Climate change propaganda

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Read again, I just did, geo thermal venting, sun cycles, milankovic cycles, and now a group suggested the earths core.

Ok, great! So, which one is it? Or is it all those things combined? How do they explain the rapid warming over the past century or so? Since you are so keen to believe anything but human made climate change, surely you can explain at least one of those theories. Right?

[mapuc]

Made a search to find any science article about this earth core and climate change only thing I found was this

Earth's Inner Core May Right Now Be in The Process of Changing Direction

https://www.sciencealert.com/earths-...ging-direction

Which as I understand it nothing to do with climate change.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Ok, great! So, which one is it? Or is it all those things combined? How do they explain the rapid warming over the past century or so? Since you are so keen to believe anything but human made climate change, surely you can explain at least one of those theories. Right?

Just as well as you can, right?

I know the difference between average temperature and temperature anomaly. I question the use of average temperature base lines as evidence temperatures are rising. Are temperatures actually rising or is it because we have more weather stations around the globe than ever before taking measurements. As our technology improved and the number of weather monitoring stations dramatically increased so did the global average temperatures.

Example:

Even if one station were removed from the record, the average anomaly would not change significantly, but the overall average temperature could change significantly depending on which station dropped out of the record. For example, if the coolest station (Mt. Mitchell) were removed from the record, the average absolute temperature would become significantly warmer. However, because its anomaly is similar to the neighboring stations, the average anomaly would change much less.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/mon...vs-temperature

There were once near zero measuring stations in Africa and South America now there are many. Ocean weather was once only measured along trade routes now we have weather buoys everywhere.. Can you guess what’s going to happen to the global average after new stations are installed in Africa and South America? Again, it’s going to rise as fast as they are placed online.

That’s my understanding of it.


The usual annual arguements we hear about what the warmest year on record and such is over temperature anomalies not temperatures. As for the other theories they are written and available. I see them as strong theories because we do have hard historical evidence of natural causes affecting climate. More so than I do CO2 because nobody has any definitive proof if CO2 is doing anything to our atmosphere. Feel free to read them and make your own decision.

It's an assumption say Im so keen on not 'believing' what I'm not so keen on is fanboy science which dictates anything different than their cherished beliefs is labelled b.s.

[Catfish]

@Rockstar i know you just want to troll, as much as you may paint yourself to mirror or quote "independent" science. Still i will not give up

Originally Posted by Rockstar

[...] I question the use of average temperature base lines as evidence temperatures are rising.
Are temperatures actually rising or is it because we have more weather stations around the globe than ever before taking measurements.

Certainly there were not as much weather stations placed all around the world in the cretaceous or as in recent times, the technology did not exist, nor did these f'n humans.
But it is about the last hundred thousand years, and in this time the core drillings of arctic and antarctic ice probes that have been derived by humans (tm of idiots) show the temperatures. Just like a tree's seasonal rings every being can go back in the years and determine the temperature, down to one year.
When it comes to older records the layers of sediments and precipitated chemicals tell about the earth's climate development or exceptional outliers (like in the permian and cretaceous ages). Oxygen and CO2 content can be measured along with a lot of other indications. The first oxygen abundance led to the first major extinction in those ancient oceans, not much living things of the time liked oxidizing [sic!] oxygen.

As our technology improved and the number of weather monitoring stations dramatically increased so did the global average temperatures.

This is a lie tale to suit your prejudice. You are right, temperatures rose since humans are able to directly measure it (took them long enough eh?). Before those times there were no humans. Yes i know your next phrase like "the technology to record and measure only exists since xxx years", but no!
There is indirect measuring of the times before those humans (who are so proud of themselves) roamed the world. And just of all those f'n humans are now able to determine the earth's temperature before their very own existence.

[...] It's an assumption say Im so keen on not 'believing' what I'm not so keen on is fanboy science which dictates anything different than their cherished beliefs is labelled b.s.

