More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

The only way you get "massive warming" at the poles is to jimmy the data, which we know the powers that be do regularly.

29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas. There may be other areas with a human footprint of some kind.

I read this article the other day about dust and its impact on the climate, sort of got me wondering if man is responsible with his farming and building/paving over pretty much the entire planet.

What Dust May Have To Do With Earth’s Rapidly Warming Poles
 
The only way you get "massive warming" at the poles is to jimmy the data, which we know the powers that be do regularly.

29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas. There may be other areas with a human footprint of some kind.

To that point, here is an interesting fact....

Standing shoulder-to-shoulder, the entire world's population could fit within the 500 square miles (1,300 square kilometers) of Los Angeles.
 

Keith

Moderator
...follow...the...money...

That's it. I'm banning this phrase from the Paddock. If I see it again I'll likely vomit bone marrow. While sentiments conveyed by this phrase may well indicate a valid path of investigation into the grand saga of Climate Change, it has become an entirely empty and meaningless 'rédiger.'

Express yourselves! What money? Follow where? Elucidate!
 

Keith

Moderator

Sorry to disturb your obvious mirth there Scott, but the headline that "My Alien Stepdaughter Gave Birth to a Two Headed Venetian Marsupial" would be far too serious a subject matter for this bloody awful rag to contemplate.

Their November 'Climate Special' offerings included such gems as "Britain Heading for Arctic Freeze by Christmas. Chaos and Power Shutdowns Widely Predicted. People will Die In Their Thousands"

Except that it's mid '50's outside right now....

Not even useful for wiping your butt on mate... :thumbsdown:
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Per the "rag"; what I walked away with was that aerosols can temporarily and locally offset some effects of CO2 increases, BUT, the down side is that this masks the impacts of global CO2, thus causing the global models to underestimate the impact of increased CO2.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
What money? Follow where? Elucidate!

Some light reading for when you're sitting in your easy chair beside the fireplace. You probably can't light the fireplace due to this-or-that government rule/regulation put in place because of "environmental concerns", but...

Climate-Change Advocates Collect Big Money From Interested Parties - Breitbart

The Paris climate scam treaty about wealth redistribution, nothing more - NetRight Daily

Forbes Welcome

On Global Warming, Follow the Money | Power Line


The above was just randomly taken from the tip of the Google iceberg. I'm sure there are just as many "pro" warming sites as "anti". The trick lies in knowing the agenda and financing behind their "facts". Good luck...

In the end, it should be what common sense and logic as well as what has and has not been debunked and what one can or cannot see with one's own eyes that dictate which "reality" one chooses to believe regarding the issue. Given the indiputable F-A-C-T that the Earth has alternately warmed and cooled since the day it was created and, logic dictates, will undoubtedly continue to do so for as long as it exists no matter WHAT man t-h-i-n-k-s he can do about it; the sad fact is, for many, it will boil down to how much MONEY "G.W."/"C.C." will either cost them OR MAKE them that will dictate which side of the argument they'll choose to back. Either way, it's all about the money.

What I've seen the E.P.A. do right here in my own back yard has convinced me most environmental rules/regs are "all about the money". Example? 'Fining a contractor $10K USD because one of his bulldozers/backhoes left a imprint of its 'track' on the shoreline of a local lake...an imprint that natural wave action generated by the 1st STORM that comes along would remove in an INSTANT. Or, how about all the hand-wringing/fines over mud 'runoff' into streams, etc., while construction is going on? 'Ever seen how much "mud" Mother Nature dumps into bodies of water whenever she darned well pleases? (BTW, never mind the fact that 'dirt' ["mud", if you will] forms/lies at the bottom of every body of water on the planet.)

I'm now going to take a vacation of an indeterminate (possibly permanent) duration from this thread. I've finally grown tired of it all. 'Just getting old(er?), I guess.
 

Keith

Moderator
Some light reading for when you're sitting in your easy chair beside the fireplace. You probably can't light the fireplace due to this-or-that government rule/regulation put in place because of "environmental concerns", but...

Climate-Change Advocates Collect Big Money From Interested Parties - Breitbart

The Paris climate scam treaty about wealth redistribution, nothing more - NetRight Daily

Forbes Welcome

On Global Warming, Follow the Money | Power Line


The above was just randomly taken from the tip of the Google iceberg. I'm sure there are just as many "pro" warming sites as "anti". The trick lies in knowing the agenda and financing behind their "facts". Good luck...

In the end, it should be what common sense and logic as well as what has and has not been debunked and what one can or cannot see with one's own eyes that dictate which "reality" one chooses to believe regarding the issue. Given the indiputable F-A-C-T that the Earth has alternately warmed and cooled since the day it was created and, logic dictates, will undoubtedly continue to do so for as long as it exists no matter WHAT man t-h-i-n-k-s he can do about it; the sad fact is, for many, it will boil down to how much MONEY "G.W."/"C.C." will either cost them OR MAKE them that will dictate which side of the argument they'll choose to back. Either way, it's all about the money.

What I've seen the E.P.A. do right here in my own back yard has convinced me most environmental rules/regs are "all about the money". Example? 'Fining a contractor $10K USD because one of his bulldozers/backhoes left a imprint of its 'track' on the shoreline of a local lake...an imprint that natural wave action generated by the 1st STORM that comes along would remove in an INSTANT. Or, how about all the hand-wringing/fines over mud 'runoff' into streams, etc., while construction is going on? 'Ever seen how much "mud" Mother Nature dumps into bodies of water whenever she darned well pleases? (BTW, never mind the fact that 'dirt' ["mud", if you will] forms/lies at the bottom of every body of water on the planet.)

