Climate Change

[reason10]

13 hours ago, robosmith said:

Video of a Randstanding speech is NOT a legitimate news source cause Rand lies all the time. LMAO

You have yet to come up with a SINGLE legitimate news source. Rand Paul is a MODERATE compared to you goose steppers.

[reason10]

No, we do not have enough fossil resources. And they are harming us.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-200-year-supply-oil-2012-3

The US Is Sitting On A 200-Year Supply Of Oil

For instance: Notice how, every time the Arabs raise their prices, the Americans and Canadians bend us over and raise prices on us. And I've also noticed how we seem to get into wars over oil and that's very expensive.

You obviously were born in 2019 if you somehow think oil company execs have ANYTHING to do with oil prices.

Imagine if America was the leader in wind and solar technology, and we exported it to nations around the world, and we had so much cheap energy that we could all drive electric cars practically for free and we could build massive, clean, low pollution factories to grow our economy. And the environmental reviews for those factories would be far easier because they could run from electricity. No exhaust smoke! 

Today wind and solar are inefficient. Both combined cannot power a small town. And you are an IDI0T if you think there's such a thing as driving an electric car for free.

Energy is what drives economies. With renewable technologies, we could have unlimited energy. Of course, manufacturing panels and turbines requires energy, but the net is far, far lower.  That is what will happen, sooner or later. It is inevitable. 

Actually, free market capitalism drives economies. It drive economies all throughout history before the first Texan bought an SUV and got 12 miles to the gallon. FOSSIL FUEL energy fuels hospitals, ambulances, farms that  produce our food, fire trucks that put out our fires, police cars that transport protection from crime. The world has 200 years' worth of fossil fuels.

You want to  live on solar and wind? Go buy your own farm. Power it SOLELY by your own windmills and solar collectors and do not connect your place to a city  power grid and see how long you last. Just leave the rest of us alone.

 

 

[Deluge]

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I haven't made any claims on my own for sure. I do site with the experts say, including temperature predictions.

2. It doesn't sound like there's any science in that claim, so I'm not going to address it. If you had a cite though that would help.

3. That is the case, then well that's too late. It's like saying I'm going to put my seat belt on when I see an accident about to happen.

CO2 was the cause in the past also..

 

1. You embrace their claims, so they are your claims as well. 

2. Do you think the UN is just talking out of their asses? I do. https://press.un.org/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm

3. Only, I've been in a wreck before, and I've seen horrific wrecks as well. I'm still waiting for Climate Catastrophe.

[Deluge]

18 hours ago, Hodad said:

Based on what? All three cases are an overwhelming-- nearly unanimous --consensus of scientists in their respective fields telling you about things you can't see and that you aren't capable of investigating on your own. 

So, rationally, why do you believe just 2 of 3? Are you flipping a coin?

Based on nothing happening. I'm looking out my window and it's perfect outside - no floods, no crazy ass weather, nothing. it's the same outside as it's always been.

Climate Change is a hoax. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Deluge

[Deluge]

21 hours ago, robosmith said:

Without CHANGES in weather, you have a STATIC CLIMATE. Duh

But that is irrelevant, because static weather does NOT EXIST.

Your "truth" is just your FANTASY. Like EVERY "truth" unsupported by EVIDENCE.

But thanks for admitting you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. 

I don't NEED evidence. I'm not the crazy f*ck running in circles and crying about the sky falling. lol

Climate Change is a hoax. 

[Deluge]

21 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're the one who's STP over having to reduce carbon emissions.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm down for cleaner air. What I'm not down for is you wokejobs trying to scare the public into your dystopian climate nightmare. 

[Deluge]

18 hours ago, robosmith said:

I posted NOTHING which corroborates your OPINION. Stop LYING.

He doesn't believe anything; just parroting what he heard on FOS LIES. AKA, Just TROLLING.

robosmith is masked and vaccinated x5, but what the woketard doesn't understand is that when all the polar ice caps melt next week, he will need to be on HIGHER GROUND, not tucked away in his safety basement.  

[Hodad]

7 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Based on nothing happening. I'm looking out my window and it's perfect outside - no floods, no crazy ass weather, nothing. it's the same outside as it's always been.

Climate Change is a hoax. 

That's flat Earth thinking. What you see out your window is a very small, simple picture. Whereas a massive amount of data shows conclusively that the planet is warming. 

You, personally, can't see cancer cells forming in the lungs of a smoker, but the data in the bloodwork sounds the alarm before imaging can detect a mass.  

Honestly, the scientific understanding of the universe is composed almost entirely of observations that you, personally, cannot see or understand without significant study.  But rejecting this bit of strongly supported science has become an article of faith. You should ask yourself why.

It's like if you were to go see 10 doctors and nine of them tell you your cholesterol is dangerously high. The 10th, who has a side-hustle selling double-breaded deep-fried cheeseburgers tells you there's nothing to worry about. There's no rational reason to believe doctor #10, but you manage to rationalize doing so because you love cheeseburgers. 

There are two problems with that example. The first is the the scientific consensus is much stronger than that. The second is that in that scenario, your foolishness is only hurting yourself. 

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

That's flat Earth thinking.

It's fact. You're not going through anything crazy and I'm not either. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Deluge

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

1. You embrace their claims, so they are your claims as well. 

2. Do you think the UN is just talking out of their asses? I do. https://press.un.org/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm

3. Only, I've been in a wreck before, and I've seen horrific wrecks as well. I'm still waiting for Climate Catastrophe.

1. If you want to put it that way, but we aren't making claims here we're restating them.  Nobody is coming up with theories on this thread.
2. 3. That's not a scientific claim, it's a call for action via press release.  You can't treat it the same as a scientific claim.  I won't defend it or criticize it here as that's not what I'm talking about.


Edited to add: the UN is a political organization primarily, not a scientific one.  Claims of science are made via a process where a paper is published, then peer reviews are commented.  This is "the science".

Claims of bloggers, YouTubers, politicians like Al Gore etc. are not the same as published and reviewed science.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. If you want to put it that way, but we aren't making claims here we're restating them.  Nobody is coming up with theories on this thread.
2. 3. That's not a scientific claim, it's a call for action via press release.  You can't treat it the same as a scientific claim.  I won't defend it or criticize it here as that's not what I'm talking about.


Edited to add: the UN is a political organization primarily, not a scientific one.  Claims of science are made via a process where a paper is published, then peer reviews are commented.  This is "the science".

Claims of bloggers, YouTubers, politicians like Al Gore etc. are not the same as published and reviewed science.

1. You have link that says "click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS". That's not a question, it's a statement. You're not questioning whether humans are causing climate change, you're telling us that humans are causing climate change. That means you've assumed the mantle of science expert, and you want to impart your wisdom to others. 

2. It's a call to action based on what science? Did the science community green light that remark about 11 years to catastrophe? Or did they just make it up? The UN told us that we had 11 years until catastrophe. If science isn't backing that up, then what is? 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Deluge

[Rebound]

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1. You have link that says "click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS". That's not a question, it's a statement. You're not questioning whether humans are causing climate change, you're telling us. That means you've assumed the mantle of science expert, and you want to impart your wisdom to others. 

2. It's a call to action based on what science? Did the science community green light that remark about 11 years to catastrophe? Or did they just make it up? The UN told us that we had 11 years until catastrophe. If science isn't backing that up, then what is? 

We are already experiencing catastrophes and they will become irreversible without more action. 
 

We didn’t have this kind of opposition to banning CFC’s.  If we did, we’d all be dead now.  

[Deluge]

5 minutes ago, Rebound said:

We are already experiencing catastrophes and they will become irreversible without more action. 
 

We didn’t have this kind of opposition to banning CFC’s.  If we did, we’d all be dead now.  

I'm not experiencing any climate catastrophes and neither are you. 

There's a difference between endangering public health and climate change. The former is real - the latter is bullshit. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Deluge

[Rebound]

6 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I'm not experiencing any climate catastrophes and neither are you. 

