Climate Change is indeed a "religion" with the left.
Having cast God aside, the left embraces "science" as their religion and "scientists" as their priests.
They even call their climate dogma "settled science", as the final, immutable, word of their "God" as revealed to them by their "scientist" priests and they call those that don't agree with their climate dogma: "deniers" in the same way other religions label heretics and blasphemers.
The oddest and most incongruent part of this "religion of science" is that the same adherents also claim that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man........"it's settled science"
Huh? How DARE you ruin my 2nd childhood ..........
I'd bet those cargo ships that bring all the imported crap around the world, puts more in the air than cows. I'm not a greenie, but I'd love to see the data on the total gallons/liters of fuel used to power those cargo ships in a year in total. just so you can by the cheapest crap.
Religion and climatards have one thing in common. They are both too stupid to shut up and go away when told "no". Just can't seem to differentiate between a debate and an enforcement/removal action.
Having cast God aside, the left embraces "science" as their religion and "scientists" as their priests.
Yeah... not really.. Not even a little... Radical leftists are all about the science when it comes to climate change.. Get into Gender, and other topics, and they ignore and crap all over science.. So like radicals from any political group, they're just basically dumb, and full of crap, just saying whatever they need to in order to push whatever agenda..
As for those who "abandon god".. Could care less.. While i respect peoples desire to join and practice a religion for whatever reason, that's fine, and i even understand it.. Many generations of brain washing, will , of course, take many generations to fade out..
[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 10-12-2019).]
I am here to say that the warning of that image has not been debunked or disproven, not even by the fact that we are not already living in "Water World."
The wording is "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels(,) if the global warming trend is not reversed by Year 2000."
I suspect there is a tendency for many to read that as if it said "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by Year 2000, if the global warming trend is not reversed."
Two sentences that when read carefully, are not interchangeable in meaning.
The Global Warming that is a consequence of elevated concentrations of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere does not track in real-time with the various concentrations of GHGs in Parts Per Million. There is a delayed effect. The planet is already well into Global Warming, but the full effect, in terms of Climate Change, which involves temperature patterns, sea levels, what areas around the world will be inundated by ocean or flooded by nearly constant rain, what other areas will become (increasingly) arid... it's going to be several hundred to a thousand or more years into the future (counting from today) of elevated GHGs in the atmosphere before the full on effect is--in effect.
So, it's a delayed effect. It's called "Hysteresis." The additional heat from Solar Radiation or "Radiative Forcing" builds up, year after year. It doesn't happen all at once. It's like piling up sugar in a bowl, one sugar cube at a time. Each year (on average) starts from a higher baseline, in terms of temperature, than the previous year.
Most of the heat goes into warming the oceans at a deeper level than the surface, and that takes several hundred years before all that heat comes fully to the surface and adds all of its warmth to the atmosphere.
The Hysteresis works in the other direction. Even if GHG levels in the atmosphere were to level off and then start to decline--because of the Green Revolution --temperatures around the world wouldn't start dropping immediately. The cooling down would not happen in step with decreasing GHG levels in the atmosphere. It would lag behind, at least by decades, if not by the same hundreds of years of lag time that are expected in the other (Global Warming) scenarios.
So you go back to the words on that warning poster and there's another kind of Hysteresis. The human kind. If President Trump went "All In With Green" tomorrow morning and started big new initiatives with federal backing and funding, all with the purpose of sharply reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions, it would take years to see the first solid returns, and decades to get it all working fully up to speed. That takes you (should take you) right back to the words on that warning poster that say "If the global warming trend is not reversed by Year 2000." So, 2000, or (soon to be) 2020. Considering the scale of the delayed effects that in play here, both in terms of the physics of it (the physics, and chemistry, and even the biology of the warming effect) and the human engineering and societal aspects of it... the warning poster is not much out of whack with reality. Not at all.
I am not going to pretend that I understand all this at a deep or comprehensive (scientific) level, and I am not going to say that there are not, among the climate scientists and researchers, some dissenting beliefs and predictions. I've "marinated" myself in much of the mainstream media coverage about it, including the Science sections, as well as the News and Politics sections. I've followed links to more than just a few different specialty publications, like the various U.N. and World Meteorological Organization reports, and some of the research reports in scientific journals.
"I am not going to say ..."
Those were Carter Page-isms.Click to show
How many decisions (of all kinds) are made on the basis of 100 percent certainty about the outcomes? Where do you want to "put your money"..?
I have a "rooting interest" in favor of a national and international posture that is (or would be) proactive, in terms of reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions. It's easy to see how it opens up space for misleading schemes and schemers, and "crash" programs that only end up crashing because they were implemented too quickly and without first acquiring enough know how. All that. But I think the right balance is on the other side of that. That quite a bit more can and needs to be accepted and put into effect, without much delay, in the way of lowering the GHG emissions.
I would say that Obama was fairly level-headed about the process that went on before he signed up for the Paris Climate Accord. I think he wanted to, and was mostly successful, as far as getting the wording of the agreements hammered out in such a way that it did not read on paper as a Get Rich Quick scheme (or scam) that would have less prosperous nations just sucking wealth away from the U.S., instead of the "real deal" in terms of capping and reducing the GHG emissions. A ton of CO2 emissions eliminated from the power grid supply of Mozambique (just an example) is just as good as a ton of it, eliminated, in Arkansas.
I don't give a flyin' f*ck about Greta Thunberg.
Just some thoughts. That's about as much as I want to toss on the bonfire here, in a single "play period."
"Have A Green One."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-07-2019).]
Wow, two and a half years after that article was written, the Soviet Union was wiped from the face of the earth. I am so sorry. I am donating all of my worldly goods to Al Gore first thing Monday morning.
I have come to understand that anything that I see on TV or the Internet which does not have an advertisement above, below, beside or before it IS an advertisement. Everybody is selling something.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 12-11-2019).]
Does that YouTube video reference "Peterson et al" from the Bulletin of the AMS (2008), who reviewed the scientific literature about climate research from the 1970s?
quote
Bulletin of the [American Meteorological Society] AMS, September 2008: An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales.
Peterson et al, Bulletin of the AMS, 2008 The survey of the peer-reviewed literature between 1965 and 1979 found only seven papers “indicating” global cooling compared with 44 papers indicating warming (see chart).
The researchers pointed to a 1979 report from the National Research Council, part of the National Academies, that warned about the dangers of continuing to emit carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels and associated warming. “A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late,” the report noted. The Bulletin of the AMS paper concluded: “Clearly, if a national report in the 1970s advocates urgent action to address global warming, then the scientific consensus of the 1970s was not global cooling.”
My 1975 "Cooling World" Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong Science journalist Peter Gwynne looks back at his own 1975 article in Newsweek from today's perspective (2014) Peter Gwynne, contributor; Inside Science; May 21, 2014.
quote
It's time for deniers of human-caused global warming to stop using an old magazine story against climate scientists.
THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS Peterson et al; Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society; September 2008. Full text in PDF format https://journals.ametsoc.or....1175/2008BAMS2370.1
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-12-2019).]
My 1975 "Cooling World" Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong
Just as a reminder Ronald, you're the same California mental patient that is compulsively worried about the Yellowstone caldera, "peak sand", banana crops, asteroids......
and shade balls
Ronald you are not only most always WRONG, you are as wrong as wrong can be.
By the way, your compulsive capitalization of random words or words of entire sentences is additional evidence of your deteriorating mentally ill state.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-12-2019).]
I have a "rooting interest" in favor of a national and international posture that is (or would be) proactive, in terms of reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions. It's easy to see how it opens up space for misleading schemes and schemers, and "crash" programs that only end up crashing because they were implemented too quickly and without first acquiring enough know how. All that. But I think the right balance is on the other side of that. That quite a bit more can and needs to be accepted and put into effect, without much delay, in the way of lowering the GHG emissions.
That is what I said, previously, in this discussion.
If your screen name is "randye", Go Straight To GFY, but otherwise, feel free to weigh in about whether my message(s) about Global Warming come across as "fear stricken" or "abnormally worried" or "overly concerned" or "paranoid" or "indicative of a diagnosable psychiatric disorder" or ... whatever that Posting Guidelines Non-Compliant moron was just trying to describe.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-12-2019).]
That is what I said, previously, in this discussion.
If your screen name is "randye", Go Straight To GFY, but otherwise, feel free to weigh in about whether my message(s) about Global Warming come across as "fear stricken" or "abnormally worried" or "overly concerned" or "paranoid" or "indicative of a diagnosable psychiatric disorder" or ... whatever that Posting Guidelines Non-Compliant moron was just trying to describe.
