Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Indraman

Climate change lies exposed; Jones & Company

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, umbertino said:

 

A plus from me, LAIC....Thanks for your very (that is clear) heart-felt post which I can only respect...

 

I admit I don't know much about the Bible ( I can always put a remedy to that by buying one and read it, I know or do that here on the Internet) as most of us in Italy only rely on the Gospels ( in Sunday school and also in Church  since when the Priest  starts his Sermon in Mass  he always starts with a piece from the Gospels and then he will comment on it.....Gospels which are only a small part of the Bible

 

Now ( after reading your interesting pst) I am extremely upset, angry and really bugged with those 2...Adam & Eve.....They really ruined it badly ( can't use another word as a form of respect to you and all here)  for all of us!!!!!!

 

My usual luck.......

 

 

Umb, thanks and I know you love to read and by the looks of many of you post you love history and the things that really make this world tick.  The Bible tells us of the past and I mean in the very beginning, how it all started. Its tells of the present and best of all it tells o

us of the future which noone could ever forecast except God all mighty Himself.  I wish you would you would buy a Bible and start reading it.....you will be amazed at Godswork and how much he loves us....He'll change your heart and transform your life.  He can and will give you assurance of eternal life after death.  Yes, this is the God of the Bible, the supreme being that is our creator.  I of course suggest buying a King James Version Bible (KJV) but hey there are several translations that will bring you his true and holy word.  If you do buy one, I would suggest you start reading the gospel of John, you will find out just how much God really does love his people.  Then maybe jump into the Old Testament (Genesis) and find out about Adam and Eve and the beginning of mankind.  I'm praying for you Umb.  The Holy Spirit opens our eyes to see the real truth about God and he opens our ears to hear this truth but we must be willing to seek, see and hear.  God bless and I pray you will make that purchase.  

barb

btw......

Christianbook.com is a great place to buy Bibles and their prices are usually less than other book stores.  If I may suggest a certain bible it would be John MacArthur's study Bible.  You can't go wrong with this Bible.  He also has the footnotes that will explain what verses mean.  Let me know, I'd love to hear

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

It sure isn't.....but science in this case definitely led to said consensus.  Fact  ;)

 

GO RV, then BV

Science NEVER leeds to a consensus. People do that. Science leads only to Scientific probabilities concluded by hypothesis followed by strictly preformed research. 

The consensus of global warming comes SOLELY on computer hypothesis and nothing else. Thus the method of Scientific research was not followed and the consensus is based on a human desired outcome. 

Yes I was listening in Mr. McCormics class.:lol:

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Science NEVER leeds to a consensus. People do that. Science leads only to Scientific probabilities concluded by hypothesis followed by strictly preformed research. 

The consensus of global warming comes SOLELY on computer hypothesis and nothing else. Thus the method of Scientific research was not followed and the consensus is based on a human desired outcome. 

Yes I was listening in Mr. McCormics class.:lol:

 

Once again, if you read the article with it's scientific facts and the corresponding consensus, you would realistically come to a rational conclusion that without the science as detailed in the article, no consensus would have been achieved......Basically without the science as authored in the article, we would even be having this conversation about consensus.....again, Fact.  ;)

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Once again, if you read the article with it's scientific facts and the corresponding consensus, you would realistically come to a rational conclusion that without the science as detailed in the article, no consensus would have been achieved......Basically without the science as authored in the article, we would even be having this conversation about consensus.....again, Fact.  ;)

 

GO RV, then BV

I'll try one more time. A consensus has nothing to do with science whatsoever. And the only facts and evidence given by the global community of scientist is their computer scenarios. A computer scenario can only be as good as the input given the algorithm. It is impossible to create a hypotheses and conduct scientific test using the scientific methods solely on a computer. You proceed from a front of accepting global warming as a man-made problem. I simply do not see that to be a possibility at all. If it was a man-made problem we could fix it. We do not have the Scientific Technology to even begin to stop weather conditions. We do not have the ability to make it snow, or make it rain, we cannot make it cold, or hotter,. To think that we can do these things is delusional. And a serious sign of a psychosis known as the God complex.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

I'll try one more time. A consensus has nothing to do with science whatsoever. And the only facts and evidence given by the global community of scientist is their computer scenarios. A computer scenario can only be as good as the input given the algorithm. It is impossible to create a hypotheses and conduct scientific test using the scientific methods solely on a computer. You proceed from a front of accepting global warming as a man-made problem. I simply do not see that to be a possibility at all. If it was a man-made problem we could fix it. We do not have the Scientific Technology to even begin to stop weather conditions. We do not have the ability to make it snow, or make it rain, we cannot make it cold, or hotter,. To think that we can do these things is delusional. And a serious sign of a psychosis known as the God complex.

