Blondie Massage Spa

ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,063
6,588
113
In case you too fucking stupid to understand why I post this! I will explain you in a simple term.. Your top journal " Nature " is flaw! All scientific journal are flaw ..they can be distort science by the financial incentive offer by the top journal !...
So the suggesting goes back to climate change being a conspiracy theory?

Of course all things have flaws but science will continue to go with the best supported theory (unless you have a theory that better explains the changing climate). Simply put, there is a reason why the vast majority of the scientific community supports humans and human driven CO2 as a major factor in the current climactic changes.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,063
6,588
113
Sea levels rise,...always have,...always will.

Sea levels were rising in the 1800's.

Science doesn't know at what rate sea levels rose for ANY worth while period of time,...so looking at the last 100 + years,...is absolutely useless.
People have always died so no reason to stop smoking crack....

About as sensible an argument.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
So the suggesting goes back to climate change being a conspiracy theory?

Of course all things have flaws but science will continue to go with the best supported theory (unless you have a theory that better explains the changing climate). Simply put, there is a reason why the vast majority of the scientific community supports humans and human driven CO2 as a major factor in the current climactic changes.

Scientists have been wrong before on CO2 driving the climate..We had the same crap by the same climate scientists screaming this nonsense in the mid-70's.

Here's a Newsweek article from April 1975: http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Similar nonsense appeared in the New York Times and other mainstream publications. In the mid-'70s, climate researchers were looking at the same data and concluded we are headed towards another ice age.


https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5329019&highlight=#post5329019

All I am saying that scientist have been wrong before! There another theory I believe that drive the climate which is the SUN not CO2. The sun is the most powderful force in our solar system . I firmly believe in Sysenmark's theory..not the gobal warming crap ( created by the Al Gore and the leftie scientists & lefite (snow flake) & the environmentalist) that got rebranded as climate change in order to sell it to the public!

ERN, the most prestigious scientific organization on this planet, has confirm Svensmark's theory that changing solar activity, impacts cloud formation, and this has impact on the climate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery
YOUTUBE.COM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ


Absolutely brilliant, ground-breaking research worthy of a Nobel Prize.
This proof to be what drive climate ..it not co2 and it the SUN that affect the cosmic rays that impacts the clouds formations!
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
So the suggesting goes back to climate change being a conspiracy theory?

Of course all things have flaws but science will continue to go with the best supported theory (unless you have a theory that better explains the changing climate). Simply put, there is a reason why the vast majority of the scientific community supports humans and human driven CO2 as a major factor in the current climactic changes.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5329019&highlight=#post5329019






http://s6.postimg.org/enk3sxddd/time_pic_good.png

It's an old story. It wasn't that long ago that the same sort of people who currently tell us that we are on the verge of worldwide destruction due to "global-warming", were proclaiming that we were on the verge of worldwide destruction due to "global-cooling" and over-population. If you are old enough, you might remember some of these memorable quotes:

"After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder."
[New York Times, Jan. 30, 1961] ".. civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind"

[George Wald, Biologist, Harvard University, April 10, 1970] Due to increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor: "the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born"

[Newsweek Magazine, January 26, 1970] By 1995: "..somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

[Senator Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look Magazine, April, 1970] The world will be: "11 degrees colder in the year 2000 (this is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age)"

[Kenneth Watt, Ecologist, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970] "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation"

[Barry Commoner, Biologist at University of Washington, The journal Environment, January, 1970]"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make"

[Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April, 1970]"air pollution ... is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone"

[Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April, 1970]"By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half ..."

[Life magazine, January, 1970]"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation"

[Denis Hayes, Earth Day organizer, The Living Wilderness, Spring, 1970]"By the year 2000 ... the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine"

[Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring, 1970]"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people..." "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."


[Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September, 1971] "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000."

[Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972] "An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere."

[New York Times, Jan. 5, 1978] "The Cooling World: There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it... Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states. ... The central fact is that ... the earth's climate seems to be cooling down." [emphasis added]

[Newsweek, April 28, 1985]
"New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now." [i.e., by 2004]

[St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 17, 1989] "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots ... [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers."

[Michael Oppenheimer, from his book "Dead Heat," 1990]
Whoops again! With over forty years to see these predictions realized, there was no worldwide famine. No end to civilization. No ice age. No mass species extinction. No American dust bowl. Britain is still intact. The North Pole still has a 3.82 million square mile ice mass. If New York sucks, its not due to its mimicing Florida. And there is still enough sunlight to require SPF 45. Yet, I don't remember getting an apology from any of these people, their sponsoring universities, or a retraction published in any of the major magazines.

