'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Posted this on another thread but figured it belongs here.


Dear Lord I hate these little heat waves not because of the heat, but because of the liberal **** they spew every time. I accidentally left the TV on and a middle of the night program came on loaded with this message ( I was too lazy to find the remote to change the channel):

This all because of global warming and this heat wave
  • the Earth is burning...Texas, England, Spain, etc
  • people are dying in the street by the 100's
  • 100% end oil and gas
  • move 100% to green energy/carbon neutral
  • redistribute the worlds wealth so every country can afford to pay for their part to fix the climate
  • Earths temperatures will rise 0.25 degrees every 10 years moving forward which will be catastrophic
They will do anything to spread lies and deceit to get people panicked. All of this because London had ONE day over 100 degrees. Yeah, that's hot for them, but ONE day.

Meanwhile today's current temps seemed to have dropped significantly back toward normal but you won't hear a word about this.

London 73
Paris 77
Munich 75

Yeah, its' still hot here, but there's nothing abnormal having 98-103 degree temps in July and into August.
 
yes. the CC progressives are hyperbolic and dogmatic" but the GOP has been also in the other direction.

"Doctor i have some chest tightness"

GOP: rub some dirt on it, it's all your head
Progressives: schedule a quadruple bypass RIGHT NOW !!!!

Neither response is appropriate for the situation. We have what we call in the intel world "indicators" (otherwise known as evidence but not yet "proof"). One side wants to ignore the indicators completely and the other wants to treat them as thorough and incontrovertible proof.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
GOP: rub some dirt on it, it's all your head
Progressives: schedule a quadruple bypass RIGHT NOW !!!!

Neither response is appropriate for the situation. We have what we call in the intel world "indicators" (otherwise known as evidence but not yet "proof"). One side wants to ignore the indicators completely and the other wants to treat them as thorough and incontrovertible proof.
Click to expand...

The GOP basically has gone along with the Progressives on this. How else do you explain all the wind energy production in Texas?
 
When we can cheaply, reliably, and predictably manage the sun's energy output then I will begin to believe we can control the planetary climate to a reasonable extent.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
When we can cheaply, reliably, and predictably manage the sun's energy output then I will begin to believe we can control the planetary climate to a reasonable extent.
Click to expand...
Solar Shade to Reverse Global Warming - Universe Today

"Instead of a single large shade, Dr. Angel is proposing to build a fleet of free flying spacecraft that look something like spiderwebs. Each mini-shade would be approximately 200 metres (650 feet) across, and be covered with a gossamer thin layer of solar radiation absorbing glass. To stop them from drifting away from the L1 point, each shade would be equipped with 6 steerable solar sails that would use the light from the Sun to maintain position."

I'm thinking this could double as an Arc Net Shield to repel the Boglodite invasion as well.
 
Saw something about a sky bubble to block the suns rays in order to decrease the heat. That what you mean by managing the suns energy Sanger? God is great, beer is good, and PEOPLE are CRAZY!
 
Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas, said developing wind farms off the coast of Texas has been a long time coming. A previous effort to build 50 wind turbines 10 miles off of Texas in 2007 fell apart due to economic concerns, but comments in a request for information issued by the bureau showed that developers have a renewed interest in developing here, he said.

Feds want to help build massive wind farm larger than the City of Houston off the coast of Galveston — Houston Chronicle
 
mchammer said:
Land-based thermometers are corrupted by urban heat islands. Note satellite-based data shows much less warming.
Click to expand...
this is a legit counterpoint to which i say ..."fine, then fix it when we have congress/POTUS next". When we had the power to correct some of the bias and hyperbole we (the GOP) sat on our hands and continued to just do this crap. it is easy to poke holes in any theory by finding the occasions where it isn't 100% on. It is much harder to fix it. The article undermines the magnitude/timeline of the event but not the overall trend. It may not be the hyperbolic timeline that progressives suggest but the evidence is there that this is a long term problem.
 
It shows that it actually isn't a long term problem because technological advancement can keep up with any temperature change.

Also, average global temperature which is the governing metric of climate alarmism is a bogus number. It is a kind of true fiction. Also, what does it tell you? Average temperature was 23.2C vs 23.4C over the whole planet. What problem versus benefit does that cause. There will be benefits from that too that must be taken into account. Green houses use 3-5 times current atmospheric CO2 concentration to help grow plants. That is a huge benefit.

Even more, the sun radiance gives a consistent amount of energy to the Earth. Only a small part of that radiative energy can be absorbed and turned into heat by CO2. CO2 has an absorbance band which is a portion of the Infrared (IR) Spectrum. As there is more CO2 in the atmosphere more of this IR energy can be transformed into heat. But at some point there is no more IR energy within CO2's absorbance band to absorb. It is all absorbed. Also as you get closer to 100% absorbance more and more CO2 is needed to absorb more of the IR. We are getting very close to that limit. Looking at the physics, I think somewhere around a doubling CO2 concentration basically gets us to 100% IR absorbance in the CO2 absorbance band. The additional possible heating from CO2 concentration increases is <1C. It is closer to 0.5C. So long term this isn't a problem because there is an upper limit to the effect.

The bigger threat to civilization is government intervention in economics, science/technology, energy, and agriculture.
 
mchammer said:
Note the coal on the doorstep!

Click to expand...


I've yet to understand how solar panels qualify as green energy but nuclear power does not. Solar panels require oil to create, block out greenspace when not placed on rooftops, and occupy landfills when they break. Maybe it's that solar panels use something that's already there - the sunlight. Okay with that logic, nuclear reactions naturally occur in living organisms. That's why carbon dating works on bones, wood, whatever.
 
Last edited:
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
this is a legit counterpoint to which i say ..."fine, then fix it when we have congress/POTUS next". When we had the power to correct some of the bias and hyperbole we (the GOP) sat on our hands and continued to just do this crap. it is easy to poke holes in any theory by finding the occasions where it isn't 100% on. It is much harder to fix it. The article undermines the magnitude/timeline of the event but not the overall trend. It may not be the hyperbolic timeline that progressives suggest but the evidence is there that this is a long term problem.
Click to expand...
If you go by the real temp trend (satellite data), it pretty much refutes all of the climate models, which run too hot. It also removes 90% of the reasons to do climate action.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
this is a legit counterpoint to which i say ..."fine, then fix it when we have congress/POTUS next". When we had the power to correct some of the bias and hyperbole we (the GOP) sat on our hands and continued to just do this crap. it is easy to poke holes in any theory by finding the occasions where it isn't 100% on. It is much harder to fix it. The article undermines the magnitude/timeline of the event but not the overall trend. It may not be the hyperbolic timeline that progressives suggest but the evidence is there that this is a long term problem.
Click to expand...
Further note that even under the worse case scenarios in vogue today, here is the conclusion:

“The EIU’s climate change model calculates that by 2050, the U.S. economy will be 1.1% smaller than it would have been in the absence of climate change,” the EIU report said.

Now, if you re-did the economic analysis based on the actual satellite data, the impact of climate change on the economy would be close to nil.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
this is a legit counterpoint to which i say ..."fine, then fix it when we have congress/POTUS next". When we had the power to correct some of the bias and hyperbole we (the GOP) sat on our hands and continued to just do this crap. it is easy to poke holes in any theory by finding the occasions where it isn't 100% on. It is much harder to fix it. The article undermines the magnitude/timeline of the event but not the overall trend. It may not be the hyperbolic timeline that progressives suggest but the evidence is there that this is a long term problem.
Click to expand...
I’ve been following global warming hysteria for nearly 30 years (since the early 90’s when I was in grad school). It’s mostly a hoax. Did you know the acid rain scare of the 70’s was mostly a hoax? Did you know the population scare of the 1970’s was mostly a hoax? Did you know the ozone hole scare of the 1980’s was mostly a hoax? We’ve banned every chemical that impacts the ozone hole and it hasn’t changed its size since the early 1980’s. The hole was always there. We didn’t know the extent until satellite data replaced balloon data in the late 1970’s.
 
