News
news China's Chilling 'Social Credit System' Is Straight Out of Dystopian Sci-Fi
news UFO 'death ray' made Korean War GIs sick
news The Haunted States of America
news When the Supernatural Feeds on Us
news Russian space agency says space station hole was deliberate sabotage
news Biblical end of days prophecy COMES TRUE as fish swim again in Dead Sea
news 1950s Science Kit Had Real Uranium
news We're Probably Living in a Simulation, Elon Musk Says
news It’s Now Possible To Telepathically Communicate with a Drone Swarm
news New material to 'speed spacecraft to 134,000,000 mph'
news The future of food: what we’ll eat in 2028


Username:
Password: or Register
 
Thread Rating:
  • 14 Vote(s) - 2.71 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
MAGNETO
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 06:31 AM

 



Post: #61
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Advertisement
Please, never quote Neil degrasse again.

He's literally the least qualified scientist ever. In the realm of Bill Nye. He's black and charismatic, that's it. He has no accomplishments.
Quote this message in a reply
MAGNETO
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 06:39 AM

 



Post: #62
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
A great example that is analogous to global warming is our failing schools:
1) since the 60's, we've exponentially stolen wealth from Americans and given it to the schools
2) every year as more money is given to schools, our students perform worse
3) no KPI (key performance metric) exists that correlates more money = smarter students
4) left's solution to failing schools? MORE TAXES MORE MONEY

As a conservative and free-thinker, I researched myself. Schools that are over 85% "white" are getting better - and of these, 90% receive NO federal money. Schools are getting worse because the number of blacks and Hispanics per school are increasing. The problem is that these families have no fathers and their cultures do not value an education.

See? Global warming may be real. Either way, I'd love a cleaner earth. But to think that harming minorities, raising taxes, and raising food prices is the solution is insane.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 07:09 AM

 



Post: #63
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-07-2018 11:56 PM)
LoP Guest  Wrote: (01-07-2018 05:48 AM)
Reality refuses to follow the climate models - debate over.

Hifuck

your view of reality from inside your own arsehole really doesn't account for much..

chuckle

did you see the models for the current east coast storm?
I was posting them nearly a week before it hit.. it's all well and good to popularize this 'I am total anti-science dumbfuck and proud' rebellion against reality but it has it's consequences.. like sailing a huge ocean liner with 4k people on board into a raging climate change induced maelstrom that was clearly due to happen.

A weather prediction? I thought we talking about climate?

There's a huge list of failed climate predictions...

Here's a start.

Feel free to add your own.

There's no debate climate alarmists got it wrong.

Popcorn
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-08-2018 07:22 AM

Posts: 13,626



Post: #64
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Quote:“For lawmakers to not heed the advice of esteemed scientists on matters of science, in this the 21st century, signals the beginning of the end of an informed democracy.”

MAGNETO  Wrote: (01-08-2018 06:31 AM)
Please, never quote Neil degrasse again.

He's literally the least qualified scientist ever. In the realm of Bill Nye. He's black and charismatic, that's it. He has no accomplishments.

what irks you about that statement ?
who are you to be able to inform people what scientists are credible or not?




[Image: v4kC2MC.jpg]
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2018 07:23 AM by spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ.) Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-10-2018 04:47 PM

Posts: 13,626



Post: #65
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
The 'imminent mini ice age' myth is back, and it's still wrong

We can’t accurately predict solar activity, and a quiet solar cycle would have a small impact on Earth’s climate anyway

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/...till-wrong

Frost fairs, sunspots and the Little Ice Age

https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/articl...17/3074082

The Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age: an update from recent reconstructions and climate simulations


https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/sw...70014.html







[Image: DTLAn5tXcAAmCeA.jpg]
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-10-2018 05:21 PM

Posts: 13,626



Post: #66
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Assessing the U.S. Climate in 2017
2017 was the third warmest year on record for the United States

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/national-climate-201712
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-11-2018 02:18 AM

Posts: 13,626



Post: #67
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
[Image: DTK8U7VWsAMPWIp.jpg]
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-11-2018 02:43 PM

Posts: 13,626



Post: #68
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Quote: In the era of fake news, it’s more important than ever to communicate the truth about what’s happening to our planet. But what happens when you present scientific facts to the people in your life who don’t understand the urgency of the crisis, and their beliefs become more deeply rooted?

Many of us experience conversations like this time and time again. You might even wonder, if more than 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by humans, why is there a divide among Americans?

The answer may be partly because of two psychological concepts: confirmation bias and the backfire effect. In this blog post, we explore what these two phenomena tell us about why some people reject the scientific truth behind the climate crisis – and what you can do to help bridge the gap.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias can tell us a lot about human behavior and reasoning. Put simply, confirmation bias is when we look for or accept information that’s in line with our existing beliefs and reject information that contradicts them.

