▲
2
0
▼

Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax


 invite response                
2019 Apr 9, 5:34pm   4,830 views  55 comments

by WillPowers   ➕follow (3)   💰tip   ignore  

The far-left ThinkProgress reports that scientists have finally proven that the theory of man-made Global Warming is a total hoax.

SEE: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/09/nolte-scientists-prove-man-made-global-warming-is-a-hoax/

Of course the article admits "no one will admit that" and checking out the link in the Breitbart article shows the author comes to the exact opposite conclusion:

ARTICLE: Last time CO2 levels were this high, sea levels were 60 feet higher and Antarctica had trees

FROM: https://thinkprogress.org/carbon-dioxide-levels-sea-antarctica-b435497e1266/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5cac896400e48b00017e7cf2&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

WHICH CONCLUDES (a quote from the scientific journal): “Our results imply a strong sensitivity of the Earth system to relatively small variations in atmospheric CO2,” Willeit said. “As fascinating as this is, it is also worrying.”

The fact that the Earth’s climate demonstrates a strong sensitivity to CO2 levels is particularly worrisome because it means we are much more likely to face the worst-case scenario when it comes to climate change impacts. And that makes it even more urgent that the nations of the world cut carbon pollution immediately and keep the rise in atmospheric CO2 as small as possible.

Article is based on The scientific journal, Potsdam Institute, says:

More CO2 than ever before in 3 million years, shows unprecedented computer simulation
03/04/2019 - CO2 greenhouse gas amounts in the atmosphere are likely higher today than ever before in the past 3 million years. For the first time, a team of scientists succeeded to do a computer simulation that fits ocean floor sediment data of climate evolution over this period of time. Ice age onset, hence the start of the glacial cycles from cold to warm and back, the study reveals, was mainly triggered by a decrease of CO2-levels. Yet today, it is the increase of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels that is fundamentally changing our planet, the analysis further confirms. Global mean temperatures never exceeded the preindustrial levels by more than 2 degrees Celsius in the past 3 million years, the study shows – while current climate policy inaction, if continued, would exceed the 2 degrees limit already in the next 50 years.

SEE FULL ARTICLE HERE: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/more-co2-than-ever-before-in-3-million-years-shows-unprecedented-computer-simulation

HOWEVER, Breitbart concludes: Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.

Yes, you read that correctly, three million — million — years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today…

Three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols.

In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…

CO2 levels were the same then as they are now

« First        Comments 11 - 50 of 55       Last »     Search these comments

11   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Jun 3, 4:42pm  

HeadSet says
Even if seas did rise like that, you think the cities would be abandoned? And not do like the Dutch did, and preserve sea lands with the technology of the 1600's?

Depends. You may be able to build a sea walls around certain areas. But a city like Miami is built on porous ground....there is simply not much you can do. You can elevate a building or a street. But many people will look at this and they will look at the bills, and decide to go live on firmer ground. And once people start leaving, you will have abandoned buildings full of mold, rats and crime, more people will leave. I'm quite certain Miami will be abandoned. A lot of sea front property wealth will rot away.
New Orleans is probably fucked too. See https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/24/us/new-orleans-flood-walls-hurricanes.html
Protecting everything on the coast against ever increasing ocean levels is simply too daunting and expensive.
Just with the current CO2 levels, ice can keep melting for 100+ years. It's not something you get immediately, but it is something that won't stop getting worse for a very long time. You can't build high levees once, and then again 20 yrs later, and then again,... each time knowing you will have to do it again soon.
And it's not just cities. There are roads, small towns, rail roads, airports, each with its own problems...

In California, Stockton is the most unsuspected likely victim of sea rise. https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/05/09/research-shows-impact-of-rising-sea-levels-on-stockton-sacramento/
12   Onvacation   2019 Jun 3, 5:04pm  

All true believers of global warming
climate change should stop exhaling co2.

It's your moral duty to save the world
13   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Jun 3, 5:10pm  

Onvacation says
climate change should stop exhaling co2.

