Climate Change

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,535
Reaction score
6,140
Why woud Exxon not fund Heartland?

How is that any different to the funding being provided to 'Climate Activists'

Its basically fossil fuel companies vs the world at the moment on this topic.

The West control just about every media outlet to push their agenda. Why can't Heartland have a donor?
this hacky moron couldn't wait to post his together trial results in the covid thread, he didn't care that it was done by the gates foundation, he didn't care that the numbers didn't add up and the head of the trial has gone into hiding after being accused of fraud

now all of a sudden he knows about motives
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
4.5 billion years of history is irrelevant, even though its proven that the earth has been warming without human intervention?
Irrelevant because a snapshot of the last 22,000 years is relevant to see if climate change is having an effect. That's basic science. Adding an extra 4.5 billion years would only dilute the results and have no relevance to the topic unless there was human industry in at least part of those 4.5 billion years.

Basically put, time since the human revolution is the measurement. The other years are for reference.


5 degrees of anthropgenic warming it is clearly not.
Correct. It's 1 degree of anthropogenic warming, and 5 degrees over 22,000 years. But it's 1 degree in 100 years. Show anywhere in the chart that came close to that in that amount of time

'Its established fact.' 'Trust the experts.' Where have I heard this before?
Far right wing conspiracy blogs is my guess

Putin is more honest than any of the last 10 US presidents, let me tell you that.
Not surprised with that response

Which hiatus are you referring to, 1910-1945 or 1945-1975?
It was a response to your point. If you don't know what hiatus I'm talking about then you should read what you posted

After expecting a global mean surface temperature increase of 0.2 oC per decade in the early decades of the 21st century based on climate model simulations and statements in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report29, the rate of warming since 1998 is only 0.065 oC per decade (HadCRUT4 data set) or 0.1 oC per decade (new NOAA data set). 2. There have been large magnitude variations in global/hemispheric climate on timescales of 30 years, which are the same duration as the late 20th century warming. The IPCC does not have convincing explanations for previous 30 year periods in the 20th century, notably the warming 1910-1945 and the grand hiatus 1945-1975. 3. There is a secular warming trend at least since 1800 (and possibly as long as 400 years), that cannot be explained by CO2, and is only partly explained by volcanic eruptions.

Basically put, don't use 10 year old science in an attempt to disprove modern science.

The science is not 10 years old.
You say that but your copy pasta is from a senate hearing that references an IPCC report from 10 years ago. The more recent IPCC reports are publicly available if you want up to date measurements.

This is the usual climate denial trick. Post 10 year old stuff. I point out that stuff was proven wrong and you post it again. Just read the more recent reports including the rebuttles rather than pushing old science like science doesn't actually change based on new data

 

Aristidiz

Bullwog
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
3,036
Reaction score
2,570
Gods / Dieties are out

Globalist scientific fear mongering is in

How to control your poplulation 101
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
Why woud Exxon not fund Heartland?

How is that any different to the funding being provided to 'Climate Activists'

Its basically fossil fuel companies vs the world at the moment on this topic.

The West control just about every media outlet to push their agenda. Why can't Heartland have a donor?
The difference is that the other reports are funded by various sources and they provide data. Actual data. Not conjecture.

The report you provided is a think tank making guesses and cherry picking stuff. And as I pointed out, their primary source of funding literally discovered man-influenced climate change and held misinformation campaigns.

Ignoring the misinformation campaigns, they literally discovered man's influence on climate change. That alone destroys your argument.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
Gods / Dieties are out

Globalist scientific fear mongering is in

How to control your poplulation 101
Yes. I get it. Lizard people are controlling us all. Tinfoil stocks will sky rocket.
 

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,535
Reaction score
6,140
Fuken lol
fear mongering

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
1970s: Killer Bees!
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
1980: Peak Oil In 2000
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
1996: Peak Oil in 2020
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2002: Peak Oil in 2010
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
 

Aristidiz

Bullwog
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
3,036
Reaction score
2,570
Irrelevant because a snapshot of the last 22,000 years is relevant to see if climate change is having an effect. That's basic science. Adding an extra 4.5 billion years would only dilute the results and have no relevance to the topic unless there was human industry in at least part of those 4.5 billion years.

Basically put, time since the human revolution is the measurement. The other years are for reference.

Dilute the results? The climate has been changing for billions of years, why should we not look at these figures when trying to determine the extent of anthropogenic warming. Our sample size is so small, yet you are so convinced that Co2 emissions are that catastrohpic.


Correct. It's 1 degree of anthropogenic warming, and 5 degrees over 22,000 years. But it's 1 degree in 100 years. Show anywhere in the chart that came close to that in that amount of time

I can show you the data from the last 4.5 billion years if you'd like?

Far right wing conspiracy blogs is my guess

Hint: It rhymes with morona pirus

Not surprised with that response

Biden is an honest man, I mean look at him, so old, frail, and helpess, can't string words together, oh man, suddenly i feel sorry for the US that poor superpower.

It was a response to your point. If you don't know what hiatus I'm talking about then you should read what you posted

My point is that there has been more than one 'hiatus' as the IPCC puts it.

You say that but your copy pasta is from a senate hearing that references an IPCC report from 10 years ago. The more recent IPCC reports are publicly available if you want up to date measurements.

Yet it is still relevant information responding to an IPCC report that influenced governments legislation globally.

This is the usual climate denial trick. Post 10 year old stuff. I point out that stuff was proven wrong and you post it again. Just read the more recent reports including the rebuttles rather than pushing old science like science doesn't actually change based on new data

You do realise you have just linked a 5 year old paper below? What is the cutoff for quoting papers, is it 5 years or the last 2?

 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
It's very difficult to reply to you when you keep messing up the quote function. I fixed it last time 'cause I was on my computer. I'm now out on my phone and can't fix it without a lot of effort. So here's some brief responses.

1) if you don't understand why 4.5 billion years is irrelevant when measuring comparative data, then I can't help you. This is a basic statistical measurement process which should be immediately understandable

2) not sure why you're moving into the Covid conspiracies or Biden's dementia but, ok. If you mean in regards to Putin, we're taking about a guy who said that he wouldn't invade Ukraine while invading Ukraine. A guy who claimed they were carrying out a special operation to "denazify Ukraine". A guy who keeps saying that they didn't invade Ukraine even now

3) Hiatuses have been covered

4) the senate report was addressed and covered in recent IPCC reports and other reports. You're referencing old, redundant information

5) yes I am aware that the report I posted is 5 years old. It's a direct response to your reports and it's more recent. If you want to contest it, post something that contests it that's more recent. Or at least look at the more recent IPCC reports on whether the hiatus actually exists

 

Doogie

Kennel Lizard Lord
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
9,728
Reaction score
12,207
you praised china's efforts and clearly talked glowingly about wars and viruses solving the problem, regretted that we were able to reduce infant mortality

you should talk about how you wanted babies to continue to die
Not quite. So lets see what I really wrote...

Yeah - cutting of infant mortality in the early 1900's was the kicker. S'pose other diseases, wars etc. helped reduce the impacts. Agree Croydon, in theory the transition from 3rd world to 1st world apparently lowers birth rates. Problem is it hasn't really worked in parts of the world where religion or govt support is a big part of it (i.e. US, China and India). I believe the US is still running at around 2.1 kids per couple (but haven't looked at it for a while).
Have to absolutely laugh about CC. Its a nice little side effect of the elephant in the room - overpopulation. ok Hacky, you might hit me up again about the wrong thread (and I'm sorry to the dudes on this blog this applies to but I'm being honest), it's the idea (mainly from the religious fckers) that having 16 kids is ok. Cannot have kids, no worries, we'll sperm/egg you up so you have octoplets. Fckng Pissyteh the prem, 6 already and another on the way. Every environmental scientist knows this but also knows you may as well stick your cck in a vice bringing this up, it ain't ending well.

Fck, I'll give credit to China, they gave it a go but even they couldn't nail it. Humanity has no hope unless we get that shite under control. We're fckd coz apparently having kids is an arms race. I intend to fck off out of Sydney in the next few years and am thinking south coast or Tassie. Why? South coast as the kid may want to do Sydney shit and I might need to stay somewhere close to support his useless ass. Tassie coz I just like things that are shaped like Tassie....
Oh no - did Rodzy mispresent something for attention - again? Stand by every word. U got anymore spin u want to try?
 

Doogie

Kennel Lizard Lord
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
9,728
Reaction score
12,207
It's very difficult to reply to you when you keep messing up the quote function. I fixed it last time 'cause I was on my computer. I'm now out on my phone and can't fix it without a lot of effort. So here's some brief responses.

1) if you don't understand why 4.5 billion years is irrelevant when measuring comparative data, then I can't help you. This is a basic statistical measurement process which should be immediately understandable

2) not sure why you're moving into the Covid conspiracies or Biden's dementia but, ok. If you mean in regards to Putin, we're taking about a guy who said that he wouldn't invade Ukraine while invading Ukraine. A guy who claimed they were carrying out a special operation to "denazify Ukraine". A guy who keeps saying that they didn't invade Ukraine even now

3) Hiatuses have been covered

4) the senate report was addressed and covered in recent IPCC reports and other reports. You're referencing old, redundant information

5) yes I am aware that the report I posted is 5 years old. It's a direct response to your reports and it's more recent. If you want to contest it, post something that contests it that's more recent. Or at least look at the more recent IPCC reports on whether the hiatus actually exists

I can answer these...
1) because computers didn't exist 4.5 billion years ago
2) but he wrestles bears
3) not by me - need a holiday
4) yep agree - the senate is filled with the old and redundant
5) I'll contest it. Just what am i contesting....
Do I get the Rodzy prize?
 

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,535
Reaction score
6,140
Not quite. So lets see what I really wrote...




Oh no - did Rodzy mispresent something for attention - again? Stand by every word. U got anymore spin u want to try?
you regretted that they reduced infant mortality because it started this problem, talked about wars and disease helping, praised china for their population control efforts, absolutely i got it right, you even admitted that this is not a subject to be brought up because it doesn't end well, what on earth do you mean by that? lolol

what could possibly be the problem you have with bringing this subject up, what is so controversial? hmmm? well explain that part to the kennel and don't act like you have nothing to hide
 

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,535
Reaction score
6,140
it has to be a massive controversy because its like having your genitals in a vice grip to talk about it, to me that is excruciating pain

what could be so painful for Doogie and environmental scientists to talk about?, please share why this is, its not that you simply think the world is overpopulated, that is easy to talk about, this has to be deeper ffs
 

Doogie

Kennel Lizard Lord
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
9,728
Reaction score
12,207
you praised china's efforts and clearly talked glowingly about wars and viruses solving the problem, regretted that we were able to reduce infant mortality

you should talk about how you wanted babies to continue to die
you regretted that they reduced infant mortality because it started this problem, talked about wars and disease helping, praised china for their population control efforts, absolutely i got it right, you even admitted that this is not a subject to be brought up because it doesn't end well, what on earth do you mean by that? lolol

what could possibly be the problem you have with bringing this subject up, what is so controversial? hmmm? well explain that part to the kennel and don't act like you have nothing to hide
Changing the story Rodzy and still not getting it right. The modus operandi....

And what exactly do I have to hide? Thought my views were pretty clear, posted for all to see and reposted again in case someone missed it.

And each and everyone of those views is middle of the road amongst population scientists. And I fully agree. I supported china's one child policy. If you agree that infant mortality governed population (a well supported theory), then the kick in population growth started after we got improved medical care (diseases) and stopped nuking each other (wars). Again a mainstream view.

This subject is 22 pages old - you seriously need a life buddy.
 

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,535
Reaction score
6,140
Changing the story Rodzy and still not getting it right. The modus operandi....

And what exactly do I have to hide? Thought my views were pretty clear, posted for all to see and reposted again in case someone missed it.

And each and everyone of those views is middle of the road amongst population scientists. And I fully agree. I supported china's one child policy. If you agree that infant mortality governed population (a well supported theory), then the kick in population growth started after we got improved medical care (diseases) and stopped nuking each other (wars). Again a mainstream view.

This subject is 22 pages old - you seriously need a life buddy.
i want to know what is so painful to talk about for you and environmental scientists, you described that situation "Every environmental scientist knows this but also knows you may as well stick your cck in a vice bringing this up, it ain't ending well"

what is not going to end well and that you might as well stick your cock in a vice?, if your argument is so middle of the road then why are you just describing something on the level of admitting that you are a pedo or enjoy stabbing kittens?
 

Doogie

Kennel Lizard Lord
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
9,728
Reaction score
12,207
i want to know what is so painful to talk about for you and environmental scientists, you described that situation "Every environmental scientist knows this but also knows you may as well stick your cck in a vice bringing this up, it ain't ending well"

what is not going to end well and that you might as well stick your cock in a vice?, if your argument is so middle of the road then why are you just describing something on the level of admitting that you are a pedo or enjoy stabbing kittens?
Population control. Said it 6 times and u still didn't see it. Guess u don't have to be that clever to cut and paste.
 

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,535
Reaction score
6,140
Population control. Said it 6 times and u still didn't see it. Guess u don't have to be that clever to cut and paste.
why is population control so painful, you described it as something so lowkey and middle of the road just 1 post above, now that is the reason you can't even talk about it

talk about why you can't talk about it

so there is mention of something that is unspeakable while you paint a picture that overpopulation is such an emergency that any means is necessary to stop it

thats definitely some psycho shit you are hiding, like you think they should put 4 billion people onto a continent and nuke it or they should create a virus that kills people and the vaccine kills off your fertility

those things are unspeakable and are consistent with your messaging
 

Rodzilla

Terry Lamb 1996
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
42,535
Reaction score
6,140
btw this conversation doesn't always end badly for the scientists, if you propose to create a virus that wipes out indonesia human population you can still get the Australian of the Year award
 
Top