More Climate BS...

[OHvol40]

we are consistently being warmed by the sun. but its not always the same. lots of factors go into how much it is, and what is all is turned into heat.

visible light has stayed even more consistent than the overall energy reaching the earth, but even that isn't absolutely consistent.

what don't you believe, and why? I linked a website that said those differences WEREN'T contributing to global warming, so its not like it even challenges a BELIEF you hold. its literally a SCIENCE you are outright rejecting because you want to. I guess you could be trolling to try and prove a point, but its falling flat.

What did I reject? Read the post you’re responding to again, slower.

 

[rikberry31]

Explain to me what that is.

The "scientist" who came up with the Hockey Stick Graph was outed through emails. Pretty much it was admited that the numbers were fudged and the graph was a trick.

Listen to this dumb guy who is an idiot like me.

 

[OHvol40]

Did you meet any hot babes at these lectures/conferences? That would probably be the highlight after listening to a bunch of John Kerry and Al Gore wannabes telling the public that they need to start cutting their lawn with scissors to reduce emissions.

I can tell you’re a serious person who’s contributions are a must, here.

 

[OHvol40]

The "scientist" who came up with the Hockey Stick Graph was outed through emails. Pretty much it was admited that the numbers were fudged and the graph was a trick.

Listen to this dumb guy who is an idiot like me.

Ok, thins must be part of the circle of propaganda you’re consuming. What is the hockey stick graph and how does any of this negate basic chemistry?

I can tell many of you have either never heard of Occam’s Razor, or never bothered trying to apply it. Always opting for the most ridiculous rabbit hole conspiracy theories over sober simplicity.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

I can tell you’re a serious person who’s contributions are a must, here.

Dude
I am a serious person that asked a legit question. It seems that you struck out in the hot babe department during your climate tour extravaganza. Better luck next time brother!

 

[hog88]

You’ll engage riiiiight up to to point where you would have to concede something that challenges your own narrative, and then poof, and LOL. That’s what stops any productive discussions. Pride.

You have yet to provide me anything to concede to. You've been to a lot of conferences, seminars and lectures! Yay! Give me some hard data, reproducible results, or proposed solutions that won't wreck economies.

 

[LouderVol]

What did I reject? Read the post you’re responding to again, slower.

"I don’t believe any of what you’re making sure I don’t believe."

what part of that do I need to read slower?

 

[hog88]

@OHvol40 Come on man. What's your ideal policy for dealing with man made climate change?

If you had a free hand to mitigate the problem (it can't be reversed) what would you do?
I'll even narrow it down to 2 subjects:

Where would you dictate we get our electricity from, percentage coming from each source.
What would we power our cars, trucks, trains and planes with?

 

[LouderVol]

Ok, thins must be part of the circle of propaganda you’re consuming. What is the hockey stick graph and how does any of this negate basic chemistry?

I can tell many of you have either never heard of Occam’s Razor, or never bothered trying to apply it. Always opting for the most ridiculous rabbit hole conspiracy theories over sober simplicity.

how does Occam's Razor apply to the man driven climate change argument?

We were in a cooling period before the "man made climate change started". Occam's Razor, and basic statistics would say we would see a return to average as part of the normal system. but you add the complexity of blaming man, while rejecting norms and statistics.

Which is simpler, the climate has changed in the past and is changing now; or the climate changed in the past and is changing now and its solely due to man kind?

 

[rikberry31]

Ok, thins must be part of the circle of propaganda you’re consuming. What is the hockey stick graph and how does any of this negate basic chemistry?

I can tell many of you have either never heard of Occam’s Razor, or never bothered trying to apply it. Always opting for the most ridiculous rabbit hole conspiracy theories over sober simplicity.

You are actually debating global warming and you never heard of the Hockey Stick Graph. And I'm the idiot. John Brown ridiculous.

 

[OHvol40]

You have yet to provide me anything to concede to. You've been to a lot of conferences, seminars and lectures! Yay! Give me some hard data, reproducible results, or proposed solutions that won't wreck economies.

I already posted this: Sixth Assessment Report — IPCC

It is comprehensive and contains as much detail as your heart desires. Sources sited, peer reviewed, no single source of information or funding. I would say you must have missed it, but you responded to the post it was it. All you have to do is read.

