Chicken Little Might Be Wrong?

[genuineoriginal]

Despite the politics of this issue, at its base lies a simple question: is the earth getting warmer over time, or not?

No, the ice ages show that the earth gets warmer and cooler over time.
We are at the end of the "little ice age", so it would naturally be assumed that the earth is getting warmer than it was during the "little ice age".
Before the "little ice age" was the "Medieval Climate Optimum" that was responsible for Europeans being able to grow large surpluses of food, leading to the advances of civilization during the Renaissance

 

[genuineoriginal]

The evidence supporting climate change is undeniable.

Really?
When did the climate zones get redrawn?

What kind of a retard would expect climate to be static?

The climate has always changed.

https://www.factmonster.com/dk/encyclopedia/earth/climate-zones Over the past two million years, Earth’s climate has slowly changed. Long, cold periods called ice ages, or glacials, have been interspersed with warmer periods.

None of the recorded climate changes happened because of the activity of mankind.
There is only unfounded suppositions that the activities of mankind are driving a new unprecedented climate change.

What is stupid is that the people harping about man-made climate change keep saying that we have to convert to Socialism in order to stop it.

 

[eider]

You can't even take the time to find the proper spelling for Thwaites Glacier? And I'm supposed to listen to you?

You're about as science educated as Greta. You guys are just hysterics that don't want to hear anything but what you want to hear.

Ah..... so you do know about what's happening to the Thwaites glacier, and how much US researchers reckon it's retreat can affect sea levels 'all on its own'. Interesting.

Look, I'm not an scientist, I certainly don't think that you are involved in such research either, so I listen to scientific researchers, whereas you don't seem to.

Let's face it, no matter what, you're a denialist...... true?

 

[eider]

What is stupid is that the people harping about man-made climate change keep saying that we have to convert to Socialism in order to stop it.

We know that man can change climates, for better or worse.
You know that's true if you just think about it.
Any school kid can tell you how man can do that, and in a very short time.

Once you've recognised that then you can start to perceive how the industrial revolutions of the past couple of centuries have made a significant difference to carbon release levels. In any case I'm not sure that we can completely stop it now imo.

 

[Jonahdog]

What is stupid is that the people harping about man-made climate change keep saying that we have to convert to Socialism in order to stop it.

Aside from the fact that you are woefully ignorant of the science involved we now add the Socialism bugaboo. You don't need socialism, you need an intelligent population that can recognize the problem and understand it is a world wide problem.

I remain amazed however how a great number of American Christians somehow believe pure unrestricted Capitalism would be supported by the person who threw the money lenders out of the temple (what does that say about the preachers with $5K suits and private planes?) and is the person we see telling the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10.

 

[Jonahdog]

That is great news.
Think of how much extra food we will be able to grow in the fertile farmlands of Montana with the longer growing seasons.

Ah and the mosquito borne diseases in Kansas instead of Mexico.
And the classic Montana trout streams that get too warm for trout.
Who will provide fresh water to the people of the Andes when the glaciers no longer do?
Who takes in several million people from Bangladesh when either sea level rises enough in the Ganges delta or, perhaps, when ground water becomes saline and undrinkable?

Perhaps the last two questions dont really matter because those issues are far away and the people are mostly brownish and dont speak English anyway. Luke 10 (see my previous post) can somehow be ignored.

 

[ok doser]

That is great news.
Think of how much extra food we will be able to grow in the fertile farmlands of Montana with the longer growing seasons.

think of the geopolitical ramifications of a Russia and a Canada with vast - VAST - new regions of inhabitable territory

here's Canada today - imagine what it will look like in fifty years

 

[ok doser]

Russia even more so:

 

[ok doser]

for comparison:

 

[ok doser]

Who takes in several million people from Bangladesh ...

Great Britain

Great Britain can take them all in

i'm sure eider will volunteer



eta: how about their huge neighbors?

India
Burma
China

 

[Jonahdog]

Great Britain

Great Britain can take them all in

i'm sure eider will volunteer



eta: how about their huge neighbors?

