There have always been forest fires, amirite?
Growing Evidence that Climate Change Is A HOAX
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
without forest fires, Smokey the Bear wouldn't have a job
Every day there are multiple articles detailing things that climate "alarmists" 10 years ago predicted would happen in 10 years:
www.moabtimes.com
www.pbs.org
Yet MORONS still deny it's happening when the evidence is literally in front of their stupid f.ucking faces.
The Colorado River’s 2 biggest reservoirs just hit a new record low
www.moabtimes.com
French wildfire created country's 1st recorded pyrocumulonimbus cloud, igniting more fires
A wildfire in southwest France grew so powerful that its smoke column became a thunderstorm, generating lightning that struck the ground and ignited new fires beyond the original blaze, French officials said.
www.pbs.org
Yet MORONS still deny it's happening when the evidence is literally in front of their stupid f.ucking faces.
They not only ignore the evidence, but will cherry pick what some scientist got wrong as proof that Climate Change is made up.Every day there are multiple articles detailing things that climate "alarmists" 10 years ago predicted would happen in 10 years:
The Colorado River’s 2 biggest reservoirs just hit a new record low
French wildfire created country's 1st recorded pyrocumulonimbus cloud, igniting more fires
A wildfire in southwest France grew so powerful that its smoke column became a thunderstorm, generating lightning that struck the ground and ignited new fires beyond the original blaze, French officials said.
Yet MORONS still deny it's happening when the evidence is literally in front of their stupid f.ucking faces.
Gore made a few minor errors 20 years ago, therefore Drill, Baby, Drill! QED
"The Washington Post reports the Biden administration had approved $10 million to thin out Superior National Forest to help prevent fires, but last year the Trump administration’s DOGE program paused or canceled nearly all of the Forest Service’s grant projects and funds. A former U.S. Forest Service district ranger said, 'Had that work been implemented, it would have been effective in stopping or slowing down these fires.'"
Not only Gore...a lesson in this global warming/climate change issue..After Gore made his claim and entire industry popped up to support his theory ..I don't know whether government grants payed a role...but some of the "scientists" made definitive statements about hat was going to happen, and it didn't quite work out the way they were so sure it would. That's why, IMO, we went from global warming to climate change. Who can take issue with climate change. Climate changes seasonally, monthly and even day to day.
The lesson I referred to is simple, just don't be so definitive about what's going to happen by some specific future date..hedge a little.
That's factually-impoverished conspiracy-theory nonsense.
No JOKE! here in the Midwest it is COLD then HOT just a few months later yet I bet these loser LIBS will blame it on Climate change!!
so which part is conspiracy theory?
Gore didn't start out as global warming?
"scientist made specific predictions?
those predictions didn't happen?
government money didn't go in to global warming studies?
The issue changed to climate change"
or
the climate doesn't change frequently?
I'm certainly open to being better informed
way too early...but nice comment. Meaningless but ...somewhat expected from a person who has no answer
didn't your mother tell you to respect your elders. Sonny?
Last edited:
lol, no.
People need to earn respect. You've proven that you deserve little.
All you do is vomit Fox News propaganda.
well, going beyond respect...just so we're factual I spew propaganda from many more outlets than Fox...I also use the Washington Post, the NY Times, CNN, the Washington Times, the Wall Street journal, just to name a few.
The difference between us, again overlooking respect, is that I have the ability to look at things from more than one perspective. There are always opposite reactions to issues. You really can't make an intelligent decision if you're looking at things through a set of biased "blinders"
And, I try hard to avoid comments like " you deserve little (respect)". I think that's kind of childish from someone who knows little about me
The IPCC reports have been mostly too conservative. That's 30 years of science being almost entirely right but cautious. You only seem to look for nits you can pick and ways to avoid addressing the well-understood facts about climate change.
If you are really open to being better informed, I can recommend more civilian-friendly sources than the IPCC reports. My top recommendation is The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells. If you hunt down denier critiques, you'll find reasons to reject it. But if you actually read it, I guarantee you'll have a Come to Jesus moment about climate change.
BTW, if you are an audiobook fan, it's really good to read that way.
That's why - factually - you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about. We never "went from global warming to climate change". Anyone with even the slightest knowledge on the topic knows - factually - that those are two different things. They've been - factually - two different things forever. They've been treated- factually - in the scientific literature as two different things forever.
There's no opinion here. You're spouting more horsesh.it about something you don't understand. Or you do understand and you're lying.
FTR, I think ole ned has me on ignore and I'm good with that because I reciprocate. But someone else who interacts with him needs to point this out.
A problem with all these climate theories both pro hoax and anti hoax, is that technology, some of which hasn't been invented can and likely will play a role in whatever causes the change. Look, the UN just revised it's outlook. Why, because they had not factored in the use of renewables.
My point was that our scientists, again either pro or co, should not be so definitive when there are still unknown factors in play.
You're just about my age. I can still remember the 1970's angst about the coming next ice age, only to be replaced in the 1980's by global warming. Things change
Thank you.
The public conversation did, at some point, seem to shift from global warming to climate change. So @baltimorened isn't totally without a leg to stand on. But the only conspiracy theory-ish element to that shift is that people who know what they are talking about realized that global warming leaves room for idiots like Senator Inhofe to claim that global warming is a hoax because he found a late season snowball.
Climate change better encompasses the consequences of global warming. Global warming is the driver of this climate change. Global warming, in turn, can result from a number of different drivers. This time it's driven mostly by human activities and, in particular, the burning of fossil fuels.
Last edited:
And - again - that was never a thing in the scientific community. You've succumbed to science by news media.
Reviews of climate studies from 1965 to 1979 show that fewer than 10% of papers predicted future cooling, while the majority anticipated warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists like Reid Bryson highlighted cooling trends caused by pollution and aerosols, but these views were not widely accepted, and many climatologists were already concerned about the warming effects of carbon dioxide. The World Meteorological Organization even issued a warning in 1976 that significant global warming was probable.
Last edited:
I fall in the camp of it is idiotic to deny that climate change is real and an existential threat to our species. That said, I also do not believe modern humanity is capable* of committing to remediation at a scale that will fix it, so band-aids are pointless.
*in terms of will power, not technology
*in terms of will power, not technology
lol no.
The difference between us is that I have a science degree and read things other than MAGA propaganda.
You should try a few journal articles. You can always google the big words.
The science has been clear for decades. Shi.t, Exxon admitted as much in internal documents 50 years ago. Only the gullible still swallow the propaganda.
You really don't understand, do you? The alternative is that you are being deliberately dishonest.
Failure to understand is forgivable. And fixable. But you are presenting the denier misstatement du jour.
The UN revised it's outlook NOT because the previous outlook was wrong. NOR because it failed to factor in renewables.
Every IPCC report projects several sets of outcomes predicated on what actions nations take to address the problem. Each IPCC report revises those projections to take into account what has actually been happening since the last one. What the UN decided this time around is that the most extreme, disastrous projection could be downgraded, thanks in part to renewables.
That's how science and reasonable institutions work. Your characterization is how deniers, dupes and Big Oil shills work.
We sure can't if we don't try.
Dad, the house is on fire. Well shi.t, we're not firemen so we can't fix it. Let's just sit here and see what happens!
He has no legs at all. Anyone who is going to comment in any way "authoritatively" on the topic should understand the difference. Ned should be asking questions... not making pronouncements.
^^^^
Believes in the untestable, unfalsifiable non-science nonsense of gender ideology because his daughter told him she's non-binary.
^^^^
This "science teacher" also believes in gender ideology.
Trust The Science!
It's even worse than that.
For a long time, one of the favorite denier lies and deflections centered on whether the global warming was caused by man. It is, but their argument was that the proof wasn't conclusive.
To continue with your house on fire metaphor, that's like
You find your house on fire
You call the Fire Department
The FD speeds over, but does nothing
You ask why they aren't putting out the fire
They say they won't act unless it's determined to be arson
We can't even if we do try,.. When alligators are tearing at your flesh, the burning house becomes a secondary issue,.. Climate change is a first world problem.
Not at all,.. Climate change is primarily a topic of conversation in first world countries. Places where the basic needs of life have generally been satisfied, thus freeing up time for the affected population to worry about more nebulous issues like climate change,.. We worry about climate change because we have the luxury of doing so.
Well said pops. So sick of the "I'm better/smarter than you" attitude that all the left here seem to possess.
But they couldn't see that Biden was brain dead while early in his term and then they voted for Kamala.
Nebulous, lol.
Most of the 3rd world is already being directly affected. When drought and famine cause large populations to migrate north things will get ugly. The pentagon has game-planed the scenario.
But sure, what do they know. It's all just liberal propaganda.
That might possibly be the stupidest comment you've ever posted and that's quite the accomplishment.
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated
The process of evaluating the mental and physical toughness of this Clemson football team
-
02
Tiger Illustrated
IT's CAMP TIME IN CLEMSON
-
03
Tiger Illustrated
Clemson Football Roster & Recruiting Big Board: Offensive Line
-
04
Tiger Illustrated
SUMMER UPDATE: Ashton Hampton
-
05
Tiger Illustrated
Wednesday Clemson Football Recruiting Nuggets