you're missing my larger point. the GOP had the Senate from 2015-2021 and the House from 2011-2019 and the POTUS from 2016-2020. There are 13 federal agencies that routinely weigh in on Climate Science. Why the heck didn't the GOP use time in power to ensure that both sides of the climate debate were represented? Why didn't they ensure that scientific papers presenting counter points saw the front row? If the CC science is such utter junk, it should have been easy to present the counter points from an authoritative source while the GOP held all three political pulpits.
 
guy4321 said:
I've yet to understand how solar panels qualify as green energy but nuclear power does not.
Click to expand...

To be green energy, something can't be reliably used to generate electricity. It has to suck. Whether climate change is as big of a problem as people assume or not, the point isn't to protect the environment. It's to screw with the economy and give the government power. If wind and solar somehow became reliable, the same people pitching them would come up on with reasons why they're bad - dead birds, the ruining of green spaces, etc.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
Solar Shade to Reverse Global Warming - Universe Today

"Instead of a single large shade, Dr. Angel is proposing to build a fleet of free flying spacecraft that look something like spiderwebs. Each mini-shade would be approximately 200 metres (650 feet) across, and be covered with a gossamer thin layer of solar radiation absorbing glass. To stop them from drifting away from the L1 point, each shade would be equipped with 6 steerable solar sails that would use the light from the Sun to maintain position."

I'm thinking this could double as an Arc Net Shield to repel the Boglodite invasion as well.
Click to expand...
The shield will never work. The women will be raising it because they are cold, and the men will be lowering it because they are too hot.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
you're missing my larger point. the GOP had the Senate from 2015-2021 and the House from 2011-2019 and the POTUS from 2016-2020. There are 13 federal agencies that routinely weigh in on Climate Science. Why the heck didn't the GOP use time in power to ensure that both sides of the climate debate were represented? Why didn't they ensure that scientific papers presenting counter points saw the front row? If the CC science is such utter junk, it should have been easy to present the counter points from an authoritative source while the GOP held all three political pulpits.
Click to expand...
It’s already in the record. It just gets ignored by the politicians, media, and the grifters who profit from it.
 
mchammer said:
It’s already in the record. It just gets ignored by the politicians, media, and the grifters who profit from it.
Click to expand...
awesome. when you find these reports from federal agencies, please link it here. I'm not seeing them.

We have 1 of 2 things...

1. CC is real (even if exaggerated a great deal by progressives) in which case prudence would dictate substantial investigation and likely action to follow
2. CC is a hoax and we have trillions of dollars being eventually wasted and impacting everything from our comfort to our national security.

Both scenarios strongly suggest we need to have solid investigation and science to back up the discussion. If the CC science is so obviously flawed, and worse yet, fake...then it should be easy to refute. Not in some mom and pop online backroom but with actual research that established agencies stand behind.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
awesome. when you find these reports from federal agencies, please link it here. I'm not seeing them.
Click to expand...
Congressional panels bring in experts from both sides on the regular. They submit their remarks before their testimony.
 
Last edited:
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
1. CC is real (even if exaggerated a great deal by progressives) in which case prudence would dictate substantial investigation and likely action to follow.
Click to expand...
What action? This is an economic issue at heart, balancing the costs and benefits. What economic model do you trust to give you the right answer? If economists can’t predict inflation 12 months out, how are they going to predict the impact of climate change legislation for 50 years?
 
Last edited:
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
Both scenarios strongly suggest we need to have solid investigation and science to back up the discussion. If the CC science is so obviously flawed, and worse yet, fake...then it should be easy to refute. Not in some mom and pop online backroom but with actual research that established agencies stand behind.
Click to expand...
I believe I have posted this article before from the WSJ. The book was written by one of Obama’s top science advisors:

E6DD7FAF-FE61-4943-88BE-FB6816E35DD2.jpeg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top