Climate Scam

[Ibleedbrown]

22 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Bike lanes and roundabouts aren't going to save us from ourselves. The data is clear, the science is clear, whether everyday folks believe it or not. Intervention and regulation is needed, but this stands to lose powerful people lots of money. Hence money funneling into conservative politicians and efforts to politicize the whole issue. Now you can "own the libs" by being anti climate change efforts. 

The politicization of scientific issues just hurts us as a whole. If not now, later. 

Of course, a big chunk of the voters hurting us now won't be around later to deal with the damage they've caused. 

Don’t say that too loudly in Carmel, IN, the roundabout capital of America. I’ve never seen a community that dislikes stop signs as much as they do. It’s a bit over the top honestly. SO many roundabouts!

I think we’re uncovering that there’s more common ground here than not, but as usual politics has mucked up the works.  l’m trying real hard here to boil this down to absolutes: we all care about wellness and sustainability. Let the focus be there.

Wellness for our floating rock and by extension ourselves, and sustainability to preserve the benefits of nature we’ve enjoyed and want to keep enjoying.

I have no idea why the term “climate change” became a poison pill, but l imagine it has something to do with the sense of urgency with which it was presented. Think pushy car salesman. And Al Gore being a democrat and all.

I’m more interested in nurturing the common ground here, because l think there’s a lot of it. 

[calfoxwc]

41 minutes ago, Ibleedbrown said:

I have no idea why the term “climate change” became a poison pill,

well, they used to call it "man made global warming" until the science and the scientist scandals made it obvious it was a rally call for politics.

Then, the UN official admitted that acceptance of "climate change" (they changed it to that because climate changes, but they MEAN mmgw, lol).....

and the predictions of gloom and flooding and no more florida and no more glaciers etc etc etc, were completely discredited, in a HUGE way.

*******************************

https://www.epw.senate.gov › public › index.cfm › press-releases-all?ID=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man ...

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made

*******************************

https://www.epw.senate.gov › public › index.cfm › press-releases-all?ID=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man ...

Now More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. Link to Intro and full updated report: Link to Full Printable 255-Page PDF Report . ... Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel

******************************

so, there ya go.

[calfoxwc]

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

• https://www.newsbusters.org › blogs › nb › noel-sheppard › 2010 › 11 › 18 › un-ipcc-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate

  UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate ...

  UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'. If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, " [W]e redistribute de ...
• https://climatechampions.unfccc.int › global-study-reveals-wealth-redistribution-from-blue-carbon-ecosystems

  Global study reveals wealth redistribution from blue-carbon ecosystems

  This wealth redistribution from blue-carbon ecosystems has now been quantified at the global scale. Our team has now calculated blue-carbon sequestration potential at the national level. This process combines data on the areas covered by mangroves, salt marshes and seagrass meadows in each country's exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and average ...
• https://www.forbes.com › sites › larrybell › 2013 › 01 › 22 › the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on-capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2

  The U.N.'s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important ... - Forbes

  Jan 22, 2013IPCC Summary for Policymakers reports offer prescriptions for distribution of wealth and resource redistribution, including regionalized (smaller) economies to reduce transportation demand ...
• https://www.reddit.com › r › climateskeptics › comments › 441rl6 › un_climate_chief_christianafigueres_admits_goal

  U.N. Climate Chief Christiana-Figueres Admits Goal Is Worldwide ...

  U.N. Climate Chief Christiana-Figueres Admits Goal Is Worldwide Redistribution Of Wealth . A high UN official has admitted the real reason for the climate hysteria: to transform the world economy, redistributing income from rich nations to poorer ones. ... Resource extraction and deforestation are

[Jax]

 

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, Ibleedbrown said:

Don’t say that too loudly in Carmel, IN, the roundabout capital of America. I’ve never seen a community that dislikes stop signs as much as they do. It’s a bit over the top honestly. SO many roundabouts!

I think we’re uncovering that there’s more common ground here than not, but as usual politics has mucked up the works.  l’m trying real hard here to boil this down to absolutes: we all care about wellness and sustainability. Let the focus be there.

Wellness for our floating rock and by extension ourselves, and sustainability to preserve the benefits of nature we’ve enjoyed and want to keep enjoying.

I have no idea why the term “climate change” became a poison pill, but l imagine it has something to do with the sense of urgency with which it was presented. Think pushy car salesman. And Al Gore being a democrat and all.

I’m more interested in nurturing the common ground here, because l think there’s a lot of it. 

I'd like to agree with you, I'd like to think that's the case, but we have people like cal and his posts above that kill that belief for me. 

An individual recycling and making a compost pile is great, but it won't make any real impact. Oil and gas companies invested in and pushed the narrative of personal responsibility around the environment and climate change. Why? To direct the attention away from them. They've known for decades the damage they're causing but short term profits beat long term (next generations) damage. 

These large corporations, those that stand to gain from the status quo, will funnel money into right wing think tanks, which produce "reports" that right wing media rolls with. No topic on this board has seen a higher level of fake experts touted than climate change. A personal favorite of cals being a list of "scientists" from 15 years ago that I could be on... 

Another angle being not a fake expert, but the complete misinterpretation of actual climate research and studies. 

Basically every time I've taken the time to dig into the mountain of links cal or someone else vomits up the claims can be debunked in a few minutes. But the problem is there is so much misinformation (actual misinformation, not "news that trump doesn't like" misinformation) out there that regular people just see the headlines and don't do any digging. Even if debunked later those readers are long gone.

Look at what Girls posted. Public polls on climate change. I'm not surprised less people care. I imagine it's along party lines too since the issue has been politicized. I don't really care what the public thinks on this matter though, most are scientifically illiterate. We're a country that is hostile to actual expertise and we'll suffer as a result. 

[Canton Dawg]

1 minute ago, MLD Woody said:

I'd like to agree with you, I'd like to think that's the case, but we have people like cal and his posts above that kill that belief for me. 

An individual recycling and making a compost pile is great, but it won't make any real impact. Oil and gas companies invested in and pushed the narrative of personal responsibility around the environment and climate change. Why? To direct the attention away from them. They've known for decades the damage they're causing but short term profits beat long term (next generations) damage. 

These large corporations, those that stand to gain from the status quo, will funnel money into right wing think tanks, which produce "reports" that right wing media rolls with. No topic on this board has seen a higher level of fake experts touted than climate change. A personal favorite of cals being a list of "scientists" from 15 years ago that I could be on... 

Another angle being not a fake expert, but the complete misinterpretation of actual climate research and studies. 

Basically every time I've taken the time to dig into the mountain of links cal or someone else vomits up the claims can be debunked in a few minutes. But the problem is there is so much misinformation (actual misinformation, not "news that trump doesn't like" misinformation) out there that regular people just see the headlines and don't do any digging. Even if debunked later those readers are long gone.

Look at what Girls posted. Public polls on climate change. I'm not surprised less people care. I imagine it's along party lines too since the issue has been politicized. I don't really care what the public thinks on this matter though, most are scientifically illiterate. We're a country that is hostile to actual expertise and we'll suffer as a result. 

Another angle is when world leaders congregate to talk about GW.

They all hop into their jets and fly to some faraway destination, so they can make a plan and instill panic into the masses.

Then they all eat their chef prepared meals, take a photo op, and jump into their fossil fueled jets and return home.

I don’t know what people like you are missing about this scenario, it’s either the tons of CO2 being pumped into the air or the hypocrisy…you decide. 🤔

[Jax]

9 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

I'd like to agree with you, I'd like to think that's the case, but we have people like cal and his posts above that kill that belief for me. 

An individual recycling and making a compost pile is great, but it won't make any real impact. Oil and gas companies invested in and pushed the narrative of personal responsibility around the environment and climate change. Why? To direct the attention away from them. They've known for decades the damage they're causing but short term profits beat long term (next generations) damage. 

