Global Warming Stop the Superstitious Nonsense

originally posted by: intrptr
Climate Change is used to deflect away from environmental pollution , resource depletion, habitat destruction, deforestation, etc.

This has always bugged me the over emphasis on climate change. While ignoring things like fukushima the pacific garbage patch deforestation, the spike in species extinction and toxic chemicals in the water supply.
It's like the only emphasis is on climate change as the one and only issue and everything else damaging the environment and life on earth is swept under the rug I find that highly suspicious.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
"There's snow outside my door right now. There's no global warming."

Contrary to your anecdotal superstitious moronic BS, here's a little bit of science:

Earth’s 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures.

NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally

More scientific facts:

Scientists agree, man made global warming caused by burning fossil fuels is real:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

The 97% consensus on global warming

The Overwelming and growing scientific Consensus

The thing is these scientists and the people at NASA are smarter than you. Now I know its difficult to accept when people are so much smarter than you. But try to understand something. When you were struggling to solve for x in algebra class, climate scientists and the people at NASA were solving those problems in their heads. They knew more than their teachers did long before anything came out of their teacher's mouths. Here, I will help you with the big bad scientific words. The word "average" is a mathematical concept. "Math" is the study of numbers and their relationships. Here's the mathematical definition of "average":

Average – Definition – How to Calculate Average

So listen all you knuckle draggers. Lets just stop the anecdotal superstitious moronic BS. The scientific consensus is global warming caused by burning fossil fuels is real.

Lol. Here allow me to explain why global mean temperature means nothing and I won't even address this supposed 97 percent consensus that doesn't exist.

A 1.78 degree global average temperature increase doesn't mean anything in regards to danger to the planet. You have to break it down by area. If there's a 2 degree increase at the poles sand a.3 degree decrease in the rust belt, there is no discernible affect on the world. And guess what? Plants grow better when there is more co2 so burn baby burn...

Jaden

a reply to: DBCowboy

You tell me. It seems like a bigger stretch to assume they're lying than to assume that a unanimous worldwide consensus speaks for itself.

Scientists will be paid one way or the other, what incentive on a worldwide basis do scientists have for lying about global warming?

You've been fooled by those who have infiltrated the global warming discussion, the likes of Al Gore who has called for taxes to combat it (which is a ridiculous idea, something we agree on).

The best way to get people to reject something is to convince them their money is going to be taken if they don't.

a reply to: SolAquarius

I agree, tell people a tax is needed to combat global warming and they will scatter away like cockroaches. Put all emphasis on climate change and people will ignore both the pollution aspect AND the global warming aspect (when taking the tax angle into perspective). Kill two birds with one stone.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Ooh so you felt like showcasing your idiocy and Liberal biases. Ok.

Jaden

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So you believe everything the government and scientists tell you.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If you want to put words in my mouth then yeah, that's what I believe 100%.

What makes you think it's a hoax? Al Gore saying it needs to be taxed?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Quit putting words in MY mouth.

I said I'm a skeptic and don't just blanket believe whatever is shoveled in front of me.

Why do you believe everything scientists and government tell you?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I didn't put words in your mouth, that's why I was asking you and not saying it with a certainty.

The reason I tend to believe it is because of the overall worldwide consensus of climate scientists. The government has no say in the data they collect, unless you just believe it's a giant conspiracy.

What's your reasoning behind thinking it's a hoax or conspiracy? Scientists will be paid whether global warming is real or not.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm actually a scientist.

I question everything about the data.

I've read papers on variance studies. 30 years ago, I'd have failed students if they had tried to pass some of the data off as fact.

I'm not convinced of sh#t.

But you are free to obey and blindly follow what they say.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Fair enough. Care to present any of the data that seems off or incorrect?

Let me get this right, we have Al Gore with his Nobel **** and a crowd of "Global Warming" followers and they all live in their electric power/gas supplied home, they all drive their "Gasoline" fueled cars/planes and tell us we can't have that ?????
WTF!!! when I see them living like the Amish maybe I'll start believing that GW ......

Please allow me to explain a few things. This may actually clear up some confusion on the topic.


Climate scientists use data that has been collected over time.

Say they use data from just 50 years until now.

1. They did not use the same temperature monitors (thermometers) over the same time span.
2. There are variances between temperature sensing devices.
3. Calibration of the temperature sensing devices has not been consistent or consistently documented.
4. Scientists did not collect all the data. They require volunteers to collect a large sampling. These volunteers are supposed to collect the data at the same time, every day.


Initial studies with a large N had an incredibly large margin of error.

To get around that, they developed a formula to "correct" for the variance. Of course, this formula supported their hypothesis.

This and all data can be read if you read the references,, and then the references of the references, since most use the same raw data points.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

And scientists are never wrong, nor do they ever have ulterior motives.

It's the scientific method that is never wrong, nor does it have alterior motives.
And it's what defines a scientist to use that scientific method.

The problem with climate change compared to all other environmental carnage going on is that it represents a threat that could seriouly jeopardise the conditions required for comfortable living. And once it becomes blatantly obvious that things are taking a turn for the worse, there is nothing that can be done about it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I think there's a huge possibility that the data that shows rising temperatures could just be the result of natural cycles part of Earth's lifespan, but CO2 has been shown to trap heat in the atmosphere.

How much we as a species are affecting that "trapping" I don't know but scientists imply that we are having a drastic enough effect that it requires action to curb it.

Whether their call to action is result of incomplete data (we've only been studying the climate for a fraction of a fraction of Earth's lifetime) or an actual red flag to our own CO2 emissions I don't claim to know, but I do feel that is worth having an honest discussion about it without letting politics get in the way of that discussion.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

CO2 measurements.

Who does it?
How long have they been doing it?
Have they used the same equipment?
How was the equipment calibrated?
How often was the equipment calibrated?
What environmental impact studies have been done to eliminate local variances?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I tend to trust easily unless past actions tell me not to. I have no reason to not trust the vast majority of climate scientists, they have yet to do anything to make me think they would be lying.

I don't blame you for questioning the scientists, I do too when you bring Earth's natural cycles into the mix, but as of right now I see no reason to think they would be lying, they have no reason to.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: SolAquarius

I agree, tell people a tax is needed to combat global warming and they will scatter away like cockroaches. Put all emphasis on climate change and people will ignore both the pollution aspect AND the global warming aspect (when taking the tax angle into perspective). Kill two birds with one stone.

I love nature it breaks my heart to see a forest cut down or a stream poisoned and polluted. But I have been suspicious of the whole global climate change agenda and the people who attach themselves to it and the way it is promoted as the primary environmental issue.

I get this scam vibe from it. Similar to a charity that has been hijacked for someone's personal gain. The way it has been politicised and promoted so aggressively makes me highly suspicious of an agenda at hand.
But since I am on a conspiracy site I am free to entertain such suspicions.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

AS a scientist, it's always in the best interests to question everything.

So when we all switch by mandate to electrical cars and the power stations and nuclear plants run quadruple to meet the energy demands of millions off fossil fuels to run their daily commutes, how does this help pollution?

Now we pay more per car, and carbon and 1st World Guilt taxes, but still kill the planet?