Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Sat Oct 12, 2024 4:45 pm

Just a quick drive-by on this point in particular:

So it's not a fringe position. At least not for those willing to think critically and soberly.


This is why I can't take you seriously. How can you say something this ridiculous with a straight face?

That's not how you determine if something is fringe or not. At all. By your logic flat-Earth isn't a fringe position, because there are flat-Earthers who are convinced they're thinking about it critically and soberly.

You are most decidedly on the fringes of the climate change debate. Your position is more extreme than even the oil companies. Freaking Exxon would consider your views fringe.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby stickdog99 » Sun Oct 13, 2024 4:35 pm

Have a lot of people been convinced that increased CO2 caused by human activity is a primary driver of climate change?

Yes.

But once again, it is the height of scientific hubris to proclaim on this basis that this is a proven fact. Once again, we can't even accurately predict the weather three days in advance with any degree of accuracy. But somehow we are supposed to believe that our current climate models accurately capture every system that Gaia has ever used, uses, or could potentially use to regulate its temperature? Please ...

It's amazing to me that people can fall for this. We don't even have direct evidence of any of the processes that Gaia uses more than 5 mm below the surface of land or 1 km below the surface of the ocean. That's 99%+ of Gaia's mass that we are completely guessing about.

We just discovered the existence of dark oxygen this year, but we are supposed to have already figured out climate models that can accurately predict Gaia's temperature trends for the next 150 years (unless we all agree to let our wholly benign authorities monitor and restrict our personal carbon allowances, of course)?

Does anyone realize how ridiculous this sounds to anybody who is trying to be objective about our actual state of scientific understanding of these processes?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Jan 15, 2025 12:38 pm

Belligerent Savant » Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:33 am wrote:.

It's not "global warming", at least certainly not as framed/presented by well-funded entities/govts.

Once again: we may well be in the midst of a cyclical/historical fluctuation in weather patterns, but the reasons for such fluctuations are not due to CO2 or whatever other canards are being sold to the public in an effort to obtain approval with various austerity measures, "net zero"/"carbon credit"/"15 minute cities" (etc) scams, all part of increasingly overt efforts to implement greater controls over resources, livelihoods and populations (while also increasing population reductions; these ongoing gaslighting/propaganda campaigns have been so successful a subset of the rubes subscribing to these BS narratives not-so-secretly believe population reductions are necessary).

In addition to the factors raised in the first 2 posts above -- and also added content by Grizzly -- there have been increased geo-engineering efforts over the last ~20+ years that do indeed impact weather patterns in localized areas. When you include criminal acts by local govts to prevent critical aid and support during crisis scenarios (see recent examples in North Carolina and now, LA) that could help minimize extent of the damage, these tragic outcomes are now becoming the norm rather than the exception.

Also, a fire can rage regardless of 'Global Warming' when the following bolded factors are at play:
@Donna_Rachel_

I’m compiling a list of all the policy decisions taken by the democrats in California that led to the fires raging through LA. So far I have:

- brush not cleared
- overgrown forestry
- reservoirs emptied
- fire hydrants with no water in them

- a fire service more concerned with hiring for DEI characteristics than for ability
- donations of fire service equipment, including trucks, to Ukraine.
- homeless encampments with fires lit regularly then left untended

What have I missed?
...
https://x.com/Donna_Rachel_/status/1877656887488815532

It will be interesting to observe proposed re-build scenarios after this fire in LA, and the extent which it [conveniently and certainly only by happenstance!] aligns with '2030 reset' objectives.

With respect to "temperature increases", (I've commented on this a number of times in the "Climate Alarm" threads, and provided links, etc. -- additional comments on this should ideally be re-directed to those other threads to keep the focus here on the LA Fires) it's no mere coincidence that over the years temp sensors have been increasingly and almost exclusively placed near or within airport tarmacs and/or urban centers, which naturally will provide higher average temp readings, which in turn are then blared in the media in sensationalized headlines and/or bright red weather maps, etc.

