Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Is climate change a hoax

Conservatives claims so then why is it a hoax is it becuase conservatives been spoonfed it on conservative media rather than understaindg the acutal science since conservatives look down on booklearning and thus strongly misstrust science in general.
Top | New | Old
Definitely not a hoax. We are seeing everything we were told would happen in the early stages of it. It’s measurable, and hard to ignore. My personal view, is that we are already past the tipping point where we could do much about it, and no one on either side of the political spectrum wants to say it. I think it will get much worse before it gets better.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@RockerDad bad weather isn't a new thing.

Fact: regarding the damages and loss of life resulting in the roughly similar severe weather fluctuations, costs are up because of increasing human activity in known areas where these things always have happened. Yet loss of life is greatly reduced. This is attributable to both improved communications and early warning systems letting people prepare or move out of the way.

The planet has always had a long major and short cycle minor average temperature variations. This planet is still exiting the last ice age. If it wasn't so, the polar axis of this planet wouldn't have ANY ice.

Dumb people who never read may doubt this, and fake teachers that know they're lying may dispute this, but the climate hoax mega industry, the power to silence the fact, can suck my ass. I'm so fed up with their bullshit.
sree251 · 41-45, M
@SteelHands Neither are wildfires and hurricanes.
@SteelHands yea, look thru history
All thes things are getting more frequent and stronger
Ask the US Navy
windinhishair · 61-69, M
Climate change is not a hoax. It is real and it is here now. And it will continue to get worse with time unless people finally decide to do something about it. Already we are condemned to a new global climate with the changes we have already seen. We will not be going back to the climate we had in 1980 or earlier.
SW-User
@gol979 I have now watched it. It is full of mistakes from start to finish.

But first and foremost, the scientist that took the readings from the lear jet is called Yuri Gorby.

He's an actual scientist with an impressive publication record

But apparently he has fallen for the chemtrail theory. He's also let his emotions cloud his judgment. He should know that his measurements presented in this documentary do not prove anything, other than the fact that there is mineral dust in the air, which is hardly a new finding.

The movie presents no actual quantitative data. People look at screens and mention the compositions of a few particles they see in the electron microscope. It doesn't appear that number concentrations of particles were measured. Also, they seem to just randomly select particles without doing any systematic analysis. Very unscientific, probably backed up by the fact that Gorby remains anonymous throughout the documentary. Probably embarrassed with his findings.

Also, when they fly in the learjet and sample the air from the vent they used a TSI P-Trak instrument which measures the number concentration of particles of 20 to 1000 nm. BTW nanoparticles are <100 nm by definition, so this instrument doesn't only measure nanoparticles. It measures ultrafine particles, also called PM0.1

They measure around 1700 ultrafine particles per cubic centimeter.

There are no standards about the ultrafine particle number concentration, but for indoor air quality (IAQ)

<5,000 particles per cubic centimeter – desirable; limited amount of IAQ complaints
<10,000 particles per cubic centimeter – acceptable; normal amount of IAQ complaints
>10,000 particles per cubic centimeter – likelihood and frequency of IAQ complaints increases.

So apparently they had excellent air quality in that cabin, with quite a low number of ultrafine particles.

This documentary is nothing more than fear porn. This guy has been spouting the same shit for the last ten years at least, and none of his dire predictions have ever come to pass.

I laughed and then went out.
SW-User
@gol979 no they are not manipulating the weather. End of.
gol979 · 41-45, M
@SW-User just type in "cloud seeding australia". Plenty of mainstream articles for you. They are manipulating weather. Will you now start opposing this before wanting to massacre millions of cattle? I doubt it very much so we can all just ignore your hypocritical ideas and demands
SW-User
@gol979 the Australian government is being open about cloud seeding, which has been attempted for decades, and rarely works anyway.

What that video claims is a whole new level of crazy, and has no evidence to back it up.