These large corporations, those that stand to gain from the status quo, will funnel money into right wing think tanks, which produce "reports" that right wing media rolls with. No topic on this board has seen a higher level of fake experts touted than climate change. A personal favorite of cals being a list of "scientists" from 15 years ago that I could be on... 

Another angle being not a fake expert, but the complete misinterpretation of actual climate research and studies. 

Basically every time I've taken the time to dig into the mountain of links cal or someone else vomits up the claims can be debunked in a few minutes. But the problem is there is so much misinformation (actual misinformation, not "news that trump doesn't like" misinformation) out there that regular people just see the headlines and don't do any digging. Even if debunked later those readers are long gone.

Look at what Girls posted. Public polls on climate change. I'm not surprised less people care. I imagine it's along party lines too since the issue has been politicized. I don't really care what the public thinks on this matter though, most are scientifically illiterate. We're a country that is hostile to actual expertise and we'll suffer as a result. 

Perfect example of indoctrination.

[nickers]

1 hour ago, Jax said:

Perfect example of indoctrination.

Bingo!... The sad part is... He doesn't know it... His life may as well just be one big allegory...

[FY56]

On 5/7/2024 at 1:55 PM, Ibleedbrown said:

There are times l can’t help but wonder if the money trail leads back to some shady left wing group with the intention of getting conservatives to paint themselves as the anti-environmental group, and it seems to be working. I would argue that in everyday practices conservatives are just as much pro-environment as liberals, if not more so. If more of us could live like Cal then it would be a net positive. 

But this manufactured mental association linking anything to do with it to “global warming” has really done a number on us. I don’t understand it. 

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2024/05/06/desantis-blocks-climate-change-efforts-a-partisan-fight-in-election/73546118007/

I found this recent article on DeSantis, who has done some really positive pro-environment things in Florida, but he’s also shot himself in the foot over this mental association to “climate change.” He actually wants to erase the term “climate change” from state law. Which is fine, whatever, but can we still have bike lanes and roundabouts? Bike lanes promote a healthier populace and roundabouts reduce wear and tear on cars. Those are good things, and jobs get created in the process. Another good thing. 

The article ends with a point l’ve used before. “I’m a conservative. And conservative and conservation have the same root word. When did conservationists become the bad guy?”

 

I've always perceived (and maybe wrongly) climate change and the environment as two different issues.  Everyone wants clean air and water.

After all it was Nixon that established the EPA. I don't think it had anything to do with climate change.

Having said that, they can be linked...less auto pollution= cleaner air = less Co2 emissions, except today as it pertains to cars, the emphasis is on climate change. There's been more than enough demands on automakers to produce efficient cars and restrict air pollutants. 

Republicans are perceived anti-environment because the environment is at the bottom of their priorities. The economy is at the top.

The majority favor expanding drilling, obviously that makes them anti-environment too.

Well, what a surprise, it turns out they do care after all. And as you presumed, there is some common ground.

Republicans also favor more solar power and wind turbines. The majority also favor carbon capture technology. Now that sounds interesting.

By a 58% to 42% margin, Republicans say expanding production from fossil fuel sources like oil and gas is a greater priority for the country than expanding renewable sources like wind and solar.

Not bad.

Republicans’ views of climate change, energy issues | Pew Research Center

Republicans support expanding fossil fuel and renewable energy sources. Burning fossil fuels for energy is the source of most U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Climate scientists have urged countries to rapidly reduce their reliance on fossil fuel energy while transitioning to renewable sources to help limit the rise in Earth’s temperature.

Among Republicans, large shares back increasing the production of fossil fuel sources: 73% favor more offshore oil and gas drilling and 68% favor more hydraulic fracturing.

At the same time, comparable shares of Republicans support renewable energy production, including more solar power farms (70%) and more wind power (60%). In addition, two-thirds said they favor building more nuclear power plants, according to a June 2023 survey.

 

[calfoxwc]

16 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

I'd like to agree with you, I'd like to think that's the case, but we have people like cal and his posts above that kill that belief for me. 