This concept has been researched extensively, and one of the most famous studies was by researchers at Stanford University in 1979. In the study, there were two groups of participants: one group that supported the death penalty and a second group that opposed it. Researchers showed each group two made-up studies and their results. The first study’s results confirmed participants’ existing beliefs about the effectiveness of the death penalty to reduce crime, and the second study’s results opposed them. Then, the researchers asked the participants to rate how convincing each study’s results were.

The researchers found that how likely the participants were to accept the study’s findings or search for weaknesses depended mostly on whether the results were in line with their existing beliefs. In other words, participants were more likely to believe the results that were more similar to their existing beliefs, and vice versa.

The good news is there may be a silver lining. In a follow-up study, the same researchers found a strategy to counter confirmation biases, and it involves asking people to thoughtfully consider not what they believe but how they came to believe it. Researchers asked subjects to ask themselves if they would hold the same beliefs if the evidence they relied on produced exactly the opposite results. What they saw was that subjects in this “consider the opposite” study were able to overcome their biases and openly consider other points of view.

So when discussing climate change with the people in your life who don’t understand its urgency, ask them to think about why they believe the planet isn’t warming and why we don’t need to act. Ask them to imagine that the evidence said exactly the opposite and ask how they would feel.

They may not change their minds then and there, but chances are you’ll open their minds and encourage them to think about the issue in a way you couldn’t if you simply repeated the facts themselves. Which brings us to the second factor.

The second psychological concept that could be at play when people reject the scientific consensus on climate change is what’s known as “the backfire effect.” This term was famously coined in 2010 when researchers at Dartmouth College conducted four experiments investigating if presenting facts is effective to change people’s beliefs.

In one of the experiments, researchers showed participants a mock news article that falsely stated there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Researchers then showed the participants a second article that corrected the misconception and confirmed that weapons of mass destruction had not been found. Then, participants stated if they agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The results were surprising, and had an unexpected twist. The participants who opposed the war and believed Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction believed the second article, while participants who supported the war were convinced by the mock article. But there’s more: the participants who supported the war were more convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction after they saw the article correcting the mock article.


more:
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/bl...you-can-do
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2018 02:44 PM by spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ.) Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-12-2018 09:43 AM

Posts: 13,626



Post: #69
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
[Image: DTS9Sd6V4AAB9pt.jpg]

7 Years Before Russia Hacked the Election, Someone Did the Same Thing to Climate Scientists


“Why does this story sound so darned familiar?”





Quote:Seven years earlier, Trump was riffing on a very different set of hacked emails. The real estate mogul had called into Fox News after a blizzard to declare that climate change was a hoax. Trump claimed that “one of the leaders of global warming” had recently admitted in a private email that years of scientific research were nothing but “a con.”

Trump was referring to the 2009 Climategate scandal, in which emails from climate scientists were hacked and disseminated across the internet. Climate change deniers claimed the messages showed scientists engaging in misconduct and fabricating a warming pattern that didn’t really exist. Multiple investigations ultimately exonerated the researchers, but not before a media firestorm undercut public confidence in the science—just as world leaders were meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, to attempt to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.

In hindsight, the Climategate hack, clearly timed to disrupt the Copenhagen negotiations, looks like a precursor to the hack that helped shape the outcome of the 2016 election. That’s how John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman whose stolen emails were posted on WikiLeaks in the final weeks of the campaign, sees it. The parallels go beyond the hacks themselves. “I think it was the intentionality of influencing the public debate,” he says.

[Image: 431-20171130_climatestats_630.png]

[Image: NtJBweH.gif]

©®℮å†E
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-13-2018 03:56 PM

Posts: 13,626



Post: #70
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
[Image: DTYXgmSUQAANY-J.jpg]
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-14-2018 11:37 AM

Posts: 13,626



Post: #71
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
Sheldon Walker and the non-existent “pause”
Posted on January 13, 2018 | 5 Comments

Sheldon Walker seems to be desperate — desperate to believe that global warming exhibited a “slowdown” recently. His latest attempt to prop up his faulty belief is a new post at WUWT titled “Proof that the recent global warming slowdown is statistically significant (at the 99% confidence level)“. He mainly demonstrates that he has a lot to learn about statistics, but isn’t learning and doesn’t know how inadequate is his own knowledge.


His latest attempt amounts to this: estimate the warming rate of global temperature (data from NASA) over 10-year periods (actually, 10 years and 1 month but that’s not really important in this case). Test whether the 10-year+ rate is different from the average rate over the period from January 1970 through January 2017 (0.01782 deg.C/yr). He performs his tests at the 99% confidence level (p-value 0.01) rather than the more customary 95% confidence level (p-value 0.05) in order to have greater confidence in the results. All analyses are performed with Microsoft Excel.

