Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/17/2021 at 8:04 AM, Buffalo Timmy said:

Kay remember when he said no more snow? Or that hurricanes were part of global warming and then we had a record long time without hurricanes in the USA? He got one small part "right" assuming the data is not manipulated again. I will believe it is correct when the data is opened up to those whose openly disagree.

 

Ok, I haven’t seen the documentary since middle school and I don’t feel like watching it again lol... So instead, I ran a word search of “snow” and “hurricane” on a full PDF transcript of “An Inconvenient Truth.”

 

The only snow-related prediction Al Gore made was that “within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.” I assume this was intended to be a cutesy reference to the Ernest Hemingway story? It’s actually the glaciers we care most about, and they are most definitely shrinking near Kilimanjaro’s summit. How much these specific changes are connected to global warming is very debatable, but the general shrinking of glaciers around the world is indisputable and fully in accordance with global warming predictions.

 

Al Gore never made any official predictions of hurricanes in his documentary, aside from general allusions to them getting stronger and more frequent over time. But this is also indisputable, according to the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). You referenced the specific drought of no Category 3+ hurricanes striking the U.S. between 2005 (Wilma) and 2017 (Harvey), but that is a bit misleading because it ignores data like major hurricanes that struck other locations during that time, the severity of hurricane seasons since Harvey, and total number of hurricanes…not to mention financial damage and death tolls. This is somewhat analogous to the “weather versus climate” debate when it comes to data selectivity. But in all honesty, hurricane monitoring is a much less certain metric for global warming compared to the other ones, due to the nature of ocean currents.

 

I have no idea where you’re going with the data fabrication accusations. If this is a reference to the November 2009 Climategate controversy, it was debunked years ago. Climate science is no different with their data transparency than any of the other natural science subfields. It is practically impossible for science to maintain a grand operation of willful systemic data fabrication. The profession has way too many built-in mechanisms of checks and balances, especially on the international arena.

On 6/17/2021 at 8:11 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

Well there are really two separate issues going on.  The first is the "need" to lower greenhouse gas emissions to manage global temperature changes.  The second is the "need" to replace hydrocarbon based energy sources when the cheap and easy to find oil supply starts to run out.   The solution to replace oil and gas with electricity is a convenient and handy answer to both questions. 

But that leads to another issue which is the objective of electrifying all applications of hydrocarbon produced energy in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining the currently living arrangements, growth trajectories, and continuous increases in energy consumption required to support that growth (not even to mention advances in developing nations) is a pipe dream and a dead end.  There is no way this is going to happen through the deployment of solar panels and wind turbines.  The resources necessary don't exist on the planet or reside in countries or regions where there is resistance to developing them.  The capital expenditures will exceed current estimates by many multiples.  And our society and population are not at all equipped or ready to handle the radical changes to lifestyles and living conditions that will result.  And counting on some yet to be developed technological breakthrough in energy production isn't much of a strategy either.  The oil age provided a one-time bump in growth through a very efficient and cost effective means of producing large amounts energy and driving growth and progress but  once its gone the human race will revert to trend unless something is found that produces more energy more efficiently and at less cost.  Wind and solar and other renewables at current efficiencies at current cost just won't cut it.  We need to stop fooling ourselves and work to find an effective long term solution.

 

I still believe the U.S. can do its part in meeting the 2050 Paris Agreement goals without adversely affecting our economy. Doing so, however, will require more vigorous investments in nuclear energy and reforestation than we’re currently seeing from Biden. Advancements with carbon capture technology are simply moving way too slowly, as are positive changes within major greenhouse gas-polluting industries like agriculture and aviation.

 

In my opinion, our ideal composite energy solution should be centered around nuclear and solar, as well as electric vehicles. Bear in mind that I did not whimsically reach this conclusion! All energy resources have benefits and drawbacks, of course, but prioritizing these three would be the most optimal from the perspective of energy production versus risks of environmental degradation.

 

A note on electric vehicles: lithium-ion batteries are already more “green” than conventional fossil fuels, in overall terms of usage plus resource extraction. We can render them more friendly to the environment by working with several South American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile) and making sure suitable government regulations are imposed on brine deposit mining. I also like the progress that scientists and engineers are making on viable battery material alternatives to lithium, which is why I’m so sanguine about electrical cars.

