GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

9 minutes ago, AlBub said:

Why not look at the last 10,000 years then/ It is only a random period of time.

Let's not forget the "adjustment" of data for the last 100 years by governmental weather agencies 10 or 12 years ago because they just knew the old-timers couldn't read a thermometer. Funny how the older data had to be revised downward.

Numbers mean nothing when they can be changed to fit the political science, as they were.

ok

[bloodman33 + 20]

It is time to take the oil companies windfall profits and give it to the green new deal and AOC.  The oil companies like big tobacco were lying to us for years!  Shame Shame Shame..  Am I a hypocrite?   To quote that crazy right wing nut Sarah Palin "You Betcha".   I have no problems with that.  Buy dht, stng, tnk, vlo, MTDR, PXD, MPC  now and make me rich!  It is time to nationalize big oil and give Texas back to mexico!

[NWMan + 89]

15 hours ago, specinho said:

This chart is probably inappropriate.

Which chart - the one from NASA that is displayed around the world and all global warming predictions are based on.  My little chart was to show that the NASA chart is graphically inappropriate and it is based on scientists being able to accurately calculate the average temperature of the world in 1880.   

I agree there are lots of other issues with the NASA chart.   

People see the chart (it looks bad), then apparently "all scientists agree with it" therefore we are doomed!

Still have not got the name of any species that will be extinct.  Nor any information concerning the accuracy of ice core temperature analysis.  You would think the global warming believers would know the answers to these questions rather than telling people to google it. 

Thanks for your reply and information  

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

ok

???? The point, man, the point.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

1 hour ago, bloodman33 said:

It is time to take the oil companies windfall profits and give it to the green new deal and AOC.  The oil companies like big tobacco were lying to us for years!  Shame Shame Shame..  Am I a hypocrite?   To quote that crazy right wing nut Sarah Palin "You Betcha".   I have no problems with that.  Buy dht, stng, tnk, vlo, MTDR, PXD, MPC  now and make me rich!  It is time to nationalize big oil and give Texas back to mexico!

Give Texas back to Mexico? Maybe we should throw you in as well to sweeten the deal.

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

Here is someone who understands rational economic policy.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Shell-CEO-Says-Slashing-Oil-Output-Would-Be-Dangerous-and-Irresponsible.html

"“What would be dangerous and irresponsible is cutting oil and gas production so that the cost of living, as we saw last year, starts to shoot up again,” the supermajor’s top executive added.

Both UK-based supermajors, BP and Shell, have recently doubled down on oil and gas to ensure energy supply after the recent energy and energy security crises.

BP’s chief executive, Bernard Looney, also warned earlier this year that “We need to invest in today's energy system – which is predominantly an oil and gas system.”

“As the events of last year demonstrated, the sudden loss of even a small part of the world's oil and gas can have severe economic and social costs,” Looney noted."

Edited July 7, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

????

Not surprising that you can't read a simple graph.

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Not surprising that you can't read a simple graph.

The point of your simple graph is..?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

The point of your simple graph is..?

Let's see...hmm...the x axis is years and the y axis is global temperature...yeah that is a mindbender.

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Let's see...hmm...the x axis is years and the y axis is global temperature...yeah that is a mindbender.

And you are trying to show something with this simple graph? Like how to cherry-pick?

Or did the world begin 24,000 years ago?

Edited July 7, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

And you are trying to show something with this simple graph?

Well my guess is that since the x axis is labeled years and y access is labeled change in global temperature this simple graph is showing the change in global temperature over the years as indicated.  

 

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

13 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well my guess is that since the x axis is labeled years and y access is labeled change in global temperature this simple graph is showing the change in global temperature over the years as indicated.  

 

And the world just simply began 24,000 years ago? You really believe in fairy tales?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

24 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

And the world just simply began 24,000 years ago? You really believe in fairy tales?

It is a graph for the past 24,000 years. At no point did I or the graph say it was the beginning of the Earth. You just love to show off what an abject idiot you are. Human civilization began 10,000 years ago and that is what is important.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It is a graph for the past 24,000 years. At no point did I or the graph say it was the beginning of the Earth. You just love to show off what an abject idiot you are. Human civilization began 12,000 years ago and that is what is important.

It is important to show what happened before humans contributed anything to climate. It is up to you to demonstrate that something new happened with anthropomorphic contribution.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

It is important to show what happened before humans contributed anything to climate. It is up to you to demonstrate that something new happened with anthropomorphic contribution.

Human contribution began with the wide use of coal in the industrial revolution which started a couple hundred years ago during the 19th century. So the graph going back 24,000 years shows over 23,000 years of what happened before humans contributed anything. Here is a close up of what has happened over the past 500 years. Temperature has begun increasing rapidly since the 19th century.

 

[notsonice + 1,080]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

The point of your simple graph is..?

 

the graph explains itself

Edited July 7, 2023 by notsonice

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Human contribution began with the wide use of coal in the industrial revolution which started a couple hundred years ago during the 19th century. So the graph going back 24,000 years shows over 23,000 years of what happened before humans contributed anything. Here is a close up of what has happened over the past 500 years. Temperature has begun increasing rapidly since the 19th century.

 

You have to show that human activity contributed to the temperature change. Just showing a graph of temperature change does not begin to do that.

If you had studied Econometrics, you would know how to interpret statistical models.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

Just now, notsonice said:

 

the graph explains itself

The graph does not explain anything, there needs to be another graph showing an explanatory variable.

[notsonice + 1,080]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

The graph does not explain anything, there needs to be another graph showing an explanatory variable.

The graph does not explain anything????? Junior, stay in school , one of these days you will pass the 6th grade.

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

2 minutes ago, notsonice said:

The graph does not explain anything????? Junior, stay in school , one of these days you will pass the 6th grade.

You skipped the courses on statistical models, right? 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

You have to show that human activity contributed to the temperature change. Just showing a graph of temperature change does not begin to do that.

As many of us have done over and over for you.

The rise in CO2 is perfectly correlated with the rise in temperature and in lab tests we have proven that it is a greenhouse gas. But of course you will yet again say that isn't proof. Well it is proof because nothing else is correlated. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

10 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

The graph does not explain anything, there needs to be another graph showing an explanatory variable.

Dumber than dumb but I provided a third graph to explain your variable.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

As many of us have done over and over for you.

The rise in CO2 is perfectly correlated with the rise in temperature and in lab tests we have proven that it is a greenhouse gas. But of course you will yet again say that isn't proof. Well it is proof because nothing else is correlated. 

Jay, you have not provided any correlation coefficients or actual studies, which in fact do not show what you claim.

You really did skip those econometrics courses, Jay.

[Ecocharger + 1,380]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Asinine stupidity is your specialty.

Says the man who skipped econometrics. By the way, Jay, I took several stats courses, including a graduate course in econometrics in which I received an A. I am not easily deceived by statistical baloney. I want to see genuine science.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Jay, you have not provided any correlation coefficients or actual studies, which in fact do not show what you claim.

You really did skip those econometrics courses, Jay.

I showed study results in the form of two graphs. Temp and CO2 went up in perfect correlation. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and nothing else correlates. End of story.