Climate Change is not real!

Crni Vuk said:
citation needed. We have actual examples of this :



High child mortality leads to more children being born as paradoxical as it sounds and actually educating people and lowering child mortality leads to less children being born. Believe it or not. But this is what has been observed over the decades. Not just in developed countries. High child mortality is not some kind of "equalizer" here.

There are many many benefits to giving people easier access to medication and education. But most importantly it gives people a chance to fix their own issues and finding solutions to their own problems.
Click to expand...



 
Just read that Germany is putting 80 billion euros into fixing it's railroads to combat climate change. I guess some are doing something about it.
 
It was much hotter when dinosaurs walked the earth. Hopefully climate change will bring back the jurassic era.
 
I don't think there are any outright deniers here.

Most have merely stated that there are much better ways to fix the climate without fear mongering. Many examples have been offered, including myself and Haas, among others.
 
I can't tell the difference between the shitposters and the deniers.

Btw, who's afraid? Are the Exxon/oil corporations execs afraid they might not get their 19th yacht and that brings a tear into your eye, DarkCorp? Do the execs need a blankie and teddy bear?
 
MutantScalper said:
I can't tell the difference between the shitposters and the deniers.
Click to expand...
The how to read a post like MutanSlalper starter pack.
4229cd91e84f0604cf95f2a8cbc98a3e.jpg

119090712-empty-orange-medicine-or-pill-bottle-on-isolated-white-background.jpg

117143280-destruction-of-dna-damaged-dna-3d-illustration-concept-of-disease-genetic-disorder-genetic-engineeri.jpg
 
I think he can't tell the difference between reality and his frequent delusions for the most part... Really, dude, don't just skip your meds.
 
Mutant Scalper is Stage Green.


What is the essence of the Green value system?
Core Values:
Relativistic, socio-centric, equality.
Paradigm:
Community “ We become”
Word View:
The world is a shared community for the whole of humanity who shares Mother Earth as their home.
Life Motto:
“I sacrifice myself now to be accepted by the group”
Life Theme:
Welfare, love, find meaning in life, personal growth and to live in harmony with others and with the Earth.
Life Philosophy:
I feel emotions, therefore I am alive. In essence, everyone is equal.
 
MutantScalper said:
I thought you're a facts-guy Hass, where are your anti-climate change facts?
Click to expand...
See, there's that delusion again.
I don't have facts against climate change. I'm sceptical of the models and predictions, though, and I have described why that is*.
But predictions aside, I believe that it is important to reduce usage of fossile fuels. I disagree with the notion that climate change can only be avoided or fixed by radical social change, because I believe there are technical solutions that don't require complete deindustrialisation and a pseudo-orwellian dystopia to work.



* If you're still reading this and not already frothing at the mouth because you read something up there that wasn't there, here's what I mean: Current climate change predictions are based on computer models. These models are incomplete, for example, they disregard the effect of cloud covering. This leads to a large systematic error to the energy balance in these models, and since the output value of the models, the global mean temperature, is iterative and based on the previous years, this error accumulates and makes the predictions utterly useless after just a few years. Why do they still work? Because the various parameters of the simulations are basically fitted to current temperature curves, and then extrapolated with various CO2-forcing-values. Basically, the models are tailored to show that increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to a huge warming effect. It's all they can do, and I think that they are unphysical.
I have various other criticisms when it comes to climate change reporting. Often, old temperature data is used to show that the world has warmed so many degrees. This is highly unscientific. First of all, measurement inaccuracies are immense. Calibration of measurement equipment, even the simple act of reading a classic thermometer has measurement errors. Add up those measurement errors, propagate them properly, and a temperature map with honest error bars would have absolutely no message. Like, "the world has warmed 1.2°C since 19xx"? Yeah nah, the message simply isn't there.
That's systematic measurement errors. Then you get the huge influence of the environment. Since 1850, the standard year of comparing temperatures to, cities have been build. Roads have been build, swamps have been drained, forests have changed and so on. These have huge effects on local temperatures. Again, leading to massive error bars, but you'll never see those error bars reported, because having a +-5°C error bar on a ~0.1°C temperature change is absolutely useless. So people just don't show them. I think there's a lot of dishonesty when it comes to climate change research and climate change reporting. Just recently, a study was published showing that contrary to previous studies, increased acidification of the oceans did not alter fish behaviour. The authors were worried it would fuel climate change deniers. This is incredibly worrying, because the extreme politization of this topic has absolutely destroyed the scientific integrity of the field. How many studies were not published or even made because of such politics? We don't know.
Either way, I believe that we should get rid of fossile fuels ASAP. Climate change or not, cleaner air and healthier environments are good things, no matter what.
 