[Orlando Tim]

6 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Ok, I haven’t seen the documentary since middle school and I don’t feel like watching it again lol... So instead, I ran a word search of “snow” and “hurricane” on a full PDF transcript of “An Inconvenient Truth.”

 

The only snow-related prediction Al Gore made was that “within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.” I assume this was intended to be a cutesy reference to the Ernest Hemingway story? It’s actually the glaciers we care most about, and they are most definitely shrinking near Kilimanjaro’s summit. How much these specific changes are connected to global warming is very debatable, but the general shrinking of glaciers around the world is indisputable and fully in accordance with global warming predictions.

 

Al Gore never made any official predictions of hurricanes in his documentary, aside from general allusions to them getting stronger and more frequent over time. But this is also indisputable, according to the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). You referenced the specific drought of no Category 3+ hurricanes striking the U.S. between 2005 (Wilma) and 2017 (Harvey), but that is a bit misleading because it ignores data like major hurricanes that struck other locations during that time, the severity of hurricane seasons since Harvey, and total number of hurricanes…not to mention financial damage and death tolls. This is somewhat analogous to the “weather versus climate” debate when it comes to data selectivity. But in all honesty, hurricane monitoring is a much less certain metric for global warming compared to the other ones, due to the nature of ocean currents.

 

I have no idea where you’re going with the data fabrication accusations. If this is a reference to the November 2009 Climategate controversy, it was debunked years ago. Climate science is no different with their data transparency than any of the other natural science subfields. It is practically impossible for science to maintain a grand operation of willful systemic data fabrication. The profession has way too many built-in mechanisms of checks and balances, especially on the international arena.

 

I still believe the U.S. can do its part in meeting the 2050 Paris Agreement goals without adversely affecting our economy. Doing so, however, will require more vigorous investments in nuclear energy and reforestation than we’re currently seeing from Biden. Advancements with carbon capture technology are simply moving way too slowly, as are positive changes within major greenhouse gas-polluting industries like agriculture and aviation.

 

In my opinion, our ideal composite energy solution should be centered around nuclear and solar, as well as electric vehicles. Bear in mind that I did not whimsically reach this conclusion! All energy resources have benefits and drawbacks, of course, but prioritizing these three would be the most optimal from the perspective of energy production versus risks of environmental degradation.

 

A note on electric vehicles: lithium-ion batteries are already more “green” than conventional fossil fuels, in overall terms of usage plus resource extraction. We can render them more friendly to the environment by working with several South American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile) and making sure suitable government regulations are imposed on brine deposit mining. I also like the progress that scientists and engineers are making on viable battery material alternatives to lithium, which is why I’m so sanguine about electrical cars.

So he was totally and  completely wrong on the two things I remembered. Your argument is that I am right but some caveat that is trying to save face. He predicted much less snow, which has not happened and he predicted more hurricanes right before the longest period of no hurricanes in US history, almost as dumb as giving a speech on global warming in NYC on the coldest day in the city history, which he also did. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

58 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

So he was totally and  completely wrong on the two things I remembered. Your argument is that I am right but some caveat that is trying to save face. He predicted much less snow, which has not happened and he predicted more hurricanes right before the longest period of no hurricanes in US history, almost as dumb as giving a speech on global warming in NYC on the coldest day in the city history, which he also did. 

 

WTF?!?!

 

1. Hurricanes overall HAVE become more numerous and stronger since 2006, according to NOAA, The Earth Institute at Columbia, NASA, and pretty much every credible climate scientist on this planet. I never argued otherwise. You cherry-picked your data and I explicitly told you how you did so to reach an incorrect logical conclusion.

 

2. Al Gore did NOT predict “much less snow” for the planet, if that is your intimation. He made a single sloppy literary reference for a single mountain peak. You fixate on this one technicality that he got wrong, but then you fail to address the broader intended point of shrinking alpine glaciers around the world. Why is that?? Hmmm…

 

You also very conveniently choose to not address EVERYTHING ELSE that Al Gore covered in his documentary. Why is that?? You claimed that he basically got everything wrong, but then you don’t back that assertion up with ANY data references. BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS WITH PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH PAPERS.

 

Oh, and then you concluded your post with a classic “weather = climate” fallacy. Impressive.

