The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Weather isn't the same as climate.
Climate "Change" Political Hoax
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
Weather isn't the same as climate.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&noapp=1&v=WS-x-Eo4-Sg
An inconvenient truth that I'm sure the gas bag deniers on this site will attempt to dismiss as either fake news or conspiracy of mean scientists against the poor old oil companies. Pathetic
An inconvenient truth that I'm sure the gas bag deniers on this site will attempt to dismiss as either fake news or conspiracy of mean scientists against the poor old oil companies. Pathetic
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Serious question:
When did global warming start to become labeled as climate change, and why?
Fwiw, most people don't deny climate change, but some question the impact that humans have on it.
When did global warming start to become labeled as climate change, and why?
Fwiw, most people don't deny climate change, but some question the impact that humans have on it.
That's only a tiny bit less stupid.
You might be able to argue if humans have a lot to do with climate change or if they have a really lot to do with it.
Greenhouse gasses warm up the planet. This isn't a maybe. Humans are putting a lot of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Those gasses are having an affect on our climate. It's not really debatable.
It's a billion year sun cycle that just happened to start when we started dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere!
I think another question is weather or not it makes sense to take dramatic action to prevent damage that has largely already been done, and if it makes sense to harm our economy, largely affecting those on the lower 2/3rds of the wealth scale in order to make changes to the ongoing effect we're having.
I could get into what I see as the contradictions in what the environmentalists say they want and what preserving our current climate means, not to mention those who seem to want to roll back our climate to what we had 50-100 years ago.
I could get into what I see as the contradictions in what the environmentalists say they want and what preserving our current climate means, not to mention those who seem to want to roll back our climate to what we had 50-100 years ago.
Jesus. Follow the money and those of influence. Trump supporters don't like simple logic, but let's break it down anyway.
Who stands to gain from an oil based economy? Trump, Tillerson, and Russia. Don't be stupid.
Who stands to gain from an oil based economy? Trump, Tillerson, and Russia. Don't be stupid.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Oh. I guess it's meaningless that we now determine the average temperature of Salt Lake City using a thermometer that any third grader could tell you was going to record a higher average reading than the one we used to use.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Still doesn't strengthen your argument. How Salt Lake City determines temperature is irrelevant.
Here, do as third graders do, sound it out:
GLOBAL climate change.
Here! You can do it!
GLO-BAL climate change.
The weather in salt lake is irrelevant when you sound it out:
GLOBAL climate change.
Got it???
Are you a flat Earther?
They, too, can't see six inches in front of their face.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
No matter how slowly you say it, situations like this demonstrate that there is a political component to the readings. Whether you are willing to admit it or not there are people who want the temperature readings to go up for political gain. There are people who say that Climate Change is the most important issue we face on this planet, and who would be disappointed if temperature trends were to reverse. Having seen the cycle before, though, I'm confident that those same people would soon pivot to freaking out about the way that humans are now causing a downward spiral in temperatures, and I'm also certain that they would condescendingly tell anyone who didn't buy into the hype that they are denying science.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm not claiming that global warming isn't real. I'm simply stating that I find it strange (and scientifically inconsistent) that the weather station in SLC would be altered as described. It's interesting how panicky some people get when anything related to Climate Change science is questioned.
Panicky isn't the term used.
Try "So tired of stupid people's **** we've become impatient"
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I get that. Like that clown who predicted that the Arctic would be ice free by 2017 when he accepted the Nobel Prize back in 2009, only to face the inconvenient truth that not only had Arctic ice not disappeared, it had grown significantly (45% by some estimates) in the intervening years. Instead of giving speeches on his pet topic today, though, he is garnering headlines for the massive size of his carbon footprint. He ought to give a new speech titled, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
And I can't help wondering why you think it's stupid of me to wonder how SLC can record meaningful temperature records when their data collection method has been changed as described. Are you willing to explain?
Other than one off-hand remark that you've latched onto, how much do you really know about how temperature is measured in SLC? Are there standards for setting up a temperature monitoring station? Were they followed? Do they adjust for known sources of interference? Have they actually mitigated the effects of being placed over concrete?
Or were you happy, like the environmentalists are happy when their bias is confirmed, to have this little morsel to spit in the other sides faces?
I'm sorry... I'm all out of slowing down for the special bus.
There's plenty of info on google about it. Don't focus on salt lake city, you just won't get anything. Grasp for the larger concept of climate change and you'll get it eventually.
No, the petroleum economy primarily benefits central banks including the Federal Reserve, which prints and backs the U.S. dollar, Middle East oil-producers, and their military allies.
The earth's climate has some instabilities due to a number of factors, of which human industrial pollution is one. Some areas are getting warmer, while other areas are getting cooler. However, that (hopefully) defunct agenda to monitor and tax individuals based on their supposed individual carbon footprint would constitute a government overreach of Orweillian proportions.
So that **** isn't going to happen.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm honestly interested in the truth. When I see an example of data being collected in an unexpected way I wonder why. When Al Gore's predictions of ice cap catastrophe not only don't come true, but are reversed on a massive scale, I wonder what is going on. Yes, I know that according to many scientists today that the increasing polar ice caps are actually a sign of global warming, but it seems a little bit strange that the same people who claimed a few years ago that the melting of the polar ice caps was proof of global warming now claim that the enlarging of the polar ice caps are proof of the same thing.
And yes, I agree with you that every human pays more attention to data that confirms their bias than they do to data that flies in the face of what they believe.