More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
GT40s Supporter
I get it guys. No one here is going to be swayed by proper and accepted studies, or "alternate" studies. There will always be a small minority that still thinks there is no harm in smoking, that the grassy knoll is still waiting to tell it's story, and that man didn't land on the moon. So I'm out of this echo chamber for a while again.
 

Ron Scarboro

Member
GT40s Supporter
OK Larry, I’ll bite...

"Far-fetched alarmist claptrap", you say? It wasn't all that long ago that the left started PUSHING for "gay marriage"...and we all KNOW how that turned out, don't we.

How did that turn out?
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
OK Larry, I’ll bite...

"Far-fetched alarmist claptrap", you say? It wasn't all that long ago that the left started PUSHING for "gay marriage"...and we all KNOW how that turned out, don't we.

How did that turn out?
Thanks Ron I wasn't brave enough. wrote similar then the boss thought it wasn't a good idea and I am more afraid of her than Larry :)
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
How did that turn out?
You know how it turned out, Ron.

The left kept beating the drum and beating the drum and beating the drum for its passage; demeaned, denigrated, ridiculed and marginalized anyone and everyone who opposed it (especially those who did so on religious grounds). 'Called those opposing it "BIGOTS!!!", "HOMOPHOBES!!!", "INTOLERANT!!!" and, in the case of those opposing gay marriage on religious grounds, "RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS!!!" Gutless. "p.c."-compliant politicians finally 'caved in' to the constant onslaught. THAT'S how it turned out.

Similar tactics are being used against those who oppose the drastic measures MMCC/GW proponents want implemented to, supposedly, "fight" CC/GW. The tactics come straight out of faaar left radical Saul Alinsky's book, "Rules for Radicals". Look it up.
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
Thanks Ron I wasn't brave enough. wrote similar then the boss thought it wasn't a good idea and I am more afraid of her than Larry :)
lol! Trust me. There is absolutely Z-E-R-O chance you (or anyone else) will ever come to any sort of harm by my hand. Just ain't happenin'. My DNA isn't spliced together in that fashion.

(Unless, of course, you plan to kick in my front door at 2 A.M. But, I seriously doubt you are the type who'd attempt to do that, Nick! ;) )
 
Last edited:

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
(Unless, of course, you plan to kick in my front door at 2 A.M. But, I seriously doubt you are the type who'd attempt to do that, Nick! ;) )
Fantastic, it has always been planned for 1am. ;)


"We see a cooling trend," Martin Mlynczak of NASA's Langley Research Center said in late September. "High above Earth's surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.” https://www.sott.net/article/400550-We-see-a-cooling-trend-says-NASA-scientist


Bob,

You have made the mistake a lot of Headin The Sand_ers make. Climate change does not just mean the planet may get hotter it means more frequent extremes. If you watch the film the Day After Tomorrow it will explain this phenomena.

However, you are correct to an extent the world has got cooler in the last 2 years and the Head in the Sand_ers seize on this as proof there is no global warming. Slightly ironic as when the MMCC/GW believers point out that we have had some of the warmest summers on record in the last few years the Head in The Sand_ers get all upset and claim one swallow a summer does not make.

The claim that The World is Cooling was investigated by an Independent Impartial fact check organisation in the UK and this is what they found.

Claim

We just had two years (2016-2018) of record-breaking Global Cooling.

Conclusion
Incorrect. “Global cooling” describes a long term period during which the earth’s average temperature is cooling. Although the average global temperature was slightly lower in 2017 and 2018 than in 2016, these drops were not record breaking. Global temperatures tend to fluctuate from one year to the next and NASA data shows that overall global warming is occurring: the planet is getting hotter and hotter over time, and at a faster and faster pace.
 
Bob

You make the mistake of letting yourself being dragged into the argument between those who feel climate change is man-made and those that don't. Don't fall for that trap. It can't be proven one way or the other. If someone says "settled science", then you know they're not a scientist.

It's a fact that the numbers have been "fudged". Unfortunate, but indisputable.

Why the focus is on CO2 levels is puzzling as well. Science tells us that carbon dioxide is a lagging indicator. There have been many periods in Earth's history when CO2 levels have been higher, all without mankind to blame. This is a complicated issue, but CO2 levels are not likely the cause. These types of factually non-supported arguments do nothing to advance the cause and do great harm by leading many to question the motives of the movement.

It's also fact that we don't really know whether the supposed remedies will even have a measurable impact, at any cost. And one country, acting alone, will not be enough to have any meaningful impact, given what has already been accomplished. We have already proven that. International agreements with no firm targets and no penalties are not worth the paper on which they are written.

The issue you should argue is why the supposed solution falls on the backs of US taxpayers. Since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the US has made tremendous progress cleaning up our environment. No one made us do it. We did it because it's the right thing to do. At huge cost, we have done more than ANY other country to clean up. We don't seem to get any credit for what we have ALREADY DONE.

