Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[ALF]

It is what it is , I doubt it can be solved, too expensive to be honest.

[Frat-Train]

3 minutes ago, ALF said:

It is what it is , I doubt it can be solved, too expensive to be honest.

It can totally be solved.  Hold those accountable who ARE accountable (looks at China) and stop putting scum like John Kerry as a point person.  The only thing “hoaxy” about our climate changing is that any elected official actually cares.  So when we see 9 nations stand together in unity and Not call out and sanction the top offenders…. That’s all we need to know about the efforts against our changing climate.  They’re interested in a greener planet.  The kind you can spend.   

[SoCal Deek]

It was over the day it changed from Global Warming to Climate Change. That’s when politics and money converged to destroy the narrative. 

[Orlando Tim]

Something I noticed when looking at record highs in much of the West is that the records that are being broken are most often from the 1930's. That does not seem likely that these records could last long if the reason for the heat was carbon as the amount being pumped has shot up for so long.

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Something I noticed when looking at record highs in much of the West is that the records that are being broken are most often from the 1930's. That does not seem likely that these records could last long if the reason for the heat was carbon as the amount being pumped has shot up for so long.

The thermometer is only a few years older than the United States. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

ANOTHER CLIMATE ALARM LOSES ITS MOJO

 

We all know the Great Barrier Reef is in danger of disappearing because of c—— c—–. The climatistas tell us so, at every opportunity:

 

 

Well guess what Mom? Check in with The Australian (behind a paywall so here is the relevant text—made available by the indispensable Global Warming Policy Foundation):

 

The annual data on coral cover for the Great Barrier Reef, produced by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, was released on Monday showing the amount of coral on the reef is at record high levels. Record high, despite all the doom stories by our reef science and management institutions.

Like all other data on the reef, this shows it is in robust health. For example, coral growth rates have, if anything, increased over the past 100 years and measurements of farm pesticides reaching the reef show levels so low that they cannot be detected with the most ultra-sensitive equipment.

 

 

 

Even The Guardian gets it (sort of):

 

 

 

The 21-country World Heritage Committee on Friday ignored a scientific assessment from the UN’s science and culture organisation, Unesco, that the reef was clearly in danger from climate change and so should be placed on the list.

 

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/07/another-climate-alarm-loses-its-mojo.php

 

Pretty sure I’d ignore a “scientific assessment” from the totally politicized and non-scientific UNESCO too.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

DENNIS PRAGER: The Media Produces Derangement: Proof From New York Times Readers.

 

This past weekend, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd added another column to the myriad irrational and hysterical pieces about the “existential threat” climate change allegedly poses to human life.

 

As I do after almost every piece I read on the internet, I read comments submitted by readers.

 

One provided me with an epiphany.

 

It was a comment submitted by New York Times reader “Sophia” of Bangor, Maine:

 

“I have one child, a daughter, who told me age 8 that she would never have a child because of global warming. She’s now 34 and has never changed her mind. So I will not experience a grandchild. For her wisdom, I am grateful. I would be heartsick if I did have a grandchild who would have to experience the onslaught of changing climate.”

 

It is hard to imagine greater proof than that comment of the power of mass media and of the left. That a normal woman would celebrate her daughter’s choice not to be a mother and not to make her a grandmother can only be described as deranged. No normal-thinking human being would think that way.

 

Jews had children during the Holocaust and made sure to have children if they survived the Holocaust.

 

Does this deranged woman know how few people are dying due to weather-related incidents in the era of global warming?

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2021/07/27/the-media-produces-derangement-proof-from-new-york-times-readers-n2593145

 

Read the whole thing.

 

 

 

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 7/23/2021 at 5:23 PM, B-Man said:

ANOTHER CLIMATE ALARM LOSES ITS MOJO

 

We all know the Great Barrier Reef is in danger of disappearing because of c—— c—–. The climatistas tell us so, at every opportunity:

 

 

Well guess what Mom? Check in with The Australian (behind a paywall so here is the relevant text—made available by the indispensable Global Warming Policy Foundation):

 

The annual data on coral cover for the Great Barrier Reef, produced by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, was released on Monday showing the amount of coral on the reef is at record high levels. Record high, despite all the doom stories by our reef science and management institutions.

Like all other data on the reef, this shows it is in robust health. For example, coral growth rates have, if anything, increased over the past 100 years and measurements of farm pesticides reaching the reef show levels so low that they cannot be detected with the most ultra-sensitive equipment.

