APP - even some global warming doubters want preparations for stronger storm surges

[cancel2 2022]

This is the only thing that needs to be said about credibility:

I have predicted global warming as long as I've been on the internet.

For the past 15 years you have been predicting the imminent onset of global cooling.

Back on ignore, can't be bothered with you as you're only interested in imagined gotchas. You're totally incapable of understanding that sunspot cycles and CO2 forcing are not the same thing. Low numbers of sunspots results in much more quiescent solar winds and consequently higher levels of cosmic rays forming clouds.


CLOUD discovers new way by which aerosols rapidly form and grow at high altitude

The resultant particles quickly spread around the globe, potentially influencing Earth’s climate on an intercontinental scale

18 MAY, 2022

Aerosol particles can form and grow in Earth’s upper troposphere in an unexpected way, reports the CLOUD collaboration in a paper1 published today in Nature. The new mechanism may represent a major source of cloud and ice seed particles in areas of the upper troposphere where ammonia is efficiently transported vertically, such as over the Asian monsoon regions.

Aerosol particles are known to generally cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space and by making clouds more reflective. However, how new aerosol particles form in the atmosphere remains relatively poorly known.

“Newly formed aerosol particles are ubiquitous throughout the upper troposphere, but the vapours and mechanisms that drive the formation of these particles are not well understood,” explains CLOUD spokesperson Jasper Kirkby. “With experiments performed under cold upper tropospheric conditions in CERN’s CLOUD chamber, we uncovered a new mechanism for extremely rapid particle formation and growth involving novel mixtures of vapours.”

Using mixtures of sulfuric acid, nitric acid and ammonia vapours in the chamber at atmospheric concentrations, the CLOUD team found that these three compounds form new particles synergistically at rates much faster than those for any combination of two of the compounds. The CLOUD researchers found that the three vapours together form new particles 10–1000 times faster than a sulfuric acid–ammonia mixture, which, from previous CLOUD measurements, was previously considered to be the dominant source of upper tropospheric particles. Once the three-component particles form, they can grow rapidly from the condensation of nitric acid and ammonia alone to sizes where they seed clouds.

Moreover, the CLOUD measurements show that these particles are highly efficient at seeding ice crystals, comparable to desert dust particles, which are thought to be the most widespread and effective ice seeds in the atmosphere. When a supercooled cloud droplet freezes, the resulting ice particle will grow at the expense of any unfrozen droplets nearby, so ice has a major influence on cloud microphysical properties and precipitation.

The CLOUD researchers went on to feed their measurements into global aerosol models that include vertical transport of ammonia by deep convective clouds. The models showed that, although the particles form locally in ammonia-rich regions of the upper troposphere such as over the Asian monsoon regions, they travel from Asia to North America in just three days via the subtropical jet stream, potentially influencing Earth’s climate on an intercontinental scale.

“Our results will improve the reliability of global climate models in accounting for aerosol formation in the upper troposphere and in predicting how the climate will change in the future,” says Kirkby. “Once again, CLOUD is finding that anthropogenic ammonia has a major influence on atmospheric aerosol particles, and our studies are informing policies for future air pollution regulations.”

Atmospheric concentrations of sulfuric acid, nitric acid and ammonia were much lower in the pre-industrial era than they are now, and each is likely to follow different concentration trajectories under future air pollution controls. Ammonia in the upper troposphere originates from livestock and fertiliser emissions – which are unregulated at present – and is carried aloft in convective cloud droplets, which release their ammonia upon freezing.

https://home.web.cern.ch/news/news/...-aerosols-rapidly-form-and-grow-high-altitude

 

[gfm7175]

We have been talking about global warming since the late 1980s,

... and don't forget that the popular chatter before then was about "global cooling". There was fear of "another ice age" happening.

and even though it is obvious now there are still those who would rather see harm come to their grandchildren than openly admit they had been wrong.