I don’t share your paranoid delusions so we’ll leave it at that
It is in the nature of political conservatism, to turn away from facts that are inconvenient
Once conservative America, was all about learning, knowledge, and advancing technology. It is a sign of corruption decay, that conservatism now means ignoring things you wish were not true. And dreaming of returning to an unavailable past
@SatyrService
[image/video deleted]
@IndianaJoes Definitions are easy desserts. But throwing around Wikipedia pages is not the most sophisticated form of communication. So you know what Myth means
How are any of those wiki pages germane to this post
@SatyrService this is so funny, you're so typical of the democrat left wingers who can't shut up and never going to give up on how stupid they revealed themselves with their garbage talk. Why does being a moron not embarrass you people? Just block me please and go away. I care about my planet and people who think like you are the problem. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂😅🤣😂😅
Are glaciers shrinking? What does the photographic evidence say?

Muir Glacier, Alaska

Muir Glacier and Inlet, Alaska, 1880s and 2005

Carroll Glacier, Alaska, 1906 and 2004

Grinnell Glacier, Montana, 1926 and 2008

Bear Glacier from space 1980. 1989, 2011

Bear Glacier from the air 2002, 2007

Glacier shrinkage driving global changes in downstream systems
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619807114

Accelerated global glacier mass loss in the early twenty-first century
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03436-z
Using largely untapped satellite archives, we chart surface elevation changes at a high spatiotemporal resolution over all of Earth’s glaciers. We extensively validate our estimates against independent, high-precision measurements and present a globally complete and consistent estimate of glacier mass change. We show that during 2000–2019, glaciers lost a mass of 267 ± 16 gigatonnes per year, equivalent to 21 ± 3 per cent of the observed sea-level rise6. We identify a mass loss acceleration of 48 ± 16 gigatonnes per year per decade, explaining 6 to 19 per cent of the observed acceleration of sea-level rise.
@ElwoodBlues Most of the Earth's ice is in Antarctica and Greenland; are those glaciers and ice sheets shrinking?


A recent study of Greenland’s ice sheet found that glaciers are retreating in nearly every sector of the island, while also undergoing other physical changes. Some of those changes are causing the rerouting of freshwater rivers beneath the ice.

In a study led by Twila Moon of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, researchers took a detailed look at physical changes to 225 of Greenland’s ocean-terminating glaciers—narrow fingers of ice that flow from the ice sheet interior to the ocean. They found that none of those glaciers has substantially advanced since the year 2000, and 200 of them have retreated.
. . .
“The coastal environment in Greenland is undergoing a major transformation,” said Alex Gardner, a snow and ice scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and co-author of the study. “We are already seeing new sections of the ocean and fjords opening up as the ice sheet retreats, and now we have evidence of changes to these freshwater flows. So losing ice is not just about changing sea level, it’s also about reshaping Greenland’s coastline and altering the coastal ecology.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/147728/shrinking-margins-of-greenland

Antarctica
[media=https://youtu.be/AmSovbt5Bho]

April 1, 2021. The Antarctic ice sheet's mass has changed over the last decades. Research based on satellite data indicates that between 2002 and 2020, Antarctica shed an average of 149 billion metric tons of ice per year, adding to global sea level rise.Apr 1, 2021
. . .
Areas in East Antarctica experienced modest amounts of mass gain due to increased snow accumulation. However, this gain is more than offset by significant ice mass loss on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (dark red) over the 19-year period. Floating ice shelves whose mass change GRACE and GRACE-FO do not measure are colored gray.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/265/video-antarctic-ice-mass-loss-2002-2020/

For Antarctica, BEDMAP2 and Bedmachine provides the most complete and up-to-date estimate of ice volume, and it is derived by combining thousands of radar and seismic measurements of ice thickness [2,3].

In fact, BEDMAP 2 is derived from 25 million measurements. Fretwell et al. 2013 estimated that the Antarctic Ice Sheet comprised 27 million km3 of ice, with a sea level equivalent of ~58 m. BedMachine estimates the sea level equivalent of Antarctica to be 57.9±0.9m
https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/estimating-glacier-contribution-to-sea-level-rise/
SteelHands · 61-69, M
The scientific professions are discrediting themselves.

A summary review of the ways that universities get their funding, how scientific journals decide who gets their name in print are one aspect.

Ordinary common sense about things by people who clearly remember historical facts about the world being challenged by radical leftist (self annointed) "intellectuals" are another.

And then there are other gigantic tells anyone with a slight ability to think critically should recognize about these kinds of things being used to manipulate the world's population.

No mention of the rise and reappearance of the monopolistic international corporate hydras, however.

No mention of the disappearance of the middle class and creation of a vast poverty class in developed countries.

There is also the wreckage of educational systems, which fail to graduate high schoolers beyond a 40% comparititive proficiency in reading and math. Teachers sex wit minors. Introducing sexual concepts to pre teens. The teachers being subsidized by big pharma through government to "advise and dispense" brain altering drugs to kids

Nothing is mentioned in debates, on talk shows, or even on shows that claim to be in that specific business of revealing imortant, pressing matters.

The weather man gets it right seldom enough, yet the far future bs that turned out to be wrong gets announced as if they were right.

Yeah. We were all supposed to be dead several times by now. Where were you in 84 when the ice age was supposed to start.

2015 when the coastline was going to flood NYC and oil was going to run out?

Please.
Renaci · 36-40
@SteelHands Get a haircut and a job you dirty ass hippie.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@SW-User That is actually the crux of the difficulty. Those pot smoking garbage "intellect-druelz" that grant big grades and impressive degrees have only been churning out yakkity yak do nothings that call themselves scientists, while the real ones get sidelined.

Not one great scientific mind EVER was a part of mainstream science.

EVER

Climate alarmism is a political tool. It has very little to do with actual science and brainwashes little kids come grown ups to distract from the criminal cabals that steal billions in the name of "fixing the world's ""problems.""

Anyone moronic enough to believe that humans are as powerful as the weather, 200 miles deep atmosphere, and the sun combined would almost be funny to me if they weren't so goddam pitiful.
SW-User
@SteelHands define mainstream science, with specific examples. That’s right, you can’t. There’s no such thing.

I wish you were right, and that the wholesale changes in our weather patterns that have happened over the course of a couple of decades (rather than over thousands of years if they were “natural”) were nothing to do with us. But they are, and you’re wrong, and I suspect, you’re lying and you know it.

Thankfully your views are in a tiny minority, and no one cares anymore. The scientific consensus is irrefutable. Even the “mainstream” climate change deniers such as Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers have woken up.

You are dismissed.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
The AGW crowd are the ones who are indoctrinated. Every prediction by the 'science' has not happened in the timeframe it was said to happen and in fact it has not happened at all. Contrary to the AGW mindset the earth is not fragile. It is extremely robust with all kinds of negative feedbacks built in. Were it any other way the earth would not support life. Just as an example. There is no evidence from past history that increased CO2 causes warming. CO2 is now said to be around 400 PPM. Not that long ago it was over 1200 ppm and then the earth entered an ice age. Another point is that no one can define what is the ideal we should be aiming for. Kind of like the old codger pining for the days of his childhood because those were the days. The earth is constantly going through change and the climate is no different. We have in written history observed warm periods where everything flourished and we have seen cold periods where everything suffered. Where my house is situated there was a glacier a few thousand years ago. It was said to be a mile thick. There are huge eskers to the south of me that the glacier formed. So which is better a bit warmer or colder? Status quo is not an option.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
I'm still waiting for those icebergs to show up off Miami Beach I was told about in 1959
gol979 · 41-45, M
@sunsporter1649 they were melted by the 80s acid rain and the 90s hole in the ozone layer
@sunsporter1649 What climate scientist told you that and when did they say the next ice age would arrive?
Muthafukajones · 46-50, M
I think that our actions are affecting the climate however I believe that the earth is the more dominant factor to reverse climate change as it has many times over millions of years.
@Spotpot uhm... I think it already has. Everybody is losing their marbles. We got truck drivers that literally can't read road signs. Cashier's that can't do basic math even with a calculator, people who think that purple hair and green teeth are pretty and auto parts salespersons who doesn't know what a battery is unless you first tell him the year, make and model.
Graylight · 51-55, F
@Muthafukajones The earth has never resisted climate change. It has adapted to a shifting climate. The earth can exist for another 3 million years as a full desert, but mankind won't be there. We don't fit that algorithm.
Muthafukajones · 46-50, M
@Graylight that’s ok we don’t deserve it
smiler2012 · 61-69
@Spotpot really just burying there head in the sands of ignorance . these scientists are expert in there field on the climate and what they say i would take as true
@smiler2012 you are exactly correct. And pay attention to when Dane mentions about the gag orders. (Another one I cross referenced about) Think about this... With all this science and technology and they still can't predict the weather more than just a couple days out? Omgosh... That don't make any sense at all. The meteorologist are gagged about what they're able to talk about.
@smiler2012 also I would like to add that I did mention that I don't trust the mad scientists. Hahaha. There is a difference between mad scientists and actual scientists. You're aware of this too I'm sure. And speaking of being gagged and scrubbed... Funny how you never hear anybody talk about mad scientists anymore. What happened to that term. Could it be that it's offensive to the left?
Bill1372 · 51-55, M
@smiler2012 *their head… it’s their

