Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Bizarre theories and nonsense

Do you believe the Al Gore climate change narrative?

No
2
9%
Somewhat
0
No votes
Entirely
21
91%
 
Total votes: 23

User avatar
KeithPratt
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 23901
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby KeithPratt » 01 Sep 2019, 20:26

Rupert Darwall's "The Age of Global Warming" is a worthwhile read for a perspective from "the other side" as it were.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/04/the ... are-story/

User avatar
Robert
Posts: 1314
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 13:24

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Robert » 01 Sep 2019, 22:36

Toby wrote:Rupert Darwall's "The Age of Global Warming" is a worthwhile read for a perspective from "the other side" as it were.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/04/the ... are-story/


2013?

That’s practically the stone age in terms of Global Warming knowledge.

User avatar
Hepcat
Posts: 2438
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
Location: Toronto

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Hepcat » 02 Sep 2019, 03:23

Robert wrote:
Hepcat wrote:
Robert wrote:
Excuse me but you're so thick that I automatically assumed you must be from Hicksville, USA.


So I guess I can add "painfully slow to grasp the obvious" to the list of your many and varied personal failings.

8-)


I’ll rest my case.


About time you gave it a decent burial then. Last Rites were read for it a few posts ago.

:P
Image

"That government governs best that governs least."

User avatar
Hepcat
Posts: 2438
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
Location: Toronto

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Hepcat » 02 Sep 2019, 03:30

Robert wrote:
Toby wrote:Rupert Darwall's "The Age of Global Warming" is a worthwhile read for a perspective from "the other side" as it were.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/04/the ... are-story/


2013?

That’s practically the stone age in terms of Global Warming knowledge.


How old are you, sonny? Six years isn't a long time. The climate will still be changing six score and ten million years from now, and I'm sure somebody will still be complaining about it. That's the way things work.

;)
Image

"That government governs best that governs least."

User avatar
Hepcat
Posts: 2438
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
Location: Toronto

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Hepcat » 02 Sep 2019, 03:38

Jimbo wrote:
Mike Boom wrote:The Great Barrier Reef - another victim of the "hoax"


Maybe so. This guy was fired from his uni job for speaking out. He debunks the Great Barrier Reef narrative in the beginning of the video and goes on to talk about his travails with the system for the rest.



Seems that those who toe the party line in academia are more equal than others when it comes to speaking their minds. In fact, it's only in university lecture halls that speakers unpopular with some are shouted down. Curious that, or maybe not....

:(
Image

"That government governs best that governs least."

User avatar
Hepcat
Posts: 2438
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
Location: Toronto

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Hepcat » 02 Sep 2019, 04:13

Deebank wrote:If you trust global oil companies and their sponsored alt right mouthpieces over independent scientific Consensus then you are a useful idiot.


Nice try. But simply smearing those on the other side of the argument by referring to them as "mouthpieces" for other vested interests doesn't give your own argument any additional credibility. (See Sneelock's point that arguments may be valid despite the agenda of those making the arguments.)

And you also conveniently ignore the point that the scientists who derive funding from studying the impact of mankind's activities on climate have a vested financial interest in finding such a link. Otherwise there's no need to pay them to study it further. (In other words, sensationalist claims, e.g. "Mankind will be extinct in 100 years!" sell.) So these scientists are not exactly "independent" in every sense of the word.

And speaking of "independent", has it not occurred to you that the term more properly applies to those independent enough to challenge the "consensus"?

And may I remind you that without a healthy level of skepticism in general, you swiftly find yourself among this class of "useful idiots" to which you referred?

:?:
Image

"That government governs best that governs least."

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 19645
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Jimbo » 02 Sep 2019, 07:41

Just thinking how often in history ultimately the minority opinion was right. (Russiagate?) There are good arguments from the skeptics' side which go unheeded by the believers. But use your own senses. Just go to any river. ocean beach, lake and see how much higher the water level is than from days gone by. If man made CO2 has been polluting the atmosphere since the 50s it hasn't had much of an effect. Any trouble breathing in the CO2 sodden air? Again, show me an island that's been covered by a rising ocean. I'm saying shit is normal and you're being brainwashed into believing it isn't.
Question authority.

User avatar
Robert
Posts: 1314
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 13:24

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Robert » 02 Sep 2019, 10:55

Hepcat wrote:
Deebank wrote:If you trust global oil companies and their sponsored alt right mouthpieces over independent scientific Consensus then you are a useful idiot.


Nice try. But simply smearing those on the other side of the argument by referring to them as "mouthpieces" for other vested interests doesn't give your own argument any additional credibility. (See Sneelock's point that arguments may be valid despite the agenda of those making the arguments.)

