Growing Evidence that Climate Change Is A HOAX

[Rifler]

Most of the 3rd world is already being directly affected. When drought and famine cause large populations to migrate north things will get ugly.

Of course they are,.. My point being that the 3rd world currently has so many other, more pressing, problems that they don't have time to dwell on climate change.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

Of course they are,.. My point being that the 3rd world currently has so many other, more pressing, problems that they don't have time to dwell on climate change.

Right... because drought or flooding or wildfires or failing crops or deadly heat waves aren't on their agenda at all. smh

 

[fsu1jreed]

That's factually-impoverished conspiracy-theory nonsense.

The stupid shite he says sometimes

 

[fsu1jreed]

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.

Like I said...the stupid shite he says sometimes

 

[baltimorened]

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.

Well the story I read said that the uN revised it's doomsday scenario on climate because the renewables - solar and wind - had provided benefits that they had not anticipated. Now if the article was wrong, then I'm wrong.

Now one additional caveat...I've always believed in the adage to believe what people do rather than what they say. Some of the leaders of the climate change movement talk a lot about the cause and what we should be doing but they then turn around and do the opposite. Al Gore for example or maybe Bernie Sanders or AOC. For some reason they have no problems with being driven in SUVs or flying private jets to wherever they're going. Or we look at other signatories to the Paris Accord or those that haven't, according to sources MOST countries are not living up to their commitments and we all know about the Paris goals and India and china's actions. Dummies like me see that and wonder "why all the angst?". Those who know a lot more than me about the issue don't seem so concerned. So why should I be?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Well the story I read said that the uN revised it's doomsday scenario on climate because the renewables - solar and wind - had provided benefits that they had not anticipated. Now if the article was wrong, then I'm wrong.

I don't know the article but if that's what it said, it's wrong. And you need better sources.

It's been popular for a decade or 2 among deniers to claim that science or the left have no solutions. Those claims are simply lies. Renewables and other approaches, and the potential benefits they offer, have been on the table for a long time and more are being developed. Deniers and fossil money have slowed their implementation.

We could be much better off if people like you would get your head out of your *** and stop peddling the denier talking points.

 

[baltimorened]

I don't know the article but if that's what it said, it's wrong. And you need better sources.

It's been popular for a decade or 2 among deniers to claim that science or the left have no solutions. Those claims are simply lies. Renewables and other approaches, and the potential benefits they offer, have been on the table for a long time and more are being developed. Deniers and fossil money have slowed their implementation.

We could be much better off if people like you would get your head out of your *** and stop peddling the denier talking points.

you know what, you can believe what you want. Let me know when your gurus of climate live to the terms of their positions, then maybe we'd have something to discuss. Until then, I don't think I'm the one with his head up his ***

 

[DailyBuck7]

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.

You probably haven't read the ipcc reports. I have read some of them. They are disconnected mishmash. It is like somebody gave 30 or 40 people instructions to build things like car Pistons, car heating system, car fuel injectors, car tires and on and on and nobody was there to see if they fit together. On top of that it is junk science arising out of a monoculture.

 

[DailyBuck7]

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.

"We never "went from global warming to climate change".

Ignorance. Until 2006 or 2007 the main focus was global warming. Here is a chat GPT summary of the usage of the terms. " At the time, newspapers overwhelmingly reported that Hansen had warned Congress about global warming. It wasn't until roughly the early-to-mid 2000s that "climate change" became the more common term in government reports, scientific communications, and much of the media."

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

You probably haven't read the ipcc reports. I have read some of them. They are disconnected mishmash. It is like somebody gave 30 or 40 people instructions to build things like car Pistons, car heating system, car fuel injectors, car tires and on and on and nobody was there to see if they fit together. On top of that it is junk science arising out of a monoculture.

LOL... no you haven't. You've read wingnut mishmash claiming to cite IPCC reports. Just like ned, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

"We never "went from global warming to climate change".

Ignorance. Until 2006 or 2007 the main focus was global warming. Here is a chat GPT summary of the usage of the terms. " At the time, newspapers overwhelmingly reported that Hansen had warned Congress about global warming. It wasn't until roughly the early-to-mid 2000s that "climate change" became the more common term in government reports, scientific communications, and much of the media."

And here's the proof. Global warming is a consequence of GHG's in the atmosphere. Climate change is a consequence of global warming. They are not the same thing. They have never been the same thing. They've never been treated as the same thing in the scientific community. Getting your "science" from popular media reporting proves absolutely that you don't read the actual science - like actual IPCC studies.

 

[DailyBuck7]

And here's the proof. Global warming is a consequence of GHG's in the atmosphere. Climate change is a consequence of global warming. They are not the same thing. They have never been the same thing. They've never been treated as the same thing in the scientific community. Getting your "science" from popular media reporting proves absolutely that you don't read the actual science - like actual IPCC studies.

If you were the least bit literate on the subject, you would know that climate change is a consequence of many things, including global warming. Until around 2007 the general focus on the alleged damage caused by fossil fuels was framed in terms of global warming. Here is a link to an article by the most prominent opponent of CO2, James Hansen entitled "Global Warming Time Bomb." It also mentioned climate change, but in the article he states: "The main issue is: How fast will ice sheets respond to global warming. " https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/docs/2004/2004_Hansen_ha09900j.pdf Again if you were literate on this issue you would know that there were many, many articles focused on global warming. See this from the most important blog at the time dealing with CO2 https://archive.nytimes.com/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/holocausts/

 

[DailyBuck7]

LOL... no you haven't. You've read wingnut mishmash claiming to cite IPCC reports. Just like ned, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ignorant ahole.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

If you were the least bit literate on the subject, you would know that climate change is a consequence of many things, including global warming.

I never said otherwise, moran.

Until around 2007 the general focus on the alleged damage caused by fossil fuels was framed in terms of global warming.

It still is. You know why? Burning fossil fuels causes global warming, dumba.ss.

Here is a link to an article by the most prominent opponent of CO2, James Hansen entitled "Global Warming Time Bomb." It also mentioned climate change, but in the article he states: "The main issue is: How fast will ice sheets respond to global warming. " https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/docs/2004/2004_Hansen_ha09900j.pdf

It "mentions" climate change eleven times. Climate occurs seventy-one times inclusive of the eleven previously cited. It also "mentions" sea-level change six times... another consequence of global warming.

Again if you were literate on this issue you would know that there were many, many articles focused on global warming. See this from the most important blog at the time dealing with CO2 https://archive.nytimes.com/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/holocausts/

LOL... well thanks for proving my point, idiot.

 

[DailyBuck7]

I never said otherwise, moran.


It still is. You know why? Burning fossil fuels causes global warming, dumba.ss.


It "mentions" climate change eleven times. Climate occurs seventy-one times inclusive of the eleven previously cited. It also "mentions" sea-level change six times... another consequence of global warming.


LOL... well thanks for proving my point, idiot.

"I never said otherwise, moran." So stupid you don't even know how to spell "moron." That says it all.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

"I never said otherwise, moran." So stupid you don't even know how to spell "moron." That says it all.

Oh look! Another maggot unaware of the memes created by his own idiot minions. Or is that actually you, Bucky?

What a maroon!!!*

*I'll help you out with this one MORON

 

[tigres88]

Live look at @tarheelbybirth1 cooking the dumbass magas in this thread

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

you know what, you can believe what you want. Let me know when your gurus of climate live to the terms of their positions, then maybe we'd have something to discuss. Until then, I don't think I'm the one with his head up his ***

Shifting the goal posts. Whether what you call gurus live up to what you think they should live up to has nothing to do with whether climate change is real and requires aggressive action.

All you've done is prove that you lied when you said you wanted to become informed.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You probably haven't read the ipcc reports. I have read some of them. They are disconnected mishmash. It is like somebody gave 30 or 40 people instructions to build things like car Pistons, car heating system, car fuel injectors, car tires and on and on and nobody was there to see if they fit together. On top of that it is junk science arising out of a monoculture.

Yes, they are hard for regular folks - even those of us with solid science backgrounds - to read and digest. I hate that. But the facts are in there. And that's what's important.

You are engaging in another denier cliche by dwelling on this and then using it to conclude that climate science is junk science.

If you and Ned and other deniers here aren't getting paid for the nonsense you spew, you should talk to your agent (or get one).

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

"We never "went from global warming to climate change".

Ignorance. Until 2006 or 2007 the main focus was global warming. Here is a chat GPT summary of the usage of the terms. " At the time, newspapers overwhelmingly reported that Hansen had warned Congress about global warming. It wasn't until roughly the early-to-mid 2000s that "climate change" became the more common term in government reports, scientific communications, and much of the media."

It was a shift in word usage by some to reduce confusion, not a change in the science or the accurate narrative.

For some people - like you - it just gave you something else to nitpick about and to use as a deflection.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I never said otherwise, moran.


It still is. You know why? Burning fossil fuels causes global warming, dumba.ss.


It "mentions" climate change eleven times. Climate occurs seventy-one times inclusive of the eleven previously cited. It also "mentions" sea-level change six times... another consequence of global warming.


LOL... well thanks for proving my point, idiot.

He keeps proving our point, while thinking he's making his point. SMH

I'm encouraged that he's doing the research in an effort to disprove us; imagine if he actually read and thought about what he's reporting.

 

[TC_Nole_OX]

Third heat dome in a month


Those models were published. Peer-reviewed. Mocked for thirty years by the right while the industry that caused this kept cashing checks.

The people who called it a hoax are indoors right now, in the air conditioning.

Thirty years ago, this was a warning.

This week, it's the forecast.

 

[BelemNole]

It will still be in the 80s at midnight here this weekend. Gonna suck for the next week.

 

[baltimorened]

Yes, they are hard for regular folks - even those of us with solid science backgrounds - to read and digest. I hate that. But the facts are in there. And that's what's important.

You are engaging in another denier cliche by dwelling on this and then using it to conclude that climate science is junk science.

If you and Ned and other deniers here aren't getting paid for the nonsense you spew, you should talk to your agent (or get one).

this may surprise you, but I know enough about science to know that every action has a reaction...similarly every climate change advocate has an advocate on the opposite side of the equation..for every person you think is right there's another who thinks you're wrong.

I personally don't know if you're right or wrong. But I do know that people in leadership positions in the US and overseas, who say the same things you do about climate don't do what they want us to do....so in effect they're liars, hypocrites or to sue your term "deniers".

I also know that the world won't end in 2031 as AOC said, and I also know that the UN backtracked from it's previous doomsday because the data no longer supported it. But you tell us, don't pay attention to the predictions that didn't happen and to do so makes you a denier. So what your telling us, in effect, is don't believe what you see, believe what I want you to see or what I tell you.

I respect your opinion. You're definitely entitled to it.

 

[BelemNole]

this may surprise you, but I know enough about science to know that every action has a reaction...similarly every climate change advocate has an advocate on the opposite side of the equation..for every person you think is right there's another who thinks you're wrong.

I personally don't know if you're right or wrong. But I do know that people in leadership positions in the US and overseas, who say the same things you do about climate don't do what they want us to do....so in effect they're liars, hypocrites or to sue your term "deniers".

I also know that the world won't end in 2031 as AOC said, and I also know that the UN backtracked from it's previous doomsday because the data no longer supported it. But you tell us, don't pay attention to the predictions that didn't happen and to do so makes you a denier. So what your telling us, in effect, is don't believe what you see, believe what I want you to see or what I tell you.

I respect your opinion. You're definitely entitled to it.

Look everyone - this is peak Dunning Kruger right here!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

this may surprise you, but I know enough about science to know that every action has a reaction...similarly every climate change advocate has an advocate on the opposite side of the equation..for every person you think is right there's another who thinks you're wrong.

I personally don't know if you're right or wrong. But I do know that people in leadership positions in the US and overseas, who say the same things you do about climate don't do what they want us to do....so in effect they're liars, hypocrites or to sue your term "deniers".

I also know that the world won't end in 2031 as AOC said, and I also know that the UN backtracked from it's previous doomsday because the data no longer supported it. But you tell us, don't pay attention to the predictions that didn't happen and to do so makes you a denier. So what your telling us, in effect, is don't believe what you see, believe what I want you to see or what I tell you.

I respect your opinion. You're definitely entitled to it.

Translation: Some say 2+2=4, some say 2+2=5; the truth is probably some place in between. Amirite?

Read the book I recommended. If not that, I can recommend others. You are too smart to be taking the positions you have been expressing. PLUS, this stuff is really interesting. Way too interesting to be bitching about whether Al Gore takes jets to conferences.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Look everyone - this is peak Dunning Kruger right here!

Ouch.

 

[Torbee]

Just BAU? Seems unlikely to me.

 

[dpic73]

Translation: Some say 2+2=4, some say 2+2=5; the truth is probably some place in between. Amirite?

Read the book I recommended. If not that, I can recommend others. You are too smart to be taking the positions you have been expressing. PLUS, this stuff is really interesting. Way too interesting to be bitching about whether Al Gore takes jets to conferences.

Wow, timely...I just watched the movie 2+2=5 about George Orwell's life which I highly recommend. A little dense but highly enlightening and still relevant.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Wow, timely...I just watched the movie 2+2=5 about George Orwell's life which I highly recommend. A little dense but highly enlightening and still relevant.

Sounds good. Unfortunately I'm not subscribed to the right services.

What did you learn from it?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Wow, timely...I just watched the movie 2+2=5 about George Orwell's life which I highly recommend. A little dense but highly enlightening and still relevant.

I just found it on Kanopy!

For those who don't know, Kanopy is a free - free to join, and free from commercials - Library-based streaming service. You used to need a library card to sign up. You may be able to get a library card on line if you need one.

Another free, library-linked streaming service is Hoopla.

 

[dpic73]

Sounds good. Unfortunately I'm not subscribed to the right services.

What did you learn from it?

I have to keep it short because I'm headed out but I didn't know he understood totalitarianism from the inside as he served in the Indian Imperial Police in Burma, where he grew deeply disillusioned with the cruelty and systemic oppression of British imperialism and he also fought in the Spanish Civil war as part of the resistance.

It has clips from different totalitarian movements around the world, including an extensive clip of Trump on J6 showing how modern political events distort objective truth, similar to historical events.

A couple of quotes:

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four." but when tortured enough you will say "2+2=5 and believe it."

This quote might sum it up.

 

[GesterHawk]

But can we fix it?,... The answer is no, so back to living the life we have.

Ed got drunk and pooped on the rug. We can't fix it, might as well let him keep pooping on it.

 

[GesterHawk]

Right... because drought or flooding or wildfires or failing crops or deadly heat waves aren't on their agenda at all. smh

Don't you get it, they aren't rich enough to care that their grain won't grow in the heat and lack of water.

 

[GesterHawk]

I don't know the article but if that's what it said, it's wrong. And you need better sources.

It's been popular for a decade or 2 among deniers to claim that science or the left have no solutions. Those claims are simply lies. Renewables and other approaches, and the potential benefits they offer, have been on the table for a long time and more are being developed. Deniers and fossil money have slowed their implementation.

We could be much better off if people like you would get your head out of your *** and stop peddling the denier talking points.

It is hard to get a large group of people to address a problem when they can't even agree that there is a problem.

Big Oil made sheeple out of the Right long ago and I am not sure if we can unfück that lightbulb.

 

[GesterHawk]

Live look at @tarheelbybirth1 cooking the dumbass magas in this thread

I have that same outfit. It would be super embarrassing if we wore it to the same place on the same day.

 

[Billanole.]

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.

Smart enuff to know back in the drump Casino and Airline days his true character.
Smart enuff to know that he and his cabal are intentionally sabotaging/stopping every effort they possibly can at trying to avoid the worst effects of this now very present danger.

Are you blind, stoopid, fatalistic, or all of the above?

 

[Billanole.]

you know what, you can believe what you want. Let me know when your gurus of climate live to the terms of their positions, then maybe we'd have something to discuss. Until then, I don't think I'm the one with his head up his ***

I guess ned is taking his ball and going home rather than looking to improve on his game.

 

[Billanole.]

"I never said otherwise, moran." So stupid you don't even know how to spell "moron." That says it all.

It will still be in the 80s at midnight here this weekend. Gonna suck for the next week.

We have finally had a few nights down to the upper 50s low 60s which is the typical numbers this time of year.
More often of late I walk outside in the a.m. to mid 70s instead. As you say, it sucks.

 

[baltimorened]

I guess ned is taking his ball and going home rather than looking to improve on his game.

nope Ned, didn't go home. He's just somewhat tired of being lectured on why he should take steps to save the planet by people who pollute 5, 10, 100 times more than he does. If the world is in such dire straights, maybe the leaders of the movement should practice what they preach. Doesn't that seem to be a reasonable thing to ask?