More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

blueovalz

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Quite disappointed in you Bob. You appear to have posted a link that doesn't call global warming a hoax, and actually notes actions being taken to see what can be done to curb the hoax. It's also nice to see a non-scientist comment that science finally gets it right. So man-made climate change is going to be achieved in a one-shot with chalk dust, what 24/7 emissions of millions of tons of CO2 for decades hasn't. Are you not up in arms that such a prestigious learning institute is throwing away money in the assumption that insignificant mankind can affect climate on this big planet?
 
Last edited:
L

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
blueovalz said:
Quite disappointed in you Bob. You appear to have posted a link that doesn't call global warming a hoax, and actually notes actions being taken to see what can be done to curb the hoax. It's also nice to see a non-scientist comment that science finally gets it right. So man-made climate change is going to be achieved in a one-shot with chalk dust, what 24/7 emissions of millions of tons of CO2 for decades hasn't. Are you not up in arms that such a prestigious learning institute is throwing away money in the assumption that insignificant mankind can affect climate on this big planet?
Click to expand...

It appears the point Bob was making is the 'solution' described in the article doesn't involve trillions of dollars of wealth redistribution via world-wide EPA-mandated fines, penalties and regulations which force industry to relocate to "developing nations" that are NOT subject to the aforesaid (relocate pollution from here to there instead, so to speak)...nor does it involve banning all fossil fuel-based energy in favor of far more expensive "green" energy alternatives - not to mention requiring that we all live in caves. ;)

Of course, as we've seen with a number of pharma prescriptions, the "chalk dust" environmental prescription could/might create its own 'unintended consequences' that may prove to be an even bigger environmental hazard than the one it was intended to off-set in the 1st place.

The planet has been successfully dealing with/correcting this-or-that environmental 'issue' on its own since the moment it was formed...and some of those 'issues' were faaaaaar more challenging than anything man has thrown at it. That does not mean that we should, say, dump used motor oil into storm drains and let the planet deal with it. Common sense says it's stupid to DO something like that. But, common sense also says bankrupting the world's economy to MAYBE lower the atmospheric temperature of the Earth by 1/4 of a degree in the next hundred years is even more imbecilic.

It's 4: 20 A.M. I'm going back to bed!
 
L

Bob Fechter

Point being, the lunatics shouting man’s actions cause climate change, and it’s killing the earth, are now wanting to change the climate with their own unnatural devices.
 
L

Bob Fechter

lonesomebob said:
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes
Click to expand...
A reminder of how this thread began.
 
blueovalz

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Larry, I agree with the probable point that Bob made, leading to my poorly made point that a relatively inexpensive fix is a pipe dream, and that we've created a mess that is very likely to cost more in disaster relief and other adaptive measures than it would have cost if we'd mitigated our impacts early on rather than rationalize away what we find displeasing to think about. Only time will tell whether science is wrong or right about this, but science has an overall record of being right, given sufficient time to ponder on it, and we've had lots of that. Having folks believe an insignificant minority of scientists that this is not a problem, is unintuitive, narrow minded, lacking reasonable evaluation skills, and placing beliefs and "faith" over observable evidence and critical thinking. I'm sure it was reasonable to think that something we can't see, when split or fused, can create tremendous amounts of energy, such that a handful of this material could destroy and entire city. Sounds like science fiction to anyone that places disbelieve or conspiracy theories over what real scientists say about real science. But that doesn't make it untrue.
 
L

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
blueovalz said:
Having folks believe an insignificant minority of scientists that this is not a problem, is unintuitive, narrow minded, lacking reasonable evaluation skills, and placing beliefs and "faith" over observable evidence and critical thinking.
Click to expand...

The "better education" card. THEE generic, go to, 'fallback'/'comeback' stance used to dismiss ANY position/view held by those opposing this-or-that belief held by the left on any issue/topic...to wit:

"Yew havin' that-thar ignurrunt view PROVES we libs be gooder, greater, smarter, neater, more higher edjamahkated than y'all...so gitchur sorry seff some book learnin' an' then git back to me when yeeeu have fynully 'seen th' light'...kuz only then will yuz knowz whut U b talkin' bout an' be wurthee of muh tym."

The "better educated" card has been completely worn out - just like all the others.

I'll remind you again: At one time only "an insignificant minority of scientists" believed the world was round...the Earth was NOT the center of the universe...and the Earth revolved around the sun.



With that - it's now time to take my better half to see Clint Eastwood's latest flick; "The Mule". 'Supposed to be pretty faithfully based on a true story. ("Bridges of Madison County" and "Play Misty for Me" were the ONLY flicks he's been in that I just flat-out couldn't sit thru.)

G-Day.
 
L

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
blueovalz said:
"Mule" was great!
Click to expand...

Agreed! (I thought Eastwood's goose had been cooked when the LEO and his dog showed up!)

"Grand Torino" was even better. That DID NOT end the way I had expected at all!


An aside: Speaking of "Grand Torino"; 'remember the back-and-forth between Eastwood and his barber wherein they constantly swapped insults...didn't have a single civil word for each other - ever? Believe it or not, the dialog in those scenes (except for the racial slurs) literally consisted of direct quotes from various back-and-forth exchanges between my dad and his life-long best friend, Byron...or "BY" as he was called. 'Dead serious.

A family friend (1st name 'Glenn') is a member of Eastwood's production staff (he finds/secures all the vehicles used in Eastwood's films) . "By" was his granddad. When Eastwood wasn't satisfied with the original dialog in those scenes ('wasn't "authentic enough" for guys that age in that era), he held a 'campfire meeting' with his staff and asked for suggestions as to how to fix it...Glenn recited a few of the exchanges he remembered hearing between my dad and his grandfather...Eastwood slapped his thigh and said, "There! That's more like it! We'll go with it!" (or something darned close to that), and the rest is history.

When my better half and I were in the theater watching those scenes, I leaned over and whispered in her ear, "They sound exactly like Dad a By going at it!" Little did I know! 'Found out about a year later during a conversation I had with Glenn.

Oh! BTW, the "Grand Torino" itself? Uh...it wasn't a Grand Torino! Don't tell anybody, but, it was a small block fake. 'Hollywood...ya know? (Aficionados probably knew that instantly because its nose sat too high. ;))
 
Last edited:
manta22

Neil

Supporter
I wonder where the XK-150 is now. Too bad you couldn't sit through the whole movie. When I was single it sure made me a lot more careful about picking up good looking women in a bar. :oops:
 
L

Bob Fechter

“Making the “dangerous manmade climate change” assertion even less credible, in recent years a number of climatologists have “adjusted” and “homogenized” temperatures to fit the man-made warming narrative. They lowered older data measurements a degree or so, bumped modern records upward a bit, and based many “hottest year” records on surface measurements contaminated by airport jet engine exhausts, blacktop parking lots, and urban heat from cars, furnaces and air conditioners.”
 
L

Bob Fechter

“Forest fires are fewer than in the past and primarily due to failure to remove hundreds of millions of dead and diseased trees that, as in California’s recent infernos, provide ready tinder for massive conflagrations.”
 
L

Bob Fechter

“An October 2018 Scripps Institution of Oceanography study asserted that the oceans had absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought. It garnered breathless front-page headlines. But within three weeks, its authors withdrew it, admitting they had made major math errors that an independent reviewer had discovered. The reversal received scarcely any news media attention.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

blueovalz
Science vs Beliefs
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
8K
Larry L.
L
Pete
Is the Carbon Emissions /Global warming thing B.S.
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
bannedleader
B
Back
Top