I think it's inaccurate, and rather reckless, to claim that "unbelievers" want their grandchildren to be harmed. They, like anyone else (generally speaking), want their children to be happy and healthy. "Unbelievers", rather, are simply not convinced that "global warming" and "greenhouse gases" are "warming the Earth", catastrophically or otherwise. They have a number of reasons for that:

First is the internal consistency check (IOW, re: logic). The simple question "what is global warming" has never been answered by a "believer" in a manner that doesn't amount to a circular definition. In essence, they claim that "global warming" IS "global warming", which is meaningless.

Then come the mathematical issues regarding any claim about the Earth warming. The main problem with trying to measure the temperature of Earth is that there is too much variance in temperature. For instance, temperature can easily vary by as much as 20degF per MILE and can even vary quite a bit per minute, and the Earth has approximately 197 million square miles of surface area. Thus, roughly 200 million thermometers would be necessary to even have any sort of an idea as to what Earth's temperature is, and that is only covering the "ground level" surface area of Earth, let alone above it and below it (also parts of Earth). In the end, it would take at least a billion thermometers to have any sort of decent idea as to what Earth's temperature is.

Then come the science issues regarding any claim about the Earth warming via "greenhouse effect". In order for the Earth in increase in temperature, additional energy is required. Where is this additional energy coming from? Additionally, heat (the flow of thermal energy) can only flow from hot to cold. How can "greenhouse gas" (colder) heat Earth's surface (warmer)? Additionally, Earth's radiance is directly proportional to Earth's temperature. IF Earth's radiance is decreased due to "trapped heat", then Earth's temperature will likewise be proportionately DECREASED, not increased.

For these reasons, and more, I am not convinced that the "global warming" faith is true.

 

[IBDaMann]

it is past time to prepare our coastlines against stronger storms and rising sea levels

Storms aren't getting any stronger and sea level hasn't risen discernibly since the late 1800s. It is a simple matter for any rational adult to verify this.

If you want to prepare move inland. Problem solved. You don't have a right to live where you want at others expense. And it is a hoax. You have been played. But it is easier for you to continue to believe a lie rather than admit you were duped.

A voice of reason. Well done.

I finally realized that for years I was duped by the GOP. They aren't conservative constitutionalists. They are no better than the democrat party.

Correct, but this is a relatively recent change. Back in the late 1990s, Republican Congresses were budgeting to a surplus and were ensuring our individual liberties. The Democrat Party has successfully infiltrated the RNC and now literally controls it through their RINOs.

I think state government leadership in Florida still [understands] global warming is a hoax

Well, there's still some sanity out there then. Good on them.

I think that Ian was just one of those storms, much like the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami, that occurs periodically over a long period of time that isn't predicted or planned for.

All weather is random. No weather conditions are predicted or planned. Now before you do the stupid knee-jerk "Of course we have weather forecasts ..." weather forecasts can only be generated from observing the weather conditions that produce such forecasts. Those weather conditions are never predicted or planned, i.e. there are no planned or predicted weather forecasts.

Weather is random. There is no such thing as a "weather pattern." If you hear/read a warmizombie using the term "weather pattern(s)" then you've got yet another scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent moron on your hands, and your time would be more productively spent watching paint dry.

Exxon scientists knew in the 1970s that burning fossil fuels and pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere would result in global warming.

There are no scientists who believe in physics violations, but I notice that you sure do love to pretend to speak for thmart perthonth. Not only is your pretense of knowing what an entire class of people "knew" totally absurd, what you claim to read from their minds is completely ridiculous.

Once again, your Global Warming religion is a mess of physics violation and no, there aren't any scientists that subscribe to physics violations.

There's little difference between that and the tobacco industry knowing that cigarettes are deadly, but playing it down.

Except that those who smoke cigarettes do so freely. I bet you favor marijuana legalization, but you want to deny We the People the individual liberty to smoke cigarettes? Why the zeal to demonize an industry for offering a product that no one is required to buy? I bet you loved the part about Obamacare that mandated everyone purchase it, enforced by the IRS, denying We the People the freedom to opt out and to choose what we buy and don't buy. But the tobacco industry was evil, you say? ... because nobody was forced to buy any cigarettes ... I see. It makes so much sense now that you put it that way. I appreciate the clarity.

Wait a minute ... don't you demonize conservatives for supposedly holding your positions?

The puzzling thing is why the Reichtards continue to deny deny deny.

Yes, this is what you do. Have you never noticed?

People in general, and Rightwingers in particular, are reticent to admit they were wrong.

That would be every leftist on JPP. You, in fact, haven't really ever been right, but you won't ever admit that you were ever wrong.

You can barely find a Republican on this board who will admit anti-war liberals had good judgement about the folly of the Iraq invasion.

You can barely find a leftist who will acknowledge that the UN Security Council voted unanimously to approve it. You probably couldn't find a leftist who even knows why Iraq was invaded. Yes, yes, yes, there are plenty of leftists who are certain that they understand all the propaganda correctly, but they don't really know anything based in reality.

We have been talking about global warming since the late 1980s, and even though it is obvious now there are still those who would rather see harm come to their grandchildren than openly admit they had been wrong.

Correct. People such as yourself would rather usher in economic harm to your grandchildren's future than admit that you should have paid attention in school and not fallen for a religion based on physics violations, a religion based on HATRED and intolerance, a religion that only recruits from the stupidest among us. Your position is that you would rather screw over your grandchildren because, hey, better they get screwed than I be momentarily embarrassed on an anonymous message board.

It seems more likely than not that CO2 emissions are impacting climate.

Nope. There is no likelihood of physics violations impacting something that is totally undefined and completely unfalsifiable. You can rest assured that humanity has dodged that bullet. Whew! More good news, changes in daylight savings time will have absolutely no impact on lavender lunar leprechauns! I think it's time to celebrate. Really.

It has been called 'climate change' at the highest levels of government and science for more than 40 years,

... but it isn't in any of the government's strategic plans, which is what really matters, and it doesn't exist in the body of science. It is a religion, and so it exists in the government along with Christianity, Islam, Marxism, etc..., and none of them exist in the body of science.

By the way, the IPCC is a religious headquarters, like the Vatican or Mecca. All that is issued from these institutions is church material.

Global warming is a more accurate description although not accurate. ‘Regional warming’ is better.

Nope. There is no discernible/perceptible warming.

There has been no change in the Köppen climate classification of any region in the world for centuries to my knowledge.

Correct. The reason you are not aware of any climate that has changed over the last century is because no climate has changed over the last century. So who convinced you that there was warming somehow?

That's been known about since the time of Arrhenius, shit for brains.

Nope. It has not been known because it isn't true. Svante Arrhenius might have enjoyed logging hours in the lab, but the hypotheses that he proposed were wrong and didn't survive the scrutiny of the scientific method. You should have performed your due diligence. Arrhenius wrote a paper, yes, that captured some data from some tests, but data is not science. He proposed some hypotheses and they were falsified ... and Arrhenius was done. None of his work remains in the body of science, although his data is available for study (it was all published). This is why there is no "Arrhenius law," why there is no unit of measure "the Svante" and why you won't find anything of his taught in any physics class.

Recap: there is no "what Arrhenius knew." There is only the erroneous "Arrhenius conjecture." He was wrong. There is no effect on earth's temperatures. You can see why in my signature.

It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is.

Nope. Identify for me one climate that has changed within the last century.

It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is.

Nope. The only things that are clear are:
1. You have no way of measuring the global atmospheric content of CO2.
2. You thus have no way of knowing whether it is ever increasing, decreasing or remaining the same.
3. You are obviously forgetting that CO2 is plant food, that it is heavier than the rest of the air, and that any and all CO2 settling down to the surface will be greedily consumed by the earth's plant life.
4. There is far more plant life than that needed to consume the relatively paltry quantities of CO2 added to the atmosphere.

I don't see how you can claim that CO2 is rising and keep a straight face.

It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should.

Nope. That's not possible.

The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to,

Then I have some great news! The correct answer is zero warming. No substance has any magical superpower to defy thermodynamics or any other law of physics. So, this debate is over, unless you enjoy listening to the sound of your own voice.

The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming

Zero qualifies as "very little."

... and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal.

Well the warming is zero so there is zero impact to storms. However, warming hinders storms. Cold is what causes storms. This is why the windiest and stormiest places on earth are the coldest, and the windiest and stormiest planets are the coldest. Let me know if you need me to explain how that works.

I'm more interested in why I have been predicting global warming for 20 years, while you have been predicting global cooling for many years, and the threads are there to prove it.

You both have differing religious beliefs. Why do Christians pray to God while Muslims pray to Allah?

It has nothing to do with CO2 and radiative forcing.

There is no such thing as a "forcing." "Forcing" is just Climate religion jargon for "miracle." "Feedback" is a Climate forcing that specifically violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, culminating in an impressive violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You seem to have been the board's most infamous predictor of the imminent onset of global cooling.

How does that differ substantially from the crap you've been writing?

This is the only thing that needs to be said about credibility: I have [preached] global warming as long as I've been on the internet.

... and I have told you repeatedly that you have no credibility.

Back on ignore, can't be bothered with you as you're only interested in imagined gotchas. You're totally incapable of understanding that sunspot cycles and CO2 forcing are not the same thing.

The former exists and the latter does not.

... and don't forget that the popular chatter before then was about "global cooling". There was fear of "another ice age" happening.

These funky Climate religions come and go like fads.

I think it's inaccurate, and rather reckless, to claim that "unbelievers" want their grandchildren to be harmed. They, like anyone else (generally speaking), want their children to be happy and healthy. "Unbelievers", rather, are simply not convinced that "global warming" and "greenhouse gases" are "warming the Earth", catastrophically or otherwise. They have a number of reasons for that:

First is the internal consistency check (IOW, re: logic). The simple question "what is global warming" has never been answered by a "believer" in a manner that doesn't amount to a circular definition. In essence, they claim that "global warming" IS "global warming", which is meaningless.

Then come the mathematical issues regarding any claim about the Earth warming. The main problem with trying to measure the temperature of Earth is that there is too much variance in temperature. For instance, temperature can easily vary by as much as 20degF per MILE and can even vary quite a bit per minute, and the Earth has approximately 197 million square miles of surface area. Thus, roughly 200 million thermometers would be necessary to even have any sort of an idea as to what Earth's temperature is, and that is only covering the "ground level" surface area of Earth, let alone above it and below it (also parts of Earth). In the end, it would take at least a billion thermometers to have any sort of decent idea as to what Earth's temperature is.

Then come the science issues regarding any claim about the Earth warming via "greenhouse effect". In order for the Earth in increase in temperature, additional energy is required. Where is this additional energy coming from? Additionally, heat (the flow of thermal energy) can only flow from hot to cold. How can "greenhouse gas" (colder) heat Earth's surface (warmer)? Additionally, Earth's radiance is directly proportional to Earth's temperature. IF Earth's radiance is decreased due to "trapped heat", then Earth's temperature will likewise be proportionately DECREASED, not increased.

For these reasons, and more, I am not convinced that the "global warming" faith is true.

Another voice of reason. Thank you for adding some sanity to the discussion.

 

[Cypress]

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[IBDaMann]

Still no original thoughts. Disappointing. At least I can win bar bets off your guaranteed lack of originality.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Storms aren't getting any stronger and sea level hasn't risen discernibly since the late 1800s. It is a simple matter for any rational adult to verify this.

All weather is random. No weather conditions are predicted or planned. Now before you do the stupid knee-jerk "Of course we have weather forecasts ..." weather forecasts can only be generated from observing the weather conditions that produce such forecasts. Those weather conditions are never predicted or planned, i.e. there are no planned or predicted weather forecasts.

Weather is random. There is no such thing as a "weather pattern." If you hear/read a warmizombie using the term "weather pattern(s)" then you've got yet another scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent moron on your hands, and your time would be more productively spent watching paint dry.

This is utterly stupid bullshit. Weather is not "random." We don't have blizzards at the equator, nor massive winter storms in the Northern Hemisphere in July. Global wind patterns are generally mapped and known. Weather moves from West to East in the Northern Hemisphere for the most part.

It is stupid arrogance to claim that weather is just "random." Weather forecasts become more accurate as they become more near term. Thus, it can be predicted that in December two years from now the temperature at a particular location will be between to values based on years of data. That's how statistics work. The exact temperatures on any given day in December two years from now can't be predicted precisely, but that doesn't invalidate the estimates made two years prior.

 

[IBDaMann]

This is utterly stupid bullshit.

I never accused you of being very bright.

Weather is not "random."

Of course it is. Why do you think stochastic models exist? You apparently don't know what "random" means.

We don't have blizzards at the equator, nor massive winter storms in the Northern Hemisphere in July.

I was correct. You don't know what random means. When you roll a six-sided die, is that random? Of course not; you never roll an eight, right?

Global wind patterns are generally mapped and known.

So no one ever told you that wind currents change, and that they change randomly? Most people learned all of this stuff in high school. Where were you?

Weather moves from West to East in the Northern Hemisphere for the most part.

Are you saying that weather has a direction, and that direction is West to East? Well that certainly explains why we never get hurricanes that somehow form in the Atlantic and strike the US' east coast. What you're saying makes perfect sense now that you put it that way.

It is stupid arrogance to claim that weather is just "random."

Too funny. It is grammar school-level ignorance to not know that weather is entirely random.

Weather forecasts become more accurate as they become more near term.

I already covered this. You made the knee-jerk rookie error I asked you not to make in my post.

Forecasts are only made when certain weather conditions arise. The weather conditions themselves are what are random. There is no way to predict what weather conditions will occur when. Once those weather conditions materialize and we observe them, yes, we can form a weather forecast. We cannot predict weather conditions.

If you disagree, tell us all when and where the conditions to form the next CAT 3 hurricane will occur in the Atlantic?

 

[Litmus]

it is past time to prepare our coastlines against stronger storms and rising sea levels

Some still insist that climate change is a hoax, but the vast majority of Americans believe the globe is warming, a new survey finds — and they want to prepare for the worst.
In fact, even 60 percent of climate-change doubters favored preparations, the survey found. Researchers collected opinions between March 3 and March 18 via an online questionnaire, using a nationally representative sample of 1,174 American adults, both English and Spanish speaking.
The survey asked about climate-change beliefs and support for adaptation strategies to help coastal areas cope with the rising sea levels and frequent, intense storms that a warmer world could bring. The results showed that 82 percent of Americans are in favor of preparation.
"Few people believe these preparations will harm the economy or eliminate jobs," survey director Jon Krosnick, a senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, said in a statement. "In fact, more people believe that preparation efforts will help the economy and create jobs around the U.S., in their state and in their town than think these efforts will harm the economy and result in fewer jobs in those areas.
"But people want coastal homeowners and businesses that locate in high-risk areas to pay for these measures," he said.
The survey found high levels of belief in global warming, with 82 percent of respondents agreeing that Earth's temperatures have risen over the last century. People tended to see efforts to hold back Mother Nature as futile, Krosnick said. Instead, they preferred preparation strategies that would reduce exposure to risk. For example, 48 percent of respondents supported sand dune restoration, and 33 percent favored replenishing eroding beaches with sand.
At the same time, 37 percent said structures should be moved inland to protect them from flooding and storm surges, and 33 percent supported the construction of sea walls. [Weather vs. Climate: Test Yourself]
The most popular policy suggestions were the strengthening of coastal building codes to minimize damage from storms and flooding (supported by 62 percent of respondents), and the prevention of new construction close to the coast (supported by 51 percent).
"The question is, how does public support for preparation translate to action?" said Meg Caldwell, executive director of the Center for Ocean Solutions, which co-commissioned the survey.
"Our impulse is to try to move quickly to put communities back together the way they were after devastation. But that impulse often leads to doubling down on high-risk investments, such as rebuilding in areas likely to experience severe impacts," Caldwell said in a statement. "To move toward long-term resiliency for coastal communities, we need to seize opportunities to apply new thinking, new standards and long-term solutions."
Krosnick presented the results of the survey March 28 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

http://news.yahoo.com/even-doubters-want-prepare-global-warming-203510651.html

Flooding is real. the co2 reduction plans are a plot to murder humanity with food austerity.

 

[Truth Detector]

it is past time to prepare our coastlines against stronger storms and rising sea levels

It would be impossible to protect all inhabited coastlines from any rising sea level which hasn't occurred yet.

Some still insist that climate change is a hoax,

http://news.yahoo.com/even-doubters-want-prepare-global-warming-203510651.html

Strawman. No one says climate change is a hoax. They are saying the claims that man is causing it as being the hoax. We all know that the climate has been changing and warming since the last ice age estimated at 11,700 years ago.

What happens on our sun dictates those cycles, not man.

There have been at least five significant ice ages in Earth’s history, with approximately a dozen epochs of glacial expansion occurring in the past 1 million years.

Ice Age ‑ Definition & Timeline

An ice age is a period of colder global temperatures and recurring glacial expansion capable of lasting hundreds of millions of years.

www.history.com

 

[MAGA]

I think state government leadership in Florida still believes global warming is a hoax, and they would rather spend their time banning school textbooks and trolling liberals than spend time on governance and oversight of the state's infrastructure and climate preparedness

Places that experience natural weather related turmoil should be ever vigilant and continue to find new ways of preparedness.

But what they should not do is try to extract money from citizens using fear as a motivator.

Yes climate change is a hoax. Not the climate change part, but the sky is falling part.

10,000 years ago North America was buried under a mile of ice. Man could barely build a fire and numbered very few souls yet and it has since melted.

Does the weather change? Yup. Is man in control of it in any way? Nope.

 

[gfm7175]

Places that experience natural weather related turmoil should be ever vigilant and continue to find new ways of preparedness.

But what they should not do is try to extract money from citizens using fear as a motivator.

Yes climate change is a hoax.

Agreed completely.

Not the climate change part, but the sky is falling part.

The "climate change" part is even a hoax. "Climate change" is nothing more than a meaningless buzzword that gets thrown around whenever someone wishes to fear monger over specific weather events. Governments see "climate change" as yet another way to tax and control the populace.

Climate cannot change because climate is a subjective term that has no quantifiable value, and Earth has MANY climates; there is no such thing as a "global climate".

One simple question stumps any Church of Global Warming believer: Where is the additional energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature?

10,000 years ago North America was buried under a mile of ice. Man could barely build a fire and numbered very few souls yet and it has since melted.

This is a religious belief.

Does the weather change? Yup. Is man in control of it in any way? Nope.

Correct.

 

[IBDaMann]

It has been called 'climate change' at the highest levels of government and science for more than 40 years,

Too funny! Cypress thinks there are "levels" of science.

at least since before 1988, when the world's foremost scientific consortium on the issue was established, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, established 1988).

Too funny! Cypress thinks that science is a Marxist political organization.

It was conservative political pundits who wanted to emphasize climate change over global warming, because aesthetically it didn't sound as bad.

The world's Marxist political guerillas all seem to disagree with you.

 

[IBDaMann]

Places that experience natural weather related turmoil should be ever vigilant and continue to find new ways of preparedness.

This is exactly why the Federal government should attach conditions/strings to any such federal emergency aid, i.e. States and/or localities are thereafter ineligible for additional aid if the original problem is not fixed.

Puerto Rico is the classic abuser. They are right in the middle of hurricane alley in the caribbean. Puerto Rico gets hurricanes all the time and not once in over 50 years have they made any of their infrastructure hardened to hurricanes. All power goes out, always. All streets are flooded without proper drainage. Puerto Rican politicians sit back and hope each hurricane is a doozy so that they can invite the President to tour the "devastation" and release "emergency funds" on the order of many millions of dollars that would not happen if Puerto Rico appeared to be operating normally. So as it stands, the President visits, the island appears "dead in the water" with "Puerto Ricans suffering", the President releases the emergency funding, the flooding drains naturally five or six days later, the electricity and other services are brought back up five or six days later (i.e. slowly), and Puerto Rico kicks back into gear, but this time with mega-millions of free cash to P-A-R-T-Y!

But what they should not do is try to extract money from citizens using fear as a motivator.

You can extend that. All governments and religions use fear to motivate people to do as the leadership desires, because fear is arguably the strongest emotion and the easiest to tap. It should come as no surprise that the Climate hoax religion uses fear as well.

Yes climate change is a hoax. Not the climate change part, but the sky is falling part.

All of it is a hoax. There is no such thing as a global climate; it is a contradiction in terms for one thing, but it is also a religious doctrine and nothing more. Ask a Christian if he has a "soul." He'll give you a resounding "Yes." Ask him what color it is or ask him to show it to you and he'll delve into the spiritual nature of what he is talking about with religion-specific language, because it's not something that can be observed or quantified by humans. Ask a warmizombie if the earth has a global climate and he'll give you a resounding "Yes." Ask him what color it is or ask him to show it to you and he'll delve into the spiritual nature of what he's talking about with religion-specific language that is an incoherent babbling of contradictory but otherwise legitimate-sounding technical gibberish.

You need to ask yourself: "Does the earth have a spiritual soul." If you believe it does, then that is what "Climate" is in the Climate Change/Global Warming religion.

10,000 years ago North America was buried under a mile of ice. Man could barely build a fire and numbered very few souls yet and it has since melted.

Let's unpack this. Nobody knows how much of North America was covered with ice or how thick it was. You might have been taught that North America was buried under a mile of ice by gullible people who don't understand that nobody is omniscient, that nobody can see into the distant, unobserved past, and that the speculation of paleontologists is just speculation.

Does the weather change? Yup. Is man in control of it in any way? Nope.

The question you have to ask is whether humans, collectively, have the magical superpower to empower Earth to violate physics through their "activity."

Agreed completely.

Another great post, gfm7175.

The "climate change" part is even a hoax. "Climate change" is nothing more than a meaningless buzzword that gets thrown around whenever someone wishes to fear monger over specific weather events. Governments see "climate change" as yet another way to tax and control the populace.

You are very astute.

Climate cannot change because climate is a subjective term that has no quantifiable value, and Earth has MANY climates; there is no such thing as a "global climate".

Why is there no one like you on the lecture circuit? You should have a YouTube channel and get demonetized.

One simple question stumps any Church of Global Warming believer: Where is the additional energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature? This is a religious belief.

I have noticed a seeming inability on the part of warmizombies and climate lemmings to answer this very question. ZenMode, in fact, seems to be delicately trying to EVADE the topic.

You convinced me. I'll press ZenMode on this question. Let's see if he has an answer.

 

[gfm7175]

Too funny! Cypress thinks there are "levels" of science.

"bronze level"... "silver level"... "gold level"... "platinum level"...

Too funny! Cypress thinks that science is a Marxist political organization.

... but... but... but the IPCC is "platinum level" science, don't'cha know?!?!?

 

[MAGA]

People in general, and Rightwingers in particular, are reticent to admit they were wrong.
.
You can barely find a Republican on this board who will admit anti-war liberals had good judgement about the folly of the Iraq invasion.

We have been talking about global warming since the late 1980s, and even though it is obvious now there are still those who would rather see harm come to their grandchildren than openly admit they had been wrong.

Anyone who was against the invasion had good judgement. This is when I really started seeing GW and caboodle for what they are. I am not however a Republican so there is that.

The Iraq war folly has lead directly to where we stand right now politically and screwed as a country. Obama was enabled to spout about hope and change by the evil of the GW Bush administration. Give socialism a crack and it starts invading fast.

 

[gfm7175]

People in general, and Rightwingers in particular, are reticent to admit they were wrong.

Admittedly, I hardly ever come across an opportunity to admit that I was wrong... because I am almost always correct.

You can barely find a Republican on this board who will admit anti-war liberals had good judgement about the folly of the Iraq invasion.

What ever happened to these so-called "anti-war liberals" btw?? Currently, they are stoking the flames of war in Russia/Ukraine, in Israel, and even here in the former USA. It seems to me like they DESIRE war.

We

Is this the Marxist "We" again?

have been talking about global warming since the late 1980s,

... and that meaningless buzzword still to this very day remains a meaningless buzzword.

and even though it is obvious now

Obvious?? Why should any rational adult believe in 'global warming'?? Where is the additional energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature?? Is Earth no longer in equilibrium??

there are still those who would rather see harm come to their grandchildren than openly admit they had been wrong.

Indeed there are, and those people are colloquially known as 'liberals'.

 

[IBDaMann]

Anyone who was against the invasion had good judgement.

I'm going to disagree with you, rather vehemently.

Let's suppose you were the President. For how many years would you allow Iraq to completely disregard a treaty that you considered vitally important to the safety of Americans (and others) in the region? For how many years would you allow Iraq to fire upon American and allied aircraft and other assets without any real response?

This is when I really started seeing GW and caboodle for what they are. I am not however a Republican so there is that.

I view George W. Bush as an establishment Republican, but I appreciate his resolve to defend US interests as opposed to the leftist desire to always give away the farm.

The Iraq war folly has lead directly to where we stand right now politically and screwed as a country.

Nope. The DNC takover by European Marxism is what is directly responsible for where we stand right now politically and screwed as a country.

Obama was enabled to spout about hope and change by the evil of the GW Bush administration.

The US defending its interests is "evil"?

Please remember that Obama didn't do anything and he didn't change anything. He didn't even close Guantanamo as promised, and he weaponized space, as he said he wouldn't. He played golf. He was unable to be located (or unable to be awakened) when Benghazi was overrun. Obama's handlers were running the country at that time and the DNC had already been taken over by socialists.

 

[MAGA]

I'm going to disagree with you, rather vehemently.

Let's suppose you were the President. For how many years would you allow Iraq to completely disregard a treaty that you considered vitally important to the safety of Americans (and others) in the region? For how many years would you allow Iraq to fire upon American and allied aircraft and other assets without any real response?


I view George W. Bush as an establishment Republican, but I appreciate his resolve to defend US interests as opposed to the leftist desire to always give away the farm.


Nope. The DNC takover by European Marxism is what is directly responsible for where we stand right now politically and screwed as a country.


The US defending its interests is "evil"?

Please remember that Obama didn't do anything and he didn't change anything. He didn't even close Guantanamo as promised, and he weaponized space, as he said he wouldn't. He played golf. He was unable to be located (or unable to be awakened) when Benghazi was overrun. Obama's handlers were running the country at that time and the DNC had already been taken over by socialists.

Apparently you and I have lived in a parallel universe the last 20 years. The universe I lived in did not have GW and Cheney defending any interests of the country I exist in. It had them defending their own interests and those of their criminal pals.

 

[IBDaMann]

Apparently you and I have lived in a parallel universe the last 20 years. The universe I lived in did not have GW and Cheney defending any interests of the country I exist in. It had them defending their own interests and those of their criminal pals.

You can say that about anyone, e.g. Jesus Christ, Ghandi, yourself, etc. It's easy to say, but in this case, it only has credibility if you are willing to deny Chemical Ali, the Schwarzkopf teaty, Iraqi firings at US assets, etc ...