There's a difference between endangering public health and climate change. The former is real - the latter is bullshit. 

Captain Rebound: Our ship has hit an iceberg, and it will sink in one hour. Get on a lifeboat immediately! 
 

Passenger Deluge: I’m not sinking right now, and neither are you.  

[Michael Hardner]

46 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1.  That means you've assumed the mantle of science expert, and you want to impart your wisdom to others. 

2. It's a call to action based on what science?

3. Did the science community green light that remark about 11 years to catastrophe?

4. Or did they just make it up? The UN told us that we had 11 years until catastrophe. If science isn't backing that up, then what is? 

1. No.  I'm citing my knowledge from the experts.  "What's it like out ?" "What do I look like A WEATHERMAN ?"  

No but you can report information that people have told you...  Do I really have to explain this ?  And if so why ?

2. The call to action is "based" on climate science.  They have made a persuasive or political public relations message from the science.  Again - why am I explaining obvious things like this ?

3. I highly doubt that.

4. I already told you that I'm not here to defend political statements.  Try to step back and realize what I am standing for and what I am not.  I am not taking the time to defend political statements here - ask the source why they came up with "11 years to disaster" or whatever.  I don't agree with it.

[Deluge]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No.  I'm citing my knowledge from the experts.  "What's it like out ?" "What do I look like A WEATHERMAN ?"  

No but you can report information that people have told you...  Do I really have to explain this ?  And if so why ?

2. The call to action is "based" on climate science.  They have made a persuasive or political public relations message from the science.  Again - why am I explaining obvious things like this ?

3. I highly doubt that.

4. I already told you that I'm not here to defend political statements.  Try to step back and realize what I am standing for and what I am not.  I am not taking the time to defend political statements here - ask the source why they came up with "11 years to disaster" or whatever.  I don't agree with it.

1. You're standing by their claim. That will suffice. 

2. Right. The UN is parroting what climate scientists have been telling them, which is the UN, climate scientists, and the rest of the kooks have given the world 11 years from 2019 before climate catastrophe strikes. What do you think will happen after 7 more years have passed? 

3. Then you agree the UN is full of shit, yes? 

4. Again, just confirm that the UN is full of shit, and I'll leave that alone. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Deluge

[Nationalist]

59 minutes ago, Rebound said:

We are already experiencing catastrophes and they will become irreversible without more action.

This may be the case and it may not. IMO...the biggest problem you greenies have is the manner in which you demand fealty to your agenda. The sky is not falling today. Maybe if you tried a less imposing method. Perhaps even do something unheard of these days and "compromise"?

Your second problem is those who represent this "science" you love to toss about. They've lied right to our faces too many times now to be believable. They've lost public trust. And again...partially out of panic. 

Yet also for several other...unsavory reasons. 

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Captain Rebound: Our ship has hit an iceberg, and it will sink in one hour. Get on a lifeboat immediately! 
 

Passenger Deluge: I’m not sinking right now, and neither are you.  

Captain Rebound: Our ship has hit an iceberg, and it will sink in one hour. Get on a lifeboat immediately! 

Passenger Deluge: Sure thing, Cap! 

Passenger Deluge from the lifeboat, 8 hours later: Hey, Captain Rebound, the ship is still afloat and it doesn't appear to have sunk at all. What gives? 

Captain Rebound: It's a very small hole, Passenger Deluge, but it WILL get bigger and the ship WILL sink eventually; just make yourself comfortable in the lifeboat - you're going to be in it for a while. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Deluge

[Rebound]

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

1. You're standing by their claim. That will suffice. 

2. Right. The UN is parroting what climate scientists have been telling them, which is the UN, climate scientists and every other kook have given the world 11 years from 2019 before climate catastrophe strikes. What do you think will happen in 7 years, MH? 

3. Then you agree the UN is full of shit, yes? 

4. Again, just confirm that the UN is full of shit, and I'll leave that alone. 

No, the UN is not full of excrement.  The UN is simply a deliberative body of the leaders of every nation in the world.  We get along with some and disagree with others.  
 

Without a forum for the nations of the world to work out their disagreements and try to solve problems, how would these disagreements and problems be resolved? Of course it is an imperfect system, because each nation is sovereign, but it is the best solution we have devised for the task. 
 

We do not disagree with the scientific findings. 

[Deluge]

6 minutes ago, Rebound said:

No, the UN is not full of excrement.  The UN is simply a deliberative body of the leaders of every nation in the world.  We get along with some and disagree with others.  
 

Without a forum for the nations of the world to work out their disagreements and try to solve problems, how would these disagreements and problems be resolved? Of course it is an imperfect system, because each nation is sovereign, but it is the best solution we have devised for the task. 
 

We do not disagree with the scientific findings. 

And that deliberative body of leaders of every nation in the world told us back in 2019 that we had 11 years until climate catastrophe strikes. 

And yet this forum for the nations pulled out their crystal ball and told us back in 2019 that we had 11 years until climate catastrophe strikes. 

We have 7 years to go and I haven't seen even a hint of climate change. What's going on, professor? 

[herbie]

48 minutes ago, Deluge said:

And that deliberative body of leaders of every nation in the world told us back in 2019 that we had 11 years until climate catastrophe strikes. 

And if you haven't noticed, it's already striking 8 years earlier

[Hodad]

55 minutes ago, Deluge said:

And that deliberative body of leaders of every nation in the world told us back in 2019 that we had 11 years until climate catastrophe strikes. 

And yet this forum for the nations pulled out their crystal ball and told us back in 2019 that we had 11 years until climate catastrophe strikes. 

We have 7 years to go and I haven't seen even a hint of climate change. What's going on, professor? 

Hard to see a hint of anything with your head buried in the sand. What of global surface temps? What of global ocean temps? What of sea ice? The "hacks" at NASA are out to get you too. They can land a man on the moon and measure the mass of a black hole millions of light years away, but they can't properly work a thermometer?

Record temps are barely news now that every year is one of the hottest on record.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

1. You're standing by their claim. That will suffice. 

2. Right. The UN is parroting what climate scientists have been telling them, which is the UN, climate scientists, and the rest of the kooks have given the world 11 years from 2019 before climate catastrophe strikes. What do you think will happen after 7 more years have passed? 

3. Then you agree the UN is full of shit, yes? 

4. Again, just confirm that the UN is full of shit, and I'll leave that alone. 

Yes the UN is sometimes full of *sh1t*, however the ipcc studies and predictions are very accurate.

Just like the Canadian government can do some good things and bad things, it's not binary.

That should be clear now I expect.

[robosmith]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

if you don't understand the details  enough to be able to make accurate predictions - you don't understand the physics.

BULLSHIT. The basic physics is UNDERSTOOD. Stochastic processes, like the weather, are notoriously difficult to predict.

In reality, climate is easier to predict because the randomness averages out.

 

Stochastic natural processes:

Quote

 

Oxford Languages · Learn more

sto·chas·tic

adjective

TECHNICAL

randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

 

You using a canned program for stochastic analysis doesn't mean you understand what it is. LMAO

13 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Dude, you're a sucker for those who have repeatedly lied to you.

And yes I do reject the "science" of Fauci, the WHO, the CDC and most of them.

When they lie and get caught...several times...I tend to doubt the liars.

And yet you still believe FOS LIES despite the FACT that they lied to you so much it cost them $800M. LMAO

[robosmith]

13 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Huh...you saw the video. Yet you still can't accept the truth right in your lap.

Randstander is FAMOUS for LYING. You probably don't hear about that on FOS LIES.

13 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Man...that's some interesting level of blind trust you got going there.

Nothing about my conclusions is "blind," cause I SEE a LOT from MANY SOURCES.

10 hours ago, reason10 said:

You have yet to come up with a SINGLE legitimate news source. Rand Paul is a MODERATE compared to you goose steppers.

WMO are world experts. YOU OTOH are TOP TROLL.