JimmyinSD
Thegn (2,889)
Jun 29, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by JimmyinSD on Mar 7, 2019 9:08:59 GMT -6
Shit, we are all dead since this one predicted dead by 2000! Are we all just zombies now? I'm not even sure how we can be causing global warming since we all either froze or starved to death back in the 70s predicted ice age/famine....
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
BELIEVE THE SCIENCE!
|
|
|
Post by Purplemachine on Mar 7, 2019 9:28:28 GMT -6
Shit, we are all dead since this one predicted dead by 2000! Are we all just zombies now? I'm not even sure how we can be causing global warming since we all either froze or starved to death back in the 70s predicted ice age/famine....
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
The science is solved right? Where have we heard that before???
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Mar 7, 2019 9:30:03 GMT -6
I'm not even sure how we can be causing global warming since we all either froze or starved to death back in the 70s predicted ice age/famine....
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
BELIEVE THE SCIENCE! Science weaponized for political (or religious) purposes is no longer science.
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Mar 7, 2019 9:31:32 GMT -6
I'm not even sure how we can be causing global warming since we all either froze or starved to death back in the 70s predicted ice age/famine....
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt
The science is solved right? Where have we heard that before??? I do love science and I believe science will eventually solve most problems. But the scum bag politicians and pseudo-science dingbats need to stop getting in the way.
|
|
|
Post by Purplemachine on Mar 7, 2019 9:42:47 GMT -6
The science is solved right? Where have we heard that before??? I do love science and I believe science will eventually solve most problems. But the scum bag politicians and pseudo-science dingbats need to stop getting in the way. What irks me is hypocrites like Al Gore(and others like him) who tells us how WE should do things while he lives in a mansion, travels by private jet to speak about the evils of global warming. Not to mention the motorcade of Suburban's that escort him about.
|
|
|
Post by SmokedPears on Mar 7, 2019 10:19:58 GMT -6
I do love science and I believe science will eventually solve most problems. But the scum bag politicians and pseudo-science dingbats need to stop getting in the way. What irks me is hypocrites like Al Gore(and others like him) who tells us how WE should do things while he lives in a mansion, travels by private jet to speak about the evils of global warming. Not to mention the motorcade of Suburban's that escort him about. It's good for thee but not for me! AOC seems to be taking it to the top level in a very short period of time. That arrogant little wench deserves some very severe karma in short order.
|
|
|
Post by badgervike on Mar 7, 2019 11:31:25 GMT -6
As a scientist by education, I will tell you that NO science is ever settled...period. Anybody that says differently...isn't a scientist...
By definition the scientific method requires:
Step 1: Make observations. Step 2: Formulate a hypothesis. Step 3: Test the hypothesis through experimentation. Step 4: Accept or modify the hypothesis . Step 5: Development into a law and/or a theory Step 6: Review and amend law or theory based on new observations
The "science" of man made effects on climate is new and lacks enough data to make ANY conclusions..you can simply get through Step 1 and Step 2.
The United Nations Climate Change Organization is the among the worst science that I've ever seen. Those guys make the flat earthers look like geniuses. Let's take a look at it:
1) The name of the organization itself...implies the result of the research. It would be like Big Pharma assembling a Working Group on Immortality. The Group itself is political/ideological in nature and presupposes the results of their "research". If the data doesn't support their desired results...they modify the data/experiment by adjusting data and changing the curve fit algorithms or start / stop points to achieve desired "results". 2) If you don't believe in the science of climate change....you're exiled, discredited and attacked. There are even some that want to imprison people for not believing. That's not the way science works. People hypothesize new methods or advancements and change conclusions all the time. By ignoring any dissenting viewpoints, the results are fatally flawed. 3) As I said above, the UNCC operates more like a Political Action Committee than a Scientific body. They have rapid response teams to attack and discredit new information as it becomes available. When NASA tied weather variations to sunspot activity, the UNCC was there to immediately discredit the information. Again, as a scientist, I would tell you that new information needs to be fully studied to see whether your hypothesis still holds up...not discounted to come to the same previous conclusion. 4) Most of the "scientists" in the UNCC have a vested financial interest in green projects. In a police investigation, they would call that motive.
Since we don't have enough historical data on man made affects on climate, we should be good stewards of the planet...it's the only one we have. But do it for the right reasons...not because of the fear tactics of the left. If you don't believe they're left btw...look at some of the courses the UNCC teaches...like the Effects of Gender on Climate, etc....
|
|
VikingBob
I am the Host of THOR'S HAMMER and proud member of the VWO.
Viking (5,583)
Feb 3, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by VikingBob on Mar 7, 2019 11:36:47 GMT -6
As a scientist by education, I will tell you that NO science is ever settled...period. Anybody that says differently...isn't a scientist... By definition the scientific method requires: Step 1: Make observations. Step 2: Formulate a hypothesis. Step 3: Test the hypothesis through experimentation. Step 4: Accept or modify the hypothesis . Step 5: Development into a law and/or a theory Step 6: Review and amend law or theory based on new observations The "science" of man made effects on climate is new and lacks enough data to make ANY conclusions..you can simply get through Step 1 and Step 2. The United Nations Climate Change Organization is the among the worst science that I've ever seen. Those guys make the flat earthers look like geniuses. Let's take a look at it: 1) The name of the organization itself...implies the result of the research. It would be like Big Pharma assembling a Working Group on Immortality. The Group itself is political/ideological in nature and presupposes the results of their "research". If the data doesn't support their desired results...they modify the data/experiment by adjusting data and changing the curve fit algorithms or start / stop points to achieve desired "results". 2) If you don't believe in the science of climate change....you're exiled, discredited and attacked. There are even some that want to imprison people for not believing. That's not the way science works. People hypothesize new methods or advancements and change conclusions all the time. By ignoring any dissenting viewpoints, the results are fatally flawed. 3) As I said above, the UNCC operates more like a Political Action Committee than a Scientific body. They have rapid response teams to attack and discredit new information as it becomes available. When NASA tied weather variations to sunspot activity, the UNCC was there to immediately discredit the information. Again, as a scientist, I would tell you that new information needs to be fully studied to see whether your hypothesis still holds up...not discounted to come to the same previous conclusion. 4) Most of the "scientists" in the UNCC have a vested financial interest in green projects. In a police investigation, they would call that motive. Since we don't have enough historical data on man made affects on climate, we should be good stewards of the planet...it's the only one we have. But do it for the right reasons...not because of the fear tactics of the left. If you don't believe they're left btw...look at some of the courses the UNCC teaches...like the Effects of Gender on Climate, etc.... Thank you. Well said!!!!
