Good News Sucks for Climate Cultists

[T. A. Gardner]

Sorry to inform you, but the consensus of valid, well documented scientific evidence proving climate change is NOT hinged on the few predictive books (that proved wrong) from the 1970's or some generalized sayings from Greta Thurnberg.

I'll ask you a question that I asked the late Queen of England's former Scientific Advisor a couple of years ago; Are you saying that over 2 centuries of increasing industrial exhaust, car exhaust (i.e., smoke stacks), deforestation and urbanization has only a negligible effect on the eco-system?

False analogy. We're talking climate, not general effect on the environment. You'd think a "scientific advisor" would know better...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Sorry to inform you, but the consensus of valid, well documented scientific evidence proving climate change is NOT hinged on the few predictive books (that proved wrong) from the 1970's or some generalized sayings from Greta Thurnberg.

I'll ask you a question that I asked the late Queen of England's former Scientific Advisor a couple of years ago; Are you saying that over 2 centuries of increasing industrial exhaust, car exhaust (i.e., smoke stacks), deforestation and urbanization has only a negligible effect on the eco-system?

False analogy. We're talking climate, not general effect on the environment. You'd think a "scientific advisor" would know better...

And your first two sentences here give a blatant example of your sheer ignorance regarding the subject being discussed.

Just how on God's green Earth do you think "climate" comes about? I mean besides how the sun hit's the Earth during it's rotation? When your TV meteorologist explains weather patterns, notice how he incorporates moisture and dry air and such into his forecasts? How cloud cover affects duration of temperature? That goes along with rain & snow, ya know.

Ever watch a Nature or Discovery show? When they describe living in desert area or rain forests? One has deadly heat during the day and near freezing cold at night. The other has intense humidity that only decreases some at night. Why, BECAUSE OF THE LACK OR ABUNDANCE OF PLANT LIFE!

As I write this, my local news is reporting about the intense number of tornadoes ripping through the southern states.....this just after reports of devastating winter snow storms in the midwest earlier this year. These have been increasing in length and intensity in the last decade or more.

You have intense severe droughts in places like Colorado, land slides in California (along with forest fires). Of course, no one points out that man made dams, suburban landscaping and such contribute to that.

Remember, when you remove vast areas of forests and such and replace them with hear reflective & enhancing concrete & glass, you affect the climate. City & industrial air pollution affects plants and tree (if you're not old enough to remember, look up "acid rain").

I could go on, but hopefully you'll put your pride aside and get up to speed on the subject (objective, honest research beyond what you want to hear). THINK, son, THINK before you post.

 

[serendipity]

False analogy. We're talking climate, not general effect on the environment. You'd think a "scientific advisor" would know better...

Tell the imbecile that there is no such title as Queen, or indeed King of England. Her correct title, simplified here, is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. England has not been a separate sovereign state since 1707.

Here is a little historical background on the issue. For centuries England and Scotland were separate sovereign kingdoms each with their own monarch. There was not always peace between the two states and England constantly tried to keep Scotland subdued. Edward I (1272-1307) is not known as the Hammer of the Scots for nothing! The Kingdoms of England and Scotland remained separate until 1603. Queen Elizabeth I of England died without issue and her closest relative that had a claim to the throne was her cousin King James VI of Scotland (1567-1625).


The accession of the Scottish king on the English throne did not politically unite the two nations. Both kingdoms were ruled by James but remained individual sovereign states that retained their own parliaments and laws. Although James liked to consider himself as the King of Great Britain this title had no legal barring. From 1603 until 1707 (excluding the Commonwealth period) the title of the monarch was King or Queen of England and Scotland and Ireland (they also called themselves the Kings of France but that is another story).

In 1707 came the Act of Union uniting the Parliaments of England and Scotland creating the new nation of Great Britain. England and Scotland ceased to be independent sovereign states and were then, and now, considered separate states within the union. The title of the monarch changed accordingly and the titles of King or Queen of England and Scotland passed into history. Anne was Queen of England and Scotland when the act was passed and her title was changed to Queen of Great Britain.

Anne – Queen of Great Britain
The title remained King or Queen of Great Britain for 93 years when the nation expanded once more. Ireland was included in the political union with Great Britain and the new state became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. George III (1760-1820) was the monarch at the time and his title changed accordingly. From 1714 to 1837 The British monarch was also Electors and then Kings of Hanover and although their Hanoverian titles were listed among their British title, Britain and Hanover were ruled separately and were not politically unified.

In 1920 in the reign of King George V (1910-1936) a large portion of Ireland was given its independence and only the northern counties remained united with Britain. From that time until the present the title of the monarch has been King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Now having said my rant and given the historical background on the evolution of the title of the British monarch I must be honest and say that I do miss the traditional titles of King or Queen of England and King or Queen of Scotland. Those are in the past unless devolution comes to the UK and England and Scotland becomes independent once again. If that does happen I think we would see a return to how things were prior to 1707 when both England and Scotland shared the same monarch.

https://royalcentral.co.uk/features...so-hard-to-get-it-right-138067/?cn-reloaded=1

 

[moon]

I mean, the first tornado in human history was just a few months ago.

We have NEVER had a drought - that whole mediteranian drying up and North Africans walking across dry land to the middle east in the 3rd century AD is because the Romans drove big chariots and had indoor plumbing.

The world will end if poor people don't suffer sweltering heat and bitter cold. Gaia DEMANDS that the middle class be crushed and we return to the dark ages or the earth will be destroyed...


ROFL

You cultists are such fools.

We have never had anthropogenic global warming before, Mr. Mayor.

Now we have- and you are a mere Denier, a dwindling band of self-serving capitalists whose lies exceed Holocaust Denial in their crass stupidity.
My advice to you is to stay anonymous. These people will get around to looking for the culprits;

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes I do. It's the Euro equivalent to a PhD here in the States.

I didn't realize you could get one in janitorial studies.

Nope.

Sc.D. is "Doctor of Science" and very much used here in the USA.

Ph.D. is "Doctor of Philosophy" and is used more for history, arts, divinity, and other fields of study that are not related to science.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Imbecile! Your solution is NOT to diminish the pollutants or the deforestation/urbanization, but to increase artificial fertilizer as a constant band-aid?

For your education:

Environmental Implications of Excess Fertilizer and Manure on Water Quality
(NM1281, Reviewed August 2022)

https://www.ndsu.edu/agriculture/ex...the depletion,through runoff and soil erosion.

And either you're just too willfully ignorant or a bad liar. From my link: "...On top of all that, Moore points out increased CO2 also benefits weeds that compete with farm plants.

" .... Rising CO2’s effect on crops could also harm human health. “We know unequivocally that when you grow food at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious,” notes Samuel Myers, principal research scientist in environmental health at Harvard University. “[Food crops] lose significant amounts of iron and zinc—and grains [also] lose protein.” Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million. (Both of those figures are in addition to the number of people who already have such a shortfall.) A total of 1.4 billion women of child-bearing age and young children who live in countries with a high prevalence of anemia would lose more than 3.8 percent of their dietary iron at such CO2 levels, according to Meyers."
"

Anyone with a rational, objective mind who can read carefully comprehensively can easily see through your repetitive, myopic drivel. In addition, that you can't resist throwing in your obsessive racism as some sort of validation for your ignorance just confirms the erroneous basis of your screed.

You're the perfect Big Dumb Dog mascot for corporate flunkies, MAGA mooks and racist rabble. Carry on.

CO2 is not a pollutant, moron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We have never had anthropogenic global warming before, Mr. Mayor.

And we still don't.

The sheer EGO of you cultists is amusing.

The arrogance of thinking YOU can control the weather - much less the climate, is the height of arrogance and the depth of ignorance.

Now we have- and you are a mere Denier, a dwindling band of self-serving capitalists whose lies exceed Holocaust Denial in their crass stupidity.
My advice to you is to stay anonymous. These people will get around to looking for the culprits;

Denier? I thought I was a "heretic?"

And yes, I realize that cults such as yours routinely murder those who expose you as the frauds you are.

 

[Into the Night]

Not as much as you may wish for them to be.



In no small part due to isostatic rebound. Are you thinking there's been a major ice age since the end of the last one?



It is in an "interglacial". Which, per the Milankovich Cycles, SHOULD be getting cooler again. But it isn't. I wonder why that is. Hmmmm.

Isostatic rebound tends to LOWER sea levels, moron.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. AHahahahahahahahahahaha.

So you won't provide any of the data requested of you. Gotit. You just evade and evade.

 

[Into the Night]

Aerosols and clouds are very poorly understood ... and they are extremely significant. Don't doubt me.

Then you can provide the data in Feet for the amount of isostatic rebound and post it here for all to see, right?


"There are five known Icehouse periods in Earth's climate history, which are known as the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Late Paleozoic, and Late Cenozoic glaciations."

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Greenhouse_and_iceho..

Milankovitch cycles predict glaciation cycles every 40,000 years. Yet for the last 2 million years, glaciation cycles have averaged one every 100,000 years. Do you understand 40k and 100k are very different numbers?

This is just religion. No one knows of 'glacier cycles' even happen, or what the sea level ever was or is. No one knows what Earth's temperature was or is. There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as "Earth's climate". Wikipedia is an invalid reference.

 

[Into the Night]

Why shouldn't I doubt you? Are you a professional researcher in this area?



Buy a geology textbook.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.
Geology is not climate. It is not ancient history.

 

[Into the Night]

It's common knowledge.

Textbook? ... I'm not going to do your research for you. If you can't support your argument with actual data, ... that's on you.

Al Gorians

He so far has not provided any data, nor even any definition to 'climate change' (whatever THAT is!). He refuses to do so.

 

[moon]

And we still don't.

The sheer EGO of you cultists is amusing.

The arrogance of thinking YOU can control the weather - much less the climate, is the height of arrogance and the depth of ignorance.



Denier? I thought I was a "heretic?"

And yes, I realize that cults such as yours routinely murder those who expose you as the frauds you are.

You are a relic, a representative of a failed corporate era. The worse it gets, the more likely that new legislation will come for you.
Better keep your other skin to hand.

 

[Into the Night]

Common knowledge that clouds are not well modeled? Yeah, but it doesn't really change the science that much.

No science here...move along...move along...

There's always questions in science, even the stuff you think we know perfectly well.

You are not discussing any theory of science. Theories are not questions. Science is not questions.

The key is that it doesn't appear to be enough of a problem to cause the vast majority of the earths' professionals in this field to suggest AGW is likely not real.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Earth is not 'professionals'. Science is not 'professionals'. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

Here you are claiming things are "common knowledge" and you don't even know basic intro Geology 101 stuff? Oooookaaay.

Again with the random phrases. Geology is not being discussed here.

 

[Into the Night]

When the Deniers have finished fencing with rolled-up data charts................the climate-change refugees are in deep shit;

What refugees? From where? Going to where? Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

There are millions today- millions more next week. Yours is a lost cause. The reality of global warming has excreted you.

Should have listened;

What 'millions'? What 'refugees'? Going from where? Going to where? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You still deny and discard statistical math. You have no data. Your religion is not science. It is not mathematics. It is not data.

 

[Into the Night]

The above statistic is from an insurance company, blind dumbass.

If it was a movie- you'd be Mayor of Shark City

Haw, haw.........................................haw.

There is no statistic. There is no data. Define 'climate change'. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[moon]

What refugees? From where? Going to where? Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.

What 'millions'? What 'refugees'? Going from where? Going to where? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You still deny and discard statistical math. You have no data. Your religion is not science. It is not mathematics. It is not data.

Says the poltroon that insists that Sweden is not to the east of the UK.

Tell me some more science.

Haw, haw.....................................haw.

 

[Into the Night]

Every accusation is a confession.

Accusation is not confession. Redefinition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

You're right.

I'm confessing that the AGW cult is just about money - about extorting corporations and empowering petty dictators...

Some not so petty.