And despite their utter failure at accurate predictions, every one of these purveyors of doom was being funded from the same government trough, and consequently, demanding exactly the same "solution" as is being proposed today: complete regulation over the behavior of every individual and businesses by government overseerers. If the true goal of these policies was human salvation, then the lessons of history and the Climategate facts should give one pause. But if the actual goal is gaining control as a means to increased power, then ignoring all these bothersome facts, as is being done, begins to make a perverted sort of sense.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Total bullshit. You think Nature is a credible journal for climate science? The same journal that published Mann's hockey stick fraud and passed it off as peer reviewed.
Yes I think Nature's the most credible journal there is, and so does anybody else who knows anything.

Your problem is you dislike fact so you try and discredit the truth.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Scientists have been wrong before on CO2 driving the climate..We had the same crap by the same climate scientists screaming this nonsense in the mid-70's.

Here's a Newsweek article from April 1975: http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Similar nonsense appeared in the New York Times and other mainstream publications. In the mid-'70s, climate researchers were looking at the same data and concluded we are headed towards another ice age.


https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ng-Scientist&p=5329019&highlight=#post5329019

All I am saying that scientist have been wrong before! There another theory I believe that drive the climate which is the SUN not CO2. The sun is the most powderful force in our solar system . I firmly believe in Sysenmark's theory..not the gobal warming crap ( created by the Al Gore and the leftie scientists & lefite (snow flake) & the environmentalist) that got rebranded as climate change in order to sell it to the public!

ERN, the most prestigious scientific organization on this planet, has confirm Svensmark's theory that changing solar activity, impacts cloud formation, and this has impact on the climate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery
YOUTUBE.COM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ


Absolutely brilliant, ground-breaking research worthy of a Nobel Prize.
This proof to be what drive climate ..it not co2 and it the SUN that affect the cosmic rays that impacts the clouds formations!
Still waiting for you to back this up with a credible source.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
People have always died so no reason to stop smoking crack....

About as sensible an argument.
Come on basketcase,...you are better than that,...

My post about the dirty 30's was in reply to a certain members PERSONAL prediction,...or maybe read it in a less than reputable magazine,...that mans additional CO2 was going to cause,...wait for it,...ANOTHER dirty 30's weather pattern.

My post was to point out that his less than reputable magazine failed to consider,...that this has occurred before,...but was most definatly NOT caused by man's contribution of co2.

Like saying its going to be cold next winter in Canada.

To recap,...the dirty 30's was NOT caused by man adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

So your argument is NOT sensible.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
People have always died so no reason to stop smoking crack....

About as sensible an argument.
Ok,...you are not better than that,...

So your argument is that the worlds governments should have stopped the seas form rising in 1800,...???

You argument,...is NOT sensible,...in the least.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
It's still more credible than you or your "sources".

You're not going to win by arguing against the best scientific journals there are.
But one must first determine just WHAT you magazines are best at,...it sure as hell isn't unbiased credibility.

Right up there with Unifor's magazine,...Uniforum,...for unbiased credibility,...and peer reviews.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,011
7
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
But one must first determine just WHAT you magazines are best at,...it sure as hell isn't unbiased credibility.

Right up there with Unifor's magazine,...Uniforum,...for unbiased credibility,...and peer reviews.
There's no point to argue with this kind of stupidity. It's the editorial board of Nature and Science against some ignoramous on terb.

This isn't a debate, this is comedy.
 

azuretears

Member
Jun 8, 2017
94
1
8
Science is more than one person, or one study. To really understand anything about a given issue, you would have to examine all studies about it and their collective implications. Thats called a review, meta-analysis. Thats why we have the IPCC. While some argue against its credibility due to politicisation, thats mostly about the framing of the summary for policy-makers - attributions of emissions to particular nations, obligations to help developing countries etc.

Science is also about uncertainty and ambiguity - so sure, scientists disagree among themselves about the warming potential of aerosols, interactions with clouds etc etc. But the consensus out of the meta-analysis shows the impact of a changing (long-term) climate on countries like Bangladesh, the Pacific Islands, and even Canada in terms of temperature, rainfall, timing of seasons.

Climate change isn't a scam, its real always has been always will be. The scam is when people start blaming it on C02 emission.

