She Wishes We Were All Dead

Well if the BBC says it, it must be true.

So many idiots have been crushed at the Big Four Ice Caves that the park department removed the bridge.
People too stupid to stay away from avalanche zones think that they can 'save' the planet.
Hey 'Save the Planet' crew, do you know what a Red Giant is?

So the fact that the planet will only last another 5 billion odd years, means our lives aren't worth saving now?

How do these scientists know that the earth is getting hotter?
They model the climate in a computer and see what the model says. There are two problems with this;
Firstly, computer models can never be used to prove anything. Every model comes with assumptions and errors and they cannot be trusted fully - computer models can only be used to refine assumptions and can never be used to make predictions.
And secondly, how do you model the climate when the climate is EVERYTHING IN EXISTENCE? The climate is too complicated to represent in even the most advanced computer model, making climate models even less reliable than the average one.
But you might say, but what about the global average temperature charts that seem to be going up that I see all the time. Those have a major flaw. The temperatures in cities are higher than those in the surrounding areas because of local phenomenon. As we take more readings I more cities the average temperature readings are sure to go up.
If you look into the data closely you can actually see a cooling trend that has been happening since 2012. The heat of the climate is controlled not by CO2, but by the natural cycles of the sun and the earth on its axis.

Also, models tend to predict the worst case scenario... Nowhere near what will actually happen.

"How do these scientists know that the earth is getting hotter?"

Some of them "know" it's getting hotter, because they have intentionally toyed with the historical data to make graphs look like it has.

But they used the same model as the bat stew flu

With good evidence mounting up on the side of climate change on one side, and a bunch of Tucker Carlson-esque "what ifs" on the other, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the ship is sinking. If you still want to argue that you need proof of an iceberg . . . well, your grandchildren may well ask "What's an iceberg?"

That's really all there is to it. All you have is anecdotes about the climate and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Recorded data on the size of snowpacks and crop yields is not anecdotes. You don't need to believe in climate change: it's not a matter of faith. It's reality, and we will all have to grapple with it.

That's weather. Not climate.

The patterns weather forms over a period of years and decades are the climate.
The USDA is already taking it into account: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/?cid=nrcs142p2_054004

"EvErYoNe SaYs iT sO iT mUsT bE TrUe!!!!!"

Because EVERY ONE of those reporters (aka not scientists) and "scientists" all have done their own primary research, rather than merely parroting what the narrative setters have put out there.

Literally trillions of dollars have changed hands, resulting in less than a 3% total switch from "fossil" fuels to "green" energy. You are a dupe for behaving like a sheep, "EvErYoNe SaYs iT sO iT mUsT bE TrUe!!!!!"

There are a number of sources that debunk this 97% lie, and you are a fool for regurgitating it here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2JeSxF6XSg

Did you know that the only reason they call them fossil fuels is because of some of the basic carbon chains? There is no real proof of this, and based on the depths at which we find "fossil" fuels, it is logically impossible. Now, do your furious little Google™ search, and find the way that "scientists" have ****imagined**** this to have happened.

YouTube is not a convincing citation (as your social studies teacher must have told you). The science reporter is using the published scientific work on the subject, and the consensus is clear.

Your "97%" have led you down a path to destruction. "Green" energy cannot remotely begin to keep up with the real-world demands of even the relatively small number of human beings living on planet Earth.

Some climates are survivable all year long; many places where we live are not those climates.

But, again, ignore your lying eyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhKWU3vVdAw

We saw the result of bad energy policy earlier this year in Texas, thanks to the lies coming from the "green" community.

You poo-poo anything that doesn't fall into line with the "consensus", forgetting that consensus is not driven by science, it is driven by politics, which is the same thing as saying it is driven by money. Blindly following the "consensus" is more than a little dangerous, as history has shown us many times- certainly your history teacher taught you this?

I'll state it again- after trillion of dollars spent, which were robbed from the hardworking Middle Class and Poor all over the world, only 3% of "legacy" energy has been replaced with "green" energy. And whether it is ironic, or tragic, that 3% used more "legacy" energy to manufacture and implement than it will give back to us. In other words, it made the situation worse from a greenie's perspective, not better.

So, while "green" energy has utterly failed to prove worthy of trusting it with our lives, it has made a number of people very, very rich. Normally, you liberals hate capitalism and "trickle-down economics", but for some reason you give this a pass. And you also give a pass to the climate high priests, when they buy million-dollar mansions that literally sit on the coast; you know, the coasts which should already be further underwater than they were when those mansions were built.

