Opinion “We just don’t expect temps to be below 10 degrees Fahrenheit in Duluth anymore" - Climate Professor

This thread needs more:

 

I'm with you on the first paragraph in some measure, though your volcanism imaginations are off.

The climate change profiteers as some cabal is stupid and Alex Jonesy.

 

Well, "volcanism" is not my imagination but another active hypothesis by "scientists". Makes as much sense as greenhouse gases hypothesis.

Don't tell me someone hasn't been cashing in big with climate change or trying to position themselves. There's always someone looking to hedge. You honestly think DiCaprio gives a fck about polar bears and Al Gore just one day woke up and felt horrified that in 50 years NY will be like Venice....C'mon now. There's always an agenda and it's very much guided.

 

My comment on volcanism and imagination wasn't that volcanism isn't a thing. Dont be dumb. I would posit climate change is more chaotic, likely extraterrestrial in original (largely to do with long term sun cycles)...and it has to do in some percentage to natural climatic change causes we don't fully understand. On top of a lot of natural unknowns, man is influencing the climate in a measurable way. The Holocene, regardless of man's involvement in climatic change, has already been an extremely ( and unusually ) long interglacial (warm epoch) period with regards to the last several hundred thousand years.

Not going down the climate change profiteers cabal path. Too much for me.

 

Vaccines cause autism

 

I can't confidently say there's an organized cabal, but I find it difficult to imagine there isn't some organizing force and profiteering at some levels of it. All these celebrity hacks and politicians have been preaching about this global warming for 20 years. Our beaches and bays are still at the same level or at least with negligible difference, all while China/India has been pumping out CO2 at unprecedented rate. I used to be less skeptical of global warming theories, but given what I've witnessed in terms of rate of change, I'm no longer buying this hooplah.

And hurricanes and floods have been here in the 90s and early 2000s and same or worse than we've recently had. If it will warm, "man-made" will be a small factor, while reducing our emissions/ and therefore increasing costs in the US will hurt us a lot more than if we keep operating at normal pace.

 

The globalist Kool-Aid? Christ, man. Volcano eruptions? That is old, old tripe, you know this, right?

The science lands on one side of the argument, as if a mountain aside a pebble.

Read the articles you provide. Damn.

Neither of the articles you provided even so much as implied a mitigation in the effects of global warming, and the rising temperatures in the ocean being the primary cause for the melting of the ice sheet.

"Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the Pine Island Glacier?

No, said Loose. "Climate change is causing the bulk of glacial melt that we observe, and this newly discovered source of heat is having an as-yet undetermined effect, because we do not know how this heat is distributed beneath the ice sheet."

This isn't some globalist conspiracy. Oil lobbyists make insane amounts of money while climate scientists toil for well below 100,000 a year. If there's some rigged system, it's a shit one.

 

You think "climate scientists" are the ones who will profiteer from emission caps? Jeesus Christ, dude. Way to finish your posts with the most absurd strawman.

 

This is a liberal-friendly explanation that focuses on cap and trade.
She makes a good point about cap and trade hoax, but they goes full bleeding heart about islanders and 3rd world.

 

Many scientists have Autism... so Autism causes vaccines.

 

The climate has been shifting and changing but do you know what the major cause this recent upward trend is? And before you say the Sun, think again...

 

I don't think there are many oil lobbyists around anymore, at least not in the climate change debate. All of the top energy producers and their scientists now accept the data that supports AGW.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

http://reports.shell.com/sustainability-report/2015/energy-transition/addressing-climate-change.html

https://www.saudiaramco.com/en/making-a-difference/planet/climateinitiative

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change.html

 

That would mean that the Maldives are no more since that alarmist report was 30 years ago. Yet, Maldives are still here.

Maybe alarmists should tone done their predictions sometimes.

 

What is your explanation for the massive body of data and the scientific consensus reached upon it, if this is some hoax?

 

There is no consensus how a lightning is formed. Wrap your head around that. Meteorologists and "scientists" still have no clear idea how lighting is formed.
So sure, in theory Co2 can create a greenhouse effect, and most scientists will be on board with that. But they can't actually conclusively say(without becoming hacks) about whether it's the main cause of global warming.

 

Yes, they should. But neither you nor I get to simply call people alarmists in a blanket fashion when they're the ones actually working with the data.

 

Are you fucking stupid? Scientists don't know how lightning forms? Good god.

Your assertion aside, the climate debate has been over for a long time. There are fervent arguments over particulars, but not the overall trend or causes. This is demonstrated in many distinct fields.

Don't project your current ignorance upon those who actually do the scientific work.

 

We can call them alarmist when the conclusions they have come to, based on the data that they've worked with, turn out to be false. Completely false, as they appear to be in many cases. Just like we can call a "fight expert" out for his bullshit when a bunch of his predictions have turned out to be massively wrong.

It appears, increasingly so, that any predictions made by an individual "representing" the scientific community (again, just one individual out of thousands upon thousands), when quoted by the media, can pretty much be discounted as bullshit.

The media rarely quotes people who will predict that boring, mundane things are going to be happening in the next 50 years. Each of our lifetimes need to appear unique to us, bordering on end times. Makes us feel a bit better about ourselves, I suppose. Digging up a scientist who predicts these sorts of doomsday scenarios, is great fodder for the media during an otherwise quiet news day. The demand for a small bit of the apocalypse, is never-ending.

Previously we had zealous nutjobs predicting the world to end by quoting the Bible, today we have our very own version of that phenomenon, except that the "average guy" is actually even more inclined to believe these sorts of predictions due to "science".

 

But it's an ever occurring phenomenon. Alarmist reports that fit the current agenda in the news are being parroted around like the Gospel.

In 2015, when the massive influx of refugees to Europe took place. A study made by a phony economist in Sweden predicted that Sweden would make $100,000,000,000 in revenues thanks to the immigration. That was quoted and pushed by every big news outlet in Sweden. Yesterday, the very same economist published a study that said; Sweden must raises taxes with $1000,000,000 in order for the welfare system to remain intact.

Imagine being so wrong with a prediction that is less than 3 years old.

The same can be said about alarmist reports about climate change. Just the other day, every news outlet in Sweden reported that as much as 35,000 lakes in Northern Europe could be free from ice during the Winter if the temperature rises a couple of degrees. At a first glance, 35,000 lakes sounds much but Sweden, Finland and Norway alone have 900,000 lakes. The alarmist tone is at the center of the reporting.

There is also a meteorologist in Sweden that claimed that the biggest cross-country ski race would be impossible in 7 years from now. He wrote about it in 2006 and media wrote lengthy articles on it. So far, there is nothing that gives credence to that very prediction and it has been 13 years since his prophecy of doom came to light.

 

So your point is over the next few thousand (perhaps million) years, humanity will develop random mutations that enable those lucky few to survive in the fucked up planet? So it's fine because earth will still be inhabited by those lucky X-Men?

You do know that's what Darwin meant by "adaptation" and "strongest", right?