 

Okay then, tell it to Indy....he posted the article.  BTW...as another astute poster noted, we're talking about climate, not weather.

 

God complex you say.

 

Image result for trump god complex

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

You can't be serious. 

Please clarify, what's the difference?

 

You really should read the article Indy posted, it explains the difference.  In short, climate and any changes to it are determined over a series of years or decades....whereas weather can change in hours.  It's an easy read, give it a try.  ;)

 

GO RV, then BV 

Edited by Shabibilicious
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

You really should read the article Indy posted, it explains the difference.  In short, climate and any changes to it are determined over a series of years or decades....whereas weather can change in hours.  It's an easy read, give it a try.  ;)

 

GO RV, then BV 

That explanation is as ludicrous as using consensus in a scientific investigation. Whether you call it weather or climate or just a good hair day or a bad hair day it all changes from day-to-day year-to-year decade to decade it's the way of things. And you still haven't told me what we could do to stop it

But the real question here is how can it be possible a simple truck driver is smarter than the scientific consensus community?

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2019 at 9:40 PM, jg1 said:

The only problem is they lie to try and prove their point which distroys any trust I had in them. Then they want money, lots of it to prevent it which you cant because global warming and cooling is part of a natural cycle. Now, if they could tell the truth, and say we need money for the results of what will happen, then I would think about a contribution just as long as it was going to go towards infustructure to help with preparation for it or clean up. Say, for flooding build water channels and not allow structures to built in flood channels. Ext, ect, ect. 

Climate Change: How Do We Know?

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct  measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased  since the Industrial Revolution.  (Source: [[LINK||http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/||NOAA]])

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

 

Keep your head in the sand if it makes you feel happy

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 3:16 PM, 8th ID said:

Yep...sure do...these same things have happened in the past, way before the industrial revolution. That has been proven by science too. When you look at how they measure ozone and all the other things in our atmosphere and compare it to a clock and time, science has only been able to measure it for a minute and are trying to predict next week with it. But they can look back into last month and see the history of the climate through things left behind; ie glacier ice and fossils, etc.

Here you go my man

Climate Change: How Do We Know?

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct  measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased  since the Industrial Revolution.  (Source: [[LINK||http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/||NOAA]])

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Okay then, tell it to Indy....he posted the article.  BTW...as another astute poster noted, we're talking about climate, not weather.

 

God complex you say.

 

Image result for trump god complex

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Again that reminds me of my dear Silvio (Berlusconi) and his delirium of omnipotence AKA power trip

 

In his infinite modesty...The Man once stated on TV he knew he had been the greatest Prime Minister Italy had EVER had  ( going back to 1861 when the Italian Nation was formed...)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Seems like you're cherry picking the article when you only use the facts above, but ignore the scientific consensus in the very same article, per the link you provided.  

 

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html

Climate and weather

Earth is able to support system">support a wide variety of living beings because of its diverse regional climates, which range from extreme cold at the poles to tropical heat at the Equator. Regional climate is often described as the average weather in a place over more than 30 years. A region's climate is often described, for example, as sunny, windy, dry, or humid. These can also describe the weather in a certain place, but while the weather can change in just a few hours, climate changes over a longer span of time.

Earth's global climate is an average of regional climates. The global climate has cooled and warmed throughout history. Today, we are seeing unusually rapid warming. The scientific consensus is that greenhouse gases, which are increasing because of human activities, are trapping heat in the atmosphere.

 

GO RV, then BV

 

 

@Shabibilicious,

 

The above statement is amazingly unscientific...they are saying that CO2, which is the only man-made gas attributable to global warming ("trapping heat") is the main catalyst in a system where it comprises only 400ppm. Of this 400ppm, man attributes only 3%, or 12ppm. This means that the remaining gases, Nitrogen, Oxygen, etc equate to 999,988ppm, and are not considered as catalysts in the system.

 

If I wrote a research paper with the premise that Man-made CO2 is the main catalyst for global warming and changing climate, I should receive a 0%, and so should all the Climate Scientist who believe this claim.

 

Indy

Edited by Indraman
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, caddieman said:

Here you go my man

Climate Change: How Do We Know?

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct  measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased  since the Industrial Revolution.  (Source: [[LINK||http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/||NOAA]])

 

Here is what I think of that made up, fake news graph... :bs:

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

You and 95% of the rest of America 

 

Do you mean 95% of Trumpkins.....or do you have a link backing your original claim?  ;)

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Do you mean 95% of Trumpkins.....or do you have a link backing your original claim?  ;)

 

GO RV, then BV

Gotta be the Trumpkins because they hate the Earth and want to see it destroyed. They believe that's the only way to eliminate liberals.:facepalm1::lmao:

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

That explanation is as ludicrous as using consensus in a scientific investigation. Whether you call it weather or climate or just a good hair day or a bad hair day it all changes from day-to-day year-to-year decade to decade it's the way of things. And you still haven't told me what we could do to stop it

But the real question here is how can it be possible a simple truck driver is smarter than the scientific consensus community?

 

Exactly.....it's not possible.  Science always wins....except when lobbyist, big business and the oil industry owned Republicans are calling the shots, that is. 

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Gotta be the Trumpkins because they hate the Earth and want to see it destroyed. They believe that's the only way to eliminate liberals.:facepalm1::lmao:

 

See how much better you feel when you tell the truth?  ;)

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

July 4 2019

 

90 Leading Italian Scientists Sign Petition: CO2 Impact On Climate “UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED” … Catastrophic Predictions “NOT REALISTIC”

 

https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/04/90-leading-italian-scientists-sign-petition-co2-impact-on-climate-unjustifiably-exaggerated-catastrophic-predictions-not-realistic/

 

PETITION ON GLOBAL ANTHROPGENIC HEATING (Anthropogenic Global Warming, human-caused global warming)

The undersigned, citizens and scientists, send a warm invitation to political leaders to adopt environmental protection policies consistent with scientific knowledge.

In particular, it is urgent to combat pollution where it occurs, according to the indications of the best science. In this regard, the delay with which the wealth of knowledge made available by the world of research is used to reduce the anthropogenic pollutant emissions widely present in both continental and marine environmental systems is deplorable.

But we must be aware that CARBON DIOXIDE IS ITSELF NOT A POLLUTANT. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.

In recent decades, a thesis has spread that the heating of the Earth’s surface of around 0.9°C observed from 1850 onwards would be anomalous and caused exclusively by human activities, in particular by the emission of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels in the atmosphere.

This is the thesis of anthropogenic global warming [Anthropogenic Global Warming] promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, whose consequences would be environmental changes so serious as to fear enormous damage in an imminent future, unless drastic and costly mitigation measures are immediately adopted.

In this regard, many nations of the world have joined programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and are pressured by a intense propaganda to adopt increasingly burdensome programs whose implementation involves heavy burdens on the economies of the individual member states and depend on climate control and, therefore, the “rescue” of the planet.

However, the anthropogenic origin of global warming IS AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models .

On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.

This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.

The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore UNJUSTIFIABLY EXAGGERATED and catastrophic predictions ARE NOT REALISTIC.

The climate is the most complex system on our planet, so it needs to be addressed with methods that are adequate and consistent with its level of complexity.

Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years. These were repeated about every thousand years and include the well-known Medieval Warm Period , the Hot Roman Period, and generally warm periods during the Optimal Holocene period.

These PERIODS OF THE PAST HAVE ALSO BEEN WARMER THAN THE PRESENT PERIOD, despite the CO2 concentration being lower than the current, while they are related to the millennial cycles of solar activity. These effects are not reproduced by the models.

It should be remembered that the heating observed since 1900 has actually started in the 1700s, i.e. at the minimum of the Little Ice Age , the coldest period of the last 10,000 years (corresponding to the millennial minimum of solar activity that astrophysicists call Maunder Minimal Solar ). Since then, solar activity, following its millennial cycle, has increased by heating the earth’s surface.

Furthermore, the models fail to reproduce the known climatic oscillations of about 60 years.

These were responsible, for example, for a warming period (1850-1880) followed by a cooling period (1880-1910), a heating (1910-40), a cooling (1940-70) and a a new warming period (1970-2000) similar to that observed 60 years earlier.

The following years (2000-2019) saw the increase not predicted by the models of about 0.2 ° C  [two one-hundredths of a degree]per decade, but a substantial climatic stability that was sporadically interrupted by the rapid natural oscillations of the equatorial Pacific ocean, known as the El Nino Southern Oscillations , like the one that led to temporary warming between 2015 and 2016.

The media also claim that extreme events, such as hurricanes and cyclones, have increased alarmingly. Conversely, these events, like many climate systems, have been modulated since the aforementioned 60-year cycle.

For example, if we consider the official data from 1880 on tropical Atlantic cyclones that hit North America, they appear to have a strong 60-year oscillation, correlated with the Atlantic Ocean’s thermal oscillation called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation .

The peaks observed per decade are compatible with each other in the years 1880-90, 1940-50 and 1995-2005. From 2005 to 2015 the number of cyclones decreased precisely following the aforementioned cycle. Thus, in the period 1880-2015, between number of cyclones (which oscillates) and CO2 (which increases monotonically) there is no correlation.

The climate system is not yet sufficiently understood. Although it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, according to the IPCC itself the climate sensitivity to its increase in the atmosphere is still extremely uncertain.

It is estimated that a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric CO2, from around 300 ppm pre-industrial to 600 ppm, can raise the average temperature of the planet from a minimum of 1° C to a maximum of 5° C.

This uncertainty is enormous.

In any case, many recent studies based on experimental data estimate that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is CONSIDERABLY LOWER than that estimated by the IPCC models.

Then, it is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data.

All the evidence suggests that these MODELS OVERESTIMATE the anthropogenic contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.

Finally, the media release the message according to which, with regard to the human cause
of current climate change, there would be an almost unanimous consensus among scientists that the scientific debate would be closed.

However, first of all we must be aware that the scientific method dictates that the facts, and not the number of adherents, make a conjecture a consolidated scientific theory .

In any case, the same alleged consensus DOES NOT EXIST. In fact, there is a remarkable variability of opinions among specialists – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, astrophysicists – many of whom recognize an important natural contribution to global warming observed from the pre-industrial period and even from the post-war period to today.

There have also been petitions signed by thousands of scientists who have expressed dissent with the conjecture of anthropogenic global warming.

These include the one promoted in 2007 by the physicist F. Seitz, former president of the American National Academy of Sciences, and the one promoted by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), whose 2009 report concludes that “Nature, not the activity of Man governs the climate”.

In conclusion, given the CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE THAT FOSSIL FUELS have for the energy supply of humanity, we suggest that they should not adhere to policies of uncritically reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere with THE ILLUSORY PRETENSE OF CONTROLLING THE CLIMATE.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, caddieman said:

Here you go my man

Climate Change: How Do We Know?

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct  measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased  since the Industrial Revolution.  (Source: [[LINK||http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/||NOAA]])

 

 

@caddieman

 

You sure throw a lot of PROPOGANDA (BS) out into the forum thinking you have made some conclusion that no one can dispute. However, the graph above shows nothing more than CO2 measurements in the atmosphere over time. And what does this prove? This graph has about as much relevance to 'Global Warming' as a graph of Ford Mustang sales.

 

Indy

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

It sure isn't.....but science in this case definitely led to said consensus.  Fact  ;)

 

GO RV, then BV

 

As I stated once ( maybe 1 or 2 months back...)..... This climate change thing with Pro and Vs. articles, reasonings, arguments etc.....It really became another way of confrontation between right-wing and liberal folks......As it was too good a chance to not  taking advantage of it, even if it'd reveal capable of getting only one more vote ( but they will be many more, just based on this very issue, since Folks, do feel this thing, each in a different way, of course...Meaning it's another divisive thing to be exploited politically)...Doesn't take a rocket scientist to get that........

Edited by umbertino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.