Statistics/metrics are only as useful/reliable as the quality of the source data. If the source data is flawed, compromised or manipulated, the resultant stats and models will be likewise flawed, but quite effective as propaganda.

A few sample images/content that add more context:

Image

Image

Image

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/h ... unkScience
Key Points:

Ghost Stations:
The article reveals that a significant number of climate stations, referred to as "ghost" or "zombie" stations, are no longer operational but continue to report data. These stations have been physically removed or are no longer maintained, yet NOAA fabricates temperature data for these locations by interpolating data from nearby stations. This practice affects more than 30% of the 1,218 USHCN stations that have ceased to exist since their peak in 1957.
Data Integrity:
Experts like retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. John Shewchuk and meteorologist Anthony Watts criticize this method, arguing that it leads to inaccurate climate records. Watts points out that if such data manipulation were in a legal context, it would likely be dismissed as unreliable.
Historical Context:
USHCN has been recording temperature data since before the Industrial Revolution, making it a crucial dataset for studying climate change. However, the integrity of this data is questioned due to the inclusion of data from these non-existent stations.
Implications for Policy:
The article suggests that the reliance on potentially flawed data could mislead climate policy decisions. High-profile statements from figures like U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres and U.S. President Joe Biden about the severity of climate change are partially based on this data, which is now under scrutiny.
Previous Acknowledgment of Issues:
It's noted that NOAA has been aware of these issues since at least 2014 when similar concerns were raised, indicating that this is not a new problem but one that persists despite earlier promises of fixes.
Critical Views:
The narrative critiques the manipulation of climate data, suggesting it serves to inflate the perception of a climate emergency. Critics argue that this could lead to misallocated resources and misguided policy based on exaggerated or fabricated temperature trends.


Re: Antarctica --
Antarctica Is Currently Colder Than It Was 5000 Years Ago

April 22, 2024

Image

More evidence emerges that Antarctica has undergone rapid glacier and sea ice expansion in recent centuries, in line with the long-term and recent Antarctic cooling trend

West Antarctica’s mean annual surface temperatures cooled by more than -1.8°C (-0.93°C per decade) from 1999-2018 (Zhang et al., 2023).

Not just West Antarctica, but most of the continent also has cooled by more than 1°C in the 21st century. See, for example, the ~1°C per decade cooling trend for East Antarctica (2000 to 2018) shown in Fig. ES1 (right).
Image

According to a new study, about 6,000 years ago Antarctica’s Collins Glacier’s frontline was a full 1 km southwest of its current extent. The frontline advanced to today’s extent ~5,000 years ago.

“Previous studies proposed that 6,000 yr BP [Before The Present Era], the frontline position of the Collins Glacier was located 1 km further southwest than the present and that the current frontline was first attained at approximately 5,000 yr BP.”


The glacier then continuously retreated south of the modern extent for another 4,000 years, with peak ice loss 1,000 years ago (as shown in the 1,000-year “Proglacial lake environment” image).

In the last 1,000 years, this glacier has rapidly re-advanced back to the glaciated extent from 5,000 years ago, which is in line with the sustained cooling trend ongoing since the Medieval Warm Period.
https://principia-scientific.com/antarctica-is-currently-colder-than-it-was-5000-years-ago/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

NASA - Systematic falsification of climate data

Postby Harvey » Sun Feb 09, 2025 7:00 am

For obtuse halfwits everywhere. All those who have not learned anything from their own experience of the past decade, and so, for expedience sake, must take particular pride in not learning from the experience of others also. Old news perhaps. But NASA falsifies data or it doesn't. The data is correct or it isn't.

https://principia-scientific.com/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud

Written by P Gosselin, November 24, 2015

by P Gosselin

Veteran award-winning journalist Günter Ederer reports of a shocking new global warming data fraud in NASA’s global temperature data series, as relied on by the UN and government climate scientists. NASA FRAUD The data has been carefully analysed by a respected data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert and is being made publicly available for independent verification.

Professor Ewert’s findings seem to show NASA has intentionally and systematically rigged the official government record of global temperatures to show recent global warming where none would exist without the upwards ‘revisions.’

The astonishing results are now available online to the public. P Gosselin of notrickzone.com reports:

Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).

Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.

The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from

0.03{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}
to
0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}

According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.

But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming.

Ewert (pictured) then discovered that NASA having altered the datasets once in March 2012 was not enough. EWERT Alterations were made again in August 2012, and yet again in December 2012. For Palma de Majorca: “Now because of the new datasets it has gotten even warmer. Now they show a warming of +0.01202°C per year.”

Using earlier NASA data, globe is in fact cooling

The veteran German journalist Ederer writes that the media reports of ongoing global warming are in fact not based on reality at all, but rather on “the constantly altered temperatures of the earlier decades.” Ederer adds:

Thus the issue of man-made global warming has taken on a whole new meaning: Yes, it is always man-made if the data are adjusted to fit the theory. The meticulous work by Ewert has predecessors, and fits a series of scandals and contradictions that are simply being ignored by the political supporters of man-made climate change.”


Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo.

Ederer writes of the overall findings by Professor Ewert:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.”
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Sun Feb 09, 2025 8:34 pm

The above is old news and debunked long ago. Data is adjusted for a variety of reasons. For example: they used to do ocean surface temperature measurements with a bucket and a thermometer. That was changed to thermometers in the engine water intakes on ships. The old method showed temperatures below the actual temperature, because heat radiates away from the water in the bucket while it's getting hauled up on deck, so they had to adjust for that.

They also adjust data as they get better information on the effects of heat islands, or when stations are moved, or areas that used to be remote are urbanized, or when they change any one of a number of different factors. There's a whole variety of good reasons to adjust the data as we get more accurate measurements or new knowledge, not to mention that NASA's data lines up with other datasets, so if they are fudging the numbers, everyone is.

So I guess it's down to which is more plausible: everyone everywhere is lying about it, or a geologist and a business reporter don't know what they're talking about.

Here's a good starting point for information on the GISS datasets:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Feb 11, 2025 3:09 pm

“Debunked” — by whom/what entity?

A link from NASA certainly won’t help offset concerns Re: NASA’s alleged/reported manipulation of data.

Just take their word for it, eh?

Imagine taking the term “debunked” at face value in 2025, when that same word was used extensively a few years ago in (increasingly desperate and eventually retracted) efforts to perpetuate blatant lies by the status quo.

‘Debunked’ (by Reuters et al.; rubes abound)
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:20 pm

If you'd bothered looking at the link it goes into detail on why and how the data is adjusted. They don't just hold up their thumb, squint, and say "let's make it +1C across the board". There's a reason for the adjustments, and they're spelled out at the link you so conveniently dismissed.

It really must be nice living in a reality where anything contradictory can just be ignored because *vague gesture in the general direction of covid*.

Put another way: stop using covid as a get out of jail free card and apply some rigor to your intuition.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Grizzly » Sun Feb 16, 2025 12:55 am

BREAKING: Pilot Admits To Dumping Toxic Chemicals All Over Humanity- Didn't Know He Was Being Taped!
https://old.bitchute.com/video/I7vEWZcMRTaN/

There's been zero chems in the sky here since the US A.I.D, raid.
Wonder why...
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4907
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Feb 16, 2025 4:57 pm

DrEvil » Wed Feb 12, 2025 9:20 pm wrote:If you'd bothered looking at the link it goes into detail on why and how the data is adjusted. They don't just hold up their thumb, squint, and say "let's make it +1C across the board". There's a reason for the adjustments, and they're spelled out at the link you so conveniently dismissed.

It really must be nice living in a reality where anything contradictory can just be ignored because *vague gesture in the general direction of covid*.

Put another way: stop using covid as a get out of jail free card and apply some rigor to your intuition.


You remain deeply propagandized and obtuse on this topic. You, naturally, will claim the same about me. The difference is my perspective on this topic has shifted and evolved over the last several years, while yours remains fixed/static.

