Posted on 09/13/2016 2:24:50 PM PDT by Kaslin
Climate change is bunk. It’s a hustle.
But it’s a gold mine for all those mediocre and jobless scientists who are determined to muscle their way into a fat government grant.
Amazing how no matter what the crisis, the answer is ALWAYS more of YOUR power and money for the least accountable among us. Pollution, check. Earth cooling, check. Earth warming (actually the opposite of the last problem, yet the prescription is identical), check. You'd think just statistically, eventually we'd discover a problem and find that it was caused by too MUCH money and power in the hands of the parasite class.
What is “the temperature of the earth” RIGHT NOW?
How do you calculate that?
What was the “temperature of the earth” yesterday;
for the last 10 years; for the last 20 years;
for the last 30 years; etc.?
How was that calculated?
Was “the temperature of the earth” calculated in the same manner all of those years?
Put all of that together and tell me what “the temperature of the earth” will be
tomorrow; or next year; or 10; 20; 30 years from now...
There are enough variables for this to be a chaotic system that can not be predicted.
I have had an interesting time actually debating with libs around here on this topic. I start with the following questions:
1. Has the earth been warmer or colder than it is now?
2. If yes to question 1, do these temp variations exhibit a cyclical quality?
3. If there is a cyclical quality, where are we on that cycle today?
4. In the “heat” part of the spectrum, does the CO2 absorb all, or just portions? Large or small portions?
5. How far do these absorbed portions have to travel before they are completely absorbed? (Like now when we are supposedly drowning in CO2 and, and say - 150 years ago when the climate was “ideal”.)
6. Given your answer to question 5, do you not feel a bit dumb...perhaps as if you had only a journalism degree and were trying to write about science?
7. What is the percentage of the increase in CO2 in parts per million?
8. Given the laughably small number in question 7, what does this say about climate stability if indeed such a small change could induce such a measurable temperature change?
9. Do we have proof that climate records have been altered in order to produce peer reviewed “documents”?
10. State the source of the so called 97% agreement on human based climate change.
Any of these questions - when pursued diligently - will prove a winning game. Well, perhaps not, since it actually requires a bit of reading, a bit of research, and yes, a bit of real science.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
And, of course, Climate Chang/Global Warming is just such a hobgoblin. However, this particular hobgoblin’s aim is to also shake down the world’s ill informed.
This is incredibly dangerous.
Life on earth cannot exist without CO2. Throughout the earth's history, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has been dropping as CO2 is sequestered in forms unusable by living organisms. Life on earth is predicted to go extinct when these sequestration processes finally remove sufficient CO2 to make life impossible.
Plants cannot pull CO2 out of the air if the concentration is too low. Without CO2, plants cannot make sugars, lipids, and amino acids--the essential components of all life. A constant source of CO2 is needed in order for plants to continue their function of converting CO2 into usable biomolecules. If these fools got their way and successfully removed CO2 into some sort of sink, where it would not be available to plants and thus to all other living organisms, we probably would not see a result for years. This is because natural processes happen on logarithmic scales, in which the first perturbations to a system are not perceptible. But eventually, the removal of CO2 would have measurable effect--and by then, the damage to the system would actually be enormous. We would start to see species die-offs, as the total biomass decreases in linear fashion. At that point, it would take drastic effort to reverse the damage of sinking CO2 into unusable forms. The question is, would we be able to reverse the damage?
At this point, I cannot dismiss the idea that these global warming fanatics know that their ideas, if implemented, could cause extinction of all life. They hate humanity so much, it is not hard to imagine that they hate all life equally.
Read a book a couple years that had essays on Geology.
Geologist have found evidence the planet at one time was almost completely frozen. Sahara desert has evidence on river beds.
How did this happen and why did it change before evil humans were even here trying to commit planetary suicide?
I grew up with “THE ICE AGE IS COMING!!!!!” That’s why we have “Earth Day”.
This is all about control. (and making Algore very rich!)
CO2 has zero affect on temperature.
It is plant food.
Formerly arid areas are greening up.
The Sun is responsible for temperature swings.
Plan for the next Ice Age.
It is coming.
Well that was the Ice age. I learned about it in history class in 1953 or so.
You mean it’s going to repeat itself?
You - and Mencken - are absolutely correct.
There have been several already. The last one ended about 15,000 years ago.
This interglacial period has lasted longer than most of the previous ones.
We’re overdue.
The earth has spent more time frozen than it is like now.
“I grew up with “THE ICE AGE IS COMING!!!”
Yep. On the cover of Time & Newsweek.
Scientists have destroyed their credibility with this MMGW stuff. Most people I know will NEVER trust any scientific data again. Let em all rot in their prostitution.
You are so correct, and I get tired of conservatives constantly falling for this and adopting the "we can cut CO2 emissions more economically than the left".
All Conservatives should be pounding the table and ridiculing the left and insisting that these pseudo scientists produce evidence that CO2 has anything to do with global heating, or cooling, or temperature equilibrium.
Don't tell me you are falling for this crap about more ice ages.
Well, then the planet must be doomed. Most of the methods of carbon abatement have as end product the release of more carbon. This is not something that Humanity can control, not without another century of scientific advance. The rub comes when Science does figure out how and has access to the energy required to accomplish these things and destroys the habitability of the world by interfering in basic natural processes.
We must elect Hillary to save the planet.
I just heard one of her ads advising she plans on installing 500,000,000 solar panel to combat global warming.
Yes, Five Hundred Million.
Hope she decides on an equal distribution. Lets cover Nevada in panels for the West and Tennessee in the East. /s
We must resign ourselves to the only fact in this hoax:
The bullshit will never stop as long as dishonest pseudo scientists are paid money by those who desire to control our daily lives. If they want to really do something good for our Solar System, work on “Sustainability of the Sun!”
In 40 years, I will not be here to see the, so called, “doom” of our planet. Good Luck you all!
I turned 41 not too long ago. I’m amazed I’ve lived this long. I’ve lived through the global cooling scare. I lived through Aqua Net destroying the Ozone. I lived through acid rain. I lived through the rain forest deforestation. I lived through cow farts. I lived through ocean acidification. I lived through DDT spraying. I lived through aspertame. I lived through coral reef bleaching. But this time, global warming will get us.
Heck...I’ve even ridden a bicycle without a helmet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.