An individual recycling and making a compost pile is great, but it won't make any real impact. Oil and gas companies invested in and pushed the narrative of personal responsibility around the environment and climate change. Why? To direct the attention away from them. They've known for decades the damage they're causing but short term profits beat long term (next generations) damage. 

These large corporations, those that stand to gain from the status quo, will funnel money into right wing think tanks, which produce "reports" that right wing media rolls with. No topic on this board has seen a higher level of fake experts touted than climate change. A personal favorite of cals being a list of "scientists" from 15 years ago that I could be on... 

Another angle being not a fake expert, but the complete misinterpretation of actual climate research and studies. 

Basically every time I've taken the time to dig into the mountain of links cal or someone else vomits up the claims can be debunked in a few minutes. But the problem is there is so much misinformation (actual misinformation, not "news that trump doesn't like" misinformation) out there that regular people just see the headlines and don't do any digging. Even if debunked later those readers are long gone.

Look at what Girls posted. Public polls on climate change. I'm not surprised less people care. I imagine it's along party lines too since the issue has been politicized. I don't really care what the public thinks on this matter though, most are scientifically illiterate. We're a country that is hostile to actual expertise and we'll suffer as a result. 

Well, nice try, but:

A. You have never taken much time to "debunk" crap. You slur any source that disagrees with your mmgw contentions, and you claim "debunk". You slur any scientist for some kind of reason, so you can claim "debunk" again, falsely.

B. AGAIN, conservation is wonderful. Pollution is sick, destructive, and major companies have been seriously guilty. Individual parties have been seriously guilty. Back when I graduated, and my best friend and his brother decided we didn't want to do Fort Lauderdale stuff, we went to central Ontario and camped for two weeks way, way out in the wilderness, on the other side of a remote lake. The ranger at his station 6 miles away from our camp - said the water was so high in quality, you could go out from shore, at least 20 feet, and drink right out of the lake. They test it every so often on a regular basis.

Can't do that many places in America. I hate that. But the fallback position to talking about conservation and our environment is NOT MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. That is how much mmgw has been discredited.

C. This is about MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING, and it has been discredited again and again. You ignore the dire predictions of flooding entire states, the ocean rising to wipe out parts of entire countries. It's nonsense. It's use is political and redistribution of wealth.

D. We could go all wind power and solar power, and all hell would break loose because the giant windmills (we've seen the fields out west - it's impressive) - and we've seen the big trucks bringing in new blades, too. Because the bearings wear out, and it's EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE THEM. We've seen solar fields. I love solar power - but one hail storm and it's crapped out. We could honestly wipe out all fossil fuels in America. Even North America. and it would not affect the pollution damage by china and india. Studies PROVE THAT.

E. Ever wonder, just once, why china and india were exempt from that stupid Kyoto treaty? Sure, woody, let's damage our economy, paid giant taxes to give more money to the UN and our corrupt government now, over "mmgw". China and russia would laugh themselves into a frenzy we were so stupid.

Ever wonder why the UN has NO PROBLEM with china or india? Because china and india don't have billions of dollars to get directed to them. I wish you would "take the time" to be honest on the subject.

F. "F" is for "FOOK CHINA".

• https://www.npr.org › 2023 › 03 › 02 › 1160441919 › china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin

  China builds more new coal plants than rest of the world : NPR

  Mar 2, 2023VCG/VCG via Getty Images. China permitted more coal power plants last year than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week. It's the equivalent of about two new ...
• https://www.reuters.com › markets › commodities › chinas-2023-coal-output-hits-record-high-2024-01-17

  China's 2023 coal output hits record high | Reuters

  Jan 17, 2024China's coal output reached a record high in 2023, data from the statistics bureau showed on Wednes

   

  G. "G" is for "Git outa here with the leftwing bs over mmgw"

   

  H. "H" is for have a nice day.

   

  I. I don't get why the left loves mmgw so much, since EVERY SINGLE TIME, THEIR PREDICTIONS OF CATASTROPHE has FAILED and MADE THEM LIARS.