We have voluntarily, some say blindly, handcuffed our economy to the benefit of the rest of the world. We cleaned up the environment all right, but in the process added hidden costs to everything we make or sell, resulting in huge shifts in where stuff is made and who can make widgets the cheapest. The economic impact IS REAL and PROVEN. We would get a better bang for our buck by cleaning up smokestacks in China, or India. But how is that fair? It ignores the billions we've already spent, and relieves those gross polluters of their responsibilities to the rest of the world. Additional steps are now really, really expensive. In the US, the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.

Despite the rhetoric, we as Americans should be proud of what we have already done to clean up our mess. When the other industrialized nations have brought themselves to our level of effectiveness, regulation, cost and economic impact, then, maybe, we could discuss further steps to take TOGETHER.

Until that happens, whatever we do will be just cows farting into the wind.
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
Bob

You make the mistake of letting yourself being dragged into the argument between those who feel climate change is man-made and those that don't. Don't fall for that trap. It can't be proven one way or the other. If someone says "settled science", then you know they're not a scientist.

It's a fact that the numbers have been "fudged". Unfortunate, but indisputable.

Why the focus is on CO2 levels is puzzling as well. Science tells us that carbon dioxide is a lagging indicator. There have been many periods in Earth's history when CO2 levels have been higher, all without mankind to blame. This is a complicated issue, but CO2 levels are not likely the cause. These types of factually non-supported arguments do nothing to advance the cause and do great harm by leading many to question the motives of the movement.

It's also fact that we don't really know whether the supposed remedies will even have a measurable impact, at any cost. And one country, acting alone, will not be enough to have any meaningful impact, given what has already been accomplished. We have already proven that. International agreements with no firm targets and no penalties are not worth the paper on which they are written.

The issue you should argue is why the supposed solution falls on the backs of US taxpayers. Since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the US has made tremendous progress cleaning up our environment. No one made us do it. We did it because it's the right thing to do. At huge cost, we have done more than ANY other country to clean up. We don't seem to get any credit for what we have ALREADY DONE.

We have voluntarily, some say blindly, handcuffed our economy to the benefit of the rest of the world. We cleaned up the environment all right, but in the process added hidden costs to everything we make or sell, resulting in huge shifts in where stuff is made and who can make widgets the cheapest. The economic impact IS REAL and PROVEN. We would get a better bang for our buck by cleaning up smokestacks in China, or India. But how is that fair? It ignores the billions we've already spent, and relieves those gross polluters of their responsibilities to the rest of the world. Additional steps are now really, really expensive. In the US, the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.

Despite the rhetoric, we as Americans should be proud of what we have already done to clean up our mess. When the other industrialized nations have brought themselves to our level of effectiveness, regulation, cost and economic impact, then, maybe, we could discuss further steps to take TOGETHER.

Until that happens, whatever we do will be just cows farting into the wind.
Too much truth and reality in one post.
That'll never do 'round here... ;)
 
I’m not getting dragged into anything. Global Climate Change, a constant our earth has dealt with from the day it was created. Political Criminality, a constant man has dealt with from the day the snake tempted.
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
We would get a better bang for our buck by cleaning up smokestacks in China, or India. But how is that fair? It ignores the billions we've already spent, and relieves those gross polluters of their responsibilities to the rest of the world. Additional steps are now really, really expensive. In the US, the low-hanging fruit has already been picked.

Despite the rhetoric, we as Americans should be proud of what we have already done to clean up our mess. When the other industrialized nations have brought themselves to our level of effectiveness, regulation, cost and economic impact, then, maybe, we could discuss further steps to take TOGETHER.

Until that happens, whatever we do will be just cows farting into the wind.
Wow Doug, you absolve your country easily; I am not so lenient on mine.

Forbes Oct 2018

“Now Asia - which accounts for close to 80% of total global coal usage - is increasingly turning to the U.S. to supply coal. We are still the world's third largest coal producer. The U.S. supplies both types, met coal to produce steel and steam coal to produce electricity. "U.S. coal exports increased by 61% in 2017 as exports to Asia more than doubled

The fact is that both China (65%) and India (75%) are hugely dependent upon coal-based electricity, which will be needed in even bigger quantities to lift their low Human Development Index closer to those in the West, where universal electricity access has more people living better and longer. Can you really blame them?

Asian review Aug 2018

LONDON -- U.S. coal exports to Asia surged in 2017, and there is an argument to be made for America to become an even bigger global supplier of the fuel, a Nikkei Asian Review study has found.


I am not sure how much of this thread you have read, you need a lot of stamina to read it all in my opinion it tends to go round in circles in any case. The above is exactly what Professor Edenhofer was talking about in an interview to a Swiss newspaper.

Larry immediately jumped on the article claiming it was an admission from the horse’s mouth, (Oct 2018 post 2084) and he had found the smoking gun that showed “CC/GW ‘movement’ is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme.” However, what Proffesor Edenhofer actually meant is

“If we take the climate targets seriously, the bulk of the remaining fossil fuel reserves needs to stay underground and must not be burnt. In effect, this leads to a devaluation of fossil reserves which can – in a way – be characterized as a redistribution of wealth. But to be clear, this is rather a logical consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, NOT the primary (or “hidden”) goal of climate policy.” (sic)

The USA may have cleaned up its act for itself (although that may be short lived as doesn't your President want to increase coal production?) but to use Larry’s vernacular is effectively making Gazillions by exporting pollution to other countries. Then many like yourself absolve their countries of all responsibility and point the finger of blame for pollution at them, As the saying goes when you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you. Unless of course you have some funny Freemasonry type finger pointing ritual going on.