It is not about "fanboys of science" or about what is is "hip" now according to Fox News or Scientific American, it is just because you are obviously tired of thinking yourself and sum up obvious facts. Believing is for your human religion.
Your "cherished beliefs" you so criticize are based on exploration and logical thinking, just because you prefer to believe in conspiracy theories does not make the latter true.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Catfish

@Rockstar i know you just want to troll, as much as you may paint yourself to mirror or quote "independent" science. Still i will not give up

Cartainly there were not as much weather stations placed all around the world as in recent times, the technology did not exist.
But it is about the last hundred thousand years, and in this time the core drillings of arctic and antarctic ice probes show the temperature. Just like a tree's seasonal rings you can go back in the years and determine the temperature, down to one year.
When it comes to older records the layers of sediments and precipitated chemicals tell about the earth' climate development or exceptional outliers (like in the permian and cretaceous ages). Oxygen and CO2 content can be measured along with a lot of other indications.

This is a lie tale to suit your prejudice.


It is not about "fanboys" of science or about what is is "hip" now according to Fox News or Scientific American, it is just because you are obviously tired of thinking yourself and add the obvious facts.
Your "cherished beliefs" you so criticize are based on exploration and logical thinking, just because you prefer to believe in conspiracy theories does not make the latter true.

Tree rings might indicate past climate changes but I don't think they explain why.

So, if the NOAA says removing a weather station from a cold climate can reduce global temperature averages. It would IMO stand to reason adding weather stations to hot climates would raise the global temperature average (baseline).

And if all you can offer is some pathetic hit & run piece talking about being hip, fox news and other non-related topics which neither I or anyone here brought and without ever explaining anything why you just decreed something a lie then yes that's fanboy science. Is it because it threatens your cherished beliefs? Tell me why it's a lie otherwise it's just fanboy science and conceited fantasies which just derail anyone's effort to understand anything. Unless of course they believe what you believe then its science.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

So, if as the NOAA says by removing a weather station from a cold climate can reduce global temperature averages. It would IMO stand to reason adding weather stations to hot climates would raise the global temperature average (baseline).

Who says that? I somehow doubt this someone (and wtf is "NOAA"?) would suggest this? Where do "they" write this? If they do it would be enough to render them inappropriate.

All you can offer is SOME pathetic hit & run piece about about fox news which neither or anyone brought and without ever explaining just decide it's a lie. Is it because it threatens your cherished beliefs? Tell me why it's a lie.

I happen to threaten your cherished beliefs that oppose scientific methods and research. Fox News is brought up because August quotes it all the time, and you follow their argumentation.

edit: why don't you just read what i wrote about earth's past. It explains a lot.

[Rockstar]

You expect me to believe that in one sentence you explained a lot about earth's climate history, really? What does August, tree rings, fox news have to do what I wrote? All I did was attempt to share my understanding of the difference between global temperature average and temperature anomaly and why I think temperature averages have increased and that the end of year arguments of warming are actually over temperature anomalies? I also shared other news I found about scientific papers which discuss in some detail theories of how natural planetary forces may affect our climate. One of which is geo thermal venting that is said to be affecting arctic ice & Greenland ice caps from the bottom up as well as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as we speak.

Then you come right and without explanation decree lies lies! Running down the road rambling on about fox news, trolls and august, wth?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

You expect me to believe that in one sentence you explained a lot about earth's climate history, really?

Not in one sentence, no. Short-term changes in weather like one warm or cold summer (or winter) does not represent a decade or century-long trend of a changing climate.

All I did was attempt to share my understanding of the difference between global temperature average and temperature anomaly and why I think temperature averages have increased and that the end of year arguments of warming are actually over temperature anomalies?

You are right, isolated occurrences do not represent a general climate change. But the decade-long melting of glaciers does show a trend.
It is not that this has not happened before, but the very short time interval in which it happens now is breathtaking. We see it happening in decades when it took ten-thousand years, or even millions of it (like the permian climate change and extinction).

You did not share a link of the news where this is discussed or then I still have not found it –
Yes, planetary forces, the earth's magnetic field, even "thermal exhalations" or volcanic eruptions can (and have!) influenced weather and climate of any planet, there are also cyclic changes. This has - afaik - not much to do with what we see now.

[Skybird]

Another perspective.


Note on the following text: "Lützerath" is a recently forcibly evicted village in Germany that falls victim to lignite mining, Luisa Neubauer is a German Greta Thunberg.
Focus writes:
----------------------------------------------------
Climate rescue? All well and good, but the real agenda of the activists is different

What is the climate movement about? The climate? You would think. Until you start looking into the real goals in more detail.

Do you know what a Leopard-2 consumes in fuel? 720 liters of diesel per hundred kilometers. Tanks are not only a disaster in terms of peace ethics, they are also climate killers. Every leopard is a Lützerath on tracks. I'm surprised that the climate movement hasn't discovered this issue and is pushing for a swift end to the war.

But wait. That's exactly what it says in an essay under the heading "Climate Killer War" in the "Journal for International Politics and Society," the foreign policy magazine of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, the party foundation of the SPD.

"Bombardments on fossil infrastructure leave behind a mixture of various toxic substances that cause serious environmental damage," it says. "At the same time, raw materials and resources are being invested by all warring parties in armaments that would be needed to deal with the climate crisis." There is only one thing that can help: a ceasefire immediately! Only with a ceasefire can the 1.5-degree target still be achieved, the conclusion goes.

Sure, this is bitter news for all Ukrainians. A ceasefire means accommodating Putin. Without far-reaching concessions, he will hardly agree to recall his troops to save the 1.5-degree target. But climate change threatens not only Ukraine, but all of humanity. Forty-three million versus eight billion: That's the trade-off. Sorry, dear Ukraine.

It was only a matter of time before pacifism and the environmental movement came together. That's the great thing about climate, it fits in with everything that's politically en vogue at the moment. Anti-colonialism, anti-capitalism, anti-Semitism: if you look closely, there's no left-wing issue that can't be given a new lease of life this way.

Most people think that groups like "Fridays for Future" or "Last Generation" are about stopping climate change. That's the appeal of the movement. These desperate young people, it is said everywhere, are only fighting so that they also have a livelihood. Even the most hardened cynic gets weak in the knees when it comes to the future of the children.

But is the climate movement really about the climate? I now have my doubts. If I were a climate activist, my main concern would be how to keep our economic system running without driving the planet's temperature ever higher.

The fantastic thing is that, with nuclear power, mankind has an energy source that is reliable, sufficiently available and climate-neutral. If the activists were solely concerned with the climate, one would think they would be interested in anything that might offer a way out. But it isn't. There is not even a discussion of reassessing nuclear power. The only thing there is is a demand to shut down everything that is considered too dirty.

I came across a video clip by chance featuring entrepreneur and book author Vivek Ramaswamy. Ramaswamy made a bunch of money in medical technology before he started writing. His book, Woke, Inc. i.e., about woken capitalism, was on the New York Times bestseller list for months.

The real goal of the climate movement is to get the West to apologize for past sins in order to finally achieve global justice, Ramaswamy says in the video excerpt. Hence the reluctance to embrace nuclear power. The problem with nuclear power, he says, is not that it has disappointed the expectations placed in it. The problem is that it is too good. The moment clean energy is available in large quantities, there is no more leverage to push the anti-Western agenda.

Admittedly, that sounds a bit far-fetched. But talk to climate activists for a while and it occurs to you that maybe Ramaswamy isn't so off base after all.

Did you know that the fight for the 1.5-degree target will be decided next to Luetzerath in Ramallah? Why is that, you may now ask. Because the fight against climate change can only be won if the Palestinian flag flies everywhere where Israel is today. You still don't see what one has to do with the other? Quite simply: Israel is a colonial state, and climate justice will only exist when "white supremacy" is broken. These are not my words, these are original words of "LütziBleibt".