 

 

Even The Guardian gets it (sort of):

 

 

The 21-country World Heritage Committee on Friday ignored a scientific assessment from the UN’s science and culture organisation, Unesco, that the reef was clearly in danger from climate change and so should be placed on the list.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/07/another-climate-alarm-loses-its-mojo.php

 

Pretty sure I’d ignore a “scientific assessment” from the totally politicized and non-scientific UNESCO too.

 

Oh no…this editorialized sentence from the article is a BLATANT lie: “Like all other data on the reef, this shows it is in robust health.”

 

For starters, coral growth rates and coral cover percentages don’t tell us anything about the species composition of the newly formed coral. As an extreme example, imagine that every other coral species but one could be dying off, but that one randomly well-adapted species could be spreading like wildfire. This would definitely not indicate that the overall reef biome is in good health, bearing in mind the complex interdependencies of all the highly diverse members typically occupying coral reef ecosystems.

 

Coral bleaching data is BY FAR the most important indicator of coral reef health, but discussion of it in the article excerpt is conspicuously absent.

 

While localized ocean current temperatures around the Great Barrier Reef may vary in any given season like weather does above any region of land, we know for sure that global mean ocean temperatures are continuously rising. We also know for sure that rising ocean temperatures threaten coral life in coral reefs everywhere. This is a basic principle of coral fauna. The coral of the Great Barrier Reef are no exception.

 

Basically, not a single credible oceanographer or marine biologist on this planet would disagree with the information I provided above. Anyone telling people not to worry about the vitality of coral reefs this century has been propagandized by the fossil fuel industry. It is unfortunate that other countries like Australia are also victims of this propaganda.

 

[Orlando Tim]

18 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Oh no…this editorialized sentence from the article is a BLATANT lie: “Like all other data on the reef, this shows it is in robust health.”

 

For starters, coral growth rates and coral cover percentages don’t tell us anything about the species composition of the newly formed coral. As an extreme example, imagine that every other coral species but one could be dying off, but that one randomly well-adapted species could be spreading like wildfire. This would definitely not indicate that the overall reef biome is in good health, bearing in mind the complex interdependencies of all the highly diverse members typically occupying coral reef ecosystems.

 

Coral bleaching data is BY FAR the most important indicator of coral reef health, but discussion of it in the article excerpt is conspicuously absent.

 

While localized ocean current temperatures around the Great Barrier Reef may vary in any given season like weather does above any region of land, we know for sure that global mean ocean temperatures are continuously rising. We also know for sure that rising ocean temperatures threaten coral life in coral reefs everywhere. This is a basic principle of coral fauna. The coral of the Great Barrier Reef are no exception.

 

Basically, not a single credible oceanographer or marine biologist on this planet would disagree with the information I provided above. Anyone telling people not to worry about the vitality of coral reefs this century has been propagandized by the fossil fuel industry. It is unfortunate that other countries like Australia are also victims of this propaganda.

 

Well done of proving that the initial alarm was very likely poorly done research. Kay if you can't predict the future it is not good science. If I keep predicting collapse and it grows then I am missing something large. Also making huge predictions based on 30 years of data for a structure that is thousand of years old seems foolish.

[unbillievable]

The only thing we can do to save ourselves from climate change now, is to build bubble cities.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

#Resist

 

 

[JaCrispy]

There’s only one thing left to do so we don’t boil to death- make more ice cubes!!! 🤔

[B-Man]

 

 

Apocalypse porn

The green movement is a doomsday cult. Progressives should have nothing to do with it.

 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/08/10/apocalypse-porn/

 

 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 8/10/2021 at 7:44 AM, Buffalo Timmy said:

Well done of proving that the initial alarm was very likely poorly done research. Kay if you can't predict the future it is not good science. If I keep predicting collapse and it grows then I am missing something large. Also making huge predictions based on 30 years of data for a structure that is thousand of years old seems foolish.

 

Buffalo Timmy: “Well done proving that the initial alarm was very likely poorly done research.”

 

ComradeKayAdams: “I did no such thing. I distinguished the most useful metrics for determining coral reef biome health (any of the coral bleaching data) from the much less useful ones (coral growth rates and coral cover percentages). The article did not review any of the coral bleaching data collected from the Great Barrier Reef or from any other coral reefs on the planet. Any guesses as to why??”

 

Buffalo Timmy: “Kay, if you can’t predict the future it is not good science.”