When it comes to CC/GW deniers you need to follow the money ;). "These (coal) export increases have nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with economics," said Elias Johnson, coal analyst for the U.S. Energy Information Administration
 
Last edited:
Yeah Nick, you really should follow the money, the huge money from global wealth redistribution. But, that would defund your side, if it were made evident to the masses.
 

Nick

Member
GT40s Supporter
Yeah Nick, you really should follow the money, the huge money from global wealth redistribution. But, that would defund your side, if it were made evident to the masses.
Bob,

Unless I am mistaken I made a post with evidence of why I have come to my conclusions and again you have just posted conjecture no rebuttal to my points. Do I just now adopt your method and counter your post with.

Yeah Bob you really should follow the money , the huge money from the fat cat fossil fuel energy companies. but then that would defund your side, if it were made evident to the masses.

Then we can go on and on conjecturing each other ad infinitum, but that is not debate.

PS My "When it comes to CC/GW deniers you need to follow the money" was partially tongue in cheek as it is one of your "sides" favorite accusations against "my side" hence why it had a ;) after it. God I sound like a school kid in the playground :(
 

Ron Scarboro

Member
GT40s Supporter
Bob,
At least you posted some research instead of just pure conjecture. From your referenced article:

"We see a cooling trend," Martin Mlynczak of NASA's Langley Research Center said in late September. "High above Earth's surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.” https://www.sott.net/article/400550-We-see-a-cooling-trend-says-NASA-scientist

THAT IS TRUE

However, this statement “As a consequence, scientists are predicting one of the coldest periods ever recorded for our upper atmosphere - and that means cooler temperatures down here, too.“

THAT IS PURE CONJECTURE on the part of the SOTT or Sputnik news and cannot be attributed to the NASA scientist and is not born out by any actual research.

The fact that the Thermosphere temperature cycles with the solar cycle is a known phenomenon. We’re in a solar minimum right now, so the temperature is lower than in a solar maximum. The cycle over the past years since measurement has trended lower in overall temperature. However, during that same time there seems to be NO correlation with ground temperature measurements and the same folks (NASA) that are quoted in the article have published that average ground temperatures have trended up.

From that same quoted organization “Knowing just how the energy flowing out from the sun naturally impacts the state of the thermosphere also will help scientists test predictions that man's emissions of carbon dioxide should cool this layer. (While that may seem to contradict the idea of global warming, it has long been known that carbon dioxide causes warming in the lowest part of the atmosphere and cooling in the upper layers of the atmosphere.)”

Thus the more heat that is trapped in lower levels of the atmosphere results in less heat getting to the Thermosphere from the Earth. This lower impact of heat from the Earth has resulted in lower overall temperatures in the Thermosphere and greater variability of that temperature as it fluctuates with solar cycles.

Unfortunately, this phenomenon does more to support Global Warming than it does to refute it.
 
The debate in the scientific community regarding is climate change significant (yes) and man-made (yes) is long, long over. Looooooong over.

Sure, once in a while there's somebody in the scientific community that still questions it, but the vast, vast (like 95%+) of the scientific community long ago took a deep and precise look at the data from every angle and conclusively agreed it's happening, it's significant, and it's man-made.

Sure, if you're living in your trailer out in the woods and haven't gone out into the world to see what's happening to the planet you may think it's all a bunch of bs. But if you get out and study what's going on with climate change there's only one conclusion: you'll arrive at the same place the scientists got to many years ago.

People don't like change, and they certainly don't like others telling them what to do or applying additional tax burdens.....but that all doesn't change the fundamental truth of climate change happening, and in a big and accelerating manner.

I guess I'm biased - my company makes battery technology for EV applications. Which is just another way of saying I have studied it in detail (I'm no scientist) and also came to the same conclusion the scientists did.
 

Larry L.

Member
Lifetime Supporter
Okay. So, 'splain to us trailer-dwelling dullards how bankrupting the U.S. economy in order to possibly...maybe...perhaps if all goes well lower the Earth's temp by maybe 1/4th of a degree in the next 100 years-or-so will all be worth it.

Also 'splain how that 'goal' will be achieved in light of the fact China and India, et al, will continue to puke pollutants into the land, sea and air (in increasing amounts as their industrial production increases, BTW ) via the the 'exemptions' they'll be granted...and also take into consideration sunspot activity, volcanic activity, variations in the tilt of the Earth's axis and all the rest of the other 'climate change' contributors.

Given the above, in reality the USA will be expected to / is going to provide and maintain the sole 'climate filter' through which all pollutants created around the world are removed. Yeah...that'll work. At least until the U.S. goes flat broke doing it. Then what?

Once again: "...the vast, vast (like 95%+) of the scientific community long ago..." also believed the Earth was flat. And believed it with the same fervor.
;)
 
Last edited:
Top