I'm now going to take a vacation of an indeterminate (possibly permanent) duration from this thread. I've finally grown tired of it all. 'Just getting old(er?), I guess.

Larry, you can't just make a statement and then wander off because you're tired of it, stay around and make your arguments stick or at least resonate. I think it's dangerous to quote local examples of greed and exploitation as it may mask a more fundamental issue. Those seeking confirmation bias may well read no further and I think that's wrong.

"Follow the money" is a smug clarion call for all those who tend to ignore some real concerns about our environment and the way we interact with it..I will also say that it is predominately the USA that has a problem with "the money" or is that all because of Al Gore? Don't let it blind you to some real global climate conundrums. If what you are saying is that you are rebelling against the prospect of paying tax for something you feel you shouldn't have to, now that's an entirely different issue. Stick around Larry, your opinions are valuable.

I will add that I am personally completely confused about the whole shebang, but I have gut feelings. The problem with the ethos of those that would say "no problem" is that they risk a catastrophic future for their siblings if they have got it wrong. Therefore, the subject requires in depth analysis and discussion at every level.

Smug statements are not an option..
 
Larry, you can't just make a statement and then wander off because you're tired of it, stay around and make your arguments stick or at least resonate. I think it's dangerous to quote local examples of greed and exploitation as it may mask a more fundamental issue. Those seeking confirmation bias may well read no further and I think that's wrong.

"Follow the money" is a smug clarion call for all those who tend to ignore some real concerns about our environment and the way we interact with it..I will also say that it is predominately the USA that has a problem with "the money" or is that all because of Al Gore? Don't let it blind you to some real global climate conundrums. If what you are saying is that you are rebelling against the prospect of paying tax for something you feel you shouldn't have to, now that's an entirely different issue. Stick around Larry, your opinions are valuable.

I will add that I am personally completely confused about the whole shebang, but I have gut feelings. The problem with the ethos of those that would say "no problem" is that they risk a catastrophic future for their siblings if they have got it wrong. Therefore, the subject requires in depth analysis and discussion at every level.

Smug statements are not an option..

Keith in my opinion absolutely, the other one that irks me and of the type that make regular apperances :-

"In the end, it should be what common sense and logic as well as what has and has not been debunked and what one can or cannot see with one's own eyes that dictate which "reality" one chooses to believe regarding the issue"

i.e. if you don't agree with my line of thought then you obviously have no common sense or logic, a fallacy argument if ever there was one.

At the risk of stiring the pot, I am also confused as to why one side shoot down any argument about warming being caused by "man" as impossible but then appear to use the argument that cooling has been caused by "man" to support their claims or have I missed something.

As you say if we do get it wrong the future may well be catastrophic for future generations. I have no doubt the world is warming up but how much of that is down to us or what impact it will have I do not know.

I suspect if we all lived in the Maldives our minds would be more concentrated on the issue.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Climate change has become a form of religion IMHO, with neither side willing to listen to or consider the other sides arguments. I personally think that the phrase follow the money is a valid response as I have seen figures of up to $22 billion spent on climate change. With that much money and knowing how greed motivates the way a lot of people act I for one think that investigating where that money is spent and by whom is a reasonable response.
 

Keith

Moderator
I agree Pete but my argument is that simply repeating the mantra "follow the money" is a meaningless statement devoid of content. What I would personally like to see is evidence of cons, scams or malpractice by individuals, corporations or governments in the name of "Climate Science" so that us mere mortals can judge for ourselves the validity of the process. I don't particularly think it's wrong to make money out of the issue of climate change as long as a service of some kind is being provided which has a definitive value, but the inference of "follow the money" implies skullduggery, nudge nudge wink wink, without any evidence of same.

I hope you see where I'm coming from. In the beginning FTM had a kind of vibe, but in the absence of any meaningful data, the phrase has become rather meaningless and irritating beyond belief and I don't understand it anymore.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
A Google search confirms my conclusion that climate change has become a religion on both sides or maybe a cult. Big oil and coal companies are accused of funding deniers, and the deniers say that scientists that have been sceptical about global warming have had their research grants stopped or have been fired.
One thing I did turn up was a list of scientists who are sceptical.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
 
"Another week, another study showing that our official climate data gatekeepers have been exaggerating the extent of “global warming” to make it look more scary, more urgent, more desperately in need of extra funding for our official climate data gatekeepers…"

Study: NOAA Overestimated US Warming by 50% - Breitbart

QUOTE=Keith1;485740]I agree Pete but my argument is that simply repeating the mantra "follow the money" is a meaningless statement devoid of content. What I would personally like to see is evidence of cons, scams or malpractice by individuals, corporations or governments in the name of "Climate Science" so that us mere mortals can judge for ourselves the validity of the process. I don't particularly think it's wrong to make money out of the issue of climate change as long as a service of some kind is being provided which has a definitive value, but the inference of "follow the money" implies skullduggery, nudge nudge wink wink, without any evidence of same.

I hope you see where I'm coming from. In the beginning FTM had a kind of vibe, but in the absence of any meaningful data, the phrase has become rather meaningless and irritating beyond belief and I don't understand it anymore.[/QUOTE]
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
It's hardly an unbiased report and there is a political agenda, so what can we say? :shrug:

Here's an observation:

This is the first year ever that I've still got Elephant Ears green and growing at Christmas. These die out at the first freeze every year, which is typically in November.
 
Back
Top