The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 596/600)
jmclemore JUN 02, 02:40 AM

quote
Originally posted by Hudini:

"President Trump is withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Accord".



Good
Too bad the media will ignore any benefit gained from pulling out of this Trojan horse deal.

If the United States is the largest polluter, would it be more productive to quit giving away billions to foreign governments and institutions and use those dollars to resolve our domestic environmental issues.


rogergarrison JUN 04, 07:30 PM

quote
Originally posted by dobey:


Unlike you, scientists can actually do math.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Methane is a greenhouse gas. Significant increase in humans on the planet means significant increase in both, as well as significant increase of domesticated livestock population. Domesticated livestock exist solely as a food source, and produce massive amounts of methane and CO2. Humans are also the ONLY species on the planet, which have significantly altered not only the landscape, but the plants and animals which make up that landscape, in an effort to make themselves more comfortable. No other species tears down entire forests, and digs up coal, uranium, and whatever other minerals there are, to create energy and use in manufacturing tools to dig up coal, uranium, and whatever else.

Massive population increase of humans and livestock.
Massive deforestation.
Massive mining.
Massive amounts of manufacturing.

The Earth will be fine, yes. It can overcome such behavior. But only at the expense of Humanity itself. But yeah, only every scientific body on the planet, and every second and first world country, agree on the Anthropocene. I'm sure you know much more than these thousands of people who have spent generations studying climate, space, and everything else, though. Because you are posting on this Internet forum, and they are not. So therefore, you must be correct.



First, right off the bat, scientists have been proven wrong about thousands of their 'facts' from their beginning.

Next, one could argue that coal and oil are both NATURAL Earth resources that were NOT created by man, but mother nature....like oceans and forests. I always hear using naturally produced products is always good for the people and the planet. Who can we blame when a volcano erupts ? Soooooo ?
E.Furgal JUN 05, 10:13 PM
Today we had a record

LOW!!!. it was cooler today than it ever has been since we have kept records..
Hudini JUN 06, 06:28 AM
You have to stop that thinking. If it's cold, it's weather. If it's hot, it's climate change.
E.Furgal JUN 06, 09:06 AM

quote
Originally posted by Hudini:

You have to stop that thinking. If it's cold, it's weather. If it's hot, it's climate change.



I know lol

I love the news, They will do the weather.. and (example) will say todays high was 87* and the record high was 102* set in 1804 .
Then go back to the news anchor that will be doing a piece on climate change.. The last time they did this.. in the middle of the climate change piece the other news reporter at the desk, asked the weather gal, what was the record again... The anchor kinda mumbled along after that.. I think even he saw the whole b/s of a climate change piece coming after a weather update and a record high date of 213 years ago.. Wish I was a fly on the wall when it went to comercials. I'm sure the reporter that asked for that date of the record high mid story, got a f-u off air..

[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 06-06-2017).]

avengador1 JUN 14, 10:06 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/bi...ok&utm_medium=social
rinselberg AUG 03, 01:14 AM
Back by popular demand, with an all-star cast (of one), it's the Man You Love To Hate.

Click to show

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-03-2017).]

cliffw AUG 03, 01:24 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:



Really ?

MSNBC ?
Always good for a laugh.

Really ?
Al Gore ?
Always good for a laugh.

New York City is supposed to be under water, quote Al Gore.
Hudini MAY 30, 12:10 AM
I can't believe you guys let this thread go silent. So I thought I'd stir the pot a little:

Remember "97% consensus" figure? For some reason I didn't know it was thoroughly debunked. Must have missed class that day.

https://wattsupwiththat.com...g-major-math-errors/
rinselberg MAY 30, 03:37 PM
This images is larger than 153600 bytes. Click to view.

I think the Watts Up With That or WUWT blog post that's just been presented and the literature that it references is a rabbit hole. I think it's meaningless. It's also from 2013, so kind of stale by now. If I were going to invest more time to examine it, I would look for more recent commentary about it.

I went to the reader's comments that are below it.

Here's one from "Dan."

quote
“Leading climatologist” Dr. David Legates is also a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation’s “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” which states, in part: “We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception.”


I think if anyone were to take up the Internet or online trail that starts here--descend into the "rabbit hole" that this looks to be--they will find that this WUWT blog post is weighted in favor of a particular strain of Christian belief--Evangelicals, or at least, some Evangelicals--and not firmly grounded in science, or in any systematic and scientific examination of the totality of the scientific literature as it relates to the topic of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Here's another comment, from "arthur4563."

quote
Still no mention of the fallacy of assuming the opinions found in a paper written 20 years ago are the same the author holds today?


It's not clear to me where "arthur4563" was trying to go with that comment, but I believe that if an in-depth examination of this WUWT blog post from 2013 were to be pursued, it would reveal two unscientific fallacies that are behind it:
  1. Giving equal weight to every individual report in the scientific literature, going all the way back to 1991, instead of favoring the most up to date reports.
  2. Giving equal weight to what any one researcher or group of researchers reported at any time between 1991 and 2011, without regard to how their research reports changed over time.

Two unscientific fallacies that partly overlap with one another. Call it "one and a half."


When I look at this WUWT blog post from 2013, I think I'm looking at "fog" from the Anthropogenic Global Warming denialist fog machine.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-30-2020).]