What the hell is it with your compulsive, psychotic, capitalization of random words in sentences?
It's bad enough that you post mentally ill gibberish, but the bizarre letter choice is really over the top.
You have very serious psychiatric issues Ronald......GET HELP
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-13-2019).]
You have been hoodwinked by the media and funding seeking scientists, as they work tirelessly to redistribute wealth from richer nations to poorer nations.
Jim Kelly: Well, the classic definition of TIME's Person of the Year is the person who most affected the events of the year, for better or for worse. I think what has happened over the years is that the Man of the Year title, Person of the Year title, has become non-honorific. It was never meant to be solely that.
I'm still trying to figure out how Greta got picked.
You guys know she's a kid, right? Ya' know, idealistic, impetuous, unlearned?
And we're...grown-ups, right? I mean, you sound angry...
Maybe be a little more philosophical about it. After all, climate change wasn't an issue when we were sacrificing virgins to The Sun God...
Relax.
Saying she has accomplished nothing is somehow a display of anger? I am personally happy that she has not accomplished anything. Her goals, just as those of Ocasio de Cortez, are destructive. The environmental movement is nothing more than an asault on capitalism. It is largely dishonest.
How does this compare to the intense and relentless attacks against Nick Sandmann from all leftist fronts at the beginning of the year? His sin was wearing a hat in support of our nation.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 12-13-2019).]
You guys know she's a kid, right? Ya' know, idealistic, impetuous, unlearned?
And we're...grown-ups, right? I mean, you sound angry...
Maybe be a little more philosophical about it. After all, climate change wasn't an issue when we were sacrificing virgins to The Sun God...
Relax.
Unfortunately we know what typically happens to child actors.
Children getting exploited all the time, she isn't any different.
It's ok to be passionate and idealistic, but if you want to sling arrows to the rest of humanity because most don't subscribe to the white European Swedish centric vision of climate utopia, then being idealistic and angry, you have to expect and accept the arrows that come back at you.
She basically getting Cindy Sheehaned in for political purposes and that is more devastating to her future than any climate change she will ever experience in her lifetime.
She has been injected with the drug of fame, and as a child, like all children, it wasn't her choice.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 12-14-2019).]
And we're...grown-ups, right? I mean, you sound angry...
Can't speak for anyone else but, please don't confuse my reaction with being angry. Regardless of who was selected was not going to change anything in my life. I had no control or say in who was selected. My confusion is that I don't believe Greta had a role in making anything better or worse for the year (their standard), Therefore, really didn't even qualify to be considered. It appears to me that the Liberal minds that run Time magazine are just trying to push an agenda. What they think does not effect my own thoughts or position.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-14-2019).]
Originally posted by Boondawg: You guys know she's a kid, right? Ya' know, idealistic, impetuous, unlearned?
And we're...grown-ups, right? I mean, you sound angry...
Maybe be a little more philosophical about it. After all, climate change wasn't an issue when we were sacrificing virgins to The Sun God...
Relax.
You do know that the children of radical islamic terrorists are kids, no ? That the Hitler youth were kids ?
You don't sound grown up. Yet, you always claim to 'watch the world around you'. Have the polar ice caps disappeared ? Are the vast lands predicted to be underwater all over the world flooded ? Have NYC and Miami become inhabitable ? New Orleans was built on land below sea level. Newsflash ! It is still there, above water.
So now, the fear mongering is "climate change". More storms, worse storms, decimated crops, et 'al.
Man Made Global Warming is only an issue because some men coined the term and made it an issue.
Originally posted by blackrams: It appears to me that the Liberal minds that run Time magazine are just trying to push an agenda. What they think does not effect my own thoughts or position.
Those same liberal minds are chastising the First Lady because she didn't publicly speak out against her husband for his opinion of Gretta as she did when her son Barron was disparaged during the impeachment Judiciary hearings. Barron did not take a public stance neither was he manipulated into doing so.
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
--temperatures around the world wouldn't start dropping immediately. The cooling down would not happen in step with decreasing GHG levels in the atmosphere. It would lag behind, at least by decades, if not by the same hundreds of years of lag time that are expected in the other (Global Warming) scenarios.