And you also conveniently ignore the point that the scientists who derive funding from studying the impact of mankind's activities on climate have a vested financial interest in finding such a link. Otherwise there's no need to pay them to study it further. (In other words, sensationalist claims, e.g. "Mankind will be extinct in 100 years!" sell.) So these scientists are not exactly "independent" in every sense of the word.

And speaking of "independent", has it not occurred to you that the term more properly applies to those independent enough to challenge the "consensus"?

And may I remind you that without a healthy level of skepticism in general, you swiftly find yourself among this class of "useful idiots" to which you referred?

:?:


And equally, with it in the company of Holocaust deniers, Flat earth scientists and Moon landing 'debunkers'

User avatar
Robert
Posts: 1314
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 13:24

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Robert » 02 Sep 2019, 11:03

Hepcat wrote:
Deebank wrote:If you trust global oil companies and their sponsored alt right mouthpieces over independent scientific Consensus then you are a useful idiot.


Nice try. But simply smearing those on the other side of the argument by referring to them as "mouthpieces" for other vested interests doesn't give your own argument any additional credibility. (See Sneelock's point that arguments may be valid despite the agenda of those making the arguments.)

And you also conveniently ignore the point that the scientists who derive funding from studying the impact of mankind's activities on climate have a vested financial interest in finding such a link. Otherwise there's no need to pay them to study it further. (In other words, sensationalist claims, e.g. "Mankind will be extinct in 100 years!" sell.) So these scientists are not exactly "independent" in every sense of the word.

And speaking of "independent", has it not occurred to you that the term more properly applies to those independent enough to challenge the "consensus"?

And may I remind you that without a healthy level of skepticism in general, you swiftly find yourself among this class of "useful idiots" to which you referred?

:?:


You see, you are not challenging anything. Thousands of scientists agree about this but Hepcat from Hicksville, just says no, it is not so.
Well, that's them challenged, see how they'll respond to that!

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 19645
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Jimbo » 02 Sep 2019, 11:44

Robert wrote: And equally, with it in the company of Holocaust deniers, Flat earth scientists and Moon landing 'debunkers'


Sorry, Bob, but this is just about the shittiest argument you can make. It's not an argument; it's just name calling. Please try harder.
Question authority.

User avatar
Robert
Posts: 1314
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 13:24

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Robert » 02 Sep 2019, 12:31

Jimbo wrote:
Robert wrote: And equally, with it in the company of Holocaust deniers, Flat earth scientists and Moon landing 'debunkers'


Sorry, Bob, but this is just about the shittiest argument you can make. It's not an argument; it's just name calling. Please try harder.


That's not name calling, merely pointing out what other groups are using the banner ' skepticism' (mistaking it for intelligence for not being fooled by The Man)

User avatar
Deebank
Resonator
Posts: 24736
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 13:47
Location: Ina beautiful place out in the country

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Deebank » 02 Sep 2019, 13:00

Jimbo wrote:Just thinking how often in history ultimately the minority opinion was right. (Russiagate?) There are good arguments from the skeptics' side which go unheeded by the believers. But use your own senses. Just go to any river. ocean beach, lake and see how much higher the water level is than from days gone by. If man made CO2 has been polluting the atmosphere since the 50s it hasn't had much of an effect. Any trouble breathing in the CO2 sodden air? Again, show me an island that's been covered by a rising ocean. I'm saying shit is normal and you're being brainwashed into believing it isn't.


You see, water levels are measurable and indeed are measured around the planet, so we know for a FACT that levels are rising. Spring tides are higher on average, flooding is getting more prevalent. These things are documented, recorded fact.
Just because your local duck pond isn't looking any fuller doesn't mean that on a worldwide scale this is not happening.
I've been talking about writing a book - 25 years of TEFL - for a few years now. I've got it in me.

Paid anghofio fod dy galon yn y chwyldro

User avatar
Deebank
Resonator
Posts: 24736
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 13:47
Location: Ina beautiful place out in the country

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Deebank » 02 Sep 2019, 13:10

Hepcat wrote:Nice try. But simply smearing those on the other side of the argument by referring to them as "mouthpieces" for other vested interests doesn't give your own argument any additional credibility. (See Sneelock's point that arguments may be valid despite the agenda of those making the arguments.)

And you also conveniently ignore the point that the scientists who derive funding from studying the impact of mankind's activities on climate have a vested financial interest in finding such a link. Otherwise there's no need to pay them to study it further. (In other words, sensationalist claims, e.g. "Mankind will be extinct in 100 years!" sell.) So these scientists are not exactly "independent" in every sense of the word.

And speaking of "independent", has it not occurred to you that the term more properly applies to those independent enough to challenge the "consensus"?

And may I remind you that without a healthy level of skepticism in general, you swiftly find yourself among this class of "useful idiots" to which you referred?

