Click here to close
New Message Alert
List Entire Thread
Msg ID: 2691681 There Are So Many Facts That Contradict ... +2/-3     
Author:obumazombie
6/6/2021 6:41:57 PM

The lib fantasy of the great glow bull warming swindle.

Let the libz explain these facts...

 

As reported by Fox News, a 2015 study published in the journal Nature Climate Change compared 117 computer model projections during the 1990s with the amount of warming that actually occurred. Of the 117 projections, only three were roughly accurate. On average, the computer models predicted twice as much warming as that which actually occurred. The projections wildly overestimated global warming, so much so that it’s hard not to suspect that something fishy may have been behind the lopsided results.
Amid a relentless drumbeat of global warming hysteria dating to the early 1980s, NASA data showed that the period Feb. 2016 – Feb. 2018 was the greatest two-year cooling event of the last 100 years. So at least for that two-year period, apocalyptic forecasts of climate doom weren’t just wide of the plate; they weren’t even in the ball park.

Another indication that global warming forecasts have been embarrassingly off base was reported in the UK Express, which ran a story in 2018 with the headline “Climate change is ‘not as bad as we thought’ say scientists,” followed by the subheadline “Climate change is likely to be markedly less severe than forecast, study claims.” For four decades and running, a virtually endless trail of horrifying predictions of imminent climate collapse has been trumpeted by an unquestioning western media. But despite the alarm bells, not one of those Chicken Little predictions has been on target, which brings me to the dire prediction described below. “Risk of megadrought in southwestern U.S. could exceed 99%” In 2015, California and much of the southwestern U.S. was in the final stage of a severe four-year drought. The same year, a terrifying study published in Science Advances forecast that man-caused climate change is making a catastrophic megadrought in the region a virtual certainty before the end of the century. According to the study’s authors, the risk of a megadrought could exceed 99 percent. “This will be worse than anything seen during the last 2,000 years and would pose unprecedented challenges to water resources in the region,” said Toby Ault, a professor of earth sciences at Cornell University and one of the authors of the study. He continued, “As we add greenhouse gases into the atmosphere—and we haven’t put the brakes on stopping this—we are weighting the dice for megadrought conditions.” I have a question for Professor Ault. But first, here’s an inconvenient piece of climate history which those who incite fear about droughts hope and pray voters will never discover: 

Studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence have documented multiple extreme droughts in the southwestern U.S. over the last 1,000+ years, including several which lasted more than twenty years—that’s FIVE TIMES longer than the relatively puny 4-year drought that hit California and other parts of the Desert Southwest in 2012-15. Twenty years is a long time, but some past droughts in what is now the southwestern U.S. lasted even longer. Much longer. One that began in the year 850 AD crawled on for a mind-boggling 240 years, and that megadrought occurred more than a thousand years before the climate fear industry dreamed up the man-made global warming theory in the early 1980s. According to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the drought of 850 was so severe that it led to the demise of an entire civilization—the Mayan Empire. And that drought wasn’t alone. Fifty years before it began, another megadrought, one which lasted 180 years, was just winding down. With that bit of climate history in mind, here’s my question for Professor Ault: What caused  those megadroughts? The professor and his co-authors know the answer, but don’t want you to know. They certainly can’t blame megadroughts of the last 1,000 years on the Industrial Revolution, which didn’t begin in earnest until the 1800s, a full millennium after those severe droughts wreaked havoc on what is now the southwestern U.S. and parts of what is now Mexico. Since they can’t scapegoat man’s use of fossil fuels for having caused those ancient environmental calamities, how do they and their allies in the climate fear industry hope to frighten you with the specter of an “unprecedented” megadrought that could be “99% certain”? They pray you will never learn about Earth’s climate history, that’s how.  Earth’s climate history is no friend of global warming fearmongers Absent historical context, extreme weather can be overhyped in ways that lead the uninformed to conclude that unpleasant things like severe droughts never happened before humans began using fossil fuels. In fact, extreme climate events have occurred with monotonous regularity for a long, long time.

According to the Nature Education Knowledge Project, Earth has had a climate going all the way back to the Archean Eon, from 3.9 billion to 2.5 billion years ago. Only God knows how many megadroughts occurred over that time. But whatever the number, it has to be off the chart. When the next one arrives—and one most certainly will—Professor Ault will have been right about one thing: its cause will be Earth’s ever-changing climate, the same vexing culprit which caused the megadrought of 850 AD and 100% of the multitude of other seemingly endless droughts which have plagued the planet since time immemorial. Professor Ault’s prediction that greenhouse gases will be to blame for the next one is speculation based on what likely will be yet another in a long line of dire “studies” that left egg on the face of its authors.
In my Canada Free Press article “Green is the new Red,’ I explain why I believe beyond a shadow of doubt that global warming alarmism is the most brazen scientific hoax the world has ever seen. A 1968 electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech and now retired, John Eidson is a freelance writer in Atlanta, and a regular contributor to The Blue State Conservative.