I do want to get your impression on this, though:

“Early internal reports from major fossil fuel companies (like Exxon, Shell, and the API) acknowledged that burning fossil fuels caused global warming. Privately, scientists and executives were warned about melting ice caps, sea-level rise, and "catastrophic" impacts, yet the companies publicly cast doubt on climate science for decades. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Internal company documents and commissioned reports over the decades detailed the following:

• 1968 (American Petroleum Institute): A report prepared by the Stanford Research Institute warned the API that continued fossil fuel use would likely cause significant temperature changes by 2000, noting that "damage to our environment could be severe".
• 1970s–1980s (Exxon): Internal Exxon scientists modeled global warming with "shocking skill". A 1977 internal briefing warned executives that fossil fuel emissions could raise global temperatures and limit the time window for hard energy decisions. By 1982, internal Exxon analyses accurately predicted an average global warming of \(3^{\circ }\text{C}\) (\(\pm 1.5^{\circ }\text{C}\)) if \(CO_{2}\) levels doubled.
• 1986–1988 (Shell): A nearly 100-page internal report from Shell's researchers predicted that global warming could cause destructive floods, the abandonment of entire countries, and forced migrations. A 1988 confidential report warned that by the time global warming became detectable, "it could be too late to take effective countermeasures". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Despite this internal clarity, some of these same companies engaged in coordinated campaigns to fund climate denial, challenge scientific consensus, and obscure the realities from the public”

Defense, Denial, and Disinformation: Uncovering the Oil Industry’s Early Knowledge of Climate Change - Common Home

Georgetown Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò explores the link between police brutality, climate change, and the Covid-19 pandemic.

commonhome.georgetown.edu

How an Early Oil Industry Study Became Key in Climate Lawsuits

For decades, 1960s research for the American Petroleum Institute warning of the risks of burning fossil fuels had been forgotten. But two papers discovered in libraries are now playing a key role in lawsuits aimed at holding oil companies accountable for climate change.

e360.yale.edu

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

www.scientificamerican.com

What Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own words

Transcripts and internal documents show how the industry shifted from leading research into fossil fuels’ effect on the climate to sowing doubt about science.

theconversation.com

New UCS Report Details Fossil Fuel Industry’s Decades of Deceit, Implications for Climate Accountability Lawsuits

Evidence shows how major fossil fuel companies use climate disinformation and greenwashing to delay climate action and evade accountability.

www.ucs.org

 

[OHvol40]

how does Occam's Razor apply to the man driven climate change argument?

We were in a cooling period before the "man made climate change started". Occam's Razor, and basic statistics would say we would see a return to average as part of the normal system. but you add the complexity of blaming man, while rejecting norms and statistics.

Which is simpler, the climate has changed in the past and is changing now; or the climate changed in the past and is changing now and its solely due to man kind?

Did you read the post I was responding to? You’re exhausting dude lol

 

[OHvol40]

You are actually debating global warming and you never heard of the Hockey Stick Graph. And I'm the idiot. John Brown ridiculous.

If it’s not important, practical, relevant, I’ve probably never heard of it.

 

[LouderVol]

Did you read the post I was responding to? You’re exhausting dude lol

so Occam's Razor only applies when you think it should? Got it.

sorry I prefer consistency in arguments. If a rule/standard should apply to one side, but not the other, there needs to a real good reason why.

 

[rikberry31]

If it’s not important, practical, relevant, I’ve probably never heard of it.

Jumped up Judas Priest. Are you joking? I don't think you are, you're just ignorant. That graph was the basis for the entire global warming scam.

 

[hog88]

I already posted this: Sixth Assessment Report — IPCC

It is comprehensive and contains as much detail as your heart desires. Sources sited, peer reviewed, no single source of information or funding. I would say you must have missed it, but you responded to the post it was it. All you have to do is read.

I do want to get your impression on this, though:

“Early internal reports from major fossil fuel companies (like Exxon, Shell, and the API) acknowledged that burning fossil fuels caused global warming. Privately, scientists and executives were warned about melting ice caps, sea-level rise, and "catastrophic" impacts, yet the companies publicly cast doubt on climate science for decades. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Internal company documents and commissioned reports over the decades detailed the following:

• 1968 (American Petroleum Institute): A report prepared by the Stanford Research Institute warned the API that continued fossil fuel use would likely cause significant temperature changes by 2000, noting that "damage to our environment could be severe".
• 1970s–1980s (Exxon): Internal Exxon scientists modeled global warming with "shocking skill". A 1977 internal briefing warned executives that fossil fuel emissions could raise global temperatures and limit the time window for hard energy decisions. By 1982, internal Exxon analyses accurately predicted an average global warming of \(3^{\circ }\text{C}\) (\(\pm 1.5^{\circ }\text{C}\)) if \(CO_{2}\) levels doubled.
• 1986–1988 (Shell): A nearly 100-page internal report from Shell's researchers predicted that global warming could cause destructive floods, the abandonment of entire countries, and forced migrations. A 1988 confidential report warned that by the time global warming became detectable, "it could be too late to take effective countermeasures". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

Despite this internal clarity, some of these same companies engaged in coordinated campaigns to fund climate denial, challenge scientific consensus, and obscure the realities from the public”

