Making Fun Of Climate Change Alarmists
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
......In the 70’s wasn’t Carl Sagan warning about global cooling?
He talked about specifically about warming, always used the green house effect on Venus as an example..........he did talk about past and future ice ages
Have you ever thought through the notion that nature is a balancing act? I understand that sentiment to mean that nature is forever out of balance and is constantly acting to find its equilibrium. I doubt that the earth’s nature has been perfectly balanced once in its existence. That’s what makes science so interesting. Assuming scientific consensus is negating the whole purpose of science.
How about Richard Feynman.....My passion is Astrophysics, I have not heard a single credible Astrophysicist ,Cosmologist, Astronomer, particle physicist....ect come out on the side that Human influenced climate change is a hoax........not to mention our own Government agencies ...NASA, NOAA, NRO, even the DoD treats it as a National security issue...ect
I am impressed that you keep up with the writings of all the astrophysicists, cosmologists, astronomers, particle physicists, etc. as their knowlege relates to climate. Especially since there are tens of thousands of them! I’m surprised you have time to be on this board, what with all the climate-related technical papers these scientists must put out on a daily basis that you peruse.
Last edited:
Found this after a quick search on the internet. Feynman is discussed about half way down. It seems to argue against your point.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/ct-xpm-2014-05-21-ct-perspec-climate-0521-20140521-story.html
Well, Venus is certainly a planet we should be comparing Earth to. There's zero difference between Venus and Earth besides that CO2 thing... [end sarcasm]
While I agree with your premise, the challenge is that the message and impact Sagan and others highlighted in the 70s is the exact opposite of what's being said today. Second, the demands of those who demand we change our energy behavior seem to have little correlation to the climate-change claims being made. Third, those same demanders accept no middle ground or compromise. We could go nuclear, except we can't primarily due to environmentalists. We could expand clean natural gas, except that its still 'evil fossil fuels' and thus not good enough. And finally, its the cry wolf effect. If you are going to call every cold-front, hurricane, tornado, wild fire, mud slide, or other natural disaster a testament to the effects of climate change, then your alarmism will be tuned out.
On a similar note, environmentalists should be thanking Trump.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/04/report-shows-significant-increase-in-iuds-after-trump-election.html
The only way to solve man-made climate change effectively is to slow population growth. The world can't continue to urbanize and expect there to not be an environmental impact.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/04/report-shows-significant-increase-in-iuds-after-trump-election.html
The only way to solve man-made climate change effectively is to slow population growth. The world can't continue to urbanize and expect there to not be an environmental impact.
Me: Care less about gender fluidity. Who would give a shit how someone identifies and why?
You: Care less about gender fluidity. Who would give a shit how someone identifies and why?
You, after snorting right wing dumbshittery propaganda: True believer, across the board. Oh the rage. Even work it in when talking about climate change. Hey, here's a guy in Idaho, he put on a skirt and won a state championship in girls' lacrosse. Look everyone, your little girls are gonna get raped by trannies. To arms.
Let me phrase it differently so you can answer in simply yes or no statements:
1) Do you believe that climate change is settled science or does it warrant additional debate and review?
2) Do you believe gender identification is settled science or does it warrant additional debate and review?
My answers are No and Yes. What are yours?
1. What part of "climate change" are you referring to? The thesis that carbon production causes climate change, including warming and extreme weather? Yes.
2. I don't know. I don't care. If how they pee is the only factor, yes. If how they think or feel is a factor, then no. I've known some naturally butch women and naturally feminine guys since childhood. Wtf does it matter what I think? Am i supposed to take one position or the other to fit in an ideological box that someone's built for you?
As usual, you are projecting. I still don’t give a shit about gender. It was a joke meant to show the dichotomy of what is science and what’s not and how filtering it tbrought the approved propogabda is key.
So, if I'm a layman with this stuff (and I am) and I read: https://climate.nasa.gov/, am I suppose to assume NASA is purposely misleading me? They have an agenda? They are being greased by renewable energy money? They are jumping the gun? They are just wrong?
Is there another major political party that resists this theory like the GOP in America?
Is there another major political party that resists this theory like the GOP in America?
Pardon my ignorance, I'm not sure how this video answers my question, the lady even says, "There is no scientific disagreement within NASA that humans are causing climate change."
Is this not exactly what you are asking every Republican who dares question any component of climate change science to do?
First,here's a link to Carl Sagan's 1980 essay https://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-carl-sagans-original-essay-on-the-dangers-of-cl-1481304135 Read that essay and tell me how anything he said challenges climate science today. And be intellectually honest, because I'll tell you my man, you saying that seems deceptive.
Second, why do you not mention that those people were a minority? The argument is based on a half truth.
[URL='http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf']This PDF contains a study of all peer-reviewed literature from 1965-1979 concerning climate change. Of the 49 articles that predicted changes to global temperatures, 42 predicted warming, while only 7 predicted cooling. (Note that the lead author of the 1976 cooling paper later went on to become an oil-funded mouthpiece for the global warming denier groups.)[/URL]
Science doesn't follow public opinion, public opinion should follow science.
You asked if NASA was biased. They may be. I.e., they have many scientists studying climate change. They need money to pay these people. So, they need a result that justifies their continued pay and studies.
Welp, there it is everybody. The most frequent demagogue argument from the deniers, doesn't make sense on its face, but someone finally looks to see if it's true and.... poof.
You guys are something else. Spreading that bullshit and when someone actually consults the factual record.... poof.
