Just for argument sake, let's say that in the last 60 years we've fucked up the world so bad that we've created "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" or whatever the fuck they are or will be calling it. What are you and the guy that invented the internet going to do to fix it. I want to hear this before you start collecting money! You can't use it to redistribute wealth, you have to have a plan that actually might work.
More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
I don't want to redistribute wealth, and I'm not sure we can do much to fix things, but should we not at least try? Oh, and the people bleating on about the next ice age were the media who, surprise, surprise, had got hold of a small snippet from some research story and ran with it without going to the source and actually getting the full story or asking them what they meant.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
If you are talking about pollution, yes I'm all for cleaning up the atmosphere and the rivers and oceans. Let's start with China and India.
Btw CO2 is not a pollutant, without it we all perish.
Ian Anderson
Lifetime Supporter
Milankovitch theory
Have a read about it
For those wh don't google
Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then give me back my tax from the levies
Or can we ask for funds so we can get funding to research on how we can stop the Earth Wobbling? to help redistribute wealth
Ian
Have a read about it
For those wh don't google
Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then give me back my tax from the levies
Or can we ask for funds so we can get funding to research on how we can stop the Earth Wobbling? to help redistribute wealth
Ian
We are doing things to fix it with cleaner cars, energy, etc. So far we've gone from Global warming to Climate change to make the theme jive with what's happening. If all of the sudden weather just stopped happening, what then. Oh my God No weather change! Fucking greenhouse weather stoppage, levy at tax for boredom. My simple question is what are they going to do with the money?
There you go employing common sense again, Pete. Just shuddup, will ya?
I'm all for cleaning up/eliminating/greatly reducing water & air pollution (especially in countries like China & India where clearly there's just N-O attempt at all being made to curb it). What I'm NOT FOR is bankrupting the entire world's economy in the process.
So, let's see all the "carbon credits" boys start slapping their eco regs/fines on places like China and India before they demand any further regulations/fines/industry shut-downs (like coal) here in the U.S., huh? After all, unless those two countries alone massively cut their pollution, nothing done at any cost here in the U.S. could ever make even a smidgeon of diff in the pollution picture globally.
Oh, and, uh, just what is it that the "global warming" boys propose be done to "correct" the random changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis, huh? How do they propose we "control" that? And at what cost?
Nutz to this. I have some painting to do on our detached garage...
https://www.google.com/search?q=70s...ike-newsweek-predicted-iceage-in.html;299;400
1970s Global Cooling Scare | Real Science
Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism
The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today | Watts Up With That?
It wasn't just snippets, it was a full blown bullshit scare tactic, same people, same goal, MONEY!
1970s Global Cooling Scare | Real Science
Popular Technology.net: 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism
The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today | Watts Up With That?
It wasn't just snippets, it was a full blown bullshit scare tactic, same people, same goal, MONEY!
OK, a little more than a mere snippet, but not much. There was some research in the early 60s and 70s that suggested global cooling, notably by Mitchell in '63 and Emiliani in '66. The popular press jumped on it and a few other scientists joined in, basing their findings on revelations about Milankovitch cycles. However, the weight of scientific evidence, even at that early stage, was in support of warming. Of course, the thing that sold news at the time was ICE AGE, and so it became the popular view.
I can even produce a graph - I know you all love graphs...
I can even produce a graph - I know you all love graphs...
Attachments
No we don't like fucking graphs!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Warmists like to quote the majority a lot, I would prefer if they looked at the science instead.
Particularly those papers from scientists that do not depend on the largesse of Government for their income.
Particularly those papers from scientists that do not depend on the largesse of Government for their income.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Since 97% of scientists agree humans are helping cause global warming, I tend to agree. Look to the science.
This sums it up pretty nicely.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg]Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO): Climate Change Debate - YouTube[/ame]
This sums it up pretty nicely.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg]Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO): Climate Change Debate - YouTube[/ame]
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Where did you get 97% from? If that is accurate I would say the same 97% depend on Government grants or work for government departments.
Funny clip btw.
Funny clip btw.
And yet more proof that this is Climate Hoax:
"Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night."
Scientists in cover-up of
"Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night."
Scientists in cover-up of
Not at all unlike the lefties here wanting to shut this thread down.
"The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times."
"A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism, it was claimed last night.
Read more: Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause, claims professor | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
"The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times."
"A scientific study which suggests global warming has been exaggerated was rejected by a respected journal because it might fuel climate scepticism, it was claimed last night.
Read more: Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was 'less than helpful' to the climate cause, claims professor | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
We are no longer global warming deniers, we are now climate change deniers. All when really, we are not deniers of anything.
As Al says above, tell me your plan, present a costing, then ask how we gather the funding, once a plan has been accepted as standing even a remote chance of 'correcting' anything. Until you have the plan, leave my already over-tax-burdened cash alone.
In order to work out how best to 'correct' the weather, perhaps someone ought to figure out if the climate we have now is actually incorrect at all?
As Al says above, tell me your plan, present a costing, then ask how we gather the funding, once a plan has been accepted as standing even a remote chance of 'correcting' anything. Until you have the plan, leave my already over-tax-burdened cash alone.
In order to work out how best to 'correct' the weather, perhaps someone ought to figure out if the climate we have now is actually incorrect at all?
Last edited:
Sigh.... I keep telling you guys - check the source, or at least do some investigation. The paper was rejected because it contained errors and added nothing substantially new to the research on climate change.
Even the author of the paper in question says the Times has got it wrong. Bengtsson said in a statement late on Friday: "I do not believe there is any systematic 'cover-up' of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics' work is being 'deliberately suppressed', as the Times front page suggests.
Even the author of the paper in question says the Times has got it wrong. Bengtsson said in a statement late on Friday: "I do not believe there is any systematic 'cover-up' of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics' work is being 'deliberately suppressed', as the Times front page suggests.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Of course not! But if you are a meteorologist and depending on your job from the government , do you toe the party line or get fired? Remember your wife and kids depend on you.
Yeeeeeeeeeup...'the ole underling 'backpedal' maneuver...done after the 'higher-ups' have had a little 'talk' with said underling...which is being done much more frequently these days, innit. (E.g.: "There was no stand down order given...")
And it isn't limited to underlings either. For instance: "I didn't set a red line - the WORLD set a red line"..."What we said was you could keep your plan IF...", etc. etc., etc., and more etc.
'Sicka all the b.s. ...