Its like someone is having a cigarette on a bench in the summer, then a hippy comes along and places a slushy onto the bench and says the cigarette is causing the slushy to melt. Then minutes later the hippy points at the juice left behind as proof the cigarette smoker melted the slushy insisting they were correct.
Yea I get that ppl disagree about the role of humans. But this seems to be peculiar to North America - in particular conservatives and a polarised information reality in the US. For the rest of the world, its pretty much a given. Seems to me that they are ideologically opposed to measures such as global regulation of emissions such as the Paris Agreement (even though its voluntary and has no economic sanctions), or nation-wide standards, or restrictions on businesses, in particular the fossil fuel industry. And the reasoning against climate change follows from that ideological position. Its also hard not to see it as another opposition to the liberal position.

Either that, or denying the role of humans in changing the climate (in addition to the other geochemical changes we have caused, such as excessive phosphorus and nitrogen flows) fits within the evangelical Christian belief that it is the height of hubris that humans can change the climate. Not going after Christians, but there are lots of overlap between the Christian and conservative membership and belief systems...
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Blah,...blah,...blah,...:blah:
There's no point to argue with your kind of stupidity fuji. Your just some ignoramous on terb agreeing with the discredited editorial board of Nature and Science .

This isn't a debate fuji, this is comedy.
 
Last edited:

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,063
6,588
113
Scientists have been wrong before on CO2 driving the climate.....
And scientists have been right far, far, far more often. I know you have no interest in how science works but it is based on evidence and developing the best theory that explains that evidence. Science is all about finding contradictory evidence and continually improving our understanding.

The early science about antibiotics was also flawed. Do you refuse to believe in antibiotics because of it?

Of course solar activity has an impact on climate. The evidence shows human produced CO2 has a larger one.

ERN, the most prestigious scientific organization on this planet
BTW, what is "ERN"? For the most prestigious scientific organization on the planet they sure seem to keep a pretty low online profile.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,063
6,588
113
Ok,...you are not better than that,...

So your argument is that the worlds governments should have stopped the seas form rising in 1800,...???

You argument,...is NOT sensible,...in the least.
???????

You really seem to enjoy fabricating other people's arguments.

The scientific evidence has CO2 playing a major role in the current climactic changes. It is also completely factual that rising water temperature makes the volume of water increase. Hell, you can even experiment on it at home with a narrow bottle and a microwave.

And in case you missed the earlier poster, Florida has a huge amount of work going on to battle rising sea levels including raising up entire city blocks by several feet.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
???????

You really seem to enjoy fabricating other people's arguments.

The scientific evidence has CO2 playing a major role in the current climactic changes. It is also completely factual that rising water temperature makes the volume of water increase. Hell, you can even experiment on it at home with a narrow bottle and a microwave.

.
This proof your full of shit!

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
BTW, what is "ERN"? For the most prestigious scientific organization on the planet they sure seem to keep a pretty low online profile.
it must be a typo . It is CERN.

CLOUD, the experiment that measures the birth of clouds at CERN, has released new papers:

Nature: Ion-induced nucleation of pure biogenic particles
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

Science: New particle formation in the free troposphere: A question of chemistry and timing
AP (a popular/politicized distortion): New Cloud Formation Discovery May Lessen Warming Forecast
CLOUD has done lots of measurements of the processes that are needed to create clouds which, as many kids have noticed, usually cool down the weather.


The experiment has been taking place at CERN because the cosmic rays (emulated by the CERN's sources of beams) are important for the creation of the cloud (condensation) nuclei. Even in the new papers, cosmic rays are found to increase the nucleation rate by 1-2 orders of magnitude.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/05/24/science.aad5456


Recall that the Sun's activity may influence the cosmic ray flux, and therefore its variations may be responsible for "climate change". Svensmark's theory generally argues that a stronger solar activity means a more perfect shielding of the cosmic rays, therefore less cloudiness, and therefore warmer weather.

PS I used to believe in Al Gore movie" inconvient truth" the CO2 theory "Global warming" until I opened my mind and then listed to both sides of the arguments. I came into conclusions that Global warming theory is flaws.

Watching Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery
YOUTUBE.COM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ


Absolutely brilliant, ground-breaking research worthy of a Nobel Prize.
This proof to be what drive climate ..it not co2 and it the SUN that affect the cosmic rays that impacts the clouds formations!

PPS. When GLobal warmiest had to rebrand Global warming to CLimate changes and then when all their computer climate model data are manuipulated or to matched their forecasted model this convinced me that the theory is flaw and other climate researchers beginning to say the Mann hockey stick is flaw. This convinced the scientists got it wrong! ( CO2 theory is incorrect)
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts