Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?

[Deluge]

Natural. 

Now take your activism and put you know where.  

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/global-warming-manmade-or-natural/

[Michael Hardner]

Scientific questions are different from economic questions which are different from activism. 

You shouldn't be so hysterical about this, and try to look at the problem soberly. See my link.

[paxamericana]

 

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Scientific questions are different from economic questions which are different from activism. 

You shouldn't be so hysterical about this, and try to look at the problem soberly. See my link.

The entire narrative on climate change is overblown to the point I don’t think it’s even unintentional. It’s just outright intellectual dishonesty ; to force the traditional energy companies into regulatory capture and from competing with the newer technology rollout like renewables. The problem with current renewables technologies is that it’s largely geography dependent. Unless the sun shine and wind blows, there’s not a lot to be done other than traditional coal and gas for cities like Vancouver and New York City. This is before we even get started on nuclear.

“Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that—should it occur—a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.”

 

Edited August 12, 2025 by paxamericana

[herbie]

Don't worry, the Orange Blob is setting up the EPA to 'prove' all the scientists are all wrong.
Enjoy the return of smog, it will condition your lungs for next forest fire season.
Remember that TV series where the visitors from the future had to smoke 3 packs a day to condition their lungs to the 'pure' 1970s air in LA? That's Donnie Dimwit's vision for the future.

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Natural. 

Now take your activism and put you know where.  

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/global-warming-manmade-or-natural/

You don't know FRED. Captive of the fossil fuel industry.

Quote

Fred Singer's association with fossil fuel funding

S. Fred Singer, a prominent climate change contrarian, has been linked to organizations and received funding connected to the fossil fuel industry throughout his career. 

Here's a summary of the available information:

• Direct Funding and Consulting:
  • Singer acknowledged receiving "an unsolicited and unexpected donation of $10,000" from ExxonMobil at one point.
  • He also admitted to doing consulting work for oil companies decades ago related to predicting crude oil prices.
  • Despite initial denials in 2001, Singer had previously acknowledged some oil industry funding on the television program Nightline in 1994.
• Indirect Funding through Think Tanks:
  • Singer was a senior fellow at the fossil fuel-funded Heartland Institute and received "$5,000 per month, plus expenses" from them according to a leaked document. The Heartland Institute has received donations from oil interests, including ExxonMobil and the Koch family.
  • He was involved with several organizations that received funding from ExxonMobil, including the Cato Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the American Council on Science and Health.
  • Singer founded the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in 1990, which has been linked to funding from the fossil fuel industry, according to DeSmog. SEPP is partially funded by Exxon, according to an article examining industry funding of the "greenhouse skeptics".
• Allegations of Misinformation:
  • Critics allege Singer used his connections and funding to promote misinformation and undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
  • There are claims he engaged in "doubtmongering" and actively worked to create a false impression of scientific uncertainty regarding global warming.
• Response to the Allegations:
  • Singer claimed his financial relationships did not influence his research.
  • He argued his funding during the 1990s was more related to a "Wesson Fellowship" for his work at the Hoover Institution, with funds derived from salad oil, not fossil fuels.
  • When asked about the source of funding for SEPP activities, he said he was not aware of the sources and did not ask according to a DeSmog article. 

It's important to consider these points and the sources when evaluating Fred Singer's work and positions on climate change.

 

[robosmith]

8 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

 

The entire narrative on climate change is overblown to the point I don’t think it’s even unintentional. It’s just outright intellectual dishonesty ; to force the traditional energy companies into regulatory capture and from competing with the newer technology rollout like renewables. The problem with current renewables technologies is that it’s largely geography dependent. Unless the sun shine and wind blows, there’s not a lot to be done other than traditional coal and gas for cities like Vancouver and New York City. This is before we even get started on nuclear.

“Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that—should it occur—a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.”

There has NEVER been natural climate change on the current time scales that was not caused by monumental geological catastrophe that released massive amounts of debris (ash and dust) and CO2.

Edited August 12, 2025 by robosmith

[Legato]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

There has NEVER been natural climate change on the current time scales that was not caused by monumental geological catastrophe that released massive amounts of debris (ash and dust) and CO2.

So stop beating your carpets.

