Sky is falling! The sky is falling!"):
"we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
It goes without saying, the #ClimateChangeHoax is just that.
reply share
You're on the wrong side of this argument. You've made it partisan. You're just another "copy and paste" king that will not be swayed by any amount of proof.
It's all a BIG conspiracy!!!!!! Your tinfoil hat is crooked.
I've quoted your very own "prophets" from decades past and they used the very same propaganda & scare tactics that the current crop of "Climate Change" alarmists are implementing. All their prophecies were proven false. New York City is not under water; the polar ice cap hasn't melted (as Gore said it would by 2014, lol) and the Obamas bought a mansion on an East Coast island. I guess the world isn't going to end in 12 years, huh? (rolling my eyes)
Face it: You've embraced a false religion, my friend.
The climate of the earth goes through cycles and did so well before humans entered the picture. What else is new?
Needless to say, your Climate Change religion is worthless and a waste of time & money. But, by all means, we should all do our part to prevent pollution, but let's go where it's a serious problem, like China, India & similar regions.
By the way, I'm politically Independent, so drop the partisan excuse. True, I (wisely) support Trump, but that's only because he boldly stands up against LIEberal fascism and Leftwing supremacy (the modern version of white supremacy and every other historical form of supremacy across the globe in every culture).
GTFO with that "independent" horse shit. You lean right on issues. It's no secret. You vote republican. If not you vote libertarian but whats the difference? Libertarians are just right-winged anarchist.
I'm Independent in the truest sense because I don't look to "the government" as a god, like Dems/Libs do. If/when I do vote Republican it's mostly an anti-Dem vote. For instance, John McCain & Romney were lame candidates and "conservative" only in pretense.
It's interesting, by the way, that I offer loads of documented data that reveals the dubiousness of your "Climate Change" narrative (religion) and the only thing you can comment on is whether or not you think I'm actually an Independent politically?
That pretty much says it all. It also reveals that you can't legitimately counter the data I've presented. Why not? Because it's documented -- I quoted your very own "prophets" from decades past spewing the very same alarmist crap & scare tactics and proven both them and your current "prophets" false.
You're on the wrong side of this argument. You've made it partisan.
The obvious implication is that there's nothing partisan about the #ClimateChangeHoax, which we both know isn't true. It's a decidedly Dem/Lib/Leftwing cause.
If you truly believed it's not a partisan issue then it's irrelevant if I'm an Independent, Republican, Libertarian or Green.
reply share
What about your critical thinking? I've cited your very own Climate alarmists from decades past (going back 125 years) and you still can't accept that this is a crock of sheet.
Again, here's what one of your own "prophets" (aka profits) said in Discovery magazine over three decades ago:
"So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
None of this has any impact on you because the #ClimateChangeHoax has become your secular religion and you walk in blind faith. Any one who doesn't believe is automatically denounced as a "denier," a heretic.
This is clearly a partisan issue but you will never get one to admit defeat on this. Then there are people that actually get paid to sow dissent on the subject. In short, don't waste you time, especially with the hack you are engaging now.
Exactly, just like science and biology says if you have XX chromosomes you are female, and XY chromosomes you are male. It’s science. Why would anyone argue with science just because their party disagrees (liberals?)??? 🤣
Don’t mind me, I just like pointing out political hypocrisy.
yes that's how it works..as the world warms up. you will get heat and cold records. record amounts of hurricanes. records amounts of rainfall or drought. thanks you literally offered more evidence it is happening lol like the scientists predicted
Scientists can't predict anything, they predicted the Earth was going to cool down in the 1970's. Scientists say we were running out of oil, Scientists used Asbestos as insulation, Scientists created CFC's, Doctors used endorse smoking, Scientists said that Pluto was not a planet, then it was a planet, now its not a planet again. Scientists tested 100's of Atomic bombs in the 50's and 60's. Scientists created and used to spray DDT for mosquitoes and kids used to run and play in the smoke.
So you see that scientists are not really all that intelligent.
"is a term used to refer to six naturally occurring silicate minerals." you think asbestos is man made. there's no point responding to someone so dumb.
you aren't worth anyones time to give any sort of full responses. lol "scientists said Pluto was a planet". id say you have an elementary school understanding of how science and the scientific method works. but you don't. even they are more knowledgable than you.
pluto as a planet or not has nothing to do with "science being wrong" (not that you even know what science is. more everything to do with how you classify what is and isn't a planet. and what should and should not be included. again this is really simple stuff that you are too stupid to understand.
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
A scientist is someone who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest.
So you are telling me that Marie Curie is not a Scientist that used science to discover Polonium and Radium, although she had no idea they were highly radioactive.
In this case the science was wrong otherwise she would have known these new substances were radioactive.
again. you are embarrassing. please go back and redo elementary school and high school. truly sad man
"So you are telling me that Marie Curie is not a Scientist that used science to discover Polonium and Radium, although she had no idea they were highly radioactive."
what does this even mean? ya okay a scientist discovered. ya okay scientists don't know everything. hence why we have science. and? inventions can be used for good and bad? and?
I am convinced you are on the spectrum. I am embarrassed for you
Yep. Science is the search for truth. It changes as discoveries are made. It's nice to have somebody in this thread that isn't a partisan moron. CHEERS!
and yet your horrible logic is "because they were wrong and changed their view about some thing, means they must be wrong about this one!"
to which you have zero evidence to back that claim up.
the vast vast majority of the community agrees, because the vast majority of studies done back up the theory. This isn't a case of the science being inconclusive, with half the scientific community not believing it, based on only relatively recent and few studies.
that's why when I ask for scientists who disagree. they can only seem to post fringe creationists, non climatologists who get the basics wrong and say dumb things like "its the sun!!" and oil industry lackeys. They worst being willie soon. Who failed to disclose he had received millions from the oil and gas industry. and in correspondences obtained between him and his funders described described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money
I provided the evidence you just choosed to ignore it, science changes, its a fact of life. People had no idea what DNA was until the early 90's. Thats how Simpson got acquitted, the jurors thought that DNA could be corrupted if someone stepped in blood.
A hundred years from now people will look back at 2020 and laugh at us.
And yet whenever weather can be misconstrued to support the #ClimateChangeHoax you climate alarmists are quick to use it to support your cause (religion) -- plainly a hypocritical double standard.
It's almost as if the rise in average temperature in Australia over the last 100 years, of which the second 50 years had twice faster temperature growth as the first, could have something to do with that. Total coincidence with the risen carbon emissions in that period of course.
I've heard that some of climate-warrior tosspots down there deliberately started a lot of those fires, so they could say, "Look, the earth is warming and fires are breaking out everywhere!"
That sort of brain-dead stupidity from them wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Take this conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it dafuq out of here. You guys won't believe REAL news but latch onto these conspiracy theories like a baby to a nipple.
You're even talking like Trump now! "I've heard"! I bet you have heard that bullshit in the echo chambers you hang out in.
Enemy? You're not an enemy. Just a misguided person. I hold not ill-will towards you. Every self-absorbed idiot has a caring, smart person inside of them. There is hope.
But unlike some misguided people, you don't have a "caring smart" person inside of you. If you had, you wouldn't be writing vicious diatribes against strangers on a net forum.
It doesn't surprise me a bit that you're so fond of quoting cliches. For the poorly educated, aphorisms serve as substitutes for genuine critical thinking.
Historical climatic records are now sufficiently reliable to profile climate variability taking into account expectations for regions.[3] Bureau of Meteorology records since the 1860s show that a 'severe' drought has occurred in Australia, on average, once every 18 years.[4] State Governments are responsible for declaring a region drought affected and the declaration will take into account factors other than rainfall.[1]
You left out the human factor in the fires.... the arson. Sure you can argue about which fires were started by arson, but the fact is in many of the fires you will never know what the initial trigger for it was... but you do know that some were arson as the arsonists have already been caught. But the left won't accept that, they still want to claim its someone in America driving an SUV that was responsible instead of the aussie with a match tossing it on a bunch of dried brush.
Arson is a factor, for sure. But the conditions are ripe for fires to burn fast and hot. Regardless of who/what is to blame, those poor animals and people have my sympathy.