Former Climate Change Alarmist Reveals Corruption Within the Scientific Community (1 Viewer)

[Pat Hartman]

take a look at the scale of the X axis

I see the X axis. The question is - what is the 0 point and who decided that that was the earth's normal temperature. Whenever you build a graph, you get to control the message. The message of the graph is - we should be terrified because the current temperature is a little above "normal". But THEY decided what normal is and they're not even telling us what it is or where the data came from to determine "normal". If we look more closely, we should be even more afraid because if the 0 point represents "normal", the 0 point should be much lower since most of the plotted points are below 0. So for most of the past 800,000 years, the earth's temperature has been below normal. But what was "normal" for the other 4 billion years? We don't know.

What we do know is that humans are not the proximate cause of climate change but we do contribute. Therefore, we need to pay attention to how we contribute and use better practices. ALSO, we need to be actively planning on how to deal with rising sea levels because sea levels in the past have been much higher than they are today and I'm pretty sure we're not going to be able to stop them from rising again even if we decide to live in the past without using electricity and gas.

 

[ebs17]

They do need to reduce their carbon footprint.

Why, if this is not climate relevant?

The plants must generate their biomass from 0.04 percent CO2 in the air. On the other hand, 4 percent would have to trigger a true green revolution...

 

[Pat Hartman]

Why, if this is not climate relevant?

I guess you missed the part where I said humans do contribute to "climate change" which assumes that CO2 emissions contribute to "climate change".

Your assertion, still, seems to be that humans are 100% responsible for "climate change". You can't seem to back off of that position to something more rational.

* I put "climate change" in quotes because regardless of whether the average temperature of the earth goes up or down you will blame it on humans and the chanting voices were embarrassed when the movement started by saying that humans were causing global cooling and that was debunked so they switched to global warming. But, people are not as stupid as they look and they started laughing at the chanting voices so now it is "climate change" which is totally meaningless but covers all bases. If we have an ice storm, it must be because of "climate change". If we have a tropical storm, it is also because of "climate change". We also blame forest fires and tsunamis on "climate change" because they never happened before we started burning fossil fuels. Pretty soon there will be a reason to blame earthquakes and volcanic eruptions on "climate change".

 

[ebs17]

Your assertion, still, seems to be that humans are 100% responsible for "climate change".

I never wrote or said that, your interpretation is fictitious. You assume things and gossip for your own pleasure.

Whoever demands that one should read should be able to do the same themselves.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I never wrote or said that, your interpretation is fictitious.

Then why are you arguing with me if we agree that humans are not the 100% cause for "climate change"? I don't see anything else that we disagree on. Once you reach the point that "climate change" is not caused by humans, it is part of a natural process with humans contributing something, then it is possible to work on solutions. The 100% assertion is totally political and frankly, ignorant

 

[ColinEssex]

Why, if this is not climate relevant?

Just a comment. The question mark should be after the word 'why' - like this - why?, the last bit is not a question so doesn't require punctuation except a full stop.
Col

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Just a comment. The question mark should be after the word 'why' - like this - why?, the last bit is not a question so doesn't require punctuation except a full stop.

In what? 20 years of exchanges on this forum, this is the first thing I totally agree with you on Colin.....

 

[ebs17]

In German we had some poet laureates. As is tradition, sentences can be a little longer.

Nobody is useless. He can still serve as a bad example.

 

[NauticalGent]

Nobody is useless. He can still serve as a bad example.

Usually, this is my greatest contribution...

 

[Galaxiom]

The question is - what is the 0 point and who decided that that was the earth's normal temperature

The organisms that currently populate the planet evolved in a particular climatic structure and populate areas based on that model. Extremely rapid changes don't provide enough time to adjust.

the chanting voices were embarrassed when the movement started by saying that humans were causing global cooling

False.

What we do know is that humans are not the proximate cause of climate change but we do contribute.

Incorrect. Human activity is causing rapid changes.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Incorrect. Human activity is causing rapid changes.

False

 

[Pat Hartman]

The organisms that currently populate the planet evolved in a particular climatic structure and populate areas based on that model. Extremely rapid changes don't provide enough time to adjust.

Somehow they managed to survive the disappearance of the ice sheet that covered large parts of the northern hemisphere.

Incorrect. Human activity is causing rapid changes.

What caused all the previous changes when humans didn't even exist?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Incorrect. Human activity is causing rapid changes.

Human activity? Possibly playing a small part. Microbes are also influencing weather.

See here:-

Tiny Biological Particles Are Influencing Cloud Formation Over The Arctic

We've long understood that clouds require the surfaces of tiny particles for water to condensate on.

www.sciencealert.com

What is obvious to most, is to see an increase in carbon dioxide emissions and immediately jump up and down ranting that humans are the cause of climate change is a very narrow-minded view of the situation.

 

[Galaxiom]

Scientific theories are pure speculation of what happened 10,000 or 100,000 or a million years ago

Incorrect. There are a lot of geological observations that can be made. Your complete ignorance of the science doesn't mean that it is all just speculation.

 

[ColinEssex]

Incorrect. There are a lot of geological observations that can be made. Your complete ignorance of the science doesn't mean that it is all just speculation.

You are entitled to your opinion, even if you think I'm not entitled to mine whether it's right or wrong.
Col

 

[AccessBlaster]

You are entitled to your opinion, even if you think I'm not entitled to mine whether it's right or wrong.
Col

Welcome to liberalism...

 

[Pat Hartman]

I just had a crazy exchange with a liberal about vaping. Mind you, he's never been a smoker but used to at least be tolerant. He send a link of one of the newer house reps (I think the crazy republican one from Colorado) being groped in a theater and vaping also to show how bad Republicans are. He insisted that vaping was the same as smoking and vaping produced actual smoke filled with carcinogens which is scientifically impossible since there is no burning involved and the water vapor is generated artificially to convince the vapor, he is "smoking". These folks keep making up their own "science". I agreed that since the theater barred vaping, she should be escorted out but the offense didn't rise to the outrage he was spewing. Seeing her being groped in public was pretty disgusting. There are probably laws against that but he was incensed about smoke and carcinogens.

 

[Galaxiom]

You are entitled to your opinion, even if you think I'm not entitled to mine whether it's right or wrong.

You are welcome to hold any opinion you like. Others are entitled to point out that you are wrong.

Welcome to liberalism...

Welcome to rationalism. Holding an opinion contrary to the evidence is a fool's position.

 

[ColinEssex]

You are welcome to hold any opinion you like. Others are entitled to point out that you are wrong.

Politely would be preferred.
Col

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Holding an opinion contrary to the evidence is a fool's position.

No, you are wrong.

We are all fundamentally stupid and ignorant. We need dialogue with others to correct our stupidness and ignorance.

Jordan Peterson explains it very well in his explanation of the importance of free speech in this video:- (the interesting content is in the very first few minutes if you skip past the introduction)

So do you think you can get off your high horse and start to have a sensible intelligent dialogue?