Okay, so you're calling me a grifter then? Well you come off as a mindless hack to me. Honest suggestion, try reading scientific articles themselves as opposed to media interpretations where they strip the nuance, or better yet simple summaries of the science from neutral sources. Information coming through the filter of media warps ever…
Okay, so you're calling me a grifter then? Well you come off as a mindless hack to me. Honest suggestion, try reading scientific articles themselves as opposed to media interpretations where they strip the nuance, or better yet simple summaries of the science from neutral sources. Information coming through the filter of media warps everything and changes the arguments and the scientific points being made.
We can argue all day about the politics of climate change, and should, because you're not wrong that there are grifters out there, but the underlying reality of whether or not the planet is warming and whether or not our actions are contributing is not in question by anyone who is even mildly understands the physics of it (not you I'm guessing?). What to do about it, how extreme is our impact really? Definitely room for debate, but are we contributing in any measurable and significant way? Yes. Yes we are that's been measured. I'm exhausted by the left's 'my policy preference is scientific fact' as I'm sure you are. But I'm also exhausted by the maximalist "they aren't totally right, so therefore they are totally wrong" bs partisan crap like your comment above. You make the rest of us who are also critical of the climate change narrative look like fools.
There are plenty of valid ways to push back on the climate change narrative, your way is a failure, please up your game because we need to be better at this. It just come off as dumb and conspiratorial, and we need more rational people to push back on the excesses and warped agenda of the climate change movement, not whatever your comment was. You hurt your case more than help.
As far as your facts, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, good job, but are we massively increasing the balance of water in the atmopshere? No. And yes co2 is good for plants, awesome, still not great for us humans as weather patterns shift and our infrastructure doesn't.. Your facts are irrelevant to your argument, and I'm being generous with the argument.
Here is an example of how true facts can lead to false conclusions when they are partial information, like your comment above: The ocean releases much more Co2 than humans emit, did you know that?! climate change must be a hoax! But wait, the other half of the equation is that the ocean/atmosphere boundary is a flux and the ocean also absorbs co2. The ocean actually absorbs more co2 than it emits, totally refuting the conclusion you'd make if you only knew the first half...
So it's not that your facts are wrong, it's that your understanding of the issue is incomplete (you're not alone, same goes for you opponents!). But that matters, what you don't know is the difference between your conclusion being correct or wrong. Maybe try getting a base level of understanding on the issue before mouthing off and insulting those of us who do.
I am a practicing mechanical engineer of 28 years and fully - well, nobody knows everything about a subject including you and I - understand that we have an impact on our environment. As a kid being asphyxiated by auto emissions sitting in winter traffic in St. Paul in 1976 I fully understood we had a problem. A legitimate problem along with oxidized air cause by industry around the great lakes causing acid rain.... et al.
We logically found solutions for these issues that didn't radically alter our way of life. Our gasoline powered cars were emitting very little NOx's and CO by the mid 90's. We are no longer doing solving problems logically.
Solar, wind, and the rest of proposed 'solutions' are nothing more than grift by subsidized power companies that have been bribing land owners with our own money to expand these failed 'industries'. Grift compared to a cheap LNG powerplant that has been effectively outlawed by government entities.
I prefer to follow the likes of Bjorn Lomborg than criminals like Hansen or any of the other grifters at the IPCC, et al.
After Climategate of 2009 many things came into focus. You cannot use Chrome to open this as they have much to hide with their censorship. Please read>
Of course there's a lot of anger about scientists pushing the warming narrative. Our children are terrified. They worry that the world is coming to an end, just like the Mayans with their calendars.
This climate religion has done enormous harm and is now a threat to our future. Our economies are being destroyed and every time there's bad weather somewhere, scientists and the media claim it's proof of something that just isn't happening.
Yes, temperatures have risen a little since the '70s. It's possible CO2 is part of the cause. But how much? Probably almost none of it. Calling CO2 a greenhouse gas is just propaganda. That's not how greenhouses work.
The scientists pushing the alarmist narrative are not honest people. We've seen how they've "adjusted" the temperature record, trying to eliminate evidence that the 1930s were warmer. We've seen them manipulate long-term data, trying to eliminate evidence of the Medieval Warming Period. We've seen them put weather stations in places that make the most of urban heating. Grift is a huge industry, and if you study this yourself, you have to understand why this makes us so angry and destroys the credibility of what is called "climate science" but is more accurately just green religion.
Okay, so you're calling me a grifter then? Well you come off as a mindless hack to me. Honest suggestion, try reading scientific articles themselves as opposed to media interpretations where they strip the nuance, or better yet simple summaries of the science from neutral sources. Information coming through the filter of media warps everything and changes the arguments and the scientific points being made.
We can argue all day about the politics of climate change, and should, because you're not wrong that there are grifters out there, but the underlying reality of whether or not the planet is warming and whether or not our actions are contributing is not in question by anyone who is even mildly understands the physics of it (not you I'm guessing?). What to do about it, how extreme is our impact really? Definitely room for debate, but are we contributing in any measurable and significant way? Yes. Yes we are that's been measured. I'm exhausted by the left's 'my policy preference is scientific fact' as I'm sure you are. But I'm also exhausted by the maximalist "they aren't totally right, so therefore they are totally wrong" bs partisan crap like your comment above. You make the rest of us who are also critical of the climate change narrative look like fools.
There are plenty of valid ways to push back on the climate change narrative, your way is a failure, please up your game because we need to be better at this. It just come off as dumb and conspiratorial, and we need more rational people to push back on the excesses and warped agenda of the climate change movement, not whatever your comment was. You hurt your case more than help.
As far as your facts, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, good job, but are we massively increasing the balance of water in the atmopshere? No. And yes co2 is good for plants, awesome, still not great for us humans as weather patterns shift and our infrastructure doesn't.. Your facts are irrelevant to your argument, and I'm being generous with the argument.
Here is an example of how true facts can lead to false conclusions when they are partial information, like your comment above: The ocean releases much more Co2 than humans emit, did you know that?! climate change must be a hoax! But wait, the other half of the equation is that the ocean/atmosphere boundary is a flux and the ocean also absorbs co2. The ocean actually absorbs more co2 than it emits, totally refuting the conclusion you'd make if you only knew the first half...
So it's not that your facts are wrong, it's that your understanding of the issue is incomplete (you're not alone, same goes for you opponents!). But that matters, what you don't know is the difference between your conclusion being correct or wrong. Maybe try getting a base level of understanding on the issue before mouthing off and insulting those of us who do.
Learn how to take a partial joke, buddy.
I am a practicing mechanical engineer of 28 years and fully - well, nobody knows everything about a subject including you and I - understand that we have an impact on our environment. As a kid being asphyxiated by auto emissions sitting in winter traffic in St. Paul in 1976 I fully understood we had a problem. A legitimate problem along with oxidized air cause by industry around the great lakes causing acid rain.... et al.
We logically found solutions for these issues that didn't radically alter our way of life. Our gasoline powered cars were emitting very little NOx's and CO by the mid 90's. We are no longer doing solving problems logically.
Solar, wind, and the rest of proposed 'solutions' are nothing more than grift by subsidized power companies that have been bribing land owners with our own money to expand these failed 'industries'. Grift compared to a cheap LNG powerplant that has been effectively outlawed by government entities.
I prefer to follow the likes of Bjorn Lomborg than criminals like Hansen or any of the other grifters at the IPCC, et al.
After Climategate of 2009 many things came into focus. You cannot use Chrome to open this as they have much to hide with their censorship. Please read>
https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf
These are the people who make the 'movement' look foolish. Expensively foolish.
Well said!
Of course there's a lot of anger about scientists pushing the warming narrative. Our children are terrified. They worry that the world is coming to an end, just like the Mayans with their calendars.
This climate religion has done enormous harm and is now a threat to our future. Our economies are being destroyed and every time there's bad weather somewhere, scientists and the media claim it's proof of something that just isn't happening.
Yes, temperatures have risen a little since the '70s. It's possible CO2 is part of the cause. But how much? Probably almost none of it. Calling CO2 a greenhouse gas is just propaganda. That's not how greenhouses work.
The scientists pushing the alarmist narrative are not honest people. We've seen how they've "adjusted" the temperature record, trying to eliminate evidence that the 1930s were warmer. We've seen them manipulate long-term data, trying to eliminate evidence of the Medieval Warming Period. We've seen them put weather stations in places that make the most of urban heating. Grift is a huge industry, and if you study this yourself, you have to understand why this makes us so angry and destroys the credibility of what is called "climate science" but is more accurately just green religion.