[Deluge]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Scientific questions are different from economic questions which are different from activism. 

You shouldn't be so hysterical about this, and try to look at the problem soberly. See my link.

Your link suggests that man is going to destroy this planet through climate change. Why would I waste time with that nonsense, Mike? 

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, Legato said:

So stop beating your carpets.

^IRRELEVANT lDIOCY.

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

Your link suggests that man is going to destroy this planet through climate change. Why would I waste time with that nonsense, Mike? 

The planet will be fine, but you won't survive.

[Deluge]

10 minutes ago, herbie said:

Don't worry, the Orange Blob is setting up the EPA to 'prove' all the scientists are all wrong.
Enjoy the return of smog, it will condition your lungs for next forest fire season.
Remember that TV series where the visitors from the future had to smoke 3 packs a day to condition their lungs to the 'pure' 1970s air in LA? That's Donnie Dimwit's vision for the future.

Oh, no, I'm down for clean air. I've experienced smog and it sucks. What I'm not down for is windmills and activism crammed down the populace's throat. I'm quite certain Trump isn't interested in sending LA's air quality back to the 70's. lol

Edited August 12, 2025 by Deluge

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Fred...

Well he died 5 years ago. He did have a point, however he also used to say the temperature wasn't increasing. That point was proven, false, and probably the CO2 1 point will be also. 

Even if his claim that we shouldn't associate greenhouse effects with atmospheric warming are correct... I mean at some point you do have to do something.

[LinkSoul60]

18 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Natural. 

Now take your activism and put you know where.  

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/global-warming-manmade-or-natural/

Because Fred said it? 

S. Fred Singer, a physicist whose efforts to refute established climate science earned him the enmity of experts, died on April 6 at a nursing facility in Rockville, Md. He was 95.

His death was confirmed by Rochelle Lieberman, a cousin.

Even as evidence of the human causes of climate change and its risks to the planet coalesced into a scientific certainty, Dr. Singer argued that the threat of climate change was overblown, that efforts to blunt its effects would cause grievous economic damage, and that the effects of global warming would be largely beneficial.

“Not only was Fred among the first atmospheric experts to publicly question the validity of climate models, but as it became more and more politically incorrect to criticize the models, Fred was unmoved,” said Steven J. Milloy, a climate-change denialistwho served on President Trump’s transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency. “He doubled and tripled down on substantive criticism of the models, putting his scientific view ahead of the risks to his stellar career and reputation.”

But most climate experts saw a humbug.

Dr. Singer was a focus of the book “Merchants of Doubt” (2010), which examined how tobacco and other industries promoted a small group of scientists who worked to muddy the truth on climate change and other environmental risks, including secondhand smoke, asbestos and acid rain. He was one of those, the book’s authors, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, wrote, who “used their scientific credentials to present themselves as authorities” and “used their authority to try to discredit any science they didn’t like.”

In an interview, Dr. Oreskes, who is a historian of science at Harvard University, noted that Dr. Singer singled out reputable climate scientists for personal and professional attack. “I think he did a lot of damage, through literally decades of casting doubt on established science,” she said.

[Legato]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

^IRRELEVANT lDIOCY.

 

Well it is in the same vein.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Your link suggests that man is going to destroy this planet through climate change.  

My link does not do that. 

Why are you unable to make any kind of discussion without putting false claims on me? 

It is tiresome.

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The planet will be fine, but you won't survive.

EVERYONE will be fine. We have been since the dawn of man. 

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well he died 5 years ago. He did have a point, however he also used to say the temperature wasn't increasing. That point was proven, false, and probably the CO2 1 point will be also. 

Even if his claim that we shouldn't associate greenhouse effects with atmospheric warming are correct... I mean at some point you do have to do something.

What is "CO2 1 point"?

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

EVERYONE will be fine. We have been since the dawn of man. 

Just because you don't know about extinction events doesn't mean they never happened and never will. Duh

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

My link does not do that. 

Why are you unable to make any kind of discussion without putting false claims on me? 

It is tiresome.

Then you're telling me that link is purely for conversational reasons and has nothing to do with human causation? 