Image by Jody Davis from Pixabay

 

Lets see libz explain ancient megdroughts innterms of a...

 

Good job Goodlibs!

iv>


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2691690 So- You condemn ths predictions by saying tgey forecast twice as much warm +3/-2     
Author:TheCrow
6/6/2021 7:19:52 PM

Reply to: 2691681

So- You condemn ths predictions by saying tgey forecast twice as much warming as acually occured? The warming did hapoen.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2691696 Are You Drunk Posting As Well As Jumping +1/-2     
Author:obumazombie
6/6/2021 7:26:38 PM

Reply to: 2691690

To the worst possible conclusion so that you can smear with dishonesty?
Formulate a coherent question.

As an example, can you do a...

 

Good job Goodlibs?



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2691774 Quoting your post: On average, the computer models predicted twice as much +2/-2     
Author:TheCrow
6/7/2021 1:34:43 PM

Reply to: 2691696

Quoting your post: "On average, the computer models predicted twice as much warming as that which actually occurred."


You admit global warming/climate change has occurred but at half the rate some computer models predicted?

Yes, it is happening. The speed at which you drive over the cliff isn't important once you're over the cliff and falling.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2691778 Thank You For Sober Posting. I Can Grasp… +3/-3     
Author:obumazombie
6/7/2021 2:08:07 PM

Reply to: 2691774

Your point much better when you are coherent, and legible.

At least it's not the gibberish you intentionally and deliberately post when you are enraged by a post.

Real mature.

There is somewhat of a warming trend.

No one is disagreeing with you about that.

The salient aspects to the issue are, is man causing it, will the affects be good or bad or neutral, and what can or should be done about it.

You didn't address the cooling period between 2016-2018 by a somewhat reliable source.

Under the lib orthodoxy of glow bull warming, that would be impossible.

So we are not driving off a Cliff at any speed.

You alarmists love to gin up non existent crises, and then dictate how to solve them, especially when you have run out of other scam crises to fillibuster with.

We ar3 on to your great glow bull warming swindle.

We aren't falling for your devious, malicious manipulations.

Heck, if we let you libz manipulate us, at all, the next thing you know, you would manipulate us right into a...

 

 Good job Goodlibs!



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2691888 Thank You For Sober Posting. I Can Grasp… +1/-2     
Author:TheCrow
6/8/2021 2:34:04 PM

Reply to: 2691778

"The salient aspects to the issue are, is man causing it, will the affects be good or bad or neutral, and what can or should be done about it."

I have specifically stated that the cause of the CO2 induced global warming may indeed be natural sources that we can do nothing about (repeatedly!); or, as evidence suggests, mankind's vastly increased use of combustion for energy since the 18th century may be the cause.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

graph with two lines, one showing annual atmospheric carbon dioxide and the other showing carbon dioxide emissions from 1750-2019

If the increase in atmospheric CO2 is man-made or mankind is only a significant contributer, then we would be foolish not to attempt to address it. An analogy: if my house is on fire, I should do all I can to save it whether it's arson, accident or the result of wildfire.

Climatic changes are being demonstrated as we speak. The permafrost is thawing at rates exceeding history  and emitting CO2 in a divergent cycle; polar ice caps and glaciers are melting and the land beneath is rebounding under reduced loading, both contribute to rising sea levels; the chemistry of the worlds oceans is changing, acidifying and average temperature rising in the planet's major heat sink.

Hydrocarbons, other fuels are becoming obsolescent. That could be a natural impetus to other energy sources and reduction in human CO2 emissions. Or humankind could continue to screw the pooch in India, China and America's electric cars etc. might just increase pollution.

First, recognize and admit the problem- our habitat, our house is burning, whether you, I or nobody started the fire. At least try to save it.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2691894 Thank You For Sober Posting. I Can Grasp… +2/-2     
Author:obumazombie
6/8/2021 3:10:53 PM

Reply to: 2691888

Co2 is NOT pollution.

Your scam isn't working.

The world is NOT on fire.

There is no crisis.

A small warming would actually be beneficial to mankind.

Stop being a tyrannist, lib.

Stop being a doer of a...

 

Good job Goodlibs!



Return-To-Index