Last seven years have been the hottest since mankind began

[ABMax24]

Ball took them to court knowing they had to produce the data they had manipulated, great job Ball.. to bad it never made the news and gets covered up. And their is still people believing in the hockey stick curve. It was proven 100% fraudulent. No wonder the Turd gets voted in !!!


https://www.thegwpf.com/media-ignores-michael-manns-court-loss-it-doesnt-fit-the-warmist-agenda/

LMFAO. That court case does not prove anything in regards to climate change. It proves you can't sue for libel if you aren't willing to provide documents to support your own case. There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed and published papers on global warming, that meet at least some of the criteria for credible scientific fact. One scientist suing another for defamation or libel for discrediting the others work does not constitute scientific fact, it's not even news worthy.

FYI, believing in science and scientific fact doesn't make you a liberal, or even a conservative for that matter, it makes you a realist. It's also okay to have opinions that differ from the particular party you support, actually it's quite normal, most peoples views don't entirely reflect the views of any particular party or political faction. Those that repeat the party line verbatim are called followers, sheep if you will.

 

[pfi572]

https://youtu.be/w5nEboAQNcQ

I have posted this before but here it is again for some that may not have seen.

 

[Cdnfireman]

LMFAO. That court case does not prove anything in regards to climate change. It proves you can't sue for libel if you aren't willing to provide documents to support your own case. There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed and published papers on global warming, that meet at least some of the criteria for credible scientific fact. One scientist suing another for defamation or libel for discrediting the others work does not constitute scientific fact, it's not even news worthy.

FYI, believing in science and scientific fact doesn't make you a liberal, or even a conservative for that matter, it makes you a realist. It's also okay to have opinions that differ from the particular party you support, actually it's quite normal, most peoples views don't entirely reflect the views of any particular party or political faction. Those that repeat the party line verbatim are called followers, sheep if you will.

The one thing that every “peer reviewed “ article or paper on climate change have in common is the fact that NONE of them use known facts as to the future state of the earth’s atmosphere. Every one uses conjecture and models to project what might happen in the future. None can say with certainty the cause and effect of CO2 on climate. The author of the hockey stick graph refuses to show what algorithm he used to produce it. Like all “ climate scientists “ they use data from the past including carbon content from soils and vegetation to retroactively estimate the amount of CO2 present historically. When high levels of CO2 are found in periods of low temperature, this is ignored but when high levels of CO2 are found during periods of elevated temperature, this is cited as a correlation despite the fact that almost always, these incidences occurred long before any human industrialization existed.
This idea of climate change is more about politics and wealth control than science. A true scientist will never admit that science is settled. Science is always changing as knowledge grows, and past historical events aren’t always indicators of the future.

 

[snopro]

Good point. The experts say that over 90% of ocean pollution comes from seven major river systems. Not surprisingly, none of them are in the Western Hemisphere or Europe.....

Friends did a cruise and India was one of the stops. Said the garbage in the waterways was incredible. Where is Greta?

 

[catalac]

Climate change.... another chit topic to distract the sheep all while the fox cleans out your wallet.

 

[ABMax24]

The one thing that every “peer reviewed “ article or paper on climate change have in common is the fact that NONE of them use known facts as to the future state of the earth’s atmosphere. Every one uses conjecture and models to project what might happen in the future. None can say with certainty the cause and effect of CO2 on climate. The author of the hockey stick graph refuses to show what algorithm he used to produce it. Like all “ climate scientists “ they use data from the past including carbon content from soils and vegetation to retroactively estimate the amount of CO2 present historically. When high levels of CO2 are found in periods of low temperature, this is ignored but when high levels of CO2 are found during periods of elevated temperature, this is cited as a correlation despite the fact that almost always, these incidences occurred long before any human industrialization existed.
This idea of climate change is more about politics and wealth control than science. A true scientist will never admit that science is settled. Science is always changing as knowledge grows, and past historical events aren’t always indicators of the future.

Well until someone invents a time machine, models based on current knowledge of previous events are all we have to predict the future. I'm really not sure what there is to argue about the hockey stick graph, the earth is warming, this is fact, proven by numerous land and sea based monitoring stations as well as by satellite data. Past CO2 levels are most frequently measured by gas bubbles trapped in ice cores. CO2 is an insulator and traps infrared radiation in the earths atmosphere, this can be proven both in the lab and in the field with absorption spectroscopy.

 

[Cdnfireman]

Well until someone invents a time machine, models based on current knowledge of previous events are all we have to predict the future. I'm really not sure what there is to argue about the hockey stick graph, the earth is warming, this is fact, proven by numerous land and sea based monitoring stations as well as by satellite data. Past CO2 levels are most frequently measured by gas bubbles trapped in ice cores. CO2 is an insulator and traps infrared radiation in the earths atmosphere, this can be proven both in the lab and in the field with absorption spectroscopy.

If you dig into the science behind CO2 and it’s relationship to UV and IR radiation, some interesting facts come to light.....CO2 only blocks certain wavelengths of radiation, and only a small portion of the wavelengths it does block are the ones that cause atmospheric heating. Also, if all this CO2 in the atmosphere blocks this radiation from being reflected back into space, why doesn’t it block and prevent said radiation from entering the atmosphere in the first place?
Water vapour is a much better insulator than CO2, but it’d be pretty tough for the eco-weenies to convince everyone that we need to eliminate all the water on earth.....
And CO2 isn’t pollution....it’s a critically necessary constituent gas that allows for life as we know it to exist on this rock. All 400ish parts per billion of it....

 

[ABMax24]

If you dig into the science behind CO2 and it’s relationship to UV and IR radiation, some interesting facts come to light.....CO2 only blocks certain wavelengths of radiation, and only a small portion of the wavelengths it does block are the ones that cause atmospheric heating. Also, if all this CO2 in the atmosphere blocks this radiation from being reflected back into space, why doesn’t it block and prevent said radiation from entering the atmosphere in the first place?
Water vapour is a much better insulator than CO2, but it’d be pretty tough for the eco-weenies to convince everyone that we need to eliminate all the water on earth.....
And CO2 isn’t pollution....it’s a critically necessary constituent gas that allows for life as we know it to exist on this rock. All 400ish parts per billion of it....

CO2 does block some of the radiation (infared) from the sun. But the vast majority of the energy from the sun is within the visible spectrum. It is only once this radiation hits the earth and heats the earth that it becomes infrared radiation and the heads back out into space, which is when the CO2 blocks some of it, heating the atmosphere. Water vapor is an extremely effective greenhouse gas, and the primary one that keeps the earth warm. But CO2 blocks part of the spectrum that water doesn't block very well. The greenhouse effect is a careful balance, what happens is by increasing the temperature of the atmosphere just slightly, from increasing CO2, the amount of water in the atmosphere also increases, increasing the greenhouse effect. This is where climate models diverge, because it seems to be difficult to predict this feedback loop, it could be small, but it could also run-away driving temperatures up many degrees. This is also where the debate on climate change begins in science, it's know it's happening, the how much and how fast, particularly further into the future are the less known and more debated.

Very few argue that increased CO2 isn't good for plant growth, it really is, but that's not the concern. That being said I did find one study that linked higher CO2 to less nutritious food, staples likes rice and grains contain more starches and less other nutrients when grown in high CO2 conditions.

 

[ATV Rancher]

 

[snopro]

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GuqDZ1I-...oUXHYtwycxLxwQpU9FStBwCLcBGAsYHQ/s640/501.jpg

Best post in this thread.

 

[jhurkot]

Best post in this thread.

So you would believe that someone paid off 97% and 3% of scientists are ethical?

 

[X-it]

Lots of people getting paid off with this carbon tax fraud in one way or another, no open source here, records altered and destroyed ...facts altered. You can trust them though.


The other side of the coin however is 100% open source, no records being falsified or destroyed with a 93% accuracy rate. In ten years from now we will know who is telling the truth.

 

[The big greasy]

Lots of people getting paid off with this carbon tax fraud in one way or another, no open source here, records altered and destroyed ...facts altered. You can trust them though.


The other side of the coin however is 100% open source, no records being falsified or destroyed with a 93% accuracy rate. In ten years from now we will know who is telling the truth.

And by then it will be to late...

 

[snopro]

So you would believe that someone paid off 97% and 3% of scientists are ethical?

I know that the government funds climate change research and doesn't fund scientists that say climate change is not real. Thats what I based my argument on. Kinda like the government funding media sources that promote left leaning govts? Do you see the correlation?

 

[X-it]

And by then it will be to late...

Dam that was a low blow, your right!

 

[Lunch_Box]

So you would believe that someone paid off 97% and 3% of scientists are ethical?

Have you not seen how that 97% number came about? The fact that people use that as part of the argument is a joke.

And even if all of the people that were asked were climate scientists (they were not), that doesn't mean they asked every scientist in the world.

 

[Cdnfireman]

So you would believe that someone paid off 97% and 3% of scientists are ethical?

don't hang your hat on the 97% BS..... the IPCC report that they are talking about they claim 97% of scientists agree...... the truth is that 97% of the scientists that READ the report agreed with it.....not that 97% of ALL scientists agreed with it, in other words its a meaningless statistic ...its like the trident chewing gum commercial that said 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommended the gum.... also meaningless when only 20 dentists were surveyed.....

 

[snopro]

Problem with climate change is we are taking our marching orders from a 16 yr old girl and a self appointed scientist Bill Nye that isn't even a real scientist. The left has more faith in celebrities than they do in real educated people.

 

[catalac]

97% of the scientist polled agree that the earth is warming.... so what over 100 years? The world from even historic data over 500 years has warmed & cooled, now take that over 4 billion years. Where the sheeple get worked up is their inability to not only recognize change a constant but their time frame of observation is way too short a period. I’m continually reminded of this watching the morning news, very common to see as today’s was: high -5 the record high 1935 +12.

 

[snopro]

97% of the scientist polled agree that the earth is warming.... so what over 100 years? The world from even historic data over 500 years has warmed & cooled, now take that over 4 billion years. Where the sheeple get worked up is their inability to not only recognize change a constant but their time frame of observation is way too short a period. I’m continually reminded of this watching the morning news, very common to see as today’s was: high -5 the record high 1935 +12.

I agree catalac. How many times like you say do you see on the news.....Todays high broke a record from 1905. There was no real industrial revolution back then. I believe the earth cools and warms up all the time over hundreds of years and is cyclical. There certainly is documentation that backs that up. Scientists aren't stupid. They will push their agenda to keep those pay cheques coming in. I refuse to dive in on the CC theory. Now pollution in our oceans and rivers? That I can get on board with but Greta and her followers don't subscribe to that cause. As a matter of fact she only subscribes to western countries cleaning up their omissions. Haven't heard her bitch about China or Russia at any time??