But don't believe your lying eyes . . .

"YouTube is not a convincing citation"

That is a passive ad hominem argument, attempting to discredit the person, rather than deal with the information presented. Ad hominem is used by those who cannot defend their positions, which given that you parrot false information would mean you know little to nothing on the matter, or by those who refuse to hear countering opinions based on the same evidence.

The source of the information is irrelevant.
That YouTube is open to pretty much anyone, allowing for a lot of nonsense to exist, has zero bearing on this matter.

And surely your science teacher taught you that science is not determined by a "consensus", real or imagined.

Ice melts in the Summer!

In other news, water is wet.

When more ice melts in the summer than snow falls in the winter, over a period of decades, glaciers that lasted thousands of years disappear. This is happening NOW, in the Sierras and the Rockies and the Himalayas.

Was there ever a time in the past when trees and vegetation grew in arctic regions?

Was there ever a time when our atmosphere was loaded with deadly methane and had very little free oxygen?

Do you want to go back to that time?

"Was there ever a time when our atmosphere was loaded with deadly methane and had very little free oxygen?"

p.s. No, there wasn't. If there was, there would be nothing left today that would prove that this was ever so. This is only a theory to try and explain away what we see today, and what we see today militates against the theory of evolution. Science has advanced to the point where we know that it is impossible for life to arise from non-life. There are others here who rabidly defend evolution, but refuse to deal with the origin of life issue, as if there could ever have been any evolution with the origin of life to begin with.

And evolution remains only a theory, because there is no real evidence of it, only biased interpretations of the same evidence that creation scientists see.

The only way to know what the Earth first looked like is to have been there, and the only One Who was there was God. He has given us a clear outline of what He did, and there is no way that this imaginary first atmosphere of methane fits with what He has told us.

If you really take time to evaluate what you believe, it is not based on anything you have discovered yourself, but rather it is based on what you have been told by those who use cartoons (aka artist illustrations) and imagination to span the gap between the species- the fossil record does not support their theories.

Yes, there was. This is established climate science.

http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/Environmental/L30/1.html

Do you see what I mean when I say that they only have cartoons to prove their points?

"Those diagrams and cartoons are not the actual evidence, they are just an artistic representation of the topic."

It should go without saying that they are representations of imagination, masquerading as science, representing evidence that does not exist. If such evidence DID exist, they would be able to use actual pictures instead of cartoons.

It's like you have opened a science textbook, but failed to engage your brain while reading it. If you are not going to think for yourself, there is really no point in opening one of those books in the first place- just let the "experts" tell you what you are supposed to think. This will save you much time, and leave you free to watch children's imaginary cartoon shows, which is clearly the "science" you have any real interest in.

Everything in that article, EVERYTHING, is nothing but a theory. They can offer no proof of this theory, because they have none. Stating something as fact does not make it so.

Here is a practicing and successful scientist speaking on his field of study. It doesn't get all that technical, but it goes to show just how badly the science works against all of these theories. This short video destroys everything that article of yours has to say.

https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg

This video is only 58 minutes long, so it really is not that much time to stay focused and process what he has to say.

"And yet when it comes to your god, that's all you do, state things as fact"

Well, except for all the evidence that He exists, I guess you would be right.

How are you coming along on proving that the origin of life issue doesn't completely disprove the possibility that evolution took place, while at the same time proves that God is real?

And isn't it really bizarre, that the side that tries to prop up man-made global warming, is also the same side that cannot scientifically define what a woman is?

Was there ever a time in the past when the glaciers nearly vanished?

In a span of decades? Nope.

"In a span of decades? Nope."

Were you there? That is something no one knows, but can only imagine based on what they think they know. If you check out more of Heller's information, you will find that indeed this stuff essentially turns on a dime relative to longer periods of time. We went from fearmongering over man-made global cooling in the 70s, to man-made global warming in less than the span of only 3 decades. But, no doubt, we could have concocted a "97% consensus" regarding global cooling during that time period.

The obvious facts we see all around us disprove what you believe in, but so long as a lot of people allegedly believe otherwise, you will dutifully follow along. AND let them steal your money via unnecessary taxation to make themselves rich.

You're quoting THIS very dubious guy who's in a number of corporate pockets and lecturing me on being a sheep? Baa-less you!

https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/climate-change-denier-testifies-for-40-minutes-in-washington-senate-environment-committee/

Part 2

"During his testimony, Heller also referred to a year-old accusation that NOAA fudged its temperature data when it made some adjustments for how temperature measuring had changed over the past 150 years.

As The Guardian newspaper of London reported then, the adjustments were required to account for different types of thermometers being used over that span, as well as variations in the times of day that measurements were taken, as well as the relocation of some thermometers."

So, a) They admit that the numbers have been tampered with, and b) they provide a lame excuse as to why this was done. They have no way of proving that they did so correctly, as they would have had to test those measuring devices AS THEY WERE BEING USED in order to account for the alleged inaccuracies. If they tested them today, they could not prove that any inaccuracies were present at the time of use, and that time alone had caused them to no longer work properly.

"In fact, The Guardian reported that NOAA’s tweaks verified that while temperatures have been increasing, they have not been doing so as quickly as originally thought."

Yet, the very things you have been parroting do not account for this little admission of error. Ironically, this is precisely what Tony Heller has been saying, that the temperature has NOT been rising as quickly as they indicate.

"“This is barely a 1950s presentation,” Carlyle had said prior to the presentation."

Did you catch this? The "brilliant" Senator from Seattle had made his mind up BEFORE hearing the actual testimony, and I would bet you $100 that this comment of his was given to him by some science denying staffer. But let's ponder a moment on what he is really saying here- using past data and information is OK if it is tampered with enough to support my political agenda, but using past data and information is NOT ok when it proved my agenda to be false.

Overall, I would say that the opinion article you provided proves nothing, other than the obvious bias on the Left, and their refusal to truly apply the scientific method to their pet agenda items.

Got it to work- sometimes my system is too locked down to allow everything to work.

"This is the second time in two years that a skeptic of mainstream climate science has been invited to testify for at least a half hour in front of the Senate Energy, Environment & Telecommunications Committee, which he chairs."

So, in two years (this was written in 2017), they have only had two scientists sit in front of them to provide opposing views? Having in inbred point of view is not how we get to the truth of anything.

"In 2015, Ericksen invited the Heartland Institute’s science director, Jay Lehr, who cited rising temperatures on Mars, Jupiter, and the Neptunian moon Triton to contend that global warming on Earth is not manmade."

A salient point which remains unanswered by the leftist community to this day. Immediately following this, the "reporter" (aka *opinion* columnist) unnecessarily brings up associations, which have zero bearing on whether or not the first part is relevant or true. Do you see how this "consensus" works? They dodge those facts that work against their working theories, not by disproving those facts, but by trying to disparage the character of the person delivering those facts. This does not change the facts; it only serves to muddy the waters to make it harder for sheep, like yourself, to see the facts.

"In his testimony, Heller claimed that possibly a dozen members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had changed temperature data so that climate scientists would conclude that global warming is more severe than it actually is."

Something Heller has demonstrated over and over, and which The Seattle Times goes on to say they were unable to disprove.

"You're quoting THIS very dubious guy who's in a number of corporate pockets and lecturing me on being a sheep? Baa-less you!"

And you continue to hide behind ad hominem vs actually debunking a single one of his claims . . . I escaped the sheep mentally some time ago, and you have no idea how obvious it is when looking back over my shoulder at the newest crop of mindless liberal drones that you are not thinking for yourself.

But if that is actually true, then I would take your maxim to be this- "If they accept money from another interest, their conclusions cannot be trusted.", ergo, most of what the "97%" have to say cannot be trusted.

p.s. Unlike you, I am not afraid to debunk what the other side has to say, but I am wondering where you got that link- the attached pic is what I get when I follow it.

So, do you now see what it looks like to analyze and evaluate what someone is saying? Nowhere did I go after the character of the writer of that article, but rather, I dealt point by point with his assertions, and easily found them to be wanting.

This is how you use critical thinking skills to decide if what you believe is correct, or if you need to rethink your position on any subject.

I did not arrive at my conclusions in a few minutes, a few days, or even a few years, so dropping a single article from 5 years ago, that contains no actual scientific information, but rather the opinions of the writer, and those whom he cites to support his opinions, is not going to bring up anything new that will suddenly turn what I believe upside-down.

Deal with the facts, if you can, and quit whining about where it comes from.

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