Climate Denier Hard To Refute

[Kazmyr]

Don't let anyone know your solution; before you know it the Coors Train will be regulated to death, taxed to death, then subsidized to life, and it will require the Newly-Appointed Coors Refreshingly Cold Train Czar's expertise to find the right amount of intervention, and, if successful, the Coors Train will ultimately somehow represent the white patriarchy -- you know, ever ask yourself why the Coors Train doesn't travel through the ghetto?

Cold, frosty, refreshing air is a tool of the patriarchy.

That is the end game you are setting in motion.

We can only hope for a departmental squabble between EPA and DoT to delay over-regulation.

Food for thought: Silver bullet... what else is silver? The hair on old white men...

Who founded Coors? ADOLPH Coors.

#JusSayin'

[jbird4049]

The question is not whether the climate is changing. That's just life. But rather what kind of change is good?

f you want evidence on rising temps just get some satellite pictures of both poles, or of the disappearing glaciers

[Martin Hash]

If you want evidence on rising temps just get some satellite pictures of both poles, or of the disappearing glaciers

That's a good counterpoint. I only hesitate because I lived through the "hole in the ozone layer" farce, plus doctored "Climate Change" papers.

[SuburbanFarmer]

If you want evidence on rising temps just get some satellite pictures of both poles, or of the disappearing glaciers

That's a good counterpoint. I only hesitate because I lived through the "hole in the ozone layer" farce, plus doctored "Climate Change" papers.

There is no shortage of evidence in ice core samples, prehistoric tree rings, and a number of other physical sources. We are on a hockey-stick pattern far outside the norms of earth's history.

On the upside, it's far too late to change it anyway.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you want evidence on rising temps just get some satellite pictures of both poles, or of the disappearing glaciers

That's a good counterpoint. I only hesitate because I lived through the "hole in the ozone layer" farce, plus doctored "Climate Change" papers.

The hole in the ozone layer thingy was actually real. But all we needed to do to reverse it was voluntarily reduce to near minimum use of fluorocarbons (like what used to propel hairspray back in the 1970s before the spritzer bottles came along as the environmental replacement).

There were two holes near both poles. UV radiation was pretty high under the antarctic one.

As long as we don't start using massive quantities of those fluorocarbons again, it's projected to completely close in about three decades.

And unlike this climate change farce, the mechanism for how CFCs fuck with the ozone layer are straight forward chemistry. At high altitude, UV radiation breaks up CFCs, releasing chlorine into the atmosphere. Chlorine reacts with ozone, creating O2 and ClO from the O3 molecule.

I am not an expert (obviously), but I chose the environmental science track for my natural science electives in college, and this is one of the few things I remembered.

[Montegriffo]

Latest scientific fraud.... the Earth is actually flat and round Earthers are part of Marxist Universities plots to extract money from big business.
Also the Earth is the centre of the Universe and God created mankind a mere 6000 years ago.

[SuburbanFarmer]

If you want evidence on rising temps just get some satellite pictures of both poles, or of the disappearing glaciers

That's a good counterpoint. I only hesitate because I lived through the "hole in the ozone layer" farce, plus doctored "Climate Change" papers.

The hole in the ozone layer thingy was actually real. But all we needed to do to reverse it was voluntarily reduce to near minimum use of fluorocarbons (like what used to propel hairspray back in the 1970s before the spritzer bottles came along as the environmental replacement).

There were two holes near both poles. UV radiation was pretty high under the antarctic one.

As long as we don't start using massive quantities of those fluorocarbons again, it's projected to completely close in about three decades.

And unlike this climate change farce, the mechanism for how CFCs fuck with the ozone layer are straight forward chemistry. At high altitude, UV radiation breaks up CFCs, releasing chlorine into the atmosphere. Chlorine reacts with ozone, creating O2 and ClO from the O3 molecule.

I am not an expert (obviously), but I chose the environmental science track for my natural science electives in college, and this is one of the few things I remembered.

Why, exactly, would you accept the scientific consensus on the ozone hole, but not climate change?

Did you take your own radiation measurements, or air sampling at the poles?

[Speaker to Animals]

That's a good counterpoint. I only hesitate because I lived through the "hole in the ozone layer" farce, plus doctored "Climate Change" papers.

The hole in the ozone layer thingy was actually real. But all we needed to do to reverse it was voluntarily reduce to near minimum use of fluorocarbons (like what used to propel hairspray back in the 1970s before the spritzer bottles came along as the environmental replacement).

There were two holes near both poles. UV radiation was pretty high under the antarctic one.

As long as we don't start using massive quantities of those fluorocarbons again, it's projected to completely close in about three decades.

And unlike this climate change farce, the mechanism for how CFCs fuck with the ozone layer are straight forward chemistry. At high altitude, UV radiation breaks up CFCs, releasing chlorine into the atmosphere. Chlorine reacts with ozone, creating O2 and ClO from the O3 molecule.

I am not an expert (obviously), but I chose the environmental science track for my natural science electives in college, and this is one of the few things I remembered.

Why, exactly, would you accept the scientific consensus on the ozone hole, but not climate change?

Did you take your own radiation measurements, or air sampling at the poles?

I don't accept or reject the so-called "consensus" on climate change. The big difference is that research behind the ozone hole issue was solid science. The chemical reactions that cause it were easily explained, and created testable hypotheses (predictions) we could experimentally verify. Indeed, by eliminating heavy use of CFCs, the hole began to close and will be be completely closed in about three decades.

The science behind human-caused climate change is a fucking disaster. I was a doctoral student in the physical sciences, and I am telling you flat out, most of these natural science fields are a train wreck. It's not that I think they are necessarily wrong, but that I doubt they can prove it (and they have not proven it).

The research behind the effect of CFC's on ozone in the upper atmosphere was solid science. They actually proved it beyond doubt with real science. it's not that they came to a consensus and somehow "voted" on the truth. The consensus happened because it was scientifically proven. Climate change as it currently is expressed in popular science has not been proven at all. All they have is this ridiculous appeal to a so-called consensus. That's not science, dude.

The reason I think the ozone layer problem was so easily proven is that it only required chemists (physical scientists) to prove it. Climate change.. nope. It's a bunch of vague ideas and loaded modeling. Again.. that's not science.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The hole in the ozone layer thingy was actually real. But all we needed to do to reverse it was voluntarily reduce to near minimum use of fluorocarbons (like what used to propel hairspray back in the 1970s before the spritzer bottles came along as the environmental replacement).

There were two holes near both poles. UV radiation was pretty high under the antarctic one.

As long as we don't start using massive quantities of those fluorocarbons again, it's projected to completely close in about three decades.

And unlike this climate change farce, the mechanism for how CFCs fuck with the ozone layer are straight forward chemistry. At high altitude, UV radiation breaks up CFCs, releasing chlorine into the atmosphere. Chlorine reacts with ozone, creating O2 and ClO from the O3 molecule.

I am not an expert (obviously), but I chose the environmental science track for my natural science electives in college, and this is one of the few things I remembered.

Why, exactly, would you accept the scientific consensus on the ozone hole, but not climate change?

Did you take your own radiation measurements, or air sampling at the poles?

I don't accept or reject the so-called "consensus" on climate change. The big difference is that research behind the ozone hole issue was solid science. The chemical reactions that cause it were easily explained, and created testable hypothesis (predictions) we could experimentally verify. Indeed, by eliminating heavy use of CFCs, the hole began to close and will be be completely closed in about three decades.

The science behind human-caused climate change is a fucking disaster. I was a doctoral student in the physical sciences, and I am telling you flat out, most of these natural science fields are a train wreck. It's not that I think they are necessarily wrong, but that I doubt they can prove it (and they have not proven it).

Is it possible that the entire 'confusion' over the issue could be related to special interests defending their corporate masters in media and government?

CFCs weren't a problem, because it barely cost the corps anything to change. This is not the same problem for them. The solutions would require incredibly radical societal changes to enact. That can't be allowed by the Elites, so a 'controversy' is created.

Atmospheric science is not, and has never been, an absolute science like physics or astronomy. The system is far too complex for us to quantify the effects of any input. However, we have obviously made extreme changes to the planet and our atmospheric output, and the climate is changing rapidly. You can hold out and say that it's all a big coincidence, but the odds of that are rather slim.

Would it hurt humanity to stop pumping millions of tons of shit into our air every year? No. But it would hurt the industrial model of our current society. A lot.

We've all seen the changes in our own lifetimes, in our own areas. You can deny it, but it doesn't really matter. Maybe winters just stopped being so intense here in Ohio. Maybe flowers suddenly decided to grow differently, seasons have shifted, and storms just randomly started getting stronger. Maybe the sea level is rising measurably just because it feels like doing so. Like I said, it's not a matter of belief. And it won't be stopped, no matter how much we fight over it.

[Speaker to Animals]

(1) The people peddling the climate change narrative have just as much bias and incentive to do so, man. The government over the past eight years wasn't in the business of handing out grant money to scientists critical of it, and any non-tenured environmental science professor who questioned it was unlikely to receive tenure.

(2) Nobody actually proved any of this at all. In fact, there hasn't even been any global warming in recent years. They have to keep revising their models and predictions because they continue to be wrong. In science, when your model makes predictions, we test those predictions using the scientific method in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis. The global warming hypothesis keeps getting falsified year-after-year, and they keep playing this game like they have to finally get it right this time.. That's not science. Something is very wrong with their model and assumptions.

(3) The climate fluctuates like crazy over time without any input at all by us. The fluctuations our ancestors experienced at the end of the previous ice age were freaking exponentially crazier than the most dire predictions of the global warming alarmists.

(4) A more reasonable approach is to take the position that we ought not blindly alter the chemical composition of our planet's atmosphere unless we have a very, very high confidence in the outcome. Instead of demanding everybody revert to the middle ages, let's look towards what achievable reductions in artificial effluents pumped into the atmosphere can reasonably be tackled each year. You don't need to make shit up to make this case like the global warming folks do.