And he talks about ignorance… lol
Can humans actually do anything to influence the global climate? YES! We caused the ozone hole and we are healing it!

The antarctic ozone hole is a case that demonstrates both humanity's ability to affect the atmosphere and humanity's ability to fix the damage we've done. The ozone hole began shrinking when we reduced CFC outputs by over 99%.

NASA began measuring Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer by satellite in 1979. By the time the Montreal Protocol went into effect in 1989, ozone concentrations (in Dobson units) had declined significantly over the Antarctic, enlarging the ozone hole.

The American Chemical Society says:
Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone Depletion
A National Historic Chemical Landmark
. . .
“When we realized there was a very effective chain reaction, that changed the CFC investigation from an interesting scientific problem to one that had major environmental consequences,” Rowland told Chemical & Engineering News in an extensive interview in 2007. “You don’t often get many chills down your back when you look at scientific results,” he added, but that had been one of those moments.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/cfcs-ozone.html

Want more?
Research studies in the laboratory show that chlorine (Cl) reacts very rapidly with ozone. They also show that the reactive chemical chlorine monoxide (ClO) formed in that reaction can undergo further processes that regenerate the original chlorine, allowing the sequence to be repeated very many times (a chain reaction). Similar reactions also take place between bromine and ozone.

But do these ozone-destroying reactions occur in the "real world"? All the accumulated scientific experience demonstrates that the same chemical reactions do take place in nature. Many other reactions (including those of other chemical species) are often also taking place simultaneously in the stratosphere. This makes the connections among the changes difficult to untangle. Nevertheless, whenever chlorine (or bromine) and ozone are found together in the stratosphere, the ozone-destroying reactions are taking place.

Sometimes a small number of chemical reactions are so dominant in the natural circumstance that the connections are almost as clear as in laboratory experiments. Such a situation occurs in the Antarctic stratosphere during the springtime formation of the ozone hole. Independent measurements made by instruments from the ground and from balloons, aircraft, and satellites have provided a detailed understanding of the chemical reactions in the Antarctic stratosphere. Large areas reach temperatures so low (less than 80°C, or 112°F) that stratospheric clouds form, which is a rare occurrence, except during the polar winters. These polar stratospheric clouds allow chemical reactions that transform chlorine species from forms that do not cause ozone depletion into forms that do cause ozone depletion. Among the latter is chlorine monoxide, which initiates ozone destruction in the presence of sunlight. The amount of reactive chlorine in such regions is therefore much higher than that observed in the middle latitudes, which leads to much faster chemical ozone destruction. The chemical reactions occurring in the presence of these clouds are now well understood from studies under laboratory conditions that mimic those found naturally in the atmosphere.
Bumbles · 51-55, M
It’s impossible that burning megatons of carbon into a thin gaseous atmosphere for 150 years into would have any effect.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@IndianaJoes Did you have an actual point to your post or just an unhinged stream of consciousness rant?
@windinhishair well I originally was serious but then along comes another left-winger troll like yourself so I'm having fun now. I already asked you to block me and you wouldn't you wouldn't stop you wouldn't quit you wouldn't give up you just don't know when to shut up so let's just have fun. Lmao. I can't stand people who take part in destroying our country. I had to take shrapnel and torture injections so piece of shits like you can have your freedom. Let's go Brandon. 🇺🇸
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@IndianaJoes I only block people who block me. There is no need to block people like you, because every post you make further demonstrates your profound lack of knowledge and detachment from reality.

And there it is. Blocked. Right wingers always block when they are confronted with facts, because they have nothing to counter the facts with and have to block to prevent themselves from seeing them.
DearAmbellina2113 · 41-45, F
Look around, it's real.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@DearAmbellina2113 Happens all across America 4 times a year
SW-User
@gol979

Climate change:

A change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.
in10RjFox · M
It's got nothing to do with hoax for it's a prediction based on historical records of climatic behaviour. But catastrophic or drastic change can also happen which cannot be predicted.

Disbelievers of such predictions are just going to live life as it unfolds. I wouldn't classify them as Conservatives, for conservative is one who would say don't meddle with nature and let nature take its own course.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
I think it's easy to label all conservatives with the same nonsense it's leadership spews but it would be wrong to do so.

I've no doubt there are many who see environmental damage in their own areas where they live and are just as concerned as the rest of us.

It's just that voicing discontent to the contrary of conservative rhetoric is difficult when your own party leadership spews nonsense with a catchphrase in an attempt to label your concerns as irrelevant to what they want to push to gain support from industry and business
Renaci · 36-40
@Picklebobble2 No they aren't concerned. They ARE all the same.
walabby · M
We have anthropogenic climate change because there are too many people. We need volunteers to top themselves to save the planet. Anyone..... ????
No???
Thought so.
@Pikachu

lol indianajoe just blocked me for that post.
Or maybe it was the post asking if it's more likely that scientists are lying for money or the uber-wealthy elite oil barons...

Way to keep an open mind, free-thinker! 🤣
SW-User
@Pikachu He’s probably on Gab reading crazy conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory and believing it all. I have a friend who started doing that and he’s almost unrecognizable now after getting fully sucked into it, he can’t talk about anything else, it’s very sad.
@SW-User

Radicalization is a hell of a thing
SteelHands · 61-69, M
First, you're generalizing.
Next, you're sinking into the massive narrative, that if someone disagrees that means they fall into a group.

Other than that you're also invoking political taglines in a subject (science) that's not supposed to be, never should have been, and cannot ever be made sense of if it's made political.

Politicians and grant subsidies have all but bought out science, lock stock and the kitchen sink.

Until you realize that, you'll be believing in all kinds of lies that are actually far less possible than you might realize.
Bumbles · 51-55, M
@SteelHands They got it all figured out, man!
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
The Republican hoax that climate change is a hoax is a hoax. And, the one thing "the base" loves is a hoax. For them, it's equal to being scammed. They eat it up like a pig in slop.
https://youtu.be/rf78rEAJvhY?si=VKleME4GM86RnioS
@gol979 I noticed that. I've actually met Dane Wilmington in person and he's not just shooting from the hip. I travel the country all day everyday. I see the sky always. I remember what it used to look like many years ago. And yes.... I don't trust the mad scientists.
gol979 · 41-45, M
@IndianaJoes and its verifiable......saudi and australia have both stated they have cloud seeded.

And look at how the response is beginning to change from, "dur you crazy conspiracy nutter. They arent spraying the sky" to "well of course we have to action stratospheric aerosol injections, climate change".
@gol979 yes.... And I love people like Dane Wilmington because he always tells you his sources and when you cross reference the sources.... They always pan out.
Bill1372 · 51-55, M
“Look down on booklearning”

From the guy with a a run-on sentence that is in serious need of proper grammar.
It will never get better until we the people start agreeing on what are conspiracy theories and what are not. And getting rid of the crooks behind it.
Bill1372 · 51-55, M
This post is a word salad…
@Bill1372

Perhaps. But that doesn't change the fact that anthropogenic climate change is a thing nor that conservatives are far more likely to reject the science in favour of rhetoric.
Majorsite · 61-69, M
Does the Pope bless ?
MasterLee · 56-60, M
Yes a hoax
Of course it isn’t a hoax. The scientific data is overwhelming. Anyone claiming it’s a hoax is either extremely stupid or has a dangerous agenda.
It's hard to trust a liar when they already been caught in a lie. "Once a liar, Always a liar".
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
ExtremeNext · 36-40
Yes
Greta told me I'm going to die but I'm still alive
Stupid girl somebody should of bumped her off years ago
ExtremeNext · 36-40
@ElwoodBlues I'm not reading all that shit , weirdo
@ExtremeNext Yeah, reality is difficult. Stick to your fantasy world, LOL!!!
Renaci · 36-40
@ExtremeNext Maybe you should off yourself so you don't have deal with Greta and the weirdos you illiterate POS.

 
Post Comment