:?:


Cobblers! Scientists' receive research funding whether their findings discover massive human influence in global warming or none.
And those findings have to be published and peer reviewed.
You obviously don't understand how the scientific method works. The idea that a global cabal of climate scientists are making it all up so that they can continue to get paid their modest grants is just plain dim.
I've been talking about writing a book - 25 years of TEFL - for a few years now. I've got it in me.

Paid anghofio fod dy galon yn y chwyldro

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 19645
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Jimbo » 02 Sep 2019, 14:53

Deebank wrote:You see, water levels are measurable and indeed are measured around the planet, so we know for a FACT that levels are rising. Spring tides are higher on average, flooding is getting more prevalent. These things are documented, recorded fact.
Just because your local duck pond isn't looking any fuller doesn't mean that on a worldwide scale this is not happening.


Yes, I'd heard about bigger spring tides in Carolina(?) and it is compelling evidence for your team but then looking for info on spring tides I came upon this Nat Geo article on "king tides" especially in California and waaaayyy back in 2014 the magazine doesn't blame climate change. About spring tides it says

Spring Tides

All tides happen due to the gravitational pull of the moon and, to a lesser extent, the sun. Because gravity is stronger at shorter distances, the moon exerts a greater gravitational pull on the side of the Earth that's closest to it. The oceans on the near side are pulled toward the moon more strongly compared to the oceans on the far side.


The article does mention climate change near the end and again in a speculative (guessing) mode says

Although king tides are natural and cyclical, the extra-high tides give a glimpse of the future when global warming causes sea levels to rise, Gill says.

"We expect that it's roughly equivalent to what a normal tide would look like under sea level rise in 50 years," says Sara Aminzadeh, executive director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... e-science/

Fifty years? So sure about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere but not sure at all about when ...
Question authority.

User avatar
Deebank
Resonator
Posts: 24736
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 13:47
Location: Ina beautiful place out in the country

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Deebank » 02 Sep 2019, 15:30

Jimbo wrote:
Deebank wrote:You see, water levels are measurable and indeed are measured around the planet, so we know for a FACT that levels are rising. Spring tides are higher on average, flooding is getting more prevalent. These things are documented, recorded fact.
Just because your local duck pond isn't looking any fuller doesn't mean that on a worldwide scale this is not happening.


Yes, I'd heard about bigger spring tides in Carolina(?) and it is compelling evidence for your team but then looking for info on spring tides I came upon this Nat Geo article on "king tides" especially in California and waaaayyy back in 2014 the magazine doesn't blame climate change. About spring tides it says

Spring Tides

All tides happen due to the gravitational pull of the moon and, to a lesser extent, the sun. Because gravity is stronger at shorter distances, the moon exerts a greater gravitational pull on the side of the Earth that's closest to it. The oceans on the near side are pulled toward the moon more strongly compared to the oceans on the far side.


The article does mention climate change near the end and again in a speculative (guessing) mode says

Although king tides are natural and cyclical, the extra-high tides give a glimpse of the future when global warming causes sea levels to rise, Gill says.

"We expect that it's roughly equivalent to what a normal tide would look like under sea level rise in 50 years," says Sara Aminzadeh, executive director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... e-science/

Fifty years? So sure about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere but not sure at all about when ...


Yes, spring tides are monthly high tides caused by gravitation, but when they coincide with things like storm surges they are causing more damage and these 'freak' occurances are happening more often because of the increasing amount of energy in the atmosphere - a direct result of global warming.

These things (the things that you are disputing J) are undisputed, what is disputed however is how much of this is caused by human activity.

The scientific consensus is that human activity is having an effect - and anyway the sensible course of action is to do everything possible to mitigate any possible human agency in global warming until we can prove it one way or the other, surely?
I've been talking about writing a book - 25 years of TEFL - for a few years now. I've got it in me.

Paid anghofio fod dy galon yn y chwyldro

User avatar
Hepcat
Posts: 2438
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
Location: Toronto

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Hepcat » 02 Sep 2019, 16:05

Robert wrote:
Hepcat wrote: And may I remind you that without a healthy level of skepticism in general, you swiftly find yourself among this class of "useful idiots" to which you referred?

:?:


And equally, with it in the company of Holocaust deniers, Flat earth scientists and Moon landing 'debunkers'


Not that there's any linkage among those things, but since you prefer mudslinging to rational argument, carry on.

Robert wrote:You see, you are not challenging anything. Thousands of scientists agree about this but Hepcat from Hicksville, just says no, it is not so.

Well, that's them challenged, see how they'll respond to that!


Be interesting to see how they respond if and when their funding is cut though, won't it?

;)

Incidentally, do all you fellows from Dumberdam try so hard to be jackasses or is it just you?

:?:
Image

"That government governs best that governs least."

User avatar
Robert
Posts: 1314
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 13:24

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Robert » 03 Sep 2019, 08:07

Hepcat wrote:
Robert wrote:
Hepcat wrote: And may I remind you that without a healthy level of skepticism in general, you swiftly find yourself among this class of "useful idiots" to which you referred?