[LinkSoul60]

It's interesting but not surprising that Chris Wright, US Secretary of Energy, acknowledged climate change is an urgent challenge we need to address, but after confirmation he drinks the orange Kool-aide he's told to like other Maga's...   

For Chris Wright, there may be no simple truths. At his Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 15, the man poised to take control of the U.S. Department of Energy and its vast apparatus of technological research and development sat behind a walnut desk wearing a gray suit and a crisply knotted red tie. Wright, the founder and CEO of Liberty Energy, a $3 billion natural gas fracking company, harkened back to his days as a solar energy researcher and offered lawmakers a vision of open-mindedness and innovation. Climate change is an urgent challenge, he reassured them, and he would address it.

“It is a global issue. It is a real issue. It’s a challenging issue. And the solution to climate change is to evolve our energy system,” he told the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. “I am for improving all energy technologies that can better human lives and reduce emissions.”

Since his confirmation as the secretary of energy on Feb. 3, though, Wright has outlined an anti-climate agenda. Speaking to conservative audiences, he is charismatic, animated and far more zealous. Wright dismissed the transition to renewable energy as nonexistent in a Feb. 18 speech at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference, a gathering associated with the podcast host Jordan Peterson, and called global efforts to boost the use of renewables, which he said drive up the price of energy, “lunacy.”

[paxamericana]

26 minutes ago, robosmith said:

There has NEVER been natural climate change on the current time scales that was not caused by monumental geological catastrophe that released massive amounts of debris (ash and dust) and CO2.

That’s not you talking. That’s the globalist climate agenda of keeping stuff in the ground talking. And to be fair it’s not that I disagree with the end goal of transitioning from fossil fuel, it’s that these things takes time and we don’t have a suitable energy source at scale to replace oil and gas. And like all the other climate leftoids, I too do not care about poor people who won’t be able to afford food when oil goes away. They can eat lab grown bugs for sustenance.

Edited August 12, 2025 by paxamericana

[robosmith]

11 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

That’s not you talking. That’s the globalist climate agenda of keeping stuff in the ground talking. And to be fair it’s not that I disagree with the end goal of transitioning from fossil fuel, it’s that these things takes time and we don’t have a suitable energy source at scale to replace oil and gas. And like all the other climate leftoids, I too do not care about poor people who won’t be able to afford food when oil goes away. They can eat lab grown bugs for sustenance.

Except we do have a suitable energy source at scale to replace oil and gas in MANY AND GROWING CASES.

Almost everything except global air travel. But we won't get there if we keep subsidizing fossil fuels.

Have you seen the announcements that several European countries have days during which their ENTIRE energy demand has been supplied by renewables?

[Deluge]

24 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Just because you don't know about extinction events doesn't mean they never happened and never will. Duh

Then you admit that the idea of man-made climate annihilation is bullshit, right? 

Edited August 12, 2025 by Deluge

[SpankyMcFarland]

Global warming was at about 6 times the natural post-glacial rate from 1850-1982 and is at about twenty times that rate since then. Given how things are looking all around us this summer I think it’s way past time to get alarmed.  

[Deluge]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Except we do have a suitable energy source at scale to replace oil and gas in MANY AND GROWING CASES.

Almost everything except global air travel. But we won't get there if we keep subsidizing fossil fuels.

Have you seen the announcements that several European countries have days during which their ENTIRE energy demand has been supplied by renewables?

Fossil fuels will serve just fine.

Until you moonbats find a cheaper and more efficient way to keep America moving at high speeds, you'll just have to sit on your stupid activism until the next democrat slithers into the WH. 

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What is "CO2 1 point"?

Typo. The CO2 point, meaning that if CO2 ever goes the other way and temperatures do as well.... Which would be many lifetimes from now.

26 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Then you're telling me that link is purely for conversational reasons and has nothing to do with human causation? 

You really need to be specific in your language. Yes, it does have to do with human causation. No, it does not have anything to do with the Earth being destroyed. 

It is for conversational reasons, but it's an important conversation after all.

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Typo. The CO2 point, meaning that if CO2 ever goes the other way and temperatures do as well.... Which would be many lifetimes from now.

There is a lot of research on CO2 capture, so if they find a way to make money with that, it could be much sooner.

Like maybe building materials (cement/bricks, etc)