|
|
|
Post by tempevike on Mar 7, 2019 12:35:10 GMT -6
As a scientist by education, I will tell you that NO science is ever settled...period. Anybody that says differently...isn't a scientist... By definition the scientific method requires: Step 1: Make observations. Step 2: Formulate a hypothesis. Step 3: Test the hypothesis through experimentation. Step 4: Accept or modify the hypothesis . Step 5: Development into a law and/or a theory Step 6: Review and amend law or theory based on new observations The "science" of man made effects on climate is new and lacks enough data to make ANY conclusions..you can simply get through Step 1 and Step 2. The United Nations Climate Change Organization is the among the worst science that I've ever seen. Those guys make the flat earthers look like geniuses. Let's take a look at it: 1) The name of the organization itself...implies the result of the research. It would be like Big Pharma assembling a Working Group on Immortality. The Group itself is political/ideological in nature and presupposes the results of their "research". If the data doesn't support their desired results...they modify the data/experiment by adjusting data and changing the curve fit algorithms or start / stop points to achieve desired "results". 2) If you don't believe in the science of climate change....you're exiled, discredited and attacked. There are even some that want to imprison people for not believing. That's not the way science works. People hypothesize new methods or advancements and change conclusions all the time. By ignoring any dissenting viewpoints, the results are fatally flawed. 3) As I said above, the UNCC operates more like a Political Action Committee than a Scientific body. They have rapid response teams to attack and discredit new information as it becomes available. When NASA tied weather variations to sunspot activity, the UNCC was there to immediately discredit the information. Again, as a scientist, I would tell you that new information needs to be fully studied to see whether your hypothesis still holds up...not discounted to come to the same previous conclusion. 4) Most of the "scientists" in the UNCC have a vested financial interest in green projects. In a police investigation, they would call that motive. Since we don't have enough historical data on man made affects on climate, we should be good stewards of the planet...it's the only one we have. But do it for the right reasons...not because of the fear tactics of the left. If you don't believe they're left btw...look at some of the courses the UNCC teaches...like the Effects of Gender on Climate, etc.... There is so much fake science out there it's disgusting. One guy on YouTube is apparently a professor spends all his time debunking flat earth stuff. That's great. But then he goes on to equate it to chemtrails and also mock the hypothesis. So I ask him what studies he did to conclude that. Did he record the temp, humidity, etc. to come up with a model when jets leave lingering condensation? Did he record flight paths and elevation of trails. Did he test the air quality? His answer... "I don't need to do those things because chemtrails are not real." Science beyotches!!!
|
|
OkieDokie
Surviving
Jarl (22,857)
Feb 5, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by OkieDokie on Mar 25, 2019 19:31:49 GMT -6
Well well well, what have we here?
|
|
|
Post by Purplemachine on Mar 25, 2019 19:53:16 GMT -6
Well well well, what have we here? Gee, Say it isn't so. Who'd of thunk it...
|
|
JimmyinSD
Thegn (2,889)
Jun 29, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by JimmyinSD on Mar 26, 2019 5:44:57 GMT -6
One of the biggest markers used to prove global warming, a monster glacier in Greenland that has been shrinking at a historic pace has now shown to be have reversed it track and has grown at that same rate the last 2 years....but of course this means nothing to those that are getting paid to recite the man made warming bullshit. They are even claiming that this means they will now have to rewrite their ocean level projections for the future to account for this additional mass for when it melts as it most assuredly will....by their models ..
|
|
OkieDokie
Surviving
Jarl (22,857)
Feb 5, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by OkieDokie on Mar 26, 2019 9:07:12 GMT -6
One of the biggest markers used to prove global warming, a monster glacier in Greenland that has been shrinking at a historic pace has now shown to be have reversed it track and has grown at that same rate the last 2 years....but of course this means nothing to those that are getting paid to recite the man made warming bullshit. They are even claiming that this means they will now have to rewrite their ocean level projections for the future to account for this additional mass for when it melts as it most assuredly will....by their models ..
|
|
|
Post by badgervike on Mar 26, 2019 10:39:10 GMT -6
There's a natural ebb and flow to these metrics...it's called weather. I remember getting into this argument a few years back on the other board...and being lambasted for denying that the polar ice caps were significantly diminished.... I published the link to the National Sea and Ice Data Center....at that particular time...the Artic Cap was directly at the 30 year median...and the Antartic Cap was slightly above the 30 year median. Both are outside (low) the 30 year average at present (updated daily). Just toggle between Artic and Antartic data. The NSIDC has a distinct climate change agenda btw...as you can tell by the years they keep on their charts and the dialog around the current data. The point being is that these weather events are cherry picked to fit the dialog...and than when those conditions change...they'll move on to some other metric like looking for polar bears where there aren't any. nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
|
|
|
Post by Purplemachine on Mar 26, 2019 10:45:02 GMT -6
This guy is pretty good.
|
|