Infidel Dog

I haven't got into it deep enough so see the how depopulation thing might work but I don't doubt it's in there. But basically, no matter what they call it, that this and the other is all just about controlling the populace under an umbrella of woke.

I don't know... I think this new thing might be more a later stage of the process. That's more like clearing the table with divide and conquer. This new corporate and governmental control thing modeled on the Chinese Social Credit system and described by the UN in Agenda 2030 is more like they're now setting a new table.

You're absolutely right. What's happening here is that 'game of words' thing the Progressive and corporate left likes. There's a spreading technique of corrupting the system to take broader control. It's being spread under different terms but it's all under the same umbrella. And when it's all complete yeah, you won't see much difference between it and what we're calling the Chinese Social Credit system. The corporate left is using this thing they call ESG. Have you heard about that one? But that's finance down rather than government down. Actual or what I'll call non-Mikey conservatives are starting to fight back though. Last week 4 Republican states withdrew all government investment from financial brokers using ESG.

They're saying Herschel Walker can't be taken seriously as a political candidate because he's not a politician. They seem to think that sort of thing has never happened before. I'm giving them one example where they're wrong. I know very little about Walker's history but I imagine he's done a little public speaking in his past and if you could talk to some of his old team mates they'd most likely have a lot to say about his leadership qualities.

The point was he was a political novice when he was voted in as Governor. He's headed the screen actor's guild and made an appearance or two to support the odd politician but as far as I know that was about it.

Let me repeat the bit you didn't quote then. The CAGW scare is about scaring you into believing you need greater governmental control. 'Scary' is a necessary and accurate term. Again, if you don't like it that's your problem but don't be thinking that will make me stop using it. Run and tell the king if it bothers you. Isn't that what Chicken Littles do?

Would you like a term that is found in science? "Climate Sensitivity," look it up. I'll tell you what it says regarding CO2. It says CO2 provides one degree of warming per doubling of CO2 in a closed environment experiment. In our open environment they've told us that's worked out to about 1 degree per this century so far. As to scary, let's not pretend this hasn't gotten political and it's really just about scaring the populace into supporting greater governmental control. The conglomeration of "They" above have offered you the comfort of believing somebody's on your side fixing the non-problem they've scammed you into believing is a horrible unnatural thing caused by the rest of us and they can fix it. You don't think that matters. I do. Don't tell me not to notice the obvious political influence on the problem. If you don't see it that's your problem.

There are solutions to some problems. But first you need an actual problem and an actual solution. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. One shouldn't get sucked into fixing a non-problem with a bad solution by hucksters with their little bags of false equivalencies.

So is the skunky rot of lies. It's always somewhere. I always get a pretty good whiff from the direction of the warmist religion.

Are you saying you think 1 degree per century is pretty scary? Tell me why? As to the surface temp measurements vs. satellites I think they've pretty much worked the bugs out of satellite measurements. They can calculate for decaying orbits now and the two different services keep each other honest. There are a ton of still existing problems with surface temps and even when they do tweak those it's always a Eureka moment where they find more warming. Surface temps might be more screwed up now than when they began trying to fix them. I could tell you about the larger problems with surface temps but sooner or later I'd have to mention Anthony Watts then R&R would have to rush to grab their/his global warming religion equivalent crucifix so to speak to ward off the evil spirit. As to models. GIGO. Garbage In. Garbage Out. Confirmation bias will find whatever it needs wherever it lies.

And yes warming has continued from 1998 but satellite temps look to say it's about 2 tenths of a degree. One more time, so what?

Man, you do like your massaged scary graphs and hyper enlarged titles. But I hear you also like facts. OK, I only heard that one from you but I did hear it. In fact you seemed to be talking like you feel you are the master of all facts. I think you missed one. From your article: OK, so what? Are you thinking that's enough to wipe out Obama's mansion on Martha's Vinyard? He doesn't seem worried. Why would he be? I could be wrong but as I recall the prediction actually said the 7 inches of sea level rise was for the whole 21 century if seas continued at the current rate. So 7 inches in a century. Again, so what? Obama could put his mansion on stilts in a hundred years.

Really, how does that one go? I'm telling you the 1998 super El Nino supplied the bump that allowed world temps to step up to the next level. You know, the step up you're so impressed by.

I think your girl said that better: If that's what makes you want to throw soup on the Mona Lisa, I guess. Nothing I can do about it. Just be amused.

And when do you expect all that to happen? Did you know that 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2 isn't enough to do it? This is why they invented a new theory to overlap on the old carbon dioxide causes warming one to cover it. They don't like to tell you about it but it goes like this. There isn't enough warming from the sort of CO2 warming they can show in a high school experiment to say flood the Empire state building. So what they do is they say yeah but when the CO2 warming happens it's going to warm the water vapor which there's much more of and that's going to supply the necessary warming to destroy the world as we know it. The problem with that is such positive feedbacks aren't something you see often in the natural world and there is no experiment as prescribed by the scientific method that would give evidence to that one. Sorry to disappoint you R&R but Warmageddon isn't coming.

Ok, I'm going to skip through all the diversionary, questionable BS above there and laser focus into the key point. Denial of what? Specifically? What? If you're saying anything other than you claim you know of what you call a "significant majority of rational experts" that know beyond dispute that an inevitable catastrophe of human caused warming is coming, show it to me. Or don't and in so doing admit you don't actually know what you're talking about. Don't leave out the inevitable apocalypse of warming bit this time. Because that's what matters.

But if you're really going to insist on being impressed by the last 40 years of that graph you should at least be aware of what the more reliable satellite temps show. I'll explain it to you the way I see it. There was a super el nino in 1998. Global temps rose up onto a new level. 18 years later there was another major ocean warming event that rose global temps 1 tenth of a degree above 1998. It kept temps at a level high and a few years later there was another slightly smaller ocean caused warming. Currently temps are leveling out to another climate pause. I believe this one is 8 years so far.

So you tell me you know the story about the Hockey stick Graph then you post me that as testament to what, exactly? That maybe the hockey stick graph is not BS? If so you really need to watch that second video to understand what "Hide the decline" was about. Or are you just going "Wow, look at how radical they made the slope look on this one. They don't even show the leveling that should be their at the peak. Isn't that great?" Whatever, I already explained the problems to you with that graph. 1 degree of warming from the time of coolness when some of your "experts were predicting a coming glacial ice age to the warmth of the 1998 super El Nino is no biggie. It doesn't tell us the sky is falling no matter how much you want it to.

The problem is you're pretty selective about your experts. And if you're telling now that you knew how hard the hockey stick graph has been debunked but you posted it as claimed fact anyway you need to find better experts.

Oh wait again RnR...you got lucky. While I was looking for that funny vid I knew about Michael Mann and his hockey stick graph I looked down and I saw a serious one explaining the scam. So I can help you out with a link. Here ya go. Catch up.

Oh wait...on second thought I will give you one link. This is just to show you what a joke Michael Mann and his hockey stick graph has become to people who know the whole story:

Again man, I just shake my head at you guys, sometimes, on this issue. You're convinced you're experts but there is so much basic stuff you don't seem to know. That graph above is something called "the Hockey Stick Graph". You need to look it up. I'm not going to look up basic stuff for you that you should know. But I'll give you a spoiler. Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Graph been debunked beyond any point that anybody but a complete sucker could take seriously. I will give you links to the debunking once you show me you've at least caught up on the basics. That pic looks like it came from Wikipedia. Did it? Tell me if it did and I'll tell you an interesting story about why you can't trust Wikipedia on the global warming issue. I may even give you links?

Are you talking about the link at the bottom of your thread? Because I did comment there.

Yes, it's a trick to bring the irrational mind back from the fantasy some mystic consensus of climate scientists knows for a fact the sky is falling. Whether or not there's a reason to get scared about a proposed climate catastrophe is the only question that really matters. If there's not even a scientific consensus on that we don't need a massive politically charged response to it. The superior response if it's just another possibility of a possible tragedy someday is to continue to adapt. Maybe build some bigger dykes or something.

Of course I clicked on it. Everything in my answer should have told you I clicked on it. Didn't need to though. I've seen it all before. I wouldn't get stuck on that graph. It's not what passes for ultimate truth. The graphs were changed to create a kind of homogenized truth a few years back. Satellite graphs are the exception. It's a long story. It has to due with a climate pause where warming stopped showing up for awhile so this guy who's more a political favorite than a scientist gathered some agreeable scientists together and they decided that because there was a switch in how ocean temps were taken from submarines around the time of the second world war the current measurements had to be massaged to take out the climate pause. All the land and ocean based gatherers of temperature data complied. Previously all graphs looked slightly different with NASA GISS having the most radical ones. Warming tends to happen in steps though. Emphasis on the angle is deceptive in general. What actually happened was there was a super El Nino in 1998. That was the final real step in warming so far. It's been leveling off since then. Even by eye you can see it on the satellite graph: Also, I hope you noticed how this radical rise they create on your graph can only happen because they measure in tenths of a degree. If they measured in full degrees you wouldn't even notice the slope. Even on your graph though 1 degree from 1980 or 1.5 from 1880 is not that scary.