It's your moral duty to save the world


This is the kind of nonsense that we get from denialists.
14   Onvacation   2019 Jun 3, 5:20pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
denialists

I prefer "heretic".
15   Onvacation   2019 Jun 3, 5:23pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
nonsense

If you don't want solutions you can't complain about too much co2.

But seriously, co2 levels are not connected to temperature rise. If you disagree and think that co2 levels ARE connected to temperature rise link to the formula?

You won't.

You can't, because there is no such established formula that corresponds to real world observations.

I personally would like more co2. I am going to keep on breathing so that plants can thrive. Too little co2 is way more dangerous than more
16   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Jun 3, 5:24pm  

Onvacation says
I am going to keep on breathing so that plants can thrive.

The carbon you breathe out (and fart) comes from plants. And plants take it from the atmosphere.
There's no danger of you contributing anything new.
17   Onvacation   2019 Jun 3, 5:25pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
There's no danger of you contributing anything new.

You neither. And yet here we are.
18   Onvacation   2019 Jun 3, 5:26pm  

How much co2 would it take to melt all the ice?
19   Onvacation   2019 Jun 4, 7:25am  

HEYYOU says
Denialists are subject to the same laws that all animals are subject to but they so stupid they think they are special.

Only true believers will live in paradise.
20   HeadSet   2019 Jun 4, 7:45am  

The carbon you breathe out (and fart) comes from plants.

We fart CO2? But CO2 is non- flammable, and all us boys know full well we can light out farts.
21   Bd6r   2019 Jun 4, 9:39am  

Premise of Breitbart article is scientifically wrong. It is not a question if man-made global exists or not, it is a question if we contribute 1%, 99%, or some number in between. But that type of discussion is not exciting enough and might require knowledge, which journalists (neither ones screaming WE ALL WILL DIE FROM AGW or ones screaming THIS IS ALL A COMMIE PLOT) possess. I do not think % question is settled yet.
If someone has issues with CO2 emissions, they should lobby for nuclear power. However, the only lobbying we see is for higher taxes (aka carbon credits) or non-economical means of energy production (aka solar power, bioethanol etc) which will do nothing other than decrease life standard of poor people and will make some very rich people even more rich.
22   Bd6r   2019 Jun 4, 10:31am  

HeadSet says
We fart CO2? But CO2 is non- flammable, and all us boys know full well we can light out farts.

In addition to CO2 (and N2 which both are not flammable), we fart methane (CH4), hydrogen (H2), and a little bit of H2S which is the smelly part.
23   Shaman   2019 Jun 4, 10:47am  

Heraclitusstudent says
But a city like Miami is built on porous ground....there is simply not much you can do. You can elevate a building or a street. But many people will look at this and they will look at the bills, and decide to go live on firmer ground. And once people start leaving, you will have abandoned buildings full of mold, rats and crime, more people will leave. I'm quite certain Miami will be abandoned. A lot of sea front property wealth will rot away.


You know, it’s strange that this didn’t happen in Venice.
24   theoakman   2019 Jun 4, 11:27am  

The time it would take for sea level to move that far inland is orders of magnitude slower than the time it takes to build a big city from scratch. You act like Miami will be abandoned in 50 years.
26   Rin   2019 Jun 4, 12:02pm  

d6rB says
they should lobby for nuclear power


Yes, because there is a way to make nuclear safe ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

With less temp/pressure, cooling requirements, and waste management (300 years vs 10K+ years).

WillPowers says
In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…

CO2 levels were the same then as they are now


I guess you didn't see the ending to Battlestar Galactica or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
27   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Jun 4, 12:18pm  

Quigley says
You know, it’s strange that this didn’t happen in Venice.

