More Climate BS...

nuclear war
global cooling
acid rain.
ozone layer
global warming
climate change

There is always fear of the future. Where there is fear, there is money to be made and people to control.

It's not a coincidence that all of this BS started as the cold war was winding down.

The Report from Iron Mountain wasn't fiction.
 
FACT: 97% of publishing climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming.

CRAP: @LouderVol thinks he knows more about climate science than publishing climate scientists.

😁

Here’s a summary of what climate science research and scientific organizations have found about how many climate scientists accept that humans are causing global warming:

📊 Scientific consensus among climate scientists

✔️ ~97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
This figure comes from multiple analyses of the peer-reviewed scientific literature showing that of the papers that take a position on the cause of warming, about 97% endorse the view that most recent warming is human-caused. (NASA Science)

Some key points about this consensus:

  • A 2013 study analyzing thousands of climate science papers found around 97.1% of those expressing a view agreed that humans are causing global warming. (NASA Science)
  • Broader reviews of scientific literature through 2020 found that well over 99% of peer-reviewed studies do not reject human-caused climate change (e.g., a >99.9% agreement in one large survey of ~88,000 papers). (Cornell CALS)
  • When surveys focus on climate scientists actively publishing in the field, the agreement typically clusters around 97–98%, and consensus increases with level of expertise. (Yale Climate Communication)
Different methods and definitions (e.g., whether you count all papers or only those that explicitly state a position) produce a range, but virtually all rigorous studies show a very high level of agreement.

🌍 Scientific organizations’ positions

Virtually every major scientific organization that has issued a climate position statement agrees that:

  • Climate warming is happening.
  • Human activities are the dominant cause of recent warming.
Examples include:

  • NASA: states that about 97% of climate scientists agree humans are causing climate change, and that leading scientific bodies worldwide support this conclusion. (NASA Science)
  • The American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Chemical Society, and other national academies acknowledge human influence as the primary driver of recent warming. (NASA Science)
  • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—a global body coordinated by the UN—concludes with high confidence that most of the recent warming is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. (United Nations)

📌 Summary statistics

Group surveyedApproximate agreement that humans are causing warming
Actively publishing climate scientists (peer-reviewed literature analyses)~97% consensus (NASA Science)
Large reviews of published studies overall>99% of studies do not reject human causation (Cornell CALS)
Major scientific organizations globallyEssentially all endorse human influence as primary cause (NASA Science)

🧠 Interpretation​

  • Climate science expert surveys and literature analyses consistently show an extremely high level of agreement (often quoted as “~97%” or higher) among climate scientists that recent global warming is largely caused by human activities. (NASA Science)
  • Leading scientific bodies worldwide endorse this conclusion as the consensus view of climate science. (United Nations)
How many coal fired plants did China build last year??
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
Every broadcast I've watched if it's seals starving in California, butterflies declining, fish kills,polar bears numbers declining, whatever.the first thing mentioned is global warming/climate change.

The, let's burn more oil types have touted 90 sciencetest said its fake. Like 90 is a big number. There is hundreds of thousands that know it's real
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
Love conspiracy theories.

Do JFK!
we aren't done with man made CC yet. heck you haven't even addressed the first point.

refute that the pre-industrial age was a mini-Ice Age, and that temperatures rising would be a return to normal vs an epoch changing problem.
 
Every broadcast I've watched if it's seals starving in California, butterflies declining, fish kills,polar bears numbers declining, whatever.the first thing mentioned is global warming/climate change.

The, let's burn more oil types have touted 90 sciencetest said its fake. Like 90 is a big number. There is hundreds of thousands that know it's real
I don't think most people deny the climate is changing. I think there are various disputed points AROUND that truth that are denied. and pretty much none of these points are EVER addressed. its just shouted down that this is what MUST be done. heck not so long ago AOC said we had 12 years left...6 years ago. I don't hear science saying we have 6 years left, but she is never corrected, none of them are.