   

  J. Back in the day, stationed at Keesler AFB, Biloxi Mississippi, we were NOT allowed to swim in the gulf. Nearly nobody does. The reason was, it was so badly polluted. That is sick.

   

  K. It's been proven that mmgw is a crock. Calling it "climate change" doesn't fix that.

   

  L. I would love to have solar power - it's cool for our little solar/a c generator. Made by Bluetti. But it is very expensive, and they get damaged, and .... solar and wind power is fun, can be effective - but the problems are ignored by their industries, and they have failed...and will probably never replace fossil fuels.

   

  M. Maybe someday, you can get rich off whatever investments you may have made in alternative energy sources. That UN official even admitted that it's about redistribution of wealth. You see it in our country - "cows farting" tax?

   

  N. Just say "NO" to "mmgw" taxes. It's an excuse to redistribute our income to their official pockets, including the corrupt UN.

  "Carbon tax credits" ? How stupid do lefties think most people are?

   

  https://taxfoundation.org › research › all › federal › carbon-taxes-green-tax-reforms

  Carbon Taxes: Green Tax & Climate Change Tax Reforms - Tax Foundation

  Jun 21, 2022The carbon tax has twin benefits: in addition to reducing the long-run costs of climate change, the revenue can be used to lower other, more economically harmful taxes. Over a longer time horizon, however, the revenue potential declines as the tax encourages firms and individuals to reduce carbon emissions.

  https://www.weforum.org › agenda › 2021 › 06 › addressing-climate-change-through-carbon-taxes

  Addressing climate change through carbon taxes

  Many economists have argued that carbon taxes are the most efficient and cost-effective way to curb climate change and address the problem of global warming. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD), a carbon tax is "an instrument of environmental cost internalisation. It is an excise tax on the producers ...

  https://time.com › 6252955 › climate-change-windfall-tax

  New Climate Taxes May be Closer Than You Think | TIME

  Feb 6, 2023Those two tax policies have dominated the debate over taxation and climate change. Now a new tranche of policies has entered the field. Politicians in Washington are pushing windfall profit taxes.

[FY56]

On 5/8/2024 at 9:01 AM, cccjwh said:

 

That could also represent your IQ.

IQ does increase with age, but apparently not in your case. Trending downward badly.

[FY56]

On 5/8/2024 at 12:44 PM, MLD Woody said:

I don't give a shit what Al Gore says

I give a shit what a consensus of climatologists and reputable scientific organizations across the globe say

I give a shit what the data says

Obviously you didn't watch any of the video.

Forget the drama and skip ahead to about 3:40. There you will hear from 4-5 highly reputable scientists and meteorologists, who teach at institutions such as Harvard, MIT, NYU who do not buy into the climate change hype.

Climate change is not a settled science.

Let me know your thoughts.

[calfoxwc]

to put it simply - if mmgw was a real crisis, the UN would be going apecrap onto china and india. they would declare "war" on the destruction of millions of acres of rain forest in the world out of greed.

Telling Americans we have to fund their studies, give them billions of our tax dollars to "fight mmgw" when they don't say one word to china and india.

come on.

If every American built a nice campfire once a week, it would mean nothing, just like if all wood burning and coal burning was stopped in the US, it would mean nothing.

We are the biggest contributor to the UN. Conflict resolution/prevention? that is a farce.

We need to turn off the UN spigot, and keep our own freaking money.

Hamas got so much UN money - they spent it on terrorist weapons, tunnels, etc.

and the gazans still starved.

How stupid.

The UN is worthless, except for dishing out money thta isn't theirs to feed the poor.

No more, if I had my way.

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, FY56 said:

That could also represent your IQ.

IQ does increase with age, but apparently not in your case. Trending downward badly.

[Citation needed]...

 

 

IQ is a relative score against other people your age. The average will always be 100. Everyone can't have an increasing IQ as they age because it's relative to those same ages people. 

Different measures of intelligence though, like fluid intelligence (processing speed) does decrease as you age though, when the 25-35 / young adult group is set as the control. Which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here 

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, FY56 said:

Obviously you didn't watch any of the video.

