is climate change a hoax? $2 Trillion/year worth of programs intended to be handed out by politicians and bureaucrats?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Just now, Janet Alderton said:

You are confusing weather with climate.

The heavy snow has made my road has been impassable for vehicles for 10 days. But I am patient. The snow is beautiful and welcome news for our water supplies. 

Janet that is what global warmists always say but they make exactly the same claims and worse!

[Janet Alderton + 124]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Well, I appreciate that you value natural gas as part of the solution! I am glad you are 200 feet above and can watch without fear except for local roads. You were wise to buy on high ground!  I believe that renewables and new technology of all kinds can help reduce CO2 levels as well. I am always open to new ideas. Believe me, if renewables can beat natural gas for cost/benefit I will be ready to change my tune.  Maybe you and I are not as far apart as you think. 

Yes, we are not far apart. I believe with you that the markets will sort all this out. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

The Union of Concerned Scientists has a white paper on its website that warns the western United States will suffer drought and reduced snowpack, even as strong snowstorms hit in the northwest U.S. and above-normal rainfall measurements in southern California have been recorded so far this year.

[Janet Alderton + 124]

18 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

The Union of Concerned Scientists has a white paper on its website that warns the western United States will suffer drought and reduced snowpack, even as strong snowstorms hit in the northwest U.S. and above-normal rainfall measurements in southern California have been recorded so far this year.

Hey Ron, weather is what you see in the short term. Climate is weather integrated over many decades. Affectionately yours, Janet

Edited February 18, 2019 by Janet Alderton
Friendliness

[Illurion + 894]

3 hours ago, Janet Alderton said:

So is our Defense Department in on the hoax? Coastal military bases are threatened by sea level rise. 

Actually,  YES.   They are in on it....  As for whether Coastal Military Bases are threatened depends on WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED,  AND THE TYPE OF LANDMASS THEY SIT ON............

The DOD takes its orders,  and makes their plans based on what they are told to do.

That does not mean these things will actually happen.

Norfolk has been there a long time.

The land itself at the shoreline is,  like all shorelines everywhere,  slowly settling into the sea.

Just because the water may reach a higher level now,  than 100 years ago  DOES NOT MEAN THE WATER IS RISING........  IT COULD MEAN THAT THE LAND IS SETTLING..........!!!!!!!!!!!!

.........................

as an example:

.........................

Back in the 1970's,  i took a course at a college that nowadays is called UCF.

The course was a SCIENTIFIC course about sinkhole activity in Florida.

Among the many facts learned though the course is the fact that the landmass that is called Florida is actually BROKEN,  AND CRACKED INTO TWO PIECES AT A PLACE CALLED THE "OCALA UPLIFT"..

Everything NORTH of the Ocala Uplift rests on BASALT...

Everything SOUTH of the Ocala Uplift rests on SAND,  as the basalt dives deeper underground at that point...

 

THE FLORIDA LANDMASS CRACKED AT THAT POINT BECAUSE THE WEIGHT OF THE SLOWLY SINKING SOUTH END OF THE STATE, WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE SOLID,  STABLE,  AND UNMOVING NORTH END OF THE STATE,.

 

Think of the OCALA UPLIFT as being "two tectonic plates",  made of "different material",  SLOWLY MOVING AWAY FROM EACH OTHER...... 

IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT IN THE FUTURE,   150,000 YEARS FROM NOW,   THERE WILL BE A  "100 FOOT WIDE"  RIVER THAT SEPARATES SOUTH FLORIDA FROM NORTH FLORIDA AT WHAT IS NOW CALLED THE "OCALA UPLIFT"........  IN ADDITION,   NORTH FLORIDA WILL SIT 20 FEET HIGHER ABOVE SEA LEVEL THAN SOUTH FLORIDA........

 

Everything NORTH of the Ocala Uplift IS STRUCTURALLY SOLID...... AND UNMOVING...