St Mark's Square does indeed get flooded, dozens of times every year.
It is an architectural gem that's irreplaceable. Miami... not so much.
It's in a lagoon and they are building sea barriers. Miami, hummm....
It's attracting tourists specifically because it is in water. Miami... well there a beach...
In spite of that it is still sinking, flooded regularly, and highly vulnerable to more sea rises. And population is fleeing.... so?
28   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Jun 4, 12:21pm  

theoakman says
The time it would take for sea level to move that far inland is orders of magnitude slower than the time it takes to build a big city from scratch. You act like Miami will be abandoned in 50 years.

Maybe in 100yrs, or 150yrs. Who cares?
And yes they will build new cities from scratch - elsewhere.
29   socal2   2019 Jun 4, 3:27pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Maybe in 100yrs, or 150yrs. Who cares?
And yes they will build new cities from scratch - elsewhere.


The entire history of human civilization is based on migration due to climate. The place I was born (Chicago) was under miles of ice less than 10,000 years ago which is a blip in the history of the planet.

We have plenty of time to adapt, outrun or engineer better pumping/drainage systems which seems much more doable than radically changing our entire economies to try and change the planet's climate.
30   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jun 4, 3:34pm  

jazz_music says
Suspicious claims, are these those same scientists that made a debate out of linking tobacco use with cancer and other illnesses, that were extremely well funded by lobbyists for industry?


The same ones who demonized fat for 40 years and said the secret to beating heart disease, diabetes, and obesity was consuming a grain, soy, pasta, potatoes, and bread based diet?

Or the 70s Scientists who looked back over 40 years of climate data and announced an impending Ice Age?

Today, Scientists look over 40 years of climate data announce a Wetbulb of Doom.
31   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Jun 4, 4:42pm  

socal2 says
The entire history of human civilization is based on migration due to climate. The place I was born (Chicago) was under miles of ice less than 10,000 years ago which is a blip in the history of the planet.


The entire history of the industrial era is based on radically changing our entire economies. Fyi: We were using fucking horses 200yrs ago, and coal 100 yrs ago.

socal2 says

We have plenty of time to adapt, outrun or engineer better pumping/drainage systems which seems much more doable than radically changing our entire economies to try and change the planet's climate.


Btw if you don't change radically the entire economy, you're not gonna deal with 3 feet of water. More like 20 feet. And then 40 feet: It's not gonna stop until we stop.
32   WookieMan   2019 Jun 4, 4:59pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Btw if you don't change radically the entire economy, you're not gonna deal with 3 feet of water. More like 20 feet. And then 40 feet: It's not gonna stop until we stop.


I don't think we're treating the planet well by any means, but where in the actual fuck does 20-40 feet of water come from? I've never bought this theory. It makes no sense. All the ice on land melting into the sea isn't going to raise sea levels 20 fucking feet.

My folks had a property on a barrier island in the panhandle of Florida. Water levels look no different than 30 years ago. A 2-3' difference would wipe this place out. Treat the planet well, but the bill of goods being sold seems like it's shit.
33   mell   2019 Jun 4, 5:09pm  

WookieMan says
Heraclitusstudent says
Btw if you don't change radically the entire economy, you're not gonna deal with 3 feet of water. More like 20 feet. And then 40 feet: It's not gonna stop until we stop.


I don't think we're treating the planet well by any means, but where in the actual fuck does 20-40 feet of water come from? I've never bought this theory. It makes no sense. All the ice on land melting into the sea isn't going to raise sea levels 20 fucking feet.

My folks had a property on a barrier island in the panhandle of Florida. Water levels look no different than 30 years ago. A 2-3' difference would wipe this place out. Treat the planet well, but the bill of goods being sold seems like it's shit.


That's because it is shit. These 'prophecies' have never come true and never will. Go check out the club of Rome for more laughter, but the church of climate change is a strong contender for the first place of bs.
34   socal2   2019 Jun 4, 5:22pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
The entire history of the industrial era is based on radically changing our entire economies. Fyi: We were using fucking horses 200yrs ago, and coal 100 yrs ago.


Yeah - but the past radical economic/industrial changes were obvious efficiency/cost gains......often at the expense of the environment. Burning the shit out of coal and oil was worse for the environment than using horses. Burning oil and coal allowed the rapid increase, health and longevity of the human population.......which can be seen as an environmental hazard if you think humans are a parasite on earth.
35   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jun 4, 5:24pm  

Malthus -> Eugenics -> Zero Population Growth -> Environmentalism
36   mell   2019 Jun 4, 5:35pm  

socal2 says
Heraclitusstudent says
The entire history of the industrial era is based on radically changing our entire economies. Fyi: We were using fucking horses 200yrs ago, and coal 100 yrs ago.


Yeah - but the past radical economic/industrial changes were obvious efficiency/cost gains......often at the expense of the environment. Burning the shit out of coal and oil was worse for the environment than using horses. Burning oil and coal allowed the rapid increase, health and longevity of the human population.......which can be seen as an environmental hazard if you think humans are a parasite on earth.


Although the earth can take many more humans than the alarmists will make you believe breeding control isn't always a bad thing but the white western countries would be the last places to implement it, currently they rather need the opposite. More fertility and less feminism.
37   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Jun 4, 6:14pm  

socal2 says
if you think humans are a parasite on earth.


I don't think humans are a parasite.
I think bacteria have a tendency to drown in their own poop when they reach the border of the petri dish.

HonkpilledMaster says
Malthus -> Eugenics -> Zero Population Growth -> Environmentalism


That's mostly correct.
Except zero population growth is the equivalent of reaching the border of the petri dish.
Better be ready with Elon's star-ships.
38   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Jun 4, 6:17pm  

mell says
Although the earth can take many more humans than the alarmists will make you believe breeding control isn't always a bad thing but the white western countries


Multiply by 4 the population in Africa by the end of the century (current projections) and let's have an other discussion about Malthus being wrong.
39   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jun 4, 7:20pm  

Heraclitusstudent says
Better be ready with Elon's star-ships.


Honestly, investing $2-3T in living in space would be a better and quicker long term solution than "Carbon Trading" or trying to build tons of windmills.

Look at Germany, they sank hundreds of billions, electricity costs for the consumer doubled, and they're basically as dependent on fossil fuels as ever. More, because they turned their backs on nuclear. It was only remotely feasible because they exempted industry so that residential and commercial bore the entire brunt of the Energiewende.

Now that we know without a shadow of a doubt that China broke the Montreal Treaty and is spewing out CFC-11 like no tomorrow, what happens?

Do the UN Police arrest the Chinese Factory owners? Will a bunch of Trans Soldiers in the Landswehr take over Shenzhen Special Admin Region with Merkel footing the bill?
40   RWSGFY   2019 Jun 4, 7:25pm  

HonkpilledMaster says
Now that we know without a shadow of a doubt that China broke the Montreal Treaty and is spewing out CFC-11 like no tomorrow, what happens?

Do the UN Police arrest the Chinese Factory owners? Will a bunch of Trans Soldiers in the Landswehr take over Shenzhen Special Admin Region with Merkel footing the bill?


Treaties with China and Russia are worth less than paper they are printed on. Has been proven over and over again.
41   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Jun 4, 10:35pm  

HonkpilledMaster says
Honestly, investing $2-3T in living in space would be a better and quicker long term solution than "Carbon Trading" or trying to build tons of windmills.

If you think $2-3 Trillions will buy "life in space" for a billion persons, you're dreaming.
Many unsolved technical challenges.
And if you think AGW is tough/expensive to solve on earth, try maintaining balance in an ecosystem on a spaceship.
42   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jun 5, 12:24am  

Heraclitusstudent says
If you think $2-3 Trillions will buy "life in space" for a billion persons, you're dreaming.


Will it lift a billion people off Earth, no. Would it lift the pressure off the Earth in the Long Term? Yes.

If the basket looks shaky, weaving a few other baskets, albeit small, is a damned good idea.

Heraclitusstudent says
And if you think AGW is tough/expensive to solve on earth, try maintaining balance in an ecosystem on a spaceship.



Imagine trying to balance a huge complex system we don't begin understand fully by a long shot - the Earth (Ocean Currents, Albedo, Cloud Cover, Solar Flares, Outgassing, Acidification, relationship of Atmospheric Cycles - NAO, El Nino, etc).

Germany already spent a size-able chunk of a trillion, on renewables for a tiny segment of the world's population in one of the world's most orderly, highest tech countries, and hardly made a dent in their mix. The only thing they succeeded at was rising electric bills substantially while giving farmers a huge cash cow.

Going by Germany's failure, spending $3-5T on a massive Moon/Mars colony project over 20 years would offer a huge ROI and safety net, rather than building $100T across the world to raise the renewables a few percentage points. Windmills to Nowhere.
43   Onvacation   2019 Jun 5, 8:14am  

Heraclitusstudent says
AGW

You mean climate change. The earth stopped warming in 2016.
44   HeadSet   2019 Jun 5, 8:25am  

Windmills, solar, geothermal and other technologies are on the way anyhow. We just need to find a way for these technologies to be allow sustainability, and that means a stable population. If you are truly worried about pollution, resource depletion and climate change, but not for limiting 1st world population growth by ending 3rd world immigration, you are fighting the only real way to control the problem.
45   MisdemeanorRebel   2019 Jun 5, 2:50pm  

Windmills wear down. The most efficient use Carbon-Fiber blades, huge in size but cannot be incinerated without emitting seriously toxic fumes. Germany now has a serious problem with unseating Windmills that have 10 meter foundations, with massive carbon fiber blades they cannot toss into an incinerator serious health concerns.

The #1 problem with renewables is they are at the mercy of wind and sun. As Germany learned in 2016, you can expand your windmills 12% but generate 5% less power from them, because the "average" wind speed fluctuates wildly, especially in temperate climates, and as such is misleading: It's 7mph one year, 15mph the next, 20 the next, and so forth. It's not 12-15mph every year. There are also huge differences day to day, month to month.

So you end up idling ancient coal plants to make up the difference or deal with sudden drops in wind speed, which eliminates all the "Carbon Savings".

The Energiewende is probably the worst thing to happen to the environmental movement in decades, because it shows the utter inadequacy and unscalability of "Carbon Neutral" solutions, even when implemented by one of the most advanced nations on Earth, with a rich sucker population willing to double their real electric costs, and enthusiastic to see it happen - yet it still failed royally.

Nuclear or bust.
46   Heraclitusstudent   2019 Jun 5, 3:40pm  

HonkpilledMaster says
Going by Germany's failure, spending $3-5T on a massive Moon/Mars colony project over 20 years would offer a huge ROI and safety net, rather than building $100T across the world to raise the renewables a few percentage points. Windmills to Nowhere.


There's radiations, asteroids, the fact that chemical propulsion sucks, is badly limited in range, the lack of gravity can kill people, but gravity pits are hard to escape.
Short term it's probably way easier to colonize the ocean.
47   HeadSet   2019 Jun 5, 5:10pm  

Although the earth can take many more humans than the alarmists will make you believe breeding control isn't always a bad thing but the white western countries would be the last places to implement it, currently they rather need the opposite. More fertility and less feminism.

First World inhabitants use 100x the resources that a third worlder uses. A stabilized 1st World is exactly what we need. The problem comes when the over-breeding 3rd world spills into the finally stabilized 1st World.
48   Ceffer   2019 Jul 11, 4:13pm  

I'm so relieved! Guilt free farts again!
49   FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut   2019 Jul 11, 8:49pm  

Ceffer says
I'm so relieved! Guilt free farts again!


Not so fast! According to feminists, farting in their presence is a sign of patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
50   HeadSet   2019 Jul 11, 8:53pm  

FortWayneIndiana says
Ceffer says
I'm so relieved! Guilt free farts again!


Not so fast! According to feminists, farting in their presence is a sign of patriarchy and toxic masculinity.


Then be a class act and light your farts to show you care.

« First        Comments 11 - 50 of 55       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions