« prev   random   next »

5
1

Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax

By WillPowers follow WillPowers   2019 Apr 9, 5:34pm 1,680 views   64 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


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    « Previous    Comments 25 - 64 of 64    Last »

25   Quigley   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 4, 10:47am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
26   HEYYOU   ignore (33)   2019 Jun 4, 10:54am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Only true believers will live in paradise.


Got pictures,video or a map to this paradise you speak of?
Forget the map, the location is in the heads of the delusional.
27   theoakman   ignore (0)   2019 Jun 4, 11:27am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
29   Rin   ignore (3)   2019 Jun 4, 12:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
30   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 4, 12:18pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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?
31   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 4, 12:21pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
32   jazz_music   ignore (12)   2019 Jun 4, 2:14pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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?

Venice, Miami, New Orleans, the news doesn't cover the flooding these locations are already having.
33   jazz_music   ignore (12)   2019 Jun 4, 2:20pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WillPowers says
CO2 levels were the same then as they are now
After the eruption of a huge volcano or what?
34   socal2   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 4, 3:27pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
35   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 4, 3:34pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
36   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 4, 4:42pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
37   WookieMan   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 4, 4:59pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
38   mell   ignore (3)   2019 Jun 4, 5:09pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
39   socal2   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 4, 5:22pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
40   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 4, 5:24pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malthus -> Eugenics -> Zero Population Growth -> Environmentalism
41   mell   ignore (3)   2019 Jun 4, 5:35pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
42   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 4, 6:14pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
43   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 4, 6:17pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
44   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 4, 7:20pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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?
45   Iranian_Oil_Burse   ignore (6)   2019 Jun 4, 7:25pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
46   Tim Aurora   ignore (3)   2019 Jun 4, 8:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Not sure where to start on this article. It is the kind of crap that can only be written by right wingers for dumb right wingers.

WillPowers says
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.


* Here is an analogy to the above statement : 4.5 billion years ago the earth was a very hot ball. Maybe we should nuke the entire earth to make it again a hot planet with no life. Again, there were no nukes at that time so we would not technically get rid of human life ( since at one time there was no life on earth)
47   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 4, 10:35pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
48   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 5, 12:24am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
49   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 5, 8:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
AGW

You mean climate change. The earth stopped warming in 2016.
50   HeadSet   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 5, 8:25am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
51   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jun 5, 2:50pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
52   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 5, 3:40pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
53   HeadSet   ignore (2)   2019 Jun 5, 5:10pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
54   OccasionalCortex   ignore (4)   2019 Jul 11, 3:41pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice
55   Ceffer   ignore (3)   2019 Jul 11, 4:13pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'm so relieved! Guilt free farts again!
56   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (4)   2019 Jul 11, 8:49pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
57   HeadSet   ignore (2)   2019 Jul 11, 8:53pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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.
58   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Jul 11, 10:05pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says


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.


NERVA, built 50 years ago, got 800 isp and was expected to have over 900 isp.

The moon is full of water ice and oxides, aluminium and iron.
59   Misc   ignore (0)   2019 Jul 12, 12:05am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Does this mean we no longer have to put out the Zika warnings. I mean the scourge was suppose to pass from Africa through South and Central America into large parts of the US causing millions of birth defects. Weren't some idiots saying women should postpone getting pregnant until a cure had been discovered, and that we should divert billions and billions into finding such a cure. I remember it scaring quite a few liberal posters here, well at least enough so that they spilt a lot of ink on it. Of course, the conservatives here were quite scared of the Ebola threat coming to America with its exponential growth. I guess Global warming has more propaganda appeal than those, but maybe we can dust bin it too.
60   6rdB   ignore (0)   2019 Jul 12, 7:53am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

OccasionalCortex says
Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

People should not take this as an absolute truth just because it supports their point of view. This article is just another step towards better understanding of what the hell is going on. They may be right, they might be wrong. It is refreshing though that these scientists break with self-censorship and come out against the politically correct dogma.
61   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2019 Jul 12, 10:21am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WillPowers says
Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax

Observation has proven global warming a hoax.
62   OccasionalCortex   ignore (4)   2019 Jul 12, 10:23am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Observation has proven global warming a hoax.


...and science does, as observation is part of the scientific method, last I checked.
63   OccasionalCortex   ignore (4)   2019 Jul 12, 10:29am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

d6rB says
This article is just another step towards better understanding of what the hell is going on. They may be right, they might be wrong.


AND that is WHY all of us were taught basic science. To think that way. At least it was back in my school days.

But nobody does that anymore. Not even many scientists.

d6rB says
It is refreshing though that these scientists break with self-censorship and come out against the politically correct dogma.


Yeah, that got my notice too. More so than their results, specifically.
64   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2019 Jul 12, 10:30am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

OccasionalCortex says
observation is part of the scientific method, last I checked.

Try to tell that to the alarmists.

« First    « Previous    Comments 25 - 64 of 64    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions