Scientists Prove Man-made Global Warming Is A Hoax

Discussion in 'News, Current Events, and Politics' started by TMT Tactical, Apr 9, 2019.

0/5, 0 votes

  1. TMT Tactical

    TMT Tactical The Great Lizard !
      297/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Okay, I am not sure I posted in the right spot.

    Scientist have proven that 3,000,000 (if I got it right is 3 million) years ago, the CO2 levels were as high as they are today. That is before any recorded appearance of man. So maybe the aliens stopped by and had a few too many BBQ"s

    "Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.?"

    So now we have it, scientific proof -- not just the deniers but scientist, that we are NOT THE CAUSE of global warming.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ists-prove-man-made-global-warming-is-a-hoax/
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2019
    Sonofliberty likes this.
  2. Keith H.

    Keith H. Moderator Staff Member
      425/460

    Blog Posts:
    7
    Confused! Maybe I am missing something here, but it reads:
    Yet today, it is the increase of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels that is fundamentally changing our planet, the analysis further confirms. Global mean temperatures never exceeded the preindustrial levels by more than 2 degrees Celsius in the past 3 million years, the study shows – while current climate policy inaction, if continued, would exceed the 2 degrees limit already in the next 50 years.
    Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
    Keith.
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  3. TMT Tactical

    TMT Tactical The Great Lizard !
      297/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    It also stated;
    "
    Yes, you read that correctly, three million — million — years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today…

    Three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols.

    In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…

    CO2 levels were the same then as they are now…"

    So we are not causing the global warming, any more than we did 3 million years ago. And I seriously doubt the world is going to end in 12 years, as some Democrats and fear mongering liberals claim.
     
    Sonofliberty likes this.
  4. Keith H.

    Keith H. Moderator Staff Member
      425/460

    Blog Posts:
    7
    No sorry mate, but just because there was extreme weather conditions 3 million years ago does not prove that global warming climate change is not a product of human intervention.
    I do not believe in the 12 years scenario, but I do think it possible that we may encounter TEOTWAWKI before the end of this century, & then the extinction of all life on earth possibly in the next century.

    I tell you what, I would sooner take action & spend the rest of my life living an 18th century lifestyle than have to go through TEOTWAWKI & possibly condemn my grandchildren & any great grandchildren to death. For me the choice is simple, no contest.
    However, the majority of people are not going to take any action, so this world is more than likely going to end, unless some other catastrophe comes along first & shuts down all fossil fuel industry.
    Keith.
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  5. TMT Tactical

    TMT Tactical The Great Lizard !
      297/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Keith, I can't and won't fault you for your beliefs. I am betting TEOTWAWKI will come not from climate change but from stupid and corrupt governments. As the economies of all the nations fail and the populations continue to grow, civil disorder will grow into ciaos and then into civil wars and ultimately world wide destruction. Consider it MOB rule, worldwide. The climate is the least of our worries.
     
    Sonofliberty and Morgan101 like this.
  6. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Teotwawki is more likely to be man made than anything natural, but I wouldn't rule out a mixture of the two.
     
    Morgan101 and TMT Tactical like this.
  7. TMT Tactical

    TMT Tactical The Great Lizard !
      297/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I agree, If we don't kill each other off, then the pollution will probably get us. OR the pollution from trying to kill each off will get us.
     
    Sonofliberty and lonewolf like this.
  8. Sonofliberty

    Sonofliberty Expert Member
      135/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I think SHTF/TEOTWAWKI will most likely be an economic catastrophe or the fulfillment of Revelation.
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  9. Ystranc

    Ystranc Master Survivalist
      330/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    An economic catastrophe my change the world we live in and even cause massive population decrease by starvation and disease but it is not truly an extinction event.
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  10. Hick Industries

    Hick Industries Well-Known Member
      67/115

    Blog Posts:
    0
    The first highly detailed ice core data was published 21 yrs ago. I saw a chart published in "The Economist" which showed these long term changes in global temps vs atmospheric gas, and down loaded the raw data from oak ridge site CDIAC-ORNL the following year.

    This data not only fails to support the hypothesise of man made global warming, it proves that current CO2 levels are not causing a detectable change to the climate. So I wrote a 20 page engineering white paper describing these results, and sent it to the US President in March 2001. About six weeks later, President Bush formally withdrew from the Kyoto agreemment (which had been signed by former VP Al Gore, but rejected by the US Senate).

    In the 17 yrs since that time, I have watched as the true believers proposing the hypotheses, go absolutely bat shit crazy. All of the serious scientists who had originally worked on the hypotheses, abandoned the field following the discolure of the climate gate emails. The only folks left who pretend to believe it, are those asking for money.

    I'll skip to the bottom line.
    Yes, the climate changes frequently, and CO2 levels have nothing to do with it. The actual cause is variations in the Earths orbit, changes in the Suns magnetic field, and large volcanoes and impact events.

    What changes are likely to occure next? The Suns magnetic field has dropped off significatly, and it is predicet to remain low for 30-40 yrs. If this continues as predicted, a little ice age is more likely, than a warmer world.
     
  11. Oldguy

    Oldguy Expert Member
      193/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Damn a sane logical post awesome:)
     
  12. Ystranc

    Ystranc Master Survivalist
      330/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Well if it's all due to happen over the next 30-40 years I'll have a ringside seat and see who is right. Pandemic, volcano, pollution, nuclear war, global warming or Planet X.....
    .....I shall watch with interest from my hill top.
     
  13. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    on BBC1 next Thursday at 9pm there are some climate scientists who DONT believe climate change is a hoax, there are always 2 sides to every story.
     
    TMT Tactical and Ystranc like this.
  14. Morgan101

    Morgan101 Expert Member
      235/345

    Blog Posts:
    0

    If I make it the next 30-40 years I will be a medical miracle, and won't give a flying, Philadelphia you know what about what Mother Nature has to throw at me.

    Hick Industries: I have heard that the volcanic eruption in Iceland in 2010 put more carbon into the atmosphere than mankind has done in its entire existence on the planet. Is this true? Can you confirm or deny? I have also heard that volcanoes are the major contributor to carbon and there are thousands of eruptions every day. Not a thing we can do about it. True? False?
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  15. Hick Industries

    Hick Industries Well-Known Member
      67/115

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Reasonable question. Every major volcanic eruption or impact event released tremendous amounts of dust, ash, CO2, and SO2. While these events are typically limited in duration, they do release far more than all of mans activities combined. They also cause the earths temp to drop, not increase.
    This may be a real shocker to most people who have not studied geology, but the ice core data confirms what geologists have known for a hundred years. We live in a geological period known as the plistocene, which is charaterised by a repeating cycle of ice ages. The earths climate get much, much colder and massive sheets of ice cover much of the norrhern hemisphere. While these ice age events vary in magnitude, they typically last 80,000 yrs, and in between we enjoy much shorter interglacial periods of warm weather that last 20,000 yrs. This cycle of warm and cold began 2-3 million years ago, and there is no chance that it will not continue.
    At no time does measured data support the hypotheses of man made global warming. While the earths climate does change, and has changed dramatically, these changes are not driven by greenhouse gases such as CO2. Tbey are caused by the vagarities of earths orbit, and solar output.
     
  16. Duncan

    Duncan Expert Member
      130/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    The 2010 Eyjafjallajokull eruption, although not insignificant at a maximum 30,000 tonnes day-1 of CO2 emission, is nowhere near the global human activity contributed 29,195 million tonnes of CO2 to the air (per the US Energy Information Administration) or one millionth of what people put into the air each year.

    Volcanic ash -- now that was significant (and scary) if you were flying through the ash cloud at the time. But the CO2 inputs were negligible.

    Citation here.
     
    TMT Tactical and Hick Industries like this.
  17. Hick Industries

    Hick Industries Well-Known Member
      67/115

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I guess you missed the part about volcanoes cooling the planet, not warming it up.

    How much CO2 it emmits is not really important, since CO2 is not causing the climate to change.
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  18. Oldguy

    Oldguy Expert Member
      193/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Look up "Milankovich Cycle"

    Forces far beyond man involved!
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  19. Duncan

    Duncan Expert Member
      130/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Actually, I was responding to our colleague Mr Morgan's earler comment.

    I am neither a climatologist nor a geologist, although I have taken (and am presently enrolled in) 5 or 6 geology classes. My class this semester at CSI ( the College of Southern Idaho) is Field Geology 273; our trip next month will be a week at Yellowstone NP.

    I hope to learn a lot!
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  20. Morgan101

    Morgan101 Expert Member
      235/345

    Blog Posts:
    0

    Thank you clarifying. There is so much written about both sides of the equation it is difficult to know what is true, and what is not. Who do you believe?

    My next question is about the " Carbon Footprint ". I have read both sides of that argument, and I still don't know who to believe. Is it a real concern, or is it blown out of proportion? Maybe you and Hicks Industries can debate the issue here.
     
  21. Duncan

    Duncan Expert Member
      130/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I don't believe anything on faith alone. I try to research an item as much as I can, and make an effort to read both sides of any issue. With issues that are (or are supposed to be) science-based, the data and numbers are out there; then only point of concern is that there are people out there who will use dishonest statistical methods to 'twist' the results. We need a lot more knowledge and skills in these particular fields in order to accept the conclusions that are both valid and true. Both the Climate Change proponents and the Climate Change deniers have used these tricks, so we can't say that "A is always right and B is always wrong".