India
Burma
China

Oh yeah, India Burma and China will step right up. Ask the Uyghurs how that's working out in China.
But, as you noted earlier, there is lots of space in Russia and Canada

 

[Right Divider]

Ah..... so you do know about what's happening to the Thwaites glacier, and how much US researchers reckon it's retreat can affect sea levels 'all on its own'. Interesting.

And nothing about that situation is man-made.

Look, I'm not an scientist, I certainly don't think that you are involved in such research either, so I listen to scientific researchers, whereas you don't seem to.

False accusation.

Let's face it, no matter what, you're a denialist...... true?

Nope. I'm just not dumb enough to believe the hype.

 

[ok doser]

Ask the Uyghurs how that's working out in China.

now, now - the Uyghurs aren't being mistreated, they're at summer school

 

[genuineoriginal]

We know that man can change climates, for better or worse.

Man hasn't been able to do it yet, but terraforming is a well known concept in science fiction.

You know that's true if you just think about it.
Any school kid can tell you how man can do that, and in a very short time.

Any school kid can tell you the lies they were taught to parrot, but few can actually think things through to their logical conclusion, that mankind has never been responsible for climate changing,

Once you've recognised that then you can start to perceive how the industrial revolutions of the past couple of centuries have made a significant difference to carbon release levels. In any case I'm not sure that we can completely stop it now imo.

The United States is one of the world powers that have experimented with weather modification technology.
The successful experiments include seeding clouds to make it rain.
The most expensive experiments were the HARP program, which they claim was unable to modify weather.

CO₂ emissions are not able to change weather in the short term nor are they able to change climate in the long term.

What man is able to do is retroactively change temperature data to make it look as if a rise in CO₂ levels in the atmosphere are causing a rise in temperatures.

Fake data does not mean that there is man-made climate change.

 

[genuineoriginal]

you are woefully ignorant of the science involved

No, I am very aware of how the real data is being altered and how fake data is being used to create the Global Warming scare.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I remain amazed however how a great number of American Christians somehow believe pure unrestricted Capitalism would be supported by the person who threw the money lenders out of the temple

You are confusing Corporate Capitalism and individual capitalism.
Corporations using their power and wealth to buy our politicians is an evil.
Our politicians stealing individual wealth and hindering individual capitalism in favor of the corporations is evil.

Here is what Jesus said about individual capitalism:

Matthew 20:15 15 [JESUS]Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own [money]? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?[/JESUS]

 

[genuineoriginal]

Who will provide fresh water to the people of the Andes when the glaciers no longer do?
Who takes in several million people from Bangladesh when either sea level rises enough in the Ganges delta or, perhaps, when ground water becomes saline and undrinkable?

Perhaps the last two questions dont really matter

Since global warming only exists in falsified data, they don't really matter.

because those issues are far away

That seems to indicate that it isn't our problem, along with the fact that the United States is already doing more than its share in fighting against pollution.
If you think that pollution will cause problems for those people, you should be protesting in the streets of China to get them to stop polluting.

and the people are mostly brownish

You are a racist.

and dont speak English anyway.

They don't speak Mandarian either.
What does that have to do with stopping China from polluting the atmosphere?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Russia even more so:

If Global Warming were true, Siberia would become the bread-basket of the world.

 

[eider]

Man hasn't been able to do it yet, but terraforming is a well known concept in science fiction.

Oh dear............. no points for you there.
Clearly uneducated in that one respect, I think.

Any school kid can tell you the lies they were taught to parrot, but few can actually think things through to their logical conclusion, that mankind has never been responsible for climate changing,

Looks like the average school-child is way ahead of you there.
You really think that mankind could not change the world's entire ecology very very quickly?
Most any 7 year old could tell you about the effects of a nuclear war, just for starters.

Somebody's been suckering you.....