From his post, Mutant has clearly skipped his meds and either was unable to read what I wrote or his own mind saw something completely different.
 


There is an obvious conclusion.

They are ALL(!) lying because they have been brainwashed by a green-leftist ideology driven agenda.
 
Last edited:
That was so last Decade, Mutie. nobody gives a shit about Koala Crispies anymore, we all about that Corona Virus now, son.
 
Yes we actually are.

*Edit

I think one term that we will hear more often in the future is Energy Sufficiency. Which basically means lowering the use of Energy rather than making the products (use of energy) more efficient, which can not be solved by renewable energy. We have to accept that there are hard limits on how much Energy we can generate on this planet before it actually starts to have irreversible effect on the environment. It really doesn't even matter much about what energy sources we're talking about. What ever if it's coal, oil or renewables. We could perfectly well burn coal and oil, if we would keep the burning of it low enough for the eco system of the planet to regenerate the damage caused by it. We've done it for hundreds of years and it only became a problem when the emission of Co2 exceeded the level of absorption by the environment.

I think we simply have to accept the fact that we have to create an economy within the natural limits of the environment.
 
Last edited:
Good thread.

The Earth's climate *is* changing. There's a plethora of mechanisms causing this.

What's open to debate is the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the leading cause.

The bit I find odd is the focus on CO2 omissions. Cutting methane omissions would be far easier, quicker and seemingly have a greater impact.

Of course it's *possible* that black project weather modulation technologies are being used to speed climatic warming. There are many reasons why various gov's would want to do this. The US successfully induced the S.E. Asian monsoon to arrive a month early, via cloud seeding, as far back as 'Nam.

The flip side to the above tin-foil possibility, is the future potential of such technology to alter climatic conditions. Fast forward 50 years, say hello to the age of quantum computational modelling and tell me with a straight face that such climatic tweaks will be beyond human power. (The greatest assumption here is that we don't terminate project 'civilisation in the interim'; but, if we do, the question becomes rather academic anyhow.

The whole problem could be rectified pretty quickly if adequate funding was applied to fusion / black project fusion tech was declassified. Maybe that's already happening. Lockheed Martin announced - last year irrc - their intent to develop an efficient, mobile, fusion reactor the size of a shipping container, within the next decade. Wouldn't be at all surprised if they manage it.

I also wouldn't be a tad surprised if the next gen 'nuclear reactors' on board the USN's new Ford Class carriers, are fusion. The power output is pretty incredible vs size. Also, USN claims that one of the paradigm shifting technologies incorporated within the Ford Class is...a Plasma Arc Waste Disposal System. Wtf? Such a system would make sense (well no, it wouldn't, but more sense anyway) if it was the byproduct of high output fusion reactors. I mean, they've had to spend billions designing a next gen power plant to cope with the energy needs of EM catapults, high output AESA radar, feck loads of computing power, future (present?) direct energy weapon CIWS' etc, why then limit future power availability by creating something so gimmicky?
 


Yoshi525 said:
The whole problem could be rectified pretty quickly if adequate funding was applied to fusion / black project fusion tech was declassified.
Click to expand...

They've been talking about fusion saving the universe since at least the 90's. Nothing fusion-based in sight. I'd like to see proof those US Navy carriers are fusion, otherwise it's just, like, your opinion, man.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top