Everything SOUTH of the Ocala Uplift IS STRUCTURALLY WEAK,  AND OVER TIME,  THROUGH "COMPACTION",  IS SLOWLY SINKING A TINY AMOUNT EACH YEAR.    The farther SOUTH of the Ocala Uplift,   the MORE the land will sink per year.

The net result of this was the conclusion that South Florida is slowly sinking into the Atlantic Ocean,  and has been doing so for a million years..

The course End Recommendations list shows that,  were it not for MANKIND,   it would normally TAKE LONGER for Miami to sink below the waves,  however , given the ACTIVITIES   ( just the vibrations of our daily activities alone,  much less our construction activity cause the sand to "compact" and settle faster )   OF MANKIND IN THE SOUTHERN MOST AREAS OF FLORIDA,  LIKE MIAMI,  WOULD INEVITABLY CAUSE MIAMI TO SINK BELOW THE WAVES EARLIER.............!

..............................

TODAY .............   IN 2019 .................   NO ONE TALKS ABOUT MIAMI SINKING BECAUSE "THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS SINKING",   INSTEAD,  THE SCIENTISTS STATE THAT MIAMI IS SINKING "BECAUSE THE WATER IS RISING.".

..............................

In conclusion,   given the massive amount of FRAUD that has now been uncovered in the way various private and government institutions have "CHANGED ACTUAL DATABASES USING VARIOUS BIASED ALGORITHMS",    AND THAT THEY HAVE DONE THIS FOR MONEY.......  GRANTS ........... we are left in a situation as to 'WHAT SCIENCE DO WE BELIEVE.........  NEW SCIENCE...........  OR          OLD SCIENCE..................?

I believe the science from the 1980's and earlier,  as the science from the 1990's forward are not trustworthy given that science is based on "unsound and manipulated" databases...........

.............

As for me............  I believe the Science Studies from the 1970's that state we are moving toward a COLDER WORLD....   and    i DO NOT believe the recent studies that state we are moving into a HOTTER WORLD.........

So,  NO,  i do not believe in Global Warming............   Just in the normal global changes that have always been occurring on this planet,  which are mostly caused by the activities of the SUN.

Have a nice day....

Edited February 18, 2019 by Illurion

[Sukumar Ray + 52]

On 2/16/2019 at 2:28 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

"What is really astonishing is that Al Gore is neither a scientist nor a climatologist. Yet, Gore is considered the leading expert despite the fact that Gore’s climate change agenda was nothing but a fraud and deliberately imposed to increase government power."

 

Al Gore’s Global Warming Deliberate Fraud to Increase Governmental Power

 

 

There is a serious question that no one wants to address. How did Al Gore create the global warming scare and earn hundreds of millions of dollars in the process? Before Al Gore, science was worried deeply about what we are experiencing today — global cooling. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek magazine published an article in which they sounded the alarm bell and proposed solutions to deliberately melt the ice caps:

“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing variables of climate uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies.”

This sounds very similar to today’s proposed solution of putting particles in the atmosphere to deflect the sunlight to reduce global warming.  Indeed, TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977, cover featured the cover story, “The Big Freeze.” They reported that scientists were predicting that Earth’s average temperature could drop by 20 degrees fahrenheit. Their cited cause was, of course, that humans created global cooling. Then suddenly the climate cycles shifted and it began to warm up.

There was this core group of people who seemed to enjoy all the attention they were gathering by predicting the end of civilization caused by humans. As the temperatures began to warm, suddenly they had to switch the dire forecasts from global cooling caused by humans to global warming caused by humans.

Al Gore came to the rescue. Global cooling meant that government should stockpile food for everyone, but that would cost money. Switching to global warming would create a different agenda that they were familiar with. Like smoking, they could tax it to HELP people. Of course, when they did stop and tax revenues began to decline, they introduced taxes on e-cigarettes and didn’t try to deter people from smoking.

With global warming, they could tax everyone for things they did every day from driving a car to heating and cooling their homes. Suddenly, global warming was a lot more profitable for government than global cooling. The alarm bell stopped ringing that warned of a continued global cooling, seen between 1945 and 1968, that was creating a new Ice Age.

Al Gore took the position of Vice President under President Bill Clinton. In that capacity, with Bill Clinton chasing women, Hillary became the de facto President and Al Gore was given free rein. No other Vice President enjoyed that power until Dick Cheney under George Bush, Jr.

Gore set out to enact policies that would alter government and our future by placing humankind in harm’s way. Gore directed all funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority for the United States Government. Gore created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. The Charter was revised on April 25, 1997, and the “Scope of Activities” was dramatically altered. Gore directed that the agenda was to be EXCLUSIVELY a global warming agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He claimed there would be NO DEBATEregarding the science behind the new agenda. Gore deliberately silenced all opposition.

The President’s Council on Sustainable Development was to focus EXCLUSIVELY on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by adopting the U.S. economy to his agenda. The Council shifted from economic development to environmental development even though it would reduce economic development. Gore flipped the purpose of the Council to a global warming and then set about his agenda to create a crisis to increase government control and power. That can only happen when there is a crisis, which Gore then manufactured.

To pull off the new agenda, Gore’s strategy set out to purge the government of anyone who disagreed or opposed his agenda in any way. He instilled, not the fear of God, but the fear of Gore throughout the high-ranking government officials in the agencies that included the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Education, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Their funding would be cut unless they adopted Gore’s agenda.

...

What is really astonishing is that Al Gore is neither a scientist nor a climatologist. Yet, Gore is considered the leading expert despite the fact that Gore’s climate change agenda was nothing but a fraud and deliberately imposed to increase government power.

What is the basis  or scientific proof to say Climate change agenda is a fraud? The article cited above speaks only about Gore's power, authority and influence as a Vice President of USA and alleged threat to agencies speaking against  Gore.  No proof  or evidence or scientific theory to disapprove Climate  Change , protecting environment, exploitation of  natural Earth , misuse and abuse of natural resources and Sustainable Development. This article has only marketed malicious intent against Al Gore and Climate Change.  If only one person called Al Gore is capable of fooling entire scientific community in USA and silencing their voice, is he capable of fooling the scientists and environmentalist of  the Rest of the World ??  The article speaks about any crazy idea  or propaganda that originates in USA , like in the in the name of Climate Change is  easily digested by Rest of The World??  It is astonishing to observe that  even in 21st century few people are Really Astonished that Al Gore could spearhead the idea of Climate Change without being a scientist or climatologist. Elon Musk is neither a Space Scientist nor a Rocket Scientist .  People really not bothered about knowing the real background behind the  scientists  or the environmentalists who worked along with Al Gore. Al Gore just the team leader.

[Red + 252]

3 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Hi Janet.  At the risk of stating the obvious, using a Newsweek article from 1975 is presented as evidence of how past predictions have ended up.  As you say, science is self correcting, and all most of us here are saying is: think of what repercussions there could be if they are wrong, once again.

Utter rubbish.  The linked article was about WEATHER - and there were no predictions linked to it.  

Where science has forecast climate to display specific trends, they have all come to fruition.  Why not quote from science rather than rely on the nonsense you read?

[Red + 252]

39 minutes ago, Illurion said:

red

Actually,  YES.   They are in on it....  As for whether Coastal Military Bases are threatened depends on WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED,  AND THE TYPE OF LANDMASS THEY SIT ON............   No, if they are coastal -  as in Coastal Military Bases - then sea level rise will affect them.

The DOD takes its orders,  and makes their plans based on what they are told to do. That does not mean these things will actually happen. Norfolk has been there a long time. The land itself at the shoreline is,  like all shorelines everywhere,  slowly settling into the sea.   No, some coastal regions are rising as a result of glacial mass no longer being present and the crust "rebounding".

<lots of irrelevant stuff> ........... we are left in a situation as to 'WHAT SCIENCE DO WE BELIEVE.........  NEW SCIENCE...........  OR          OLD SCIENCE..................?  You can believe whatever you like.  If you think today's science is no longer science, how does that make the old science "science"?  Put another way, you would have us conclude that the science that has continued to drive global economies well into the 21st century, putting spacecraft on Mars, has no reasoned basis.

I believe the science from the 1980's and earlier,  as the science from the 1990's forward are not trustworthy given that science is based on "unsound and manipulated" databases...........  Except that what you believe needs to be matched with reality.  All you have done is explain that you have no idea why concepts such data homogenisation that was practised prior to the 1980s is no longer valid.

.As for me............  I believe the Science Studies from the 1970's that state we are moving toward a COLDER WORLD....  And you do this without a shred of evidence.  and    i DO NOT believe the recent studies that state we are moving into a HOTTER WORLD......... You mean the millions of measurements of temperature from the satellite record since 1978 , aside from ground-level measurements are all false!  And it is therefore a global conspiracy... as if I have not heard this time and again from those who selectively choose what to believe.

So,  NO,  i do not believe in Global Warming............   Just in the normal global changes that have always been occurring on this planet,  which are mostly caused by the activities of the SUN.    Your beliefs affect only your reality.  Climate science shows you are completely out of touch.

 

[specinho + 470]

7 hours ago, Janet Alderton said:

My house is 200 feet above sea level on my shoreline property. Probably high enough not to be impacted by tsunamis. I am giving up trying to convince you that the consequences of Climate Change, even if not a sure thing, are so severe that we must move away from fossil fuels. I am fine with natural gas as part of the transition. 

relax.......... we have to make it worst before we make them better........ only then we can see the differences..................... *wink*

those trillions allocated by the governments to plug a hole when the whole house is on the leak might as well be spent on massive  construction; massive reconstruction after disasters and other massive things to be considered........ we waste no time addressing it already......... really.......... reminded me something: 

Dan Warnick

•   8 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

This site is a right wing echo chamber for sure.  Try to find the amusement and not take it personally. 

Thank you...😍  Although I do wish you would take it seriously AND personally.

Wow, this is a special day for me: I finally got called a right-winger!

 

For your info....... 

 

Posted by Sp December 30, 2018

This comment does not mean to be offensive....... But.....It does appear a little funny to many who are not into politics that they need a right winger party to spend and a left winger party to be thrifty........ or vice versa...... And it's also funny to realize we have one brain that is divided into left brain and right........

[Illurion + 894]

8 hours ago, Red said:

Actually,  YES.   They are in on it....  As for whether Coastal Military Bases are threatened depends on WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED,  AND THE TYPE OF LANDMASS THEY SIT ON............   No, if they are coastal -  as in Coastal Military Bases - then sea level rise will affect them.

The DOD takes its orders,  and makes their plans based on what they are told to do. That does not mean these things will actually happen. Norfolk has been there a long time. The land itself at the shoreline is,  like all shorelines everywhere,  slowly settling into the sea.   No, some coastal regions are rising as a result of glacial mass no longer being present and the crust "rebounding".

<lots of irrelevant stuff> ........... we are left in a situation as to 'WHAT SCIENCE DO WE BELIEVE.........  NEW SCIENCE...........  OR          OLD SCIENCE..................?  You can believe whatever you like.  If you think today's science is no longer science, how does that make the old science "science"?  Put another way, you would have us conclude that the science that has continued to drive global economies well into the 21st century, putting spacecraft on Mars, has no reasoned basis.

I believe the science from the 1980's and earlier,  as the science from the 1990's forward are not trustworthy given that science is based on "unsound and manipulated" databases...........  Except that what you believe needs to be matched with reality.  All you have done is explain that you have no idea why concepts such data homogenisation that was practised prior to the 1980s is no longer valid.

.As for me............  I believe the Science Studies from the 1970's that state we are moving toward a COLDER WORLD....  And you do this without a shred of evidence.  and    i DO NOT believe the recent studies that state we are moving into a HOTTER WORLD......... You mean the millions of measurements of temperature from the satellite record since 1978 , aside from ground-level measurements are all false!  And it is therefore a global conspiracy... as if I have not heard this time and again from those who selectively choose what to believe.

So,  NO,  i do not believe in Global Warming............   Just in the normal global changes that have always been occurring on this planet,  which are mostly caused by the activities of the SUN.    Your beliefs affect only your reality.  Climate science shows you are completely out of touch.

 

as usual Red,  you haven't a clue...   and please note that i have renamed you  "PINK"....

and yes,  those satellite measurements you love were also run through algorithms and changed to be meaningless...  etc...

Edited February 18, 2019 by Illurion

[Illurion + 894]

4 hours ago, specinho said:

 

cute meme...

however,  whoever wrote it failed to take into account that in real life,  the sides of the brain are reversed...

[Janet Alderton + 124]

My parents believed in education, and I received scholarships in college and graduate school based on merit. 

I am grateful that I do not believe in unsubstantiated conspiracies.

There is corruption in our world, but the solution is transparency, not echo chambers.

 

[Janet Alderton + 124]

These numbers are from the Pew Research Center

Trust them or not, this explains a lot about the dialog in this forum.

I am reassured that the majority of the U. S. population thinks Climate Change is a real problem.

Conservative Republicans especially skeptical of climate scientists’ research and understanding

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/04/conservative-republicans-especially-skeptical-of-climate-scientists-research-and-understanding/ 

 

[Red + 252]

6 hours ago, Illurion said:

as usual Red,  you haven't a clue...   and please note that i have renamed you  "PINK"....

and yes,  those satellite measurements you love were also run through algorithms and changed to be meaningless...  etc...

I don't use the satellite data as a rule as it is the least reliable of all temperature data.  Again, you just make up stuff when you don't know.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

19 hours ago, Janet Alderton said:

You are confusing weather with climate.

The heavy snow has made my road impassable for vehicles for 10 days. But I am patient. The snow is beautiful and welcome news for our water supplies. 

As I said previously, both sides make the same kind of claims all the time, so you need to use the ammo. 

[Red + 252]

Just now, ronwagn said:

As I said previously, both sides make the same kind of claims all the time, so you need to use the ammo. 

No, the climate science community does not confuse the two concepts.  You, however, do not use climate science so it's apparent why you said what you did.

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, Illurion said:

as usual Red,  you haven't a clue...   and please note that i have renamed you  "PINK"....

and yes,  those satellite measurements you love were also run through algorithms and changed to be meaningless...  etc...

Why don't you post a response then rather than the clownfest above.  

How about you show us the evidence that the Scientific consensus in the 1970's was for an imminent Ice Age  / cool phase as you would like to suggest?  

[Illurion + 894]

6 hours ago, Red said:

I don't use the satellite data as a rule as it is the least reliable of all temperature data.  Again, you just make up stuff when you don't know.

As i have stated for you on many occasions.  I will not do your research for you.

The proof you seek is in the form of hundreds of articles over the last few years which succinctly show how NASA, NOAA, etc have used various methods,  including algorithms, to ACTUALLY CHANGE THE REAL DATA READINGS IN VARIOUS DATABASES.

In addition,  on the NOAA side,  it also has been shown that not only did they create new databases based on "changed" data from the original databases,  but,  they even went so far as to "destroy" the original database information.

these people are currently being protected by the swamp creatures,  who are not allowing them to be prosecuted at this time...

But,  it is quite possible that once the swamp is drained,  and the rule of law is re-established,  that some of these "scientists" that you admire so much will be going to prison...

[Illurion + 894]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

Why don't you post a response then rather than the clownfest above.  

How about you show us the evidence that the Scientific consensus in the 1970's was for an imminent Ice Age  / cool phase as you would like to suggest?  

Clownfest is an accurate way to describe what Red writes,  and the way he writes it...........

Hopefully n the future,  he will please abide by the POSTING RULES OF THIS WEBSITE,  AND INPUT his RESPONSES "SEPARATE" FROM WHAT HE IS RESPONDING TO LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES...........

In other words,  he should stop inserting his garbage into the various sentences of my posts........

Just hit the QUOTE button,  and add his thoughts at the bottom of the dialog box that appears.................

.................

AS FOR THE STUDIES FROM THE 1970'S,   THEY ARE ALL "pre-internet"  ,  AND ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AS FAR AS I KNOW..

However,  i read them back then,  and remember what they said,  and i am not the only one that remembers it also,  as others on this site have mentioned them too...

I do not know how old you are,  but you are probably too young to know these things given that you state you have never heard of them...

Edited February 19, 2019 by Illurion

[Red + 252]

5 hours ago, Illurion said:

As i have stated for you on many occasions.  I will not do your research for you.

The proof you seek is in the form of hundreds of articles over the last few years which succinctly show how NASA, NOAA, etc have used various methods,  including algorithms, to ACTUALLY CHANGE THE REAL DATA READINGS IN VARIOUS DATABASES.

In addition,  on the NOAA side,  it also has been shown that not only did they create new databases based on "changed" data from the original databases,  but,  they even went so far as to "destroy" the original database information.

these people are currently being protected by the swamp creatures,  who are not allowing them to be prosecuted at this time...

But,  it is quite possible that once the swamp is drained,  and the rule of law is re-established,  that some of these "scientists" that you admire so much will be going to prison...

Your claims have been regularly disproven.

You are totally clueless in this realm.  Why do you keep posting your rubbish?

 

Edited February 19, 2019 by Red
sp.

[Illurion + 894]

Just now, Red said:

You claims have been regularly disproven.

You are totally clueless in this realm.  Why do you keep posting your rubbish?

 

All you do is just report the same drivel over and over...

SISO

blank in blank out

[Red + 252]

5 minutes ago, Illurion said:

AS FOR THE STUDIES FROM THE 1970'S,   THEY ARE ALL "pre-internet"  ,  AND ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AS FAR AS I KNOW..

However,  i read them back then,  and remember what they said,  and i am not the only one that remembers it also,  as others on this site have mentioned them too...

I do not know how old you are,  but you are probably too young to know these things given that you state you have never heard of them...

Which university were you at when you read these scientific works?  I can almost guarantee you read stuff in popular magazines, and read nothing at all from science.  How would I know?  It was my area of study in the 70's and it was very difficult to access peer reviewed papers back then unless you were literally on academic mailing lists.

[Red + 252]

11 minutes ago, Illurion said:

All you do is just report the same drivel over and over...

SISO

blank in blank out

Look, you are on the record as not believing any science after the 1980s.

What you don't realise is that the scientific information prior to the 80's was no different from the information today.  All temperature data on a global level must go through data homogenisation.  It makes no difference what year it is being reported. You display a high level of incompetence when it comes to climate science matters

Edited February 19, 2019 by Red
fix sentence

[Illurion + 894]

4 minutes ago, Red said:

Look, you are on the record as not believing the science prior to the 1980s.

What you don't realise is that the scientific information back then was no different from the information today.  All temperature data on a global level must go through data homogenisation.  It makes no difference what year it is being reported. You display a high level of incompetence when it comes to climate science matters

NO....

The changing and bastardizing of raw data is a NEW THING....

It was unheard of prior to the 1990's.........

[Illurion + 894]

10 hours ago, Red said:

Look, you are on the record as not believing the science prior to the 1980s.

What you don't realise is that the scientific information back then was no different from the information today.  All temperature data on a global level must go through data homogenisation.  It makes no difference what year it is being reported. You display a high level of incompetence when it comes to climate science matters

Frankly Red,   many of the other members of this forum have you "BLOCKED", so that they never see what you write,  which is why they do not respond to your posts.

Haven't you noticed that there are members that never respond to you ?

 

I know this because they have messaged me asking me WHY I HAVE NOT BLOCKED YOU..,  and suggesting to me that i should block you......

I always respond with the same thing,   i have an open mind,  and try to hear everyone's opinion...   Even when i disagree with it...

 

But this is getting really old.......

 

Edited February 19, 2019 by Illurion