Forget the drama and skip ahead to about 3:40. There you will hear from 4-5 highly reputable scientists and meteorologists, who teach at institutions such as Harvard, MIT, NYU who do not buy into the climate change hype.

Climate change is not a settled science.

Let me know your thoughts.

Meteorologists are not climatologists 

4-5 is not more than tens of thousands 

 

It is not equal representation. These two sides are not scientifically equally valid. 

 

 

The same shit has been posted on here for decades. Every time I ever spent a few minutes of my time I could tear apart whatever cal or someone else posted. 

That effort on my end means nothing. None of you are changing you mind. The policy's of cals generation and people like him have damaged the environment/climate and my generation and those following will have to clean up the mess. They'll go out, kicking and screaming, fucking up as much as possible on the way out. But there's no debating. There's no changing minds. There's just waiting them out to no longer be in the voting pool. That's it. 

Not worth my time anymore 

Anything you put in here I've addressed dozens of times in old threads. Go look it up if you want my response. 

[Jax]

56 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Meteorologists are not climatologists 

4-5 is not more than tens of thousands 

 

It is not equal representation. These two sides are not scientifically equally valid. 

 

 

The same shit has been posted on here for decades. Every time I ever spent a few minutes of my time I could tear apart whatever cal or someone else posted. 

That effort on my end means nothing. None of you are changing you mind. The policy's of cals generation and people like him have damaged the environment/climate and my generation and those following will have to clean up the mess. They'll go out, kicking and screaming, fucking up as much as possible on the way out. But there's no debating. There's no changing minds. There's just waiting them out to no longer be in the voting pool. That's it. 

Not worth my time anymore 

Anything you put in here I've addressed dozens of times in old threads. Go look it up if you want my response. 

Yep the earth is flat and the center of the universe. Must be true cause everyone said so.

[nickers]

4 hours ago, Jax said:

Yep the earth is flat and the center of the universe. Must be true cause everyone said so.

He believes what the MSM tells him to believe... He's a good little comrade...

[MLD Woody]

8 hours ago, Jax said:

Yep the earth is flat and the center of the universe. Must be true cause everyone said so.

You believe in a myth that the belief in a flat earth was widespread in our not to different past. You believe this myth because it is being propagated by people that don't want you to acknowledge modern day science. 

Ancient Greeks knew the earth wasn't flat and even calculated it's circumference. Essentially every medieval scholar knew the earth wasn't flat. 

 

You're trying to state some nonsense from before we even invented the scientific method as a way to discredit a consensus of modern day scientists. 

[Jax]

19 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

You believe in a myth that the belief in a flat earth was widespread in our not to different past. You believe this myth because it is being propagated by people that don't want you to acknowledge modern day science. 

Ancient Greeks knew the earth wasn't flat and even calculated it's circumference. Essentially every medieval scholar knew the earth wasn't flat. 

 

You're trying to state some nonsense from before we even invented the scientific method as a way to discredit a consensus of modern day scientists. 

I'm not literally talking about earth being flat, it's the point that just because everyone says something, doesn't make it true. You act like because you suggested thousands of climatologist super astrophysicist all with engineering degrees and phds in environmental studies prove your right by way of numbers.

All it takes is one to debunk their garbage.

23 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

You believe this myth because it is being propagated by people that don't want you to acknowledge modern day science. 

Also, I learned this way back in elementary school. I'm not sure what you're going on about now.

Thanks for looking out for me though, I didn't realize people were trying to stop me from learning 'modern day science'.

[MLD Woody]

24 minutes ago, Jax said:

I'm not literally talking about earth being flat, it's the point that just because everyone says something, doesn't make it true. You act like because you suggested thousands of climatologist super astrophysicist all with engineering degrees and phds in environmental studies prove your right by way of numbers.

All it takes is one to debunk their garbage.

Also, I learned this way back in elementary school. I'm not sure what you're going on about now.

Thanks for looking out for me though, I didn't realize people were trying to stop me from learning 'modern day science'.

And you're missing the point. What you think "everyone" said/believed, they didn't. Additionally, not "everyone" has an equally weighted opinion here. The folks dedicating their lives to studying climate should probably have more weight to their opinions than some meteorologist or engineer. And in general, yes, those "super astrophysicists all with engineering degree and PhDs", on this topic, matter a lot more than joe blow citizen.  

The myth is how widespread the belief of a flat earth actually was. If you didn't follow just read my post again. The point you thought you made, with the examples you gave, you didn't. 

Once again this is just continued anti expert nonsense from the right 

[calfoxwc]

29 minutes ago, Jax said:

All it takes is one to debunk their garbage.

I've been telling woodpecker this for years now.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-scientists-wrong.html

[MLD Woody]

54 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

I've been telling woodpecker this for years now.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-scientists-wrong.html

You clearly didn't read this article, which is par for the course for you. 

[Jax]

48 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

And you're missing the point. What you think "everyone" said/believed, they didn't. Additionally, not "everyone" has an equally weighted opinion here. The folks dedicating their lives to studying climate should probably have more weight to their opinions than some meteorologist or engineer. And in general, yes, those "super astrophysicists all with engineering degree and PhDs", on this topic, matter a lot more than joe blow citizen.  

The myth is how widespread the belief of a flat earth actually was. If you didn't follow just read my post again. The point you thought you made, with the examples you gave, you didn't. 

Once again this is just continued anti expert nonsense from the right 

I know what you referred to and it's too asinine a topic to go prove my point on.

But,

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/science-magazines/historic-dispute-earth-center-universe

Yes, early scientists believed that what appeared to be movement around Earth by the Sun and other entities was, in fact, just that.

 

As usual, you're dumbass woke idiocy is just butt hurt someone suggested Columbus proved the earth was round. That doesn't mean a lot of the people didn't think it was flat.

It was a simple example but if you want to start to get technical we can. In this day and age, there are plenty of reasons not to trust your 'experts'. Look at the Covid pandemic and all the truth coming out after people were vilified and falsely labeled anitvaxxers. Look how the gov't and it's federally run agencies lied and covered up the truth in the opioid crisis and the teflon case. You think those were isolated cases? Now we can't challenge what the gov't is doing because we're called antiscience. There's all kinds of abuse going on in gov't and if you don't believe that then you shouldn't be so scared of Trump and republicans. Your same experts won't come out and define what a woman is because it's all politically driven, not science backed.

 

[MLD Woody]

4 minutes ago, Jax said:

 

As usual, you're dumbass woke idiocy is just butt hurt someone suggested Columbus proved the earth was round. That doesn't mean a lot of the people didn't think it was flat..

 

We knew it was round for hundreds and hundreds of years before Columbus. 

I don't care what people think when deciding action and policy n a scientific issue. I care what the experts think. 

[Jax]

10 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

You clearly didn't read this article, which is par for the course for you. 

This? That's not evidence of anything other than a huge margin that could be anything.

The new results had a far larger range of possibilities in ocean temperature increases—between 10 and 70 percent: still warmer, but rendering the study vague even for the sometimes unknowable science of climate modelling.

Or this?

but rendering the study vague even for the sometimes unknowable science of climate modelling

Maybe this?

"Science is a human endeavour and it's therefore imperfect.

[Jax]

Just now, MLD Woody said:

We knew it was round for hundreds and hundreds of years before Columbus. 

I don't care what people think when deciding action and policy n a scientific issue. I care what the experts think. 

Some people theorized it was round doesn't mean it was widely accepted or that people still didn't think otherwise. 

Even today we have flat earthers.

[calfoxwc]

7 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

You clearly didn't read this article, which is par for the course for you. 

I most certainly did, you just ignored the good parts. There are two sides of this whole story. Meaning, it isn't settled science as you have always claimed.

It isn't a perfect science - there are deliberate? mistakes/falsehoods, and honest mistakes. The amount of money going to researchers, CLIMATOLOGISTS.... means they won't dispute the UN's political mmgw scam, because they want the money to keep rolling in.

In the article (one of the parts you ignored, typical woodcockpecker)

"

Soon after publication, an independent climate scientist—one who has repeatedly voiced scepticism of the consensus that human behaviour is causing global warming—spotted an error in the Nature paper's maths.

"After correction, the... results do not suggest a larger increase in ocean heat content than previously thought," Nicolas Lewis wrote on his Climate Science blog.

"Just a few hours of analysis and calculations was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.

"It is very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper's findings now correct the record too. But perhaps that is too much to hope for," he added.

With the rectified calculation, the authors quickly realised they had made a mistake."

*******************************

 

[Jax]

2 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

We knew it was round for hundreds and hundreds of years before Columbus. 

I don't care what people think when deciding action and policy n a scientific issue. I care what the experts think. 

You should care, they don't just make policies on their own accord. They refer to 'experts' and the FDA does it's own testing and reporting. So when it comes down to it, politics and money go hand in hand with your experts.

[calfoxwc]

another article woodpecker will ignore one way or another:

https://energycentral.com › c › cp › 500-climate-scientists-write-un-there-no-climate-emergency

500 Climate Scientists Write To UN: There Is No Climate Emergency

A group of 500 esteemed scientists and professionals in climate science have officially notified the United Nations that there is no climate crisis and that spending trillions on a non-problem is 'cruel and imprudent'. This letter will not make it into national or global media, nor will it cause the UN to change

**********************************************

   Interesting in the comments, by the author:

(will woodpecker be too cowardly to admit it?)

**********************************************

"

Noam Mayraz on Nov 18, 2019

Bob, from your statement above I am guessing that the is called 'Energy Central' is actually 'Energy Left'. 

how could CO2, which is heavier than air go to to the greenhouse and cause a climate change?

Stating that mankind energy, including CO2, Mathane and others exceeded the sun's equal gases is absurd in my mind, defining gravity and related natural occurrences.  Try googling "Red Berta Spills the Green Beans."

You guys have a leftist agenda. Shame on all y'all.
 

You do not understand power generation, renewable energy and/or the grid reliability and quality nor the climate.  Noam Mayraz, PE. "

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Like I have said for years - the whining about CO2 llevels  - but the UN and others NEVER TALK ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF MILLIONS OF ACRES of RAIN FORESTS.

Plants use CO2 as food. Therefore, wouldn't it be valid to stop the destruction of millions of acres of rain forests? 

But no, the reason they dramatically scream about mmgw is political, and redistribution of wealth.

THAT is why they don't give a damn about those millions and millions of rain forests being destroyed. Rising CO2 levels? STOP the destruction of those millions of rain forests. STOP paving every single area developers can find with asphalt etc.

*********************

you know, if "mmgw is a crisis" .....

***********************

• https://www.nationalgeographic.org › media › amazon-deforestation-and-climate-change

  Amazon Deforestation and Climate Change - National Geographic Society

  1 day agoDestruction of the rain forest in Brazil has decreased from about 19,943 square kilometers (7,700 square miles) per year in the late 1990s to about 5,180 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) per year now. Moving forward, the major challenge will be fighting illegal deforestation. Join Gisele Bundchen when she meets with one of Brazil's top ...
• https://www.nationalgeographic.com › environment › article › deforestation

  Why deforestation matters—and what we can do to stop it

  Dec 7, 2022As the world seeks to slow the pace of climate change, preserve wildlife, and support more than eight billion people, trees inevitably hold a major part of the answer.Yet the mass destruction of ...
• https://climate.mit.edu › explainers › forests-and-climate-change

  Forests and Climate Change | MIT Climate Portal

  Forests and Climate Change. Forests cover about 30% of the Earth's land surface. As forests grow, their trees take in carbon from the air and store it in wood, plant matter, and under the soil. If not for forests, much of this carbon would remain in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), the most important greenhouse gas ...
• https://www.unep.org › news-and-stories › story › heres-what-happens-if-world-loses-its-rainforests