Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, the alarmists will use any tactic they can find to support their agenda. It's quite amusing that they would think nobody would notice that their "adjustments" always exaggerate warming in recent years and cooling prior to that.
-------------------
Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”
“The conclusive findings of this research are that the three [global average surface temperature] data sets are not a valid representation of reality,” the study found. “In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.”
People naturally exaggerate and use the most favorable figures while trying to push their cause, and this holds true for global warming groups as well.
But actual facts are that everyday the world burns 97 million barrels of oil, and every year the world burns more than 35 billion barrels of oil. Do you believe we can burn 35 billion barrels of oil every year and positively have no negative effects from this?
And would you allow 1 cup of oil or gasoline to be burned inside your house everyday?
The Earth is a huge place but to ignore the burning of 35 billion barrels of oil every year seems HIGHLY irresponsible (especially when you would not allow that substance to be burned inside your house.)
People naturally exaggerate and use the most favorable figures while trying to push their cause, and this holds true for global warming groups as well.
But actual facts are that everyday the world burns 97 million barrels of oil, and every year the world burns more than 35 billion barrels of oil. Do you believe people can burn 35 billion barrels of oil every year and positively have no negative effects from this?
Do you think we can keep populating the planet and cutting down trees and forests which are the natural CO2 scrubbers and positively have no negative effects from this?
Let me guess, you believed The Government when they said slavery should be legal. Now you believe Al Gore when he says you should use less energy while he uses 100 times the average American.
BTW, everybody agrees with climate change.
For millions of the climate has always changed, nobody can disagree with that.
It gets warmer and then it gets colder it is just the way it has always been.
And then we have the political prostitutes and one I find particularly fascinating is Robert F Kennedy Jr who wishes government had the power did jail and in prison global warming deniers. How's that for a global warming box of manure?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of climate change’s loudest activists, said there should be a law that lets authorities punish skeptics and deniers - those who engage in “selling out the public trust,” he said, in an interview with Climate Depot during New York City’s recent People’s Climate March.
“I wish there were a law you could punish them with,” he said, in the videotaped interview. “I don’t think there is a law that you can punish these politicians under … [and skeptical politicians are] selling out the public trust.”
But thinking of scum and trash does anybody have an update on the millions of dollars globull warmbing scam that Robert F Kennedy Jr. was part of? I know he made millions, scam artist that he is, but I am interested to know if anyone has a final tally?
Because when the models consistently fail, the hypothesis is wrong, but that's not how this is going, they keep pushing the narrative even when they can't reproduce what they claim is happening. There is also this thing about variables. There are so many variables at work within climate change and science doesn't even understand all of them, so they just plug in a smoking tailpipe and factory smoke stack to fill the gap to TRY and get the results they are fishing for. ALSO, an even bigger clue, the fudging of data, real science wouldn't have to fudge anything. REAL science and it's results speak for itself. Oh, one more thing, Peer Review is not real science. It's a group of like minded zombies agreeing on something to attain their shared end goals.
See, this is why I am on the fence. I believe some of the science I read about global warning but I also believe that we are going through another natural cycle that the world goes through every thousand years or so.
If someone would just look at China and see the smog they have you would think our world is in bad shape but they are just a microcosm of the climate. Then you could look at Los Angeles and see how they have cleaned up quite a bit in the last couple of decades.
The science is all over the place. Science has also stated this happens from time to time without human cause.
Do you think we can keep populating the planet and cutting down trees and forests which are the natural CO2 scrubbers and positively have no negative effects from this?
Of course not, the damage to the Amazon forest is showing that we can't.
But the big question is how would you stop it? Perhaps give billions of dollars in graft and corruption money various African and South American dictators so they can go on shopping trips to Paris? This is exactly what that nutcase Obama advocated so why shouldn't we give it a try?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyy
See, this is why I am on the fence. I believe some of the science I read about global warning but I also believe that we are going through another natural cycle that the world goes through every thousand years or so.
If someone would just look at China and see the smog they have you would think our world is in bad shape but they are just a microcosm of the climate. Then you could look at Los Angeles and see how they have cleaned up quite a bit in the last couple of decades.
The science is all over the place. Science has also stated this happens from time to time without human cause.
Do you think we can keep populating the planet and cutting down trees and forests which are the natural CO2 scrubbers and positively have no negative effects from this?
No, maybe, or possibly yes (I don't 100% know.)
All I'm saying is why take the chance on doing something that COULD be so destructive?
It is true that the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. Whether it is caused by us humans or just a natural cycle is still up for debate. I agree we should cut down emissions just for our health alone but I don't completely believe we are causing global warming. In a nutshell I am on the fence about the whole issue.
" I agree we should cut down emissions just for our health alone "
Like "spitting in the ocean", as they say!
This information is an appropriate aid in understanding the futility of following the pretenses laid out in the Paris Accords which President Trump sensibly withdrew from. Following its provisions would do great harm to the US economy while doing nothing to alter the course of “climate change”.. Add India as a major CO2 contributor to the numbers for China shown below and you can see that changes we might make, at great economic cost, offer negligible reduction to worldwide emissions.
China has 19% of the world's population, but consumes
53% of the world's cement
48% of the world's iron ore
47% of the world's coal
China is currently the number one producer in the world of wind and solar power, but don't use it themselves.
While they manufacture 80% of the world's solar panels, they install less than 5% and build a new coal fired power station every week. In one year they turn on more new coal powered electricity than Australia 's total output.
China currently controls more than 90% of the total global supply of rare earth elements.
Chinese people consume 50,000 cigarettes every second.
They are already the largest carbon dioxide emitter and their output will rise 70% by 2020.
See, this is why I am on the fence. I believe some of the science I read about global warning but I also believe that we are going through another natural cycle that the world goes through every thousand years or so.
If someone would just look at China and see the smog they have you would think our world is in bad shape but they are just a microcosm of the climate. Then you could look at Los Angeles and see how they have cleaned up quite a bit in the last couple of decades.
The science is all over the place. Science has also stated this happens from time to time without human cause.
Exactly. Stay on the fence until the actual truth comes out. Do humans have an effect? Yes, is it as dire as they want you to believe? No.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