Anti-capitalism is not dead, it has just taken on a new manifestation. Now they are trying to unhinge the system by cutting off the power to industry. Of course, the fight is also being declared against the cop state. "In the medium term, we must abolish the police as a body that primarily supports the interests of a capitalist system," reads a statement by the anti-coal initiatives.

That the demonstrators would be the first to go under when the law of the strongest rules in the streets is one of the many consequences that don't seem to me to have been properly considered. It is one thing to dump tomato soup over paintings, and quite another to laugh in the face of a Hells Angel who no longer has to fear the police or justice.

I am always amazed at the comradely tone in which activists like Luisa Neubauer are met on "Anne Will" or "Maybrit Illner". Not a clear word, not a critical question. Since I don't assume that Anne Will also dreams of abolishing capitalism, her obligingness stems from opportunism or ignorance. My money is on both.

Of course, the model Green is also spared the question of why she is a member of a group whose umbrella organization calls for bombing terror against civilians. "Yallah Intifada" read a call from "Fridays for Future" just this week again. But hey, what can Luisa Neubauer do about the fact that "Fridays for Future" is full of Israel haters? Besides, it's about the climate!

It's not far from the leftist idea of justice to the system of coercion. The doyen of the climate protection movement, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has now proposed that every German be allocated a fixed CO2 budget. Each person should not be allowed to emit more than three tons of CO₂ per year, which is just about the right amount for the global climate. From 2050, emissions are then to be zero.

At the moment, a German citizen emits ten tons of CO₂ per year. So you can start thinking about how you want to get down from that. You won't be able to rely on insight alone. The details are still unclear: Will there be a CO₂ declaration in addition to the tax return? How will CO₂ offenses be monitored? How do you even measure your own emissions? But it won't work without oversight.

In a study published in the scientific journal Nature, researchers from Sweden and Great Britain have worked out how a private emissions trading system could be set up using cell phones. Of course, this would require the abolition of data protection. In the end, it could work like in China. Every movement would be recorded and rated according to its environmental impact. Instead of social points, there would be climate points.

The tragedy of the modern climate movement is that it would not get through at the ballot box with any proposal. How many would be enthusiastic about abolishing the police and capitalism in the medium term? Two percent, three percent? Other movements have already despaired of the intransigence of the masses.

I can understand the unwillingness to follow the climate activists politically. I also have limited trust in people who can't think of anything more than shutting down everything that bothers them.

-------------------------------

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

it is just because you are obviously tired of thinking yourself and sum up obvious facts. Believing is for your human religion.
Your "cherished beliefs" you so criticize are based on exploration and logical thinking, just because you prefer to believe in conspiracy theories does not make the latter true.

Thinking for our self.

Are we truly thinking for our self or are we thinking what others want us to think ?

Secondly WHO of us has a degree in climatology ? I for one doesn't

When it comes to this claim about climate change-I have decided not to believe any of them--Heck I have my own theory..and I seems to be to only one with this theory..I can't post an article to tell you I'm right, 'cause there isn't any.

Markus

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Thinking for our self.
Are we truly thinking for our self or are we thinking what others want us to think ?

There is always the 'danger' to fall for some.. entity's opinion because it seems logical (or because it suits your opinion or political prejudice ) The only remedy is to get information based on facts and empiricism, and to draw your conclusions.

Secondly WHO of us has a degree in climatology ? I for one doesn't

Climatology, well. There was a time and there are nations who do not study this. Do not ask me why there are people in nations that do, still prefer to believe in other (like populistic) explanations. Must be a "human" thing
Yes we had climatology in our studies, but this means nothing. Theories change all the time.

When it comes to this claim about climate change-I have decided not to believe any of them--Heck I have my own theory..and I seems to be to only one with this theory..I can't post an article to tell you I'm right, 'cause there isn't any.

Right. Well you could present it here, no one will support or criticize it without trying to give evidence for or against it. Discussion is the best way to find the truth, and make you think.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Right. Well you could present it here, no one will support or criticize it without trying to give evidence for or against it. Discussion is the best way to find the truth, and make you think.

Let me start with the fact. The battle to decrease the CO2 emission to almost zero will not help a tiny bit

It's earth who has decided to either erase the entire human race or a majority of it.

We are like a virus on Mother earths soil.

To fight a virus the body raise its temp.(that's why people has fever when they fight some virus in their body) This is what mother earth is doing raising the temp. to fight its virus(us) Earth is only a few hours old in the history of the universe and she has all the time to slowly raise the temp.

So you see all this talk about getting the CO2 emission down to almost zero will have no effect.

I've read things like it's important that we change our behaviour, well well this should have been done thousands of years ago.

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Let me start with the fact. The battle to decrease the CO2 emission to almost zero will not help a tiny bit

It's earth who has decided to either erase the entire human race or a majority of it.

We are like a virus on Mother earths soil.

To fight a virus the body raise its temp.(that's why people has fever when they fight some virus in their body) This is what mother earth is doing raising the temp. to fight its virus(us) Earth is only a few hours old in the history of the universe and she has all the time to slowly raise the temp.

So you see all this talk about getting the CO2 emission down to almost zero will have no effect.

I've read things like it's important that we change our behaviour, well well this should have been done thousands of years ago.

Markus

Not sure that I agree with the idea that nature has a conscious will but the end result can certainly be the same. IMO it all comes down to our numbers.

We're on track to hit 9 Billion people on this planet very soon, far more than we have ever had. With those ever climbing numbers in an increasingly electrified and mobilized world we won't ever reduce our CO2 emissions down to almost zero no matter how efficient we become. 9 billion people will still continue to breathe, will still continue to eat, our livestock will still fart and our crop fields will still replace our forests and prairies.

All that I think will happen is the governments will continue to pander to climate changes whether they are natural or man made in order to increase it's power over our lives by issuing ever more more intrusive, unrealistic and expensive mandates until the population simply finds it impossible to support or afford it any further.

Then society will descend into chaos and war and human population numbers will crash as a result. Nature will equalize upon a new balance that reflects the how and why of how it all went down and we humans will reorganize into new societies that will eventually crumble for whatever the proverbial camel straw it was that causes their demise and the process will be repeated.

At least until something happens that wipes us ALL out. That one might be tough to recover from for our even our most resourceful species.

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

When it comes to this claim about climate change-I have decided not to believe any of them--Heck I have my own theory..and I seems to be to only one with this theory..I can't post an article to tell you I'm right, 'cause there isn't any.

Markus

I'd be interested to hear your theory Markus. While I may not agree i certainly wouldn't belittle or judge you for it.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Secondly WHO of us has a degree in climatology ?

Would a degree in chemistry be a sufficient alternative in your opinion?

----

Watching scientific illiterates explaining "science" was funny for a short while a long time ago, but nowadays it's way too common, and way too many people are serious about the stupid things they claim to be science, about htings they believe in but haven't even understood on the most basic level (some postings in this thread fit perfectly into this scheme).

Whenever you believe the lowest level of stupidity has been reached some idiot pulls out an excavator just to dig an even deeper hole, more often enough accompanied by "It's a conspiracy" - "The government *blah blah blah*" - "The bible says..." - "Do your own research" - "There's a study/article here that says..."

I've experienced exactly this sort of bs for my entire work life, and the internet has made it far worse. The "do your own reserach" crowd has yet to produce a single individual who understands even the most basic scitentific principle and apply it correctly. Dunning-Kruger all around, and it's not just the flat earthers.

I even had the case of one of this "do your own research"-idiots telling me I wasn't able to understand a certain topic, and he linked three scientific papers with the aforementioned "do your own research" in tow - yes, you fool, I did, two of the papers were my own, for the third I was co-author.