Then he graphs the results, with periods showing significantly faster-than-average warming as red dots and periods showing significantly slower-than-average warming in blue, with periods for which the 10+ year rate is not statistically different from average in gray. And here’s his plot:

more:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/...ent-pause/
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-14-2018 11:42 AM

 



Post: #72
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
So what happens if you take the north American cooling which is 50 degrees below average in some places and spread it among the rest of of the northern hemisphere?

I bet it averages out actually.
Quote this message in a reply
Fire of Prometheus
Registered User
User ID: 1337
01-14-2018 12:39 PM

Posts: 253



Post: #73
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-13-2018 03:56 PM)
[Image: DTYXgmSUQAANY-J.jpg]

That would be awesome a lawsuit against big oil for causing global warming.
Shortly after a win a lawsuit would be filed against the U.S. government and the EPA for causing global warming by restricting high efficiency systems for the sake of low NOX emissions.
This suit would look really good as all of the global warming charts point to 1970 as the turning point for global warming and coincides not coincidentally with the creation of the EPA.
Of course the creation of the EPA itself was an illegal creation of a government branch through executive order by Nixon.
The order slipped by appearing to be a simple reorganization of US fish and wildlife.
Of course it defunded them causing a collapse of resources leading to 50% reduction in freshwater habitat through failing dams.
The EPA mandates special oil company equipment be equipped on all vehicles and this requires special formulations of fuel and made it impossible to use high zinc oils.
If you do not know about motor vehicles high zinc oils reduce fuel consumption by 5-10% and increase horsepower by 5-10%
Those oils cannot be used in vehicles equipped with catalytic converters because it will clog.
If we rate it at the low end that is 5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions possible with no other changes and ignoring the fuel efficiency lost by using catalytic converters and the associated air pumps etc.
A 5% reduction over the past 43 years would be 194252500000 gallons of fuel not burned.
194252 million gallons with each gallon producing 20 pounds of CO2..
3885050 pounds of CO2 that did not have to enter the air.
If you add to that the capability to reduce carbon emissions by 25-50% with true lean burning systems the time we lost reducing carbon emissions to the EPA is staggering.
It is compounded by the operation of the catalytic converter itself whose purpose is to reduce NOX emissions and convert everything it can into "harmless" CO2.
But wit there is more, the smog producing NOX requires sunlight to produce the dreaded smog, and guess what that means..
When smog is produced it is an endothermic chemical reaction, endothermic means it absorbs heat and converts it into a chemical bond.
Yes you read all that right, the EPA increases global warming emissions(specifically CO2) intentionally and the tech they require everyone to use not only produces more global warming emissions and removes the capability to use products proven to reduce carbon emissions but it cuts global cooling emissions on purpose.
The EPA even made a press release in the 90s about how beyond all of this the fight against NOX and using converters actually creates more nitrous oxide a greenhouse gas even more powerful than CO2.
The politicians in the 70s tried to overturn the Clean Air act and stop the EPA, but the oil conglomerate OPEC responded with a manufactured shortage, forcing the politicians to accept the EPA and mandates for special oil company patented converters that require special gasoline processed by other special oil company gear to allow a higher markup on oil and an ever increasing demand for motor fuel while controlling who enters the market to produce fuel.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 1337
01-14-2018 12:44 PM

 



Post: #74
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-08-2018 07:22 AM)
Quote:“For lawmakers to not heed the advice of esteemed scientists on matters of science, in this the 21st century, signals the beginning of the end of an informed democracy.”

MAGNETO  Wrote: (01-08-2018 06:31 AM)
Please, never quote Neil degrasse again.

He's literally the least qualified scientist ever. In the realm of Bill Nye. He's black and charismatic, that's it. He has no accomplishments.

what irks you about that statement ?
who are you to be able to inform people what scientists are credible or not?




link to image: http://i.imgur.com/v4kC2MC.jpg

Re: your silly grav - style meme.

I thought you said there was no such thing as race?

facepalm
Quote this message in a reply
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ
☇☇Vocem sine nomine audivit!☇☇
User ID: 1337
01-14-2018 01:19 PM

Posts: 13,626



Post: #75
RE: AGW forced climate change is not up for debate.
LoP Guest  Wrote: (01-14-2018 12:44 PM)
spɹɐʍoɔ snoɯʎuouɐ  Wrote: (01-08-2018 07:22 AM)
what irks you about that statement ?
who are you to be able to inform people what scientists are credible or not?




link to image: http://i.imgur.com/v4kC2MC.jpg

Re: your silly grav - style meme.

I thought you said there was no such thing as race?

facepalm

the isn't.. no races but the one human race

never said there wasn't a social construct that has always been designed to influence public cultural opinion and tolerance.. racial profiling and racial designations used by authorities are tools they used to attach names to ethnicity.. biologically and anthropologically there are no multiple human races

[Image: NtJBweH.gif]

©®℮å†E
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement









Contact UsConspiracy Forum. No reg. required! Return to TopReturn to ContentRSS Syndication