The United States is one of the world powers that have experimented with weather modification technology.
The successful experiments include seeding clouds to make it rain.
The most expensive experiments were the HARP program, which they claim was unable to modify weather.

The United States is pulling out of European initriatives on climate change and your President told Europe that he would not rein back US industry etc. You can lead a horse to water, but......

CO₂ emissions are not able to change weather in the short term nor are they able to change climate in the long term.

They are able to build up to a level where the planet's temperature continues to rise ......... CO2 is known by educated people to be a Green-House' gas, just for that reason.

What man is able to do is retroactively change temperature data to make it look as if a rise in CO₂ levels in the atmosphere are causing a rise in temperatures.

Fake data does not mean that there is man-made climate change.

Now...... since you think that you are wiser than the vast majority of climate scientists, please can you explain exactly WHY they would want or need to falsify their observations.

The first Name that I think of is Sir David Attenborough..... now why would he be a liar, eh?
You should think of his knowledge, you know.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Clearly uneducated in that one respect, I think.

You should spend time getting educated in the truth instead of the lies.

Looks like the average school-child is way ahead of you there.

Yes, the average school-child has been brainwashed into believing a lie.

You really think that mankind could not change the world's entire ecology very very quickly?
Most any 7 year old could tell you about the effects of a nuclear war, just for starters.

Mankind can wipe out many ecosystems using nuclear bombs, poison gas, and other WEAPONS of mass destruction.
However, that is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about the false claims that mankind is changing the CLIMATE through CO₂ emmissions.

The United States is pulling out of European initriatives on climate change and your President told Europe that he would not rein back US industry etc.

At least he has more sense than you do.

CO2 is known by educated people to be a Green-House' gas

Yes, people with greenhouses often add CO₂ to increase the growth of the plants inside the greenhouse, but the temperature does not go up in the greenhouse due to the added CO₂.

Now...... since you think that you are wiser than the vast majority of climate scientists, please can you explain exactly WHY they would want or need to falsify their observations.

Follow the money.
The vast majority of climate scientists do not want to kill the cash cow that is paying them to make the claims that CO₂ emmissions are causing global warming.
However, the true crime is perpetuated by NOAA, who is supplying the fake data that is used by the climate scientists.

The first Name that I think of is Sir David Attenborough..... now why would he be a liar, eh?

The guy in the children's show about mythical creatures such as the griffin and kraken?
I suppose that his shows about global warming are in the same vein.

I would rather trust a real climate scientist that actually knows what he is talking about, like Bill Gray.

The Climate Contrarian: CSU’s Bill Gray is among the minority of scientists who doubt the causes for global warming “You want to talk about global warming?” he said, pulling out meticulously drawn charts and graphs. It’s clear in how he says it that it’s a topic he’s familiar with discussing. He talked about “McCarthyism” among global-warming researchers, saying more people of his persuasion would come forward if they didn’t risk impugning their reputations and their research money. He railed against well-known climate scientists like Dr. James Hansen of NASA, who has called global warming a “time bomb” that threatens the entire planet, and Dr. Kerry Emanuel, a professor at MIT who has suggested a possible link between global warming and increased hurricane intensity. He dismissed computer models that have draconian predictions for future climates, and he said global warming will be beneficial for some people. Plants might thrive, for one thing, because they feed on carbon dioxide. “We have so many real problems in the world. We’ve got terrorism, we’ve got war, AIDS, drugs, poverty, crime … we know they’re real,” Gray said. “This global warming is a man-created problem, to scare people.”

You might want to find out why NASA has changed the graphs from the ones they showed before they started pushing the global warming hoax to the ones they currently show.

NASA’s Completely Fake Temperature Graphs In 1999, NASA showed 0.6C warming over land from 1880 to 1999. NASA now shows 1.0C warming from 1880 to 1999. Overlaying the two graphs at the same scales, and normalizing to the most recent common years (1995-1999) it becomes clear what NASA did. They massively and increasingly cooled the past, to create non-existent warming.

You can also watch this video about how the graphs have been altered with fake data.