[Orlando Tim]

13 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

WTF?!?!

 

1. Hurricanes overall HAVE become more numerous and stronger since 2006, according to NOAA, The Earth Institute at Columbia, NASA, and pretty much every credible climate scientist on this planet. I never argued otherwise. You cherry-picked your data and I explicitly told you how you did so to reach an incorrect logical conclusion.

 

2. Al Gore did NOT predict “much less snow” for the planet, if that is your intimation. He made a single sloppy literary reference for a single mountain peak. You fixate on this one technicality that he got wrong, but then you fail to address the broader intended point of shrinking alpine glaciers around the world. Why is that?? Hmmm…

 

You also very conveniently choose to not address EVERYTHING ELSE that Al Gore covered in his documentary. Why is that?? You claimed that he basically got everything wrong, but then you don’t back that assertion up with ANY data references. BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS WITH PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH PAPERS.

 

Oh, and then you concluded your post with a classic “weather = climate” fallacy. Impressive.

Weather eventually equals climate. But I assume you mean crap science that is being quoted below where they argue the water has raised 9 inches, if it had raised 9 inches in 150 years the Florida Keys would look much different, as well as many other areas. If you believe stupid crap like this I can't help you.https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/12/us/hurricanes-climate-change/

 

As for gore and snow here is entire comment:

"And now we’re beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago. Another friend of mine Lonnie Thompson studies glaciers. Here’s Lonnie with a sliver of a once mighty glacier. Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.”  -Algore, “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006)

 

Of course 2018 had more snow on Kilimanjaro than in recorded history. We also would be in the hockey stick part of the graph if he was right based on the amount of pollution from China and India if he was correct. 

 

Lastly there are no peer reviewed articles because the data is controlled, we know all the data prior to 2005ish was questionable and the raw data is gone. If you only question the data that disagrees with you then you are not a scientist, and most of these guys are trying to prove their point 

 

 

 

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/19/2021 at 9:29 AM, Buffalo Timmy said:

Weather eventually equals climate. But I assume you mean crap science that is being quoted below where they argue the water has raised 9 inches, if it had raised 9 inches in 150 years the Florida Keys would look much different, as well as many other areas. If you believe stupid crap like this I can't help you.https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/12/us/hurricanes-climate-change/

 

As for gore and snow here is entire comment:

"And now we’re beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago. Another friend of mine Lonnie Thompson studies glaciers. Here’s Lonnie with a sliver of a once mighty glacier. Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.”  -Algore, “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006)

 

Of course 2018 had more snow on Kilimanjaro than in recorded history. We also would be in the hockey stick part of the graph if he was right based on the amount of pollution from China and India if he was correct. 

 

Lastly there are no peer reviewed articles because the data is controlled, we know all the data prior to 2005ish was questionable and the raw data is gone. If you only question the data that disagrees with you then you are not a scientist, and most of these guys are trying to prove their point 

 

I’m not familiar with Florida Keys topography, but I absolutely do believe in the accuracy of global sea level data from the past 150 years. We have multiple ways of verification, including landmass deformations and tide gauges and, most recently, satellites. The different methods applied at different locations all point to the same conclusion with relatively minor numerical deviation. You at least appear to be more confident in the data since about 2005, all of which indicate global sea levels having risen between 50-65 millimeters (1.9-2.6 inches) over the past 15 or so years. Oceanographers, civil engineers, the U.S. Navy, and people who live and work along coasts don’t disagree with those numbers. Many lives and careers depend on such data being accurate and uncorrupted.

 

Your second-to-last sentence is very telling and is unfortunately where I sensed this discussion was headed. Healthy climate change skepticism in this country has devolved into a logically unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. Instead of constantly demeaning climatologists from afar, please try conversing with some so that you may have your scientific concerns properly addressed.

[Orlando Tim]

14 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

I’m not familiar with Florida Keys topography, but I absolutely do believe in the accuracy of global sea level data from the past 150 years. We have multiple ways of verification, including landmass deformations and tide gauges and, most recently, satellites. The different methods applied at different locations all point to the same conclusion with relatively minor numerical deviation. You at least appear to be more confident in the data since about 2005, all of which indicate global sea levels having risen between 50-65 millimeters (1.9-2.6 inches) over the past 15 or so years. Oceanographers, civil engineers, the U.S. Navy, and people who live and work along coasts don’t disagree with those numbers. Many lives and careers depend on such data being accurate and uncorrupted.

 

Your second-to-last sentence is very telling and is unfortunately where I sensed this discussion was headed. Healthy climate change skepticism in this country has devolved into a logically unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. Instead of constantly demeaning climatologists from afar, please try conversing with some so that you may have your scientific concerns properly addressed.

It is not a conspiracy theory when they can't show you the raw data. Asking for the proof is what intelligent people do. Allowing the skeptics access to your data is what scientists do and unless it has changed recently climate data is still protected from those that trash it. Lastly my original point, that you seem to have confirmed, that everything that was in An Inconvenient Truth has not come to pass. You and I will most likely never see eye to eye for several reasons 1) I am skeptical of anyone who wants my money for a vague cause 2) I don't trust goverment to fix it even if correct 3) the world is constantly changing and global warming has spend 30 years telling me they know why and then being wrong- often completely wrong. 

[Tiberius]

Natural gas already becoming an antiquated resource! Wow 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/batteries-challenge-natural-gas-elecric-power-generation-11620236583?mod=e2fb&fbclid=IwAR1raw0_2s_kRr4aENjh6pjUcTTe0ocOA7Xz22nvkSagZn2-p0dlzo2VuKo

[B-Man]

 

 

SMH: Young People Are Pouring Their Money into Climate Charities.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/27/smh-young-people-are-pouring-their-money-into-climate-charities/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2021/06/29/left-wing-activists-do-an-insurrection-and-perfectly-demonstrate-our-dual-justice-system-n404196

 

 

Left-Wing Activists Do an 'Insurrection' and Perfectly Demonstrate Our Dual Justice System

 

FTA:

 

Yet, no sooner than that piece had gone live, news of more left-wing activists being treated differently emerged. The climate change group showed up in Washington D.C. and then blocked all ten entrances to the White House, sitting in roads and taking over guard shacks. This was done as part of a demand to include a “civilian climate corps” in the recent infrastructure deal, which is a favorite pet project of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

 

 

 

Now, I’m no expert, but I’ve been assured that this kind of trespassing in an attempt to stop the machinations of government is called an “insurrection,” though, I personally believe that descriptor is ludicrous in all these cases (which is why I put the word in quotes in the headline). Regardless, the Secret Service did start to arrest and remove these people.

 

 

 

  

 

 

Did you get that? If you are a left-wing activist trespassing on federal property in order to make demands of Congress, you not only don’t go to jail, you get let free the same day without so much as a ticket for your troubles (or if they were ticketed, they aren’t saying). And yes, despite a lot of the media’s framing, almost everyone arrested on January 6th only committed the grand crime of misdemeanor trespassing according to the DOJ itself.

 

Further, these people were clearly prompted by Ocasio-Cortez given they were trespassing to promote her legislative baby. Will the press investigate her and accuse her of fomenting unrest? I think we know the answer to that.

 

And sure, there are differences between this and January 6th, but those differences are purely symbolic when talking about the trespassing cases. If a grandmother breaks the law by walking around the Capitol Rotunda after others open the doors, is that somehow magnitudes more serious than these left-wing activists trespassing? I’d posit that the answer is obviously no. Yet, the DOJ is a political arm at this point, and their disparate treatment of cases that just so happens to track along partisan lines is apparent.

 

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

On 6/19/2021 at 9:29 AM, Buffalo Timmy said:

Weather eventually equals climate. But I assume you mean crap science that is being quoted below where they argue the water has raised 9 inches, if it had raised 9 inches in 150 years the Florida Keys would look much different, as well as many other areas. If you believe stupid crap like this I can't help you.https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/12/us/hurricanes-climate-change/

 

As for gore and snow here is entire comment:

"And now we’re beginning to see the impact in the real world. This is Mount Kilimanjaro more than 30 years ago, and more recently. And a friend of mine just came back from Kilimanjaro with a picture he took a couple of months ago. Another friend of mine Lonnie Thompson studies glaciers. Here’s Lonnie with a sliver of a once mighty glacier. Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro.”  -Algore, “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006)

 

Of course 2018 had more snow on Kilimanjaro than in recorded history. We also would be in the hockey stick part of the graph if he was right based on the amount of pollution from China and India if he was correct. 

 

Lastly there are no peer reviewed articles because the data is controlled, we know all the data prior to 2005ish was questionable and the raw data is gone. If you only question the data that disagrees with you then you are not a scientist, and most of these guys are trying to prove their point 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you think Al Gore knew how bad the carbon footprint of the internet would be when he invented it? 

[B-Man]

 

[Westside]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Mother Nature is racist

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by B-Man

[Chef Jim]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

What in the ever loving hell??   
 

So Palm Springs is less affluent than Inglewood. 

[716er]

Hoax, eh?

[B-Man]

 

 

SWINDLE OF THE CENTURY: 

 

Norway Carbon Offset Deal Blows Up Rationale for Biden’s Trillions to Fight Climate Change.

 

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/07/01/norway_carbon_offset_deal_blows_up_rationale_for_bidens_trillions_to_fight_climate_change_783854.html

 

Norway has long positioned itself as green, even though it is one of world’s largest oil producers. Norway plans to increase its oil production by 40 percent by 2025 and is expanding its Arctic drilling program.

 

To maintain its green pose, Norway is buying offsets. What’s interesting about the Gabon offsets is that Norway is purchasing them for a mere $5 per ton of CO2 “stored.”

 

Keeping in mind that Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats want to spend trillions and trillions of dollars on climate, Norway seems to have found a solution it can sign on to – CO2 offsets at $5 per ton.

 

The U.S. consumption of energy produces about 5 billion tons of CO2 per year. So at $5 per ton, the entire U.S. energy-related CO2 footprint could be offset Norway-style for “mere” $25 billion. That is a lot less than Biden’s trillion and trillions of dollars.

 

 

 

 

It was never about saving the earth. It was always about getting the money.

 

 

[ALF]

Last month was the hottest June on record for the lower 48 states

 

Tens of millions of people in the Southwest roasted under an intense heat dome around the middle of the month, which lasted for nearly a week. Overnight lows in Phoenix didn't drop below 90 degrees. Hundreds of records were set across seven states.

Little more than a week later, a historic heat wave set up in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon and Washington saw all-time high temperatures. British Columbia set a new maximum temperature record for all of Canada. Hundreds died as a result of the heat, which settled over a region ill-equiped to handle it.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/09/weather/june-hottest-on-record/index.html

[Frat-Train]

2 minutes ago, ALF said:

Last month was the hottest June on record for the lower 48 states

 

Tens of millions of people in the Southwest roasted under an intense heat dome around the middle of the month, which lasted for nearly a week. Overnight lows in Phoenix didn't drop below 90 degrees. Hundreds of records were set across seven states.

Little more than a week later, a historic heat wave set up in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon and Washington saw all-time high temperatures. British Columbia set a new maximum temperature record for all of Canada. Hundreds died as a result of the heat, which settled over a region ill-equiped to handle it.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/09/weather/june-hottest-on-record/index.html

In 2013, CNN entered into a cosponsorship with China.  You would think if Climate change was so paramount, Turner broadcasting and its subsidiaries wouldn’t be aligned with the largest polluter on earth, while lecturing others about climate change.  Seems rather hypocritical, doesn’t it?  

[ALF]

30 minutes ago, Frat-Train said:

In 2013, CNN entered into a cosponsorship with China.  You would think if Climate change was so paramount, Turner broadcasting and its subsidiaries wouldn’t be aligned with the largest polluter on earth, while lecturing others about climate change.  Seems rather hypocritical, doesn’t it?  

 

This is reported on all medias not just CNN. 

[Frat-Train]

Just now, ALF said:

 

This is reported on all medias not just CNN. 

Not at all doubting that.  My point is it seems rather hypocritical to quote a climate change advocating source, that is mostly owned by the largest contributor to climate change.  I believe in climate change.  I don’t believe CNN does, or they wouldn’t be affiliated with the ones actually causing it.  And I would never quote such a hypocritical source if I were truly focused on the necessary change that was needed.  If you believe in climate change, you have no problem blaming China, Russia, India and others who are truly destroying the planet.  I haven’t heard anyone from the media or in far-left leaning politics do so.  That should tell you how serious they are about actual climate change.