 

ComradeKayAdams: “Agreed, but predictions have already been made. The data so far is approximately matching the median predictions for ocean temperatures, coral bleaching incidents, bleaching coverage, AND biome population reductions for the flora and fauna most sensitive to ocean temperature increases.”

 

Buffalo Timmy: “If I keep predicting collapse and it grows, then I am missing something large.”

 

ComradeKayAdams: “Well for one thing, predictions of coral reef biome collapse have been made predominantly for the second half of this century…which obviously hasn’t arrived yet. Also, there are a number of explanations for short-term reversals of long-term trends in coral health. Regional ocean temperatures can undergo large seasonal fluctuations (El Nino/La Nina), carbon dioxide absorption perturbations at sea level can lead to temporary changes in coral growth rates due to the changes in ocean acidification, and a small percentage of coral species can always become more or less adaptive to alterations in their ocean environment via the wonderful process of evolution!”

 

Buffalo Timmy: “Making huge predictions based on 30 years of data for a structure that is thousands of years old seems foolish.”

 

ComradeKayAdams: “No, it’s not foolish. We have a very detailed understanding of how all the various coral species react to water temperature and water acidity. Our understanding comes from both in-situ studies and laboratory research. The only major variables in play, really, besides disease are the trajectories of ocean temperatures and ocean acidity levels. Unfortunately, we know how those two are trending…well, that is the non-climate change deniers among us do.”

[Orlando Tim]

12 minutes ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Buffalo Timmy: “Well done proving that the initial alarm was very likely poorly done research.”

 

ComradeKayAdams: “I did no such thing. I distinguished the most useful metrics for determining coral reef biome health (any of the coral bleaching data) from the much less useful ones (coral growth rates and coral cover percentages). The article did not review any of the coral bleaching data collected from the Great Barrier Reef or from any other coral reefs on the planet. Any guesses as to why??”

 

Buffalo Timmy: “Kay, if you can’t predict the future it is not good science.”

 

ComradeKayAdams: “Agreed, but predictions have already been made. The data so far is approximately matching the median predictions for ocean temperatures, coral bleaching incidents, bleaching coverage, AND biome population reductions for the flora and fauna most sensitive to ocean temperature increases.”

 

Buffalo Timmy: “If I keep predicting collapse and it grows, then I am missing something large.”

 

ComradeKayAdams: “Well for one thing, predictions of coral reef biome collapse have been made predominantly for the second half of this century…which obviously hasn’t arrived yet. Also, there are a number of explanations for short-term reversals of long-term trends in coral health. Regional ocean temperatures can undergo large seasonal fluctuations (El Nino/La Nina), carbon dioxide absorption perturbations at sea level can lead to temporary changes in coral growth rates due to the changes in ocean acidification, and a small percentage of coral species can always become more or less adaptive to alterations in their ocean environment via the wonderful process of evolution!”

 

Buffalo Timmy: “Making huge predictions based on 30 years of data for a structure that is thousands of years old seems foolish.”

 

ComradeKayAdams: “No, it’s not foolish. We have a very detailed understanding of how all the various coral species react to water temperature and water acidity. Our understanding comes from both in-situ studies and laboratory research. The only major variables in play, really, besides disease are the trajectories of ocean temperatures and ocean acidity levels. Unfortunately, we know how those two are trending…well, that is the non-climate change deniers among us do.”

I am not a climate change denier- I simply do not believe man is at all equiped to stop it. We adapt or die. You keep stating we understand things so well but our predictions suck terribly, so you are definitely wrong somewhere in a big way.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

Because of climate change, it's important to keep up with the daily weather forecast:

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 “Climate Emergency” – Nothing But Politics And Propaganda Unsupported By Scientific Data.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

                                     

 

 

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 10/6/2021 at 11:15 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The solution to a problem creates a new problem.  The hoax isn't that we need to lower carbon emissions by eliminating oil and gas consumption.  The hoax is these green energy alternatives, solar and wind, will never ever replace the energy output, efficiency, reliability, and cost of oil and gas sources of energy.  So either you need to develop another more efficient and cost effective alternatives, like zero point energy, commercial nuclear fusion, or something like harnessing the power of the Earth's magnetic field, or reach some breakthrough level in green energy source efficiency. 

If you don't then you need to resign yourself to the reality that life will be re-scaled smaller based on a lower level of energy availability.  That's the hoax.  Its not your carbon footprint that is going to be reduced, its your lifestyle and existence that is going to be reduced.