More Climate BS...

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[rekinhavoc]

Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’

That is actually the most comprehensive article i have ever read regarding the hoax...and the actual experts who speak the truth seem to be beyond reproach due to their amazing credentials. Thanks for posting this article

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Judge sides with activists in World-First Climate Change Trial: State of Montana violated kids' rights by ignoring global warming, court rules

A judge has ruled in favor of youths who claimed Montana's use of fossil fuels contributed to the climate crisis and harmed their health.

The 'monumental decision' was based on the state's policy in evaluating requests for fossil fuel permits - which does not allow agencies to assess the effects of greenhouse gas emissions - was found unconstitutional.

The youths, aged five to 22, did not seek a payout following a win but wanted defendants to 'bring the state energy system into constitutional compliance.'

A judge has ruled in favor of youths who claimed Montana's use of fossil fuels contributed to the climate crisis and harmed their health. The hearing lasted for five days in June

Judge sides with activists in world-first climate change trial: State of Montana violated kids' rights by ignoring global warming, court rules | Daily Mail Online

 

[Orangeburst]

Judge sides with activists in World-First Climate Change Trial: State of Montana violated kids' rights by ignoring global warming, court rules

A judge has ruled in favor of youths who claimed Montana's use of fossil fuels contributed to the climate crisis and harmed their health.

The 'monumental decision' was based on the state's policy in evaluating requests for fossil fuel permits - which does not allow agencies to assess the effects of greenhouse gas emissions - was found unconstitutional.

The youths, aged five to 22, did not seek a payout following a win but wanted defendants to 'bring the state energy system into constitutional compliance.'

A judge has ruled in favor of youths who claimed Montana's use of fossil fuels contributed to the climate crisis and harmed their health. The hearing lasted for five days in June

Judge sides with activists in world-first climate change trial: State of Montana violated kids' rights by ignoring global warming, court rules | Daily Mail Online

pathetic idiots
precedence for oil industry reparations

 

[newyorkvol]

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1690449569472204800?s=46

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

LMAO .... this Democrat is almost as smart as a rock laying on a dirt road in Jasper, AL.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Maybe a dumb question and too lazy to look it up. With all the educated climate scientists we have in this forum, mostly M.S. YTFN, someone should quickly tell me the last time there was rapid fires like this in Hawaii. Thanks

 

[C-south]

Maybe a dumb question and too lazy to look it up. With all the educated climate scientists we have in this forum, mostly M.S. YTFN, someone should quickly tell me the last time there was rapid fires like this in Hawaii. Thanks

With 5 active volcanoes it seems the potential has always been there.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

With 5 active volcanoes it seems the potential has always been there.

No doubt

 

[BartW]

0.4 % . Our atmosphere is at 0.4% CO2 ...the deception involved with this global grift is unprecedented. The globalists put into practice Hitlers comments " repeat a lie loud enough, for long enough, and people will believe it is truth."

Those of us with our wits about us can look at the actual science and facts to draw a very different conclusion. Starting with the oft repeated lie that " 97% of scientists believe in climate change." Classic half truth style deception. Surely 97% of scientists DO believe Earths climate changes ...it is demonstrably cyclical. From one ice age to the next with hotter periods and higher sea levels in between. The real question is actually " What % of scientists believe in man made global warming?" Better still, " What % of scientists not on the dole for climate science believe that man made global warming is an existential threat? " There is serious conflict of interest when asking scientists if the "boogey man" they are studying/attempting to justify is real considering they are reliant on huge grants from the government to "study" these alleged impacts to the Earth. If there is no manmade global warming then they will not get paid to study/teach/indoctrinate.

Lmao, Godwin's Law never fails. If your beer contains 0.4% arsenic that shouldn't be a problem, right?

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

The idea that the entire scientific community has conspired over a century to invent a fake environmental crisis for research grants is beyond moronic. Just the idea that thousands of researchers would base their careers on a lie instead of, you know, just study something else? Anyone whose research overturns the consensus on climate change would win a nobel prize which comes with over a million bucks and eternal fame and glory. And if you're in it for the money, why go into academia instead of, say, the oil and gas industry? Even O&G has known for decades that human CO2 emissions are driving climate change!

 

[McDad]

Lmao, Godwin's Law never fails. If your beer contains 0.4% arsenic that shouldn't be a problem, right?

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

The idea that the entire scientific community has conspired over a century to invent a fake environmental crisis for research grants is beyond moronic. Just the idea that thousands of researchers would base their careers on a lie instead of, you know, just study something else? Anyone whose research overturns the consensus on climate change would win a nobel prize which comes with over a million bucks and eternal fame and glory. And if you're in it for the money, why go into academia instead of, say, the oil and gas industry? Even O&G has known for decades that human CO2 emissions are driving climate change!

If ACW is irrefutable truth, no consensus is necessary. We don't need a consensus that 2+2=4, or the Earth is a sphere, or Bazooka Joe can throw a football 90 yards.

 

[BartW]

If ACW is irrefutable truth, no consensus is necessary. We don't need a consensus that 2+2=4, or the Earth is a sphere, or Bazooka Joe can throw a football 90 yards.

It's not being restated for the scientific community. The flat earthers of climate change are long gone there, but fake debates continue in media and politics.

 

[McDad]

It's not being restated for the scientific community. The flat earthers of climate change are long gone there, but fake debates continue in media and politics.

Consensus is PR?

 

[BartW]

Consensus is PR?

Consensus is general agreement. Those papers are literature review. You could say their purpose is PR if you want. There's no reason to cite this in Nature but I'm sure it's cited in social sciences studying the climate debate (studying society, not physical science)

 

[McDad]

Consensus is general agreement. Those papers are literature review. You could say their purpose is PR if you want. There's no reason to cite this in Nature but I'm sure it's cited in social sciences studying the climate debate (studying society, not physical science)

Yessir. I understand consensus is general agreement. I am trying to understand why consensus is even mentioned. Al Gore did it when he promoted his movie.
When a scientific fact is provable and predictable does it need consensus? You mentioned the flat earthers....does anyone care whether there is consensus the earth is a sphere? Of course not. Consensus is ridiculous for the shape of the earth. Imagine all the astronomers gathering at a professional conference agreeing to affirm their agreement the earth is spherical. OTOH, no amount of consensus in flat earth circles changes the facts. It doesn't matter how many people agree to those who know the observable truth.
If consensus isn't for the scientific community, that means it is for us. What does it matter whether we agree with something scientific? So it seems to me, that consensus is a sales technique (band wagon) and PR. Of course, there are other scientists and experts who disagree with the consensus. So perhaps consensus is about agreeing with a particular side when the science isn't actually settled.

 

[jwilliams]

Judge sides with activists in World-First Climate Change Trial: State of Montana violated kids' rights by ignoring global warming, court rules

A judge has ruled in favor of youths who claimed Montana's use of fossil fuels contributed to the climate crisis and harmed their health.

The 'monumental decision' was based on the state's policy in evaluating requests for fossil fuel permits - which does not allow agencies to assess the effects of greenhouse gas emissions - was found unconstitutional.

The youths, aged five to 22, did not seek a payout following a win but wanted defendants to 'bring the state energy system into constitutional compliance.'

A judge has ruled in favor of youths who claimed Montana's use of fossil fuels contributed to the climate crisis and harmed their health. The hearing lasted for five days in June

Judge sides with activists in world-first climate change trial: State of Montana violated kids' rights by ignoring global warming, court rules | Daily Mail Online

Let the kids go back to burning wood. That was a leading cause of death for children before widespread use of fossil fuels.

Lmao, Godwin's Law never fails. If your beer contains 0.4% arsenic that shouldn't be a problem, right?

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

The idea that the entire scientific community has conspired over a century to invent a fake environmental crisis for research grants is beyond moronic. Just the idea that thousands of researchers would base their careers on a lie instead of, you know, just study something else? Anyone whose research overturns the consensus on climate change would win a nobel prize which comes with over a million bucks and eternal fame and glory. And if you're in it for the money, why go into academia instead of, say, the oil and gas industry? Even O&G has known for decades that human CO2 emissions are driving climate change!

The headline says it all... pretty much anyone with a brain realizes that the earth is warming, and there's a good chance humans are a contributing factor. This doesn't mean that scientists all think there's a crisis. This is where the politicians have stepped in and warped thinking.

The earth is 25% greener than it was in the 1980's, per NASA.

Also, arsenic and co2 is a terrible comparison. co2 is not poisonous... lack of oxygen is. When you generate co2 and no oxygen, then the air gets toxic (running a car in a garage). More carbon in the atmosphere means more plants, means more oxygen released into the air.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Yessir. I understand consensus is general agreement. I am trying to understand why consensus is even mentioned. Al Gore did it when he promoted his movie.
When a scientific fact is provable and predictable does it need consensus? You mentioned the flat earthers....does anyone care whether there is consensus the earth is a sphere? Of course not. Consensus is ridiculous for the shape of the earth. Imagine all the astronomers gathering at a professional conference agreeing to affirm their agreement the earth is spherical. OTOH, no amount of consensus in flat earth circles changes the facts. It doesn't matter how many people agree to those who know the observable truth.
If consensus isn't for the scientific community, that means it is for us. What does it matter whether we agree with something scientific? So it seems to me, that consensus is a sales technique (band wagon) and PR. Of course, there are other scientists and experts who disagree with the consensus. So perhaps consensus is about agreeing with a particular side when the science isn't actually settled.

My thoughts as well. Good post.

I find it so weird that many of these scientists like Bart feel like everyone MUST believe that mankind is responsible for the cyclical global warming we are experiencing. I have worked construction for 30 years now...my ability to go complete projects AND my attitude/contentment regarding what I do has absolutely nothing to do with what people think about it. I don't have to be a "chicken little" and constantly squawk about "the sky is falling!!" In order to do my job, be respected in my field, be a good citizen, or sleep well at night. In fact...I do not know anyone who does need to.

Why does the world have to be ending (with a new name for it and new "data" every 10 years) for these alarmists to be content? Theres the obvious conflict of interest between squawking and getting endless funds to study them at universities etc, but it seems to run even deeper than that. It is a religious thing for many of these alarmists. They have their preconceived notions that we are to blame for the changes, and ANYONE who disagrees is evil, stupid, ignorant, etc. It is mind blowing. Especially since the data and the cyclical history of our climate show that we are supposed to have higher temperatures etc right now. We are supposed to be in the hottest part of this cycle right now.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Good video regarding the climate and alleged "consensus".

 

[Sgt_Nick_Fury]

 

[McDad]

My thoughts as well. Good post.

I find it so weird that many of these scientists like Bart feel like everyone MUST believe that mankind is responsible for the cyclical global warming we are experiencing. I have worked construction for 30 years now...my ability to go complete projects AND my attitude/contentment regarding what I do has absolutely nothing to do with what people think about it. I don't have to be a "chicken little" and constantly squawk about "the sky is falling!!" In order to do my job, be respected in my field, be a good citizen, or sleep well at night. In fact...I do not know anyone who does need to.

Why does the world have to be ending (with a new name for it and new "data" every 10 years) for these alarmists to be content? Theres the obvious conflict of interest between squawking and getting endless funds to study them at universities etc, but it seems to run even deeper than that. It is a religious thing for many of these alarmists. They have their preconceived notions that we are to blame for the changes, and ANYONE who disagrees is evil, stupid, ignorant, etc. It is mind blowing. Especially since the data and the cyclical history of our climate show that we are supposed to have higher temperatures etc right now. We are supposed to be in the hottest part of this cycle right now.

The heart of my conversation with Bart, who I like because his approach is conversational, is why is consensus part of the conversation and what benefit does a consensus provide. Like you, if I am absolute certain in a pursuit (vocation, finding, etc) what do I care if others agree or disagree. As a christian, I am resigned to the understanding that not everyone believes what I do and the there is no proof to arbitrate the matter. To me, leaning on a consensus as part of the discussion discloses there is a mixture of belief and science in play.
The other side of consensus is how media, politicians, and some "scientists" keep predicting calamity but it never happens. I have yet to see anyone speak out passionately against those ridiculous predictions while simultaneously being part of the consensus. From a PR perspective, those predictions are destroying the AGW "brand".

 

[marcusluvsvols]

The heart of my conversation with Bart, who I like because his approach is conversational, is why is consensus part of the conversation and what benefit does a consensus provide. Like you, if I am absolute certain in a pursuit (vocation, finding, etc) what do I care if others agree or disagree. As a christian, I am resigned to the understanding that not everyone believes what I do and the there is no proof to arbitrate the matter. To me, leaning on a consensus as part of the discussion discloses there is a mixture of belief and science in play.
The other side of consensus is how media, politicians, and some "scientists" keep predicting calamity but it never happens. I have yet to see anyone speak out passionately against those ridiculous predictions while simultaneously being part of the consensus. From a PR perspective, those predictions are destroying the AGW "brand".

Well said again. I have no problem with Bart either as a person...i would buy him a beer like anyone else here. He is probably a great dude and a Vol as well. I am a little more abrasive than you by nature though lol...

There is SO MUCH deception and misinformation these days that it admittedly aggravates me and seemingly has made Americans very skeptical in general. The government lies incessantly as does the media, people have completely abandoned reality and think that now they can just "make up" whatever fictional gender/animal/door knob they want to identify as....and that everyone else better fall in line and address them as whatever they want to "identify" as this week etc. We are constantly bombarded by lies and distractions, and people have seemingly lost sight of the difference between objective reality and their subjective opinions. Those are 2 very different things.

From a scientific standpoint...I see more and more these days that academics/ scientists have abandoned the Scientific Method. Abandoned testing a hypothesis in a tightly controlled environment by observable, repeatable experimentation and data collection. This is being abandoned and replaced with studies that have a preconceived outcome (like AGW) and then collect data* in order to support their already decided outcome. Then all the other academics who did the same thing get together and scream about their "consensus" as they line up the millions of dollars in grant money for their next multi-year study to of course support the same dire conclusions whose death and destruction never actually came true on the last 500 studies of its kind. Rinse and repeat. We need to establish a means and purpose for research besides the HUGE, unprecedented cash cow right now that is AGW.

 

[McDad]

Well said again. I have no problem with Bart either as a person...i would buy him a beer like anyone else here. He is probably a great dude and a Vol as well. I am a little more abrasive than you by nature though lol...

There is SO MUCH deception and misinformation these days that it admittedly aggravates me and seemingly has made Americans very skeptical in general. The government lies incessantly as does the media, people have completely abandoned reality and think that now they can just "make up" whatever fictional gender/animal/door knob they want to identify as....and that everyone else better fall in line and address them as whatever they want to "identify" as this week etc. We are constantly bombarded by lies and distractions, and people have seemingly lost sight of the difference between objective reality and their subjective opinions. Those are 2 very different things.

From a scientific standpoint...I see more and more these days that academics/ scientists have abandoned the Scientific Method. Abandoned testing a hypothesis in a tightly controlled environment by observable, repeatable experimentation and data collection. This is being abandoned and replaced with studies that have a preconceived outcome (like AGW) and then collect data* in order to support their already decided outcome. Then all the other academics who did the same thing get together and scream about their "consensus" as they line up the millions of dollars in grant money for their next multi-year study to of course support the same dire conclusions whose death and destruction never actually came true on the last 500 studies of its kind. Rinse and repeat. We need to establish a means and purpose for research besides the HUGE, unprecedented cash cow right now that is AGW.

As a layman looking at climate change research, it must be really taxing. They can make measurements and observations but the testing is beyond their scope ( in my opinion ). There are too many variables to negate which affect test results.
I do not trust computer models. I don't believe those are to the rigor of what most of us consider science or scientific method.

 

[jwilliams]

As a layman looking at climate change research, it must be really taxing. They can make measurements and observations but the testing is beyond their scope ( in my opinion ). There are too many variables to negate which affect test results.
I do not trust computer models. I don't believe those are to the rigor of what most of us consider science or scientific method.

I build domain models for a living and there's a saying... "All models are wrong, but some are useful." I can guarantee that nobody has built an accurate model for forecasting climate change.

 

[GAVol]

As a layman looking at climate change research, it must be really taxing. They can make measurements and observations but the testing is beyond their scope ( in my opinion ). There are too many variables to negate which affect test results.
I do not trust computer models. I don't believe those are to the rigor of what most of us consider science or scientific method.

I agree completely although I think it's pretty obvious empirically that we are living in a time when the temperature happens to be increasing and ice is melting. I just don't buy that it's necessarily anything other than the natural ebb and flow.