Defense, Denial, and Disinformation: Uncovering the Oil Industry’s Early Knowledge of Climate Change - Common Home

Georgetown Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò explores the link between police brutality, climate change, and the Covid-19 pandemic.

commonhome.georgetown.edu

How an Early Oil Industry Study Became Key in Climate Lawsuits

For decades, 1960s research for the American Petroleum Institute warning of the risks of burning fossil fuels had been forgotten. But two papers discovered in libraries are now playing a key role in lawsuits aimed at holding oil companies accountable for climate change.

e360.yale.edu

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

www.scientificamerican.com

What Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own words

Transcripts and internal documents show how the industry shifted from leading research into fossil fuels’ effect on the climate to sowing doubt about science.

theconversation.com

New UCS Report Details Fossil Fuel Industry’s Decades of Deceit, Implications for Climate Accountability Lawsuits

Evidence shows how major fossil fuel companies use climate disinformation and greenwashing to delay climate action and evade accountability.

www.ucs.org

There is absolutely nothing but hearsay and unproven theories in everyone of your links. If you actually read your own links you'll see that many predictions in the research never came true and/or will never happen.

 

[hog88]

@OHvol40 Come on man. What's your ideal policy for dealing with man made climate change?

If you had a free hand to mitigate the problem (it can't be reversed) what would you do?
I'll even narrow it down to 2 subjects:

Where would you dictate we get our electricity from, percentage coming from each source.
What would we power our cars, trucks, trains and planes with?

Not that you asked me but I'll answer.

If I had a free hand I'd:

Transition all of our electricity generation to nuclear 70% (up from 17%), hydroelectric 10-15% (up from 7%) and 5-10% would come from burning trash (up from almost nothing) but it helps solve another bigger issue and local/individual home, business small community solar/wind generation 10-15% . Not sure what that cut in emissions from power generation but it would be most of it and still provides stable consistent power.

I would transition our cars, trucks, trains to natural gas and electric. Plane still need to burn dead dinosaurs.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Undergrad, University of Buffalo. Masters, University of Tennessee. Who cares? That was just the beginning of my education.

I wasn't trying to insinuate anything. I was curious. One of my golf buddies is a retired professor of physics. And yes, he is the stereotypical professor. We have to remind him quite often to pick up the wedge he left by the green

 

[OHvol40]

There is absolutely nothing but hearsay and unproven theories in everyone of your links. If you actually read your own links you'll see that many predictions in the research never came true and/or will never happen.

So then pick a few things out, call out the heresy and unproven theories as you see them…

 

[GroverCleveland]

No, renewable energy is no longer more expensive. Today, solar and onshore wind are the cheapest sources of new electricity generation globally, generally coming in 41% to 53% cheaper than the lowest-cost fossil fuel

https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2025/Jul/91-Percent-of-New-Renewable-Projects-Now-Cheaper-Than-Fossil-Fuels-Alternatives

I'll look more into this. Something about this does not sound quite right. Thanks for the link.

 

[hog88]

So then pick a few things out, call out the heresy and unproven theories as you see them…

Want to take a swing?

@OHvol40 Come on man. What's your ideal policy for dealing with man made climate change?

If you had a free hand to mitigate the problem (it can't be reversed) what would you do?
I'll even narrow it down to 2 subjects:

Where would you dictate we get our electricity from, percentage coming from each source.
What would we power our cars, trucks, trains and planes with?

 

[OrangeTsar]

I reject the premise that the earth's temperature is getting warmer. If that is the case why are rural temperatures not showing that? To make the bogus Hockey Stick Graph they fudged the numbers by removing the the data from rural temperature monitoring stations so called "outliers.".
Of course urban centers and airports are getting warmer, there's more population. If anything the earth is entering a period of cooling and has been for a decade. Why don't they use the term global warming any more, its now climate change. Remember Climategate?
It's all .

there are proposed solutions to put partial sun shades into orbit if it ever becomes necessary (true story)

 

[GroverCleveland]

Obama couldn’t handle Tellico Plains. That place is from a different era .
Love the cafe and the Indian Boundary Campground

I lived there for a number of years after moving to Tennessee. Funny story, if I told it before, forgive me: I was doing some work for Qualcomm and we were involved with buying some bandwidth in the UK.

So early in the mornings, REALLY early for San Diego, we would jump on a conference call. The UK, the lawyers, the team in SD and me. The call would get started with: "London online? Yes. Washington DC online? Yes. San Diego? Yes. Tellico Plains? Yes."

It would make me laugh almost every morning.

 

[OrangeTsar]

I'll look more into this. Something about this does not sound quite right. Thanks for the link.

Wind turbine blades are also notorious for not being able to be recycled. And they wear out quickly

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Want to take a swing?

I could have sworn you just described how you would source energy