Science & Technology

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

Too Good not to share!

The “climate crisis” is a lie, a hoax, a fraud, an affront to science and logic, a travesty, an economic and social sinkhole, a fake phoney baloney preposterous fabrication, a boondoggle, a massive waste of time and money, a pain in the arse, and it’s really silly too.

Dr Patrick Moore co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ElwoodBlues · M

but I've yet to hear a rational explanation of how miniscule increases in an atmospheric trace gas such as CO2, causes the earth to warm.

It's because CO2 & methane are transparent to visible light but more opaque to infrared. The solar energy comes pouring in via the visible spectrum, but the heat can't leave so easily via the infrared spectrum due to that opacity. Kids' version:
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/explainer-co2-and-other-greenhouse-gases

idealized quantitative model: https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/coriolis-force/a-simple-mathematical-model-of-the-greenhouse-effect.html

In order to actually prove human carbon emissions influence climate, all variables would have to remain constant

Nope. With multiple data points we can solve for multiple variables simultaneously. Detailed climate models account for all the variables you list and more. They are verified and calibrated based on 700,000 years of prior climate data.

http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/climate.html

Global warming models are based on small amounts of data. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, and we are expected to believe they can draw conclusions based on a hockey stick graph with 50 years of data?

Nope, not 50 years, 700,000 years, covering about 7 ice ages. The climate data comes from bubbles in glacial ice, and is corroborated by data from sea floor sediments.
https://icecores.org/about-ice-cores

Here's where the various data sets were collected:

The most salient thing about the 700,000 years of climate data is the rate of change during those previous 7 ice ages compared to the current rate of change this century.

Where does the money for climate research come from?

Fair question. Equally fair: where does the money for climate denial come from? The US oil industry makes about $110 billion per year; coal another $20 billion. Big Oil spends $3.6 billion per year on advertising; a sum equal to about 8X the whole NSF climate budget. You're not naive enough to believe none of that money goes to propaganda, are you?

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues Your lack of science and scientific understanding is surpassed only by your gullibility. Too Funny! The earth is not warming The CO2 levels are at record lows. But you carry on with your etch a sketch. We can all enjoy a good laugh at your expense.

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955

The earth is not warming The CO2 levels are at record lows.

Got any links or data supporting that outlandish claim?? I didn't think so, LOL!!!

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues What do you think limestone is made of? What do you think coal is made of?

ElRengo · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues

At least there is no need to ask for additional documentation of HIS "lack of science and scientific understanding"

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@ElRengo So what do you think limestone and coal are made of? Here is a hint. Its carbon dioxide that was captured by plants and animals. Guess what the CO2 levels were when that was going on? Well about 6000 PPM. What is it today? On a good day about 400 PPM. So if the earth didn't burn up and kill all life upon it when the CO2 levels were 6000 PPM why would it suddenly burn up and kill all life upon it if the CO2 level goes from 399 PPM to 400 PPM? You 'science' folks really have no understanding of the history of the world. Sucks to be you. But you carry on with your panic. Any day now the Greenland Glacier is going to melt.

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955 Nice straw man there! The point of limiting CO2 and temp rise is to keep ocean levels where they won't swamp a hundred trillion dollars worth of seaside land and structures.

ElRengo · 70-79, M

@hippyjoe1955
No panic.
I know enough about.
Part of what you say is true.
As much as all you say is not relevant.

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@ElRengo How is it not relevant? If the world was at 6000 PPM and is now at 400 PPM and the world did not burn up when it was at 6000 PPM maybe it would be logical to grasp the concept that CO2 is not a driver of climate change. What's more we can't find any climate change beyond statistical norms.

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955

How is it not relevant?

Because it ignores sea level rise, and replaces it with the "world did not burn up" straw man fallacy. See my post on cost benefit elsewhere in this question.

UPDATE:
See https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-do-we-know-glaciers-are-shrinking

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues There is no sea level rise because none of the big glaciers are melting. You clearly have not been paying attention. Antarctica and Greenland glaciers are growing not shrinking.

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955

There is no sea level rise because none of the big glaciers are melting. You clearly have not been paying attention. Antarctica and Greenland glaciers are growing not shrinking.

Got any links or data supporting these outlandish claims?? I didn't think so, LOL!!!

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues Go look at the glaciers. Here is a hint. A calving glacier (one that is shedding icebergs) is a growing glacier. Alaska, Greenland, Antarctica all shed ice therefore the glaciers are growing. A melting glacier just melts.

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955

Here is a hint. A calving glacier (one that is shedding icebergs) is a growing glacier.

DEAD WRONG!!!

Glaciers slowly flow downhill to the sea, and calve as they reach the sea. Calving tells you NOTHING about how the volume of the glacier has changed over the decades.

Here's a hint: Look at photos of glaciers 20 or 30 or 40 years apart.

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues Talk to any glaciologist. Your science is so funny you could make a living doing standup with it.

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955 I'm reading what the glaciologists publish. You're reading redstate.com or similar crap.

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.

Now it's YOUR turn! Link us to what YOUR glaciologists allegedly publish!!

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues You know that the citation you use all the time is pure agenda don't you? Really citing Nature? Wow!!!!

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955 Got any links or data supporting that outlandish claim?? I didn't think so, LOL!!!

You have yet to back up a SINGLE claim you've made. Now it's YOUR turn! Link us to what YOUR glaciologists allegedly publish!!

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues Why would I supply any links to you. You don't do reliable links. You rely on Nature. Now that is funny!!!

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955 Excuses excuses! You can't back up a SINGLE thing you say, LOL!!!

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues Says the guy whose only source is known to be a fraud.

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955

source is known to be a fraud.

LOL, you can't even COUNT!!!

Got any links or data supporting these outlandish claims?? I didn't think so, LOL!!!

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues Established science and evidence. Unlike you and your silly etch a sketch. Too Funny

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955 Established scientists aren't afraid to provide their references. You don't have any, and you're trying to hide that sad fact, LOL!!!

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues The only conspiracy theory here is you and your foolish ideas. You know nothing about CO2 or glaciers or sea level rise or change in level of the land. But here you are absolutely we are bound for perdition because the CO2 levels are now at near record lows of 400 PPM because SCIENCE! Go away before I bust a gut laughing at your utter foolishness.

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955 Got any links or data supporting these outlandish claims?? I didn't think so, LOL!!!