Meanwhile:

Artemisfornow
·
NET ZERO - This is a copper mine, 1 of 13 elements we need to mine.

Humans mined 700 million tons of copper in 5,000 years.

Humans must mine 700 million tons more in under 20 YEARS to meet ‘GREEN’ energy targets

… To save the planet

[Video of massive Copper mine and large gas-powered trucks hauling mined materials]
...
@AndyWest_tweets

Net Zero is an irrational anti-human 'solution' to a fairy-tale* problem.
As such it's HYPOCRITICAL to its core.
But climate doom & Net Zero ‘salvation’ are extremely dangerous myths!
They infect millions, similarly to communist & fascist myths.
They may cause just as much harm!
https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/culture/

About

Attempts to explain attitudes to climate change, and the refusal of large parts of society to accept the idea of an imminent catastrophe, have largely foundered. This groundbreaking book overturns the existing literature, developing a powerful new model of public attitudes based on the interaction of traditional religion and a new culture – a new faith – of climate catastrophism, which is instinctively accepted or rejected. At its centre is a series of measurements of public opinion, culled from major international polls, which make a strong case that society is now in the grip of a major new religion. That case is made still more powerful because the model is able to predict real-world outcomes, such as the deployment of renewables and the prevalence of climate protest groups in different countries.

It ends with a warning. Cultures can bind societies together and cause great civilisations to grow and prosper. But they can also lead them to disaster. If society is truly in the grip of a new cultural entity, we should be very concerned.


On the social psychology side, i.e. why its taken over everything, there's very little (because the social sciences are themselves captured by catastrophism!)

The important thing to understand is that no matter how much group-think the mainstream science (as represented by the IPCC AR5/6 tech chaps) suffer from, it does NOT in any way support catastrophism, i.e. 'imminent (decades) global climate catastrophe'.

Which means arguing about physical climate science is to a large extent a distraction. The hugely dominant secular religion of catastrophism left ALL science behind many years ago, including the mainstream. So science hasn't controlled the action for many years; a completely out-of-control social process does.

https://x.com/Artemisfornow/status/1891073724436172932

I don't necessarily subscribe to -- or know -- the full extent of the positions held by the above handles; they only represent an example of positions I (and a growing count of others) hold on this topic.
While I may disagree with some of the details -- such as the continued usage of the erroneous "fossil fuels" descriptor [yes, I typed what I typed], it's now quite clear to any sober observer that those pushing for "NET ZERO" related scams have motives entirely separate and apart from "saving the planet" (which certainly does not require humans to "save" it). Alas, too many rubes continue to be misled by these entities.

You can huff and puff and disagree all you'd like. You're entitled to do so.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Tue Feb 25, 2025 8:19 pm

You remain deeply propagandized and obtuse on this topic. You, naturally, will claim the same about me. The difference is my perspective on this topic has shifted and evolved over the last several years, while yours remains fixed/static.


This argument is just as wrong today as it was the last time you used it. Changing your opinion about something isn't a metric for determining validity. The reason I maintain my stance is that the evidence keeps piling up, plus I can see it happening with my own eyes. The further north you go the more it's heating up, and I'm in Norway (fun fact: I'm further north than the southern tip of Greenland), so I can actually see the climate changing. Unless you're in Alaska I'm way further north than you, so it may not be as noticeable where you are, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

It's that simple: my own observations, plus the mountains of evidence piling up is the reason I haven't changed my opinion.

You can huff and puff and disagree all you'd like. You're entitled to do so.


In this particular instance I disagree with your refusal to look at what I posted. You'd rather stay in your "they changed the temperatures and that's bad!" bubble than go figure out why they did it. It's getting a little tedious. You post something, I read through it and comment, then I post something and you ignore it because you don't trust the source, or you're taking a break, or some other excuse. I've posted god knows how many rebuttals to things you've posted - including several instances of you claiming things that your sources do not support at all - and I've lost count of the times you've either just pretended I didn't, or dismissed it out of hand with some lame excuse.

I know I keep saying this, but I'm hoping one day it might register: I have yet to see you admit to being wrong about anything in this thread (or the Moon landings one), even when I've pointed out obvious errors or misunderstandings in what you've said or posted. Not once. You always deflect.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 26, 2025 7:06 am

Mate he's a fucken idiot. I dunno why you waste your time.

Props for trying tho.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Harvey » Wed Feb 26, 2025 6:34 pm

Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 26, 2025 12:06 pm wrote:Mate he's a fucken idiot. I dunno why you waste your time.

Props for trying tho.


You calling anyone else an idiot is almost funny. What could anyone say to you? The man who got almost everything of importance so utterly wrong, with so little excuse for doing so. Call me a cunt again perhaps, but you are most certainly a fool and quite possibly the idiot you project upon the world.

To Evil, my experience is that the climate is getting warmer. The science is equally clear, it has nothing to do with carbon and climate has always changed, far more rapidly than we are currently experiencing. That's a fact. Even if the various agencies are not cooking the books, which I now believe they are, the alleged mitigation measures are no more to do with climate than the alleged vaccines and the mandates were to do with Covid. You and the Aussie twat don't understand the available science because you're both programmed not to. You'll never accept that you are hopelessly wrong. Your intelligence is so great that everyone else must be an idiot. What other explanation could there possibly be?
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby Elihu » Wed Feb 26, 2025 6:51 pm

You are most decidedly on the fringes of the climate change debate


dude, don't go down with that ship. we're all friends here
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Elihu
 
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby brainpanhandler » Thu Feb 27, 2025 11:22 pm

z
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5113
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

Postby DrEvil » Fri Feb 28, 2025 2:30 am

Harvey » Thu Feb 27, 2025 12:34 am wrote:
Joe Hillshoist » Wed Feb 26, 2025 12:06 pm wrote:Mate he's a fucken idiot. I dunno why you waste your time.

Props for trying tho.


You calling anyone else an idiot is almost funny. What could anyone say to you? The man who got almost everything of importance so utterly wrong, with so little excuse for doing so. Call me a cunt again perhaps, but you are most certainly a fool and quite possibly the idiot you project upon the world.

To Evil, my experience is that the climate is getting warmer. The science is equally clear, it has nothing to do with carbon and climate has always changed, far more rapidly than we are currently experiencing. That's a fact. Even if the various agencies are not cooking the books, which I now believe they are, the alleged mitigation measures are no more to do with climate than the alleged vaccines and the mandates were to do with Covid. You and the Aussie twat don't understand the available science because you're both programmed not to. You'll never accept that you are hopelessly wrong. Your intelligence is so great that everyone else must be an idiot. What other explanation could there possibly be?


I am well aware that there have been abrupt changes in the past, and they all have explanations, or at least plausible theories. Problem is that we can't find any natural causes for what's happening right now. We're not at the end of an ice age with massive amounts of fresh water getting dumped into the oceans, there's no abnormal volcanic activity, no giant meteors, the sun isn't doing anything out of the ordinary, etc. The most plausible explanation left is the literal tens of billions of tons of CO2 (seriously, just stop for a second and think about that number: 37000 million tons of CO2 every year) and other greenhouse gases we pump out every year. I'm not sure what science you're talking about, because there's very little of it disputing man made climate change, and a solid chunk of what there is is laughably bad, funded by the fossil fuel industry, or both. If you have serious science disputing the dominant narrative, please share (just please don't make BelSav's mistake and confuse science with Twitter, Substack or the Heartland Institute).

Also, weren't you going on about some magic new engine the Indian navy supposedly were testing not too long ago? The whole thing was, as far as I could tell, based on what essentially boiled down to magic and an entirely new understanding of the universe, all of it pushed by a conman who spent the previous decades ripping off investors in Australia based on a vision from God or something, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not entirely convinced of your scientific acumen.

@Joe. I am painfully aware. I'm not doing it for his benefit.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests