When You Cry Climate Change ...

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I see why we have this "global warming AKA climate change" agenda. The left needed something "un-substantiate-able" to help destroy the economy that could rely upon fear rather than fact. They chose this avenue and are trying like the devil to come up with "facts" that might lend credence to their means toward their end since the real science casts doubt on their machinations.

When you cry wolf there had better be one around.

Anyone wish to speculate what their next move might be when this climate crap looses favor and leaves them "high and dry?"

Woody

[HankB]

Climate change spending is a scam that makes Bernie Madoff's shenanigans look like a back alley game of three-card Monte, and I think it will be difficult to come up with another swindle with equal potential.

Look for some way to leverage claims of racism/equity on public works projects.

Mayor Pete has already been blathering nonsense about "racist roads" and rather than repairing bad bridges has proposed tearing up good roads to build non-racist replacements, usually in cities where the opportunity for graft abounds. It wouldn't surprise me if they start to go after companies (Walgreens, Starbucks, various supermarket chains, auto repair shops, etc.) that have acted in a racist manner by closing or not rebuilding their businesses in high-crime areas or where they were burned out & looted during the BLM/Antifa riots. So maybe the Feds will start to stick their noses in local zoning issues and start arm-twisting companies into opening criminal-friendly stores. (They're probably not sure how to go about monetizing that, so it hasn't really happened yet . . . but they're thinking about it. Remember Michelle Obama harping about "food deserts?")

[Bogie]

A friend just closed a formerly very successful business after the area it was in became infested with addicts panhandling and doing violent crimes.
 
People in the neighborhood have actually been talking about Doing Something.

[230RN]

I love the capital letters on "Doing Something."

I'm glad some folks are seeing The Plan for what it really is:  Repeating the history:  Create destructive chaos, hold Communism out as "The Solution."

Yeah, I'm wun uh them Extremists. See my avatar.

You ought to hear the political ads in Colorado.  There isn't one I've heard that doesn't cry Exrtremism.  (They seem to have started early on the poli ads.)

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

I love the capital letters on "Doing Something."

I'm glad some folks are seeing The Plan for what it really is:  Repeating the history:  Create destructive chaos, hold Communism out as "The Solution."

Yeah, I'm wun uh them Extremists. See my avatar.

You ought to hear the political ads in Colorado.  There isn't one I've heard that doesn't cry Exrtremism.  (They seem to have started early on the poli ads.)

Terry, 230RN

It doesn't take a lot of thought about "doing something" to realize it would likely get you screwed over by the legal system in most jurisdictions, and further the politicians that set up the conditions would love to have something to crow about politically. 

[Hawkmoon]

The great thing about "climate change" is that it's impossible to quantify, and impossible to either prove or refute. As far as I'm concerned, it's just "weather," but the statistics wonks can use numbers to "prove" anything they want, just by selectively choosing what period they want to use as their basis for comparison.

I'm old enough to remember when the scare du jour was global cooling -- they were predicting a new ice age. I can't remember the name of the movie, but I clearly remember seeing a trailer for a movie about people trying to survive arctic-like conditions in some major U.S. city (probably New York, but that's speculation). Then, all of a sudden, they shifted from global cooling to global warming, and then -- when the global didn't warming as quickly as they had predicted/wanted/hoped -- they changed it to "climate change." Once you call it that, you can't be wrong.

My benchmark is Greenland. From around A.D. 900 to A.D. 1400, the Vikings had a viable agrarian society flourishing on Greenland. (Yeah, it's named "Green" land for a reason.) Then came a period of global cooling, sea ice cut off their trade routes, and they eventually abandoned Greenland. Until it gets too warm to live on Greenland, as far as I'm concerned it's just a long-term weather cycle.

[230RN]

Hawkmoon remarked,

"As far as I'm concerned, it's just 'weather,' but the statistics wonks can use numbers to 'prove' anything they want, just by selectively choosing what period they want to use as their basis for comparison."

Sure, you use the last 200 years of relatively precise measurements with actual thermometers and ignore the nice regular 100,000 year cycles that have been going on for 400,000 years.  But those regular cycles were only proxy measurements after all, not with actual thermometers.

And they forget that the regularity proves the validity. 

Idiots.

I wish science could serve only itself instead of politicians and sales departments, but where's the profit and juicy grant money in that?

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

Plus, the measurements from the last 200 years can be further "adjusted" by using them to come up with an average world temperature.  I believe that is one of the scams that was uncovered.  One of the algorithms used to come up with an average was proven to be fraudulent when the researcher was finally forced to release his code.  No matter what temps were put in, it spit out a hockey stick graph that "proved" warming was occurring. 

[HankB]

Plus, the measurements from the last 200 years can be further "adjusted" by using them to come up with an average world temperature.  I believe that is one of the scams that was uncovered.  One of the algorithms used to come up with an average was proven to be fraudulent when the researcher was finally forced to release his code.  No matter what temps were put in, it spit out a hockey stick graph that "proved" warming was occurring.

"Corrected" temperature readings have been part of the climate change scam for a long time. "Corrections" mean lowering old recorded temperatures and raising recent recorded temperature - and presto! Global warming!

[Ben]

This also goes back to one of my many pet peeves - that modern humans simply can't comprehend the difference between human and planetary timescales. The planet doesn't care about a few hundred, a few thousand, or a few tens of thousands of years. It starts to care around a few hundreds of thousands years. That is minor variability on a 4.5 billion year old planet, which at one time was poisonous to mammalian life.

A great example was Don Lemonhead the other day telling the Director of NOAA's Hurricane Center that he was wrong when he refuted Lemonhead's argument that Ian was due to climate change. The Director corrected him and correctly stated that a single event is not scientific evidence of anything one way or the other. A flustered Lemonhead responded with, But...but...but I grew up there and I never saw a hurricane like that. Were you growing up there 100 or 1000 or 10,000 years ago, Lemonhead? If it happened outside the average human lifespan, it didn't actually happen. 

[MechAg94]

Yeah, I heard that exchange.  It was ignorant.  There have been some pretty powerful hurricanes hit Florida in my lifetime.  If he grew up there, he must not have lived there very long or has a very bad memory. 

Newsman Discovers Hurricanes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oQ9Amw25hA

[230RN]

As I've been saying for almost a decade, check back with me in 50,000 years and I'll give you my opinion on global warming.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

In the memory of living man is not enough data. 

Woody

[MechAg94]

In the memory of living man is not enough data. 

Woody

I agree with.  One of the reasons I like Randall Carlson is he shows his data on average temperatures going back 10K or 15K years and points out that the warming people are concerned about now is nothing. 

[Calumus]

I agree with.  One of the reasons I like Randall Carlson is he shows his data on average temperatures going back 10K or 15K years and points out that the warming people are concerned about now is nothing.

Randall is awesome. His take on climate change is refreshing. He’s on Joe Rogan’s show talking about it in episode 606. It’s still on YouTube. His own podcast is pretty interesting too. Wide ranging topics, all very well researched.

[WLJ]

Wasn't sure where to put this, here or in one of the gun control threads.

"Global Warming is the Real Cause for Increased ‘Gun Violence"

Don’t Blame Defunded Police or ‘Progressive’ Prosecutors, Global Warming is the Real Cause for Increased ‘Gun Violence’
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/dont-blame-defunded-police-or-progressive-prosecutors-global-warming-is-the-real-cause-for-increased-gun-violence/

Think they're now lay off gun control?
Of course not.

[Lennyjoe]

I’ve often wondered why global warming alarmists run from a discussion when you bring geology into the argument. 

[HankB]

I’ve often wondered why global warming alarmists run from a discussion when you bring geology into the argument.

Geology is racist?

[WLJ]

Geology is racist?

White science

[Bogie]

You know what the real cause of urban crime is?
 
Dodge Chargers.

[230RN]

White science

"White" science is in the Vostok ice cores going back half a million years.

"Black ice" is the bad ice.

Now, chess is really racist since white makes the first move.

[MechAg94]

https://youtu.be/9-Sz-HDF1ds
Randall Carlson did a recent show talking about deceptive temperature numbers.  He takes one specifically and takes it apart.  It is 2 hours so set aside some time.

Essentially, one of the graphs he pulled out goes back to 1962 to show rising temps.  He showed 1962 low point in the 100 year data.  He also talked about heat island effects among other things.   

[AZRedhawk44]

I’ve often wondered why global warming alarmists run from a discussion when you bring geology into the argument.

They all believe the seas are rising on TV, and then go and buy beachfront property at Martha's Vineyard.  Funny how none of that property is underwater.

Then again, you think about the "seas rising" and have to ask, given that:
1. There's a finite volume of water on the Earth, either in the ocean or ice caps or rivers/lakes
2. There's a finite amount of rocky matter to shape the continents with

How can you quantify the seas are rising, versus the raised land settling into the sea?  Or if you get into plate tectonics, perhaps the Atlantic seaboard is rising (which makes it perfectly sensible to buy Martha's Vineyard properties) but the Pacific seaboard is receding?  IIRC the North American plate subducts under the Pacific plate.  With the width of the Atlantic changing every year, and the texture of the Pacific floor changing every year displacing water wherever new subsea mounts develop, you're going to have water flowing wherever it can when it gets displaced.  That may mean that some lowland flat bays get reclaimed by the oceans.

[Doggy Daddy]

AZRedhawk44 didn't "silence" himself.

[zxcvbob]

They all believe the seas are rising on TV, and then go and buy beachfront property at Martha's Vineyard.  Funny how none of that property is underwater.

Then again, you think about the "seas rising" and have to ask, given that:
1. There's a finite volume of water on the Earth, either in the ocean or ice caps or rivers/lakes
2. There's a finite amount of rocky matter to shape the continents with

How can you quantify the seas are rising, versus the raised land settling into the sea?  Or if you get into plate tectonics, perhaps the Atlantic seaboard is rising (which makes it perfectly sensible to buy Martha's Vineyard properties) but the Pacific seaboard is receding?  IIRC the North American plate subducts under the Pacific plate.  With the width of the Atlantic changing every year, and the texture of the Pacific floor changing every year displacing water wherever new subsea mounts develop, you're going to have water flowing wherever it can when it gets displaced.  That may mean that some lowland flat bays get reclaimed by the oceans.

Sea levels will rise if the ice in Greenland and/or the Antarctic melt, or just fall off into the ocean.  If ice already floating in the oceans melts, that should have no affect on sea levels.  If the ocean temperatures rise, the water will expand and raise sea levels but I think that should be insignificant.