What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryStotle said:
How about we discuss how using temperature anomalies – as in deviation from the mean temperature –between 1850 and 1900 is a very deceptive way to portray the severity of warming ?
Click to expand...
One could follow the money trail in order to ferret out all liars…

Money Trail?

Upwards of 100 Trillion USD in Carbon Taxation is what we’re talking of…

And when there’s large portions of Dough… there’s very often Criminals involved.
 
HarryStotle said:
How about we discuss how using temperature anomalies – as in deviation from the mean temperature –between 1850 and 1900 is a very deceptive way to portray the severity of warming ?
Click to expand...
I looked at your two graphs, and the second one is much more deceptive because it obscures the magnitude of the change by showing a graphical range much larger than necessary. It is the old range vs resolution tradeoff. It would be like making a fever thermometer that was scaled to read from 0 F to 250 F. No medical professional would ever want such a useless thermometer.
 
There’s graphs and there’s graphs.

I take the wait and see approach…

And I note that India and Pakistan are recording Record Cold…

Was that known by those who tell us what our Climate future is supposed to be bringing?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
K, I have looked into this claim, and I have to call it bogus. The US is still the biggest per capita net emitter (counting any sequestration) of any nation.
Click to expand...
Call it bogus all you want, but your unsupported assertion certainly doesn’t establish it. Sooner or later I’ll find the time to do the research. Of course, since it’s politically incorrect, it’s difficult to find. What’s not difficult to find is that forests in the U.S. eat up about 20% of emissions and grasslands eat up a lot more than forests. I’ll find it, don’t worry.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
How about we discuss how using temperature anomalies – as in deviation from the mean temperature –between 1850 and 1900 is a very deceptive way to portray the severity of warming ?
Click to expand...
I looked at your two graphs, and the second one is much more deceptive because it obscures the magnitude of the change by showing a graphical range much larger than necessary. It is the old range vs resolution tradeoff. It would be like making a fever thermometer that was scaled to read from 0 F to 250 F. No medical professional would ever want such a useless thermometer.
Click to expand...
Again – since we have discussed this before – your analogy only works if it can be reliably determined what the acceptable or “healthy” temperature range for the globe is supposed to be.

We know with certainty that the temperature range for a human body is between 97° and 99°C. Higher or lower than that is problematic for cellular and organ function.

We don’t know with any degree of certainty that the difference between 55°F and 60°F is problematic as far as life on Earth is concerned. We are being told a narrative that above 58°F will trigger cataclysmic change, yet some 95%+ of the Earth’s history has been well above 58°F.

We also know with certainty that an increase of CO2 and higher temperatures will both be great for plant and animal life. In fact, higher CO2 will spur plant flourishing and plant flourishing will help reduce CO2 in the atmosphere – a kind of fail-safe mechanism built into nature.

It appears that a lack of faith in the providential hand of God leads progressive secularists to believe – wrongly – that humans are the only “intelligent” beings capable of superintending nature. Which is both wrong-headed and hubris-filled since we don’t really know enough about nature to know whether the current alarmist prognosis is at all correct.

Climate science is at about the stage medicine was at when it advocated blood-letting or amputation to save life. Which, I suppose makes sense, since modern progressives also recommend child-sacrifice to appease the weather gods.
 
HarryStotle said:
Again – since we have discussed this before – your analogy only works if it can be reliably determined what the acceptable or “healthy” temperature range for the globe is supposed to be.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Your second graph was misleading because the vertical axis was scaled to be 10 time larger than it needs to be to contain the data. Any graph can be made to look fairly constant if you inflate the vertical scale to an extreme proportion.
HarryStotle said:
We know with certainty that the temperature range for a human body is between 97° and 99°C. Higher or lower than that is problematic for cellular and organ function.
Click to expand...
Yet the thermometer goes to 106 or 108 and down to 95, because that is what is needed to contain the expected range of the data. If you do the same thing for the world temperature trend chart you will have a more honest graph.
HarryStotle said:
We also know with certainty that an increase of CO2 and higher temperatures will both be great for plant and animal life.
Click to expand...
Wrong. We know that an increase in CO2 while keeping everything else constant and controlled makes many plants grow better in a greenhouse. Out in the wild, we cannot control everything else. So your conclusion is invalid.
HarryStotle said:
It appears that a lack of faith in the providential hand of God leads progressive secularists to believe – wrongly – that humans are the only “intelligent” beings capable of superintending nature.
Click to expand...
Our faith does not teach us that God will clean up all our messes for us.

HarryStotle said:
since we don’t really know enough about nature to know whether the current alarmist prognosis is at all correct.
Click to expand...
Most scientists disagree with that.
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
It appears that a lack of faith in the providential hand of God leads progressive secularists to believe – wrongly – that humans are the only “intelligent” beings capable of superintending nature.
Click to expand...
Our faith does not teach us that God will clean up all our messes for us.
Click to expand...
Neither does it teach us that population control via contraception, abortion, population control, and euthanasia; lowering living standards in the developing world, and jeopardizing civilization – i.e., creating bigger messes – will solve our current “problems.”
 
HarryStotle said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
HarryStotle:
It appears that a lack of faith in the providential hand of God leads progressive secularists to believe – wrongly – that humans are the only “intelligent” beings capable of superintending nature.
Click to expand...
Our faith does not teach us that God will clean up all our messes for us.
Click to expand...
Neither does it teach us that population control via contraception, abortion, population control, and euthanasia; lowering living standards in the developing world, and jeopardizing civilization – i.e., creating bigger messes – will solve our current “problems.”
Click to expand...
No argument there. So?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
HarryStotle:
It appears that a lack of faith in the providential hand of God leads progressive secularists to believe – wrongly – that humans are the only “intelligent” beings capable of superintending nature.
Click to expand...
Our faith does not teach us that God will clean up all our messes for us.
Click to expand...
Neither does it teach us that population control via contraception, abortion, population control, and euthanasia; lowering living standards in the developing world, and jeopardizing civilization – i.e., creating bigger messes – will solve our current “problems.”
Click to expand...
No argument there. So?
Click to expand...
So what is your solution to address the supposed problem of climate change that does not seriously jeopardize human life on earth?

Moving away from fossil fuels at a rapid rate when solar and wind cannot possibly meet the needs of humanity will result in a larger catastrophe than coping with the effects of increased CO2 as they arise.

That is the solution of individuals like Bjorn Lomborg, for example.

As a Democrat – and since every Democrat candidate for president has signed on to the most alarmist view of climate change – which candidate has the most reasonable platform in your estimation.
 
HarryStotle said:
We also know with certainty that an increase of CO2 and higher temperatures will both be great for plant and animal life.
Click to expand...
A conservative estimate of animals affected so far in the bush fires in Australia is half a billion with many hundreds of millions killed. The extra Co2 didn’t help there.There are so many dead cattle and sheep that the army is being called in to help bury them.

The area burnt so far (and we have a long hot and dry summer in front of us) is larger than Belgium. And that’s just in my state of NSW. The ancient Wollembi pines which were thought to have been extinct for millions of years and were found in a small valley in the Blue Mountains a few years ago are now thought to be gone. The extra Co2 didn’t help there.

Some of the rain forests on our northern border dating back tens of millions of years and which have never burnt before are burning now. The extra Co2 didn’t help there.
 
Last edited:
Climate change did not begin with this title, it evolved. The idea here is any weather pattern today is attributed to the global warning belief. The fact that there are many conservative scientist who have rejected it outright, should signal to any rational person that this is all political propaganda to gain power over world resources. Those at the top who fund it are all left leaning socialist and communist. Hello!
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Some of the rain forests on our northern border dating back tens of millions of years and which have never burnt before are burning now. The extra Co2 didn’t help there.
Click to expand...
A cure for cancer would be great for cancer sufferers.

Millions die of heart disease.

The cure for cancer didn’t help there.

What is your point?

If you want to assume the extra CO2 in the atmosphere caused the fires, you need to make that case.


Black Thursday in 1851 – when CO2 levels were at pre-industrial levels – destroyed half of Victoria. The temperature reached 117°F (47.22°C) in the shade. A million sheep, thousands of cattle and countless native animals died in the fire. This back when the population of Australia was about 400 000.

From Wikipedia:
Intense bushfires are not uncommon in southern Australia. The region is one of the three most fire-prone in the world. Within the last two hundred years, the area has experienced and documented at least twenty-five major fires, beginning with Black Thursday in 1851. The intensity of these fires is due in part to natural fuels, such as sclerophyll forests in the region. While adapting to cope with drought and predators, the trees’ leaves turn into prime fuel for fires. They become tough as protection from dry conditions and to increase the efficiency of nutrient use. They also develop tough spikes and chemicals to protect themselves from small animals. The leaves’ tough surface allows them to last longer and build up on the forest floor and the chemical makes them flammable. The abundance of flammable fuel can cause an inferno with a single spark.
 
Thanks but I’ve found actually discussing climate change to be an utter waste of my time. I’ll simply be relating abnormal events as they occur. Events that we have been warned were coming. So when people have told us that we will experience more severe droughts because of climate change and that will cause worse bush fire conditions and those predictions come true then I’ll post the details.

I’m not interested in your interpretations of these events.

Edit: Highlighted the relevant parts in case someone misses them…
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Events that we have been warned were coming. So when people have told us that we will experience more severe droughts because of climate change and that will cause worse bush fire conditions and those predictions come true then I’ll post the details.
Click to expand...
Pretty hard to miss on a prediction of severe drought and devastating fires in an area which is prone to severe droughts and devastating fires.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top