-the biggest is the MAN MADE part of it. see the mini Ice Age discussion and other points I have raised with Monty.
-rather than the temperature changing by 1.5C or whatever, I think the aspect of the MAN MADE part of it that is ignored is simple habitat disruption/destruction. that is going to have a far bigger impact on animal life. more humans require more space and more resources, no matter what. which means less for the other life forms. I think there is way too much conflating between multiple aspects of man kinds impact on the world, and how exactly they all play a part.
-another point is whether we actually CAN make the changes so desired, and especially how the government/rich and famous are going about it. at best they are hypocrites, bull dozing miles of the Amazon rain forest to have a discussion about the harm being done to the world. Al Gore pushing us to fly less while using his private jet. etc. hard to take them serious if they aren't living it.
-even without homo sapiens at all the climate did change. the modern species have not always existed, there has never been a set time for a particular species to exist. The Sahara used to be a savanah not a desert, there was the mini Ice Age, even within the geographically short time of modern humans on earth we have experienced multiple climate changes that we definitely had not part of. change is part of the world, the climate, and life. change is scary, but resisting change can easily be worse in the long term. the cure being worse than the poison.
 
Ford has a market cap of ~$54B ... they are a hit on 1/3 of that. Expect CEO changeout soon.

From the article:

Ford has said it expects to take a $19.5bn hit as it scraps its flagship F-150 all-electric pick-up truck and other large EVs to focus more on profitable hybrids and combustion engine models.

“Rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher-returning areas,” Andrew Frick, the head of Ford’s petrol engine and electric businesses, said on a media call on Monday.


 
Every broadcast I've watched if it's seals starving in California, butterflies declining, fish kills,polar bears numbers declining, whatever.the first thing mentioned is global warming/climate change.

The, let's burn more oil types have touted 90 sciencetest said its fake. Like 90 is a big number. There is hundreds of thousands that know it's real
Are you happy with your Tesla?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
I don't think most people deny the climate is changing. I think there are various disputed points AROUND that truth that are denied. and pretty much none of these points are EVER addressed. its just shouted down that this is what MUST be done. heck not so long ago AOC said we had 12 years left...6 years ago. I don't hear science saying we have 6 years left, but she is never corrected, none of them are.

-the biggest is the MAN MADE part of it. see the mini Ice Age discussion and other points I have raised with Monty.
-rather than the temperature changing by 1.5C or whatever, I think the aspect of the MAN MADE part of it that is ignored is simple habitat disruption/destruction. that is going to have a far bigger impact on animal life. more humans require more space and more resources, no matter what. which means less for the other life forms. I think there is way too much conflating between multiple aspects of man kinds impact on the world, and how exactly they all play a part.
-another point is whether we actually CAN make the changes so desired, and especially how the government/rich and famous are going about it. at best they are hypocrites, bull dozing miles of the Amazon rain forest to have a discussion about the harm being done to the world. Al Gore pushing us to fly less while using his private jet. etc. hard to take them serious if they aren't living it.
-even without homo sapiens at all the climate did change. the modern species have not always existed, there has never been a set time for a particular species to exist. The Sahara used to be a savanah not a desert, there was the mini Ice Age, even within the geographically short time of modern humans on earth we have experienced multiple climate changes that we definitely had not part of. change is part of the world, the climate, and life. change is scary, but resisting change can easily be worse in the long term. the cure being worse than the poison.
The concern I have is the state of the environment we leave for those that inherit our mess.
 
The concern I have is the state of the environment we leave for those that inherit our mess.
I would think an easy win everyone would get behind is a concerted effort to literally just clean up the trash. at least the plastics.

That has been one of my issues from the start with the green movement is that they list 100 problems and want them all solved at once. so nothing really gets done. focus on one effort and go from there.
 
I know I've dropped this before but when I see anything regarding "settled science" I'm practically compelled to lob it into the convo.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

Michael Crichton

This is often used in reference to, but in no way whatsoever limited to, "climate science".

Thank you.

When I see/hear " its settled science." Whether referring to CC or the vaccine, i know immediately that the rest is unsupported BS that is not observable, repeatable science via the Scientific Method. Only false religions need to invoke the "settled science" mantra.
 

 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
I don't think most people deny the climate is changing. I think there are various disputed points AROUND that truth that are denied. and pretty much none of these points are EVER addressed. its just shouted down that this is what MUST be done. heck not so long ago AOC said we had 12 years left...6 years ago. I don't hear science saying we have 6 years left, but she is never corrected, none of them are.

-the biggest is the MAN MADE part of it. see the mini Ice Age discussion and other points I have raised with Monty.
-rather than the temperature changing by 1.5C or whatever, I think the aspect of the MAN MADE part of it that is ignored is simple habitat disruption/destruction. that is going to have a far bigger impact on animal life. more humans require more space and more resources, no matter what. which means less for the other life forms. I think there is way too much conflating between multiple aspects of man kinds impact on the world, and how exactly they all play a part.
-another point is whether we actually CAN make the changes so desired, and especially how the government/rich and famous are going about it. at best they are hypocrites, bull dozing miles of the Amazon rain forest to have a discussion about the harm being done to the world. Al Gore pushing us to fly less while using his private jet. etc. hard to take them serious if they aren't living it.
-even without homo sapiens at all the climate did change. the modern species have not always existed, there has never been a set time for a particular species to exist. The Sahara used to be a savanah not a desert, there was the mini Ice Age, even within the geographically short time of modern humans on earth we have experienced multiple climate changes that we definitely had not part of. change is part of the world, the climate, and life. change is scary, but resisting change can easily be worse in the long term. the cure being worse than the poison.
Every climate prediction model has failed. Every gloom and doom prediction has failed. More information is showing there is very little we can do to affect the climate. Even if we could, we couldn’t stop developing countries. China built over 100 coal plants in the last 18 months. The US has literally set a target date to end coal sourced electricity. You could shut down all industry in the US today and it wouldn’t make a marked difference. Our attempts to reduce carbon emissions have increased the cost of living by an absurd amount.
 
we aren't done with man made CC yet. heck you haven't even addressed the first point.

refute that the pre-industrial age was a mini-Ice Age, and that temperatures rising would be a return to normal vs an epoch changing problem.

*I* don't need to refute a thing.

97% of published climate scientists agree that global warming - caused by man - is occurring.

It's as close to established scientific fact as you'll ever get... but you keep doing whatever it is you're doing.
 
*I* don't need to refute a thing.

97% of published climate scientists agree that global warming - caused by man - is occurring.

It's as close to established scientific fact as you'll ever get... but you keep doing whatever it is you're doing.

The other day it was 99% of ALL climate scientists. Today it's 97% of PUBLISHED climate scientists. What number will it be tomorrow?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
Ford has a market cap of ~$54B ... they are a hit on 1/3 of that. Expect CEO changeout soon.

From the article:

Ford has said it expects to take a $19.5bn hit as it scraps its flagship F-150 all-electric pick-up truck and other large EVs to focus more on profitable hybrids and combustion engine models.

“Rather than spending billions more on large EVs that now have no path to profitability, we are allocating that money into higher-returning areas,” Andrew Frick, the head of Ford’s petrol engine and electric businesses, said on a media call on Monday.



Yeah, he should be fired....
 
People have been predicting the end of the world by various means since mankind gained awareness that there was a world. Fortunately, until an asteroid hits us again, they will continue to be wrong.
 
The other day it was 99% of ALL climate scientists. Today it's 97% of PUBLISHED climate scientists. What number will it be tomorrow?
Here's a new number! I give 0% f*cks what your ignorant ass thinks.

My oil change awaits, grease monkey.
 

Advertisement



Back
Top