:?:


And equally, with it in the company of Holocaust deniers, Flat earth scientists and Moon landing 'debunkers'


Not that there's any linkage among those things, but since you prefer mudslinging to rational argument, carry on.

Robert wrote:You see, you are not challenging anything. Thousands of scientists agree about this but Hepcat from Hicksville, just says no, it is not so.

Well, that's them challenged, see how they'll respond to that!


Be interesting to see how they respond if and when their funding is cut though, won't it?

;)

Incidentally, do all you fellows from Dumberdam try so hard to be jackasses or is it just you?

:?:


The - to most- obvious linkage here is that they all attract ' independent' spirits that, weaponed with the debris that washed upon the internet sewer shores, believe they hold credible arguments against the moon landing, the holocaust or, indeed, man-made global warming.

There are no real arguments they and you bring up but hearsay, randomly picked up to fit their own narrative. A favourite tool they like to use is downright discrediting - in the case of climate change - scientists with suggestions they must be paid by some lobby.

It's suspicion, the favourite tactic used by the dimwitted to come over as clever.

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 19645
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Jimbo » 03 Sep 2019, 08:45

Image

Are you down with the Extinction Rebellion?
Question authority.

User avatar
Hightea
Posts: 4379
Joined: 16 Apr 2015, 02:18
Location: NY state

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Hightea » 04 Sep 2019, 15:18

Hepcat wrote:
Moreover, there's the logical principle known as Occam's Razor, i.e. "The simplest explanation for an event is the best one barring compelling evidence that such is not the case." Well between about 1300 and 1870 the Earth experienced what's now called the Little Ice Age. It's perhaps why the Vikings abandoned Greenland around the year 1400 although this theory has now been questioned. It is though why we read about Dutchmen skating on canals back a couple hundred years ago. (That trick doesn't work very well these days even in late January.) And it's why Napoleon's army froze its ass off retreating from Russia in the early nineteenth century. So the simplest explanation for any global warming these days is that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age and reverting to the climate of the Medieval Warm Period.

What are you drinking up there in Toronto? Do I have to send Mr Fox on you my furry friend.

Image


Your going to throw Occam's Razor at me? Actually I'll throw it right back at you the easiest explanation for the rapid increase in global climate change is that man is speeding this along. Hence why the scientific community agrees. The idea that you and Jimbo think the majority of scientists are in it for the money and funding and not to find the truth is ridiculous. I get it yes there are plenty of shady scientists but I'm sorry the majority of them are in it for the science and facts not falsehood and lies. This is the same BS as we didn't land on the moon.

In regards to the little ice age it wasn't a global event just a regional and it happened over a much longer time frame. Secondly, nice that you read about that the deep water in oceans are still recovering from the little ice age, that doesn't mean the earth is recovering from the little ice age, just deep ocean water. Secondly, if we were still recovering from the little ice age (which may have a small hand in it) it would be slow but what is happening now is happening fast.


Hepcat wrote:Other than sunspot activity, why these changes in the Earth's climate over time? Well for one thing the Earth's orbit isn't entirely stable. It's more elliptical some years/decades/centuries than others. Worse yet it goes and wobbles a bit around its axis. Very inconvenient. Then there's the phenomenon called geomagnetic reversal when the earth's poles switch around (perhaps due to the sloshing around of Earth's core but who the hell knows). There have been 183 such reversals over the last 83 million years or so I've heard. Nasty those. The last one resulted in most of the Arabian peninsula becoming a desert.
What does this have to do with current climate change? There is talk about magnetic north moving lately but the theory on geomagnetic reversal is now believed that it takes centuries for it to happen and it would be obvious when its happening. Yes it does happen to do with the Earth's metallic core moving around.

We can give several reasons that would also cause climate change but that is no longer the issue. The issue is what can we do to maybe stop or reduce effects from climate change. Is your stance to do nothing? Should we stop conserving gas and stop finding cleaner ways to produce energy? what is the bad thing about that? maybe we should go back to the 70's and start dumping toxic waste again, polluting our rivers, continue to let CO2 emissions to go up(by the way its the highest its been in 3 million years), keep tearing down the rain forest for cattle and palm trees. Should we continue to build on the coasts and not have those coastal buildings be up to snuff with new codes so they are at least protected from future storms? SO your against wind power and solar panels? I know your not a big business guy but it seems you want to ignore climate change and let industry do what it wants. Really you believe big business over scientists?

User avatar
Mike Boom
Posts: 4355
Joined: 02 Sep 2005, 03:49

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Mike Boom » 04 Sep 2019, 18:59

Image

Luckily the weather outside Jimbo's back door remains fine, so nothing to see here folks, just a hoax.
Last edited by Mike Boom on 04 Sep 2019, 23:37, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Conspiracyland”