    I personally believe that climate change runs in natural cycles, many of which we understand and some which we do not. But I also believe, based on my understanding of the chemistry behind airborne pollutants, that anthropogenic pollution is adding a lot, and that is probably enough icing on the cake to tip the system and bring about a catastrophic swing in the Earth's overall climate, which will be very dangerous to everyone's health within the next ten or twenty years.


    I'd love to talk about carbon footprint, and what its good and bad points are, but much of this morning will be involved in some very difficult scientific endeavors on my part, including presenting my final proof to Fermat's Theorem, feeding the goats and the chickens, and trying to rebuild a hay feeder that the ()*&^#& goats won't tear down. I lied about the proof to Fermat's Theorem.

    Hopefully I will be able to talk to the carbon footprint thing after lunch, and I guarantee that no electrons will be harmed by the resulting post.
     
    TMT Tactical and Morgan101 like this.
  22. Morgan101

    Morgan101 Expert Member
      235/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Thank you for sharing. I try to read all I can on both sides as you say, but often it is so far past my understanding of science it makes my head hurt. I would really appreciated someone, a true scientist, that could translate science into Everyday Joe the Plumber language, so we could all understand it.

    I look forward to your post on the carbon impact, at your leisure, and trust that no electrons will be harmed in the process. At least not on my part. I don't think I have any electrons I could harm. Good luck finding a feeder the goats won't tear down. If you do find or build one you should patent it. I would think it would be in high demand.
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  23. Oldguy

    Oldguy Expert Member
      193/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Morgan101
    Just look at the raw data available and disregard all opinions and conclusions from the talking heads!
    Earths climate is based on cycles! see "Milankovich Cycle" no talking heads just a combination of cycles that have been correct in the past and will be come the future.
    Human pollution may change things locally but they are not much on the global scale.
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  24. poltiregist

    poltiregist Expert Member
      247/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Leese see here if I have this right . The U.S. citizens are supposed to empty their bank accounts and give the money to less successful countries , shut down the power grid , stop all fossil fuel production , farm with draft animals , eat only what they can grow or kill . If we don't we are somehow bad and don't care about the planet or our kids . This sounds like the united states communist partys" Green new deal" bill that just got voted on . The results was it didn't receive even one favorable vote . Even the communist that wrote it up wouldn't vote for it . Untill the United States falls under Communist rule I think this idea will go nowhere . Even under Communist rule the dictator at the top will line their own bank account and not give it to a failed country . If the temperature isn't comfortable enough it looks like a plan B is in order .
     
    TMT Tactical and Morgan101 like this.
  25. Morgan101

    Morgan101 Expert Member
      235/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I appreciate your advice. I really do. Looking up the Milankovich Cycle provides data, but at the same time it makes my point. If you tell me it is 100 degrees F I know it is hot. If you tell me it is 15 degrees F I know it is cold. WTF are benthic forams and Vostok ice cores? I don't understand the data, and I don't understand what is meaningful.

    The Earth's axial tilt varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees over a cycle of 41,000 years. What is significant; .1 degrees? .5 degrees? 1 degree? How does that affect the climate? Is that affect helpful or harmful? O.K. The Sun is gonna do whatever it wants, and the Earth is gonna do whatever it wants. Does mankind have any affect whatsoever?
     
    TMT Tactical likes this.
  26. Duncan

    Duncan Expert Member
      130/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    do
    No, you DON'T have it right.
    • We're not supposed to empty our bank account to give to anyone else.
    • What we should do is to figure out the most cost-effective way we can to stop pollution. That means cleaning up our air and water without breaking the bank and driving our economy into the toilet.
    • We're not supposed to shut down the power grid, especially because, over the past five years or so, we've made it a lot more efficient and able to withstand heavier-than-normal loads (and even big solar flares) without crashing.
    • We're not going to farm with draft animals because it's is simply not as efficient (and thus costs more) than a Mahindra tractor in your back yard, and a John Deere combine down the road.
    • We're not going to "eat only what we could grow or kill" it would trash the economy, and I'd never be able to drink orange juice or eat lobster again.
    • The Democratic Party is not more the "Communist party" than the Republican Party is the "Nazi party". Both the Democrats and the Republicans want a big, nosy, intrusive government to tell you how to live your life and extort all your wealth. The Democrats tell you they're the protector of your rights and freedoms. The Republicans tell you the same. They both lie. The whole concept of those statist pigs' plan is to convince the more naïve of the citizenry that only they are right, and the other guy is wrong.
    I'm not any more thrilled with these überliberals out there with their crackpot social schemes than you or anyone else here is, but we are facing an existential challenge, and the sooner we all get ourselves in prepper mode, the better off all of us (and our brats and grand-brats) will be.
     
  27. Duncan

    Duncan Expert Member
      130/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    The whole idea of "carbon footprint" isn't good or bad; it's just a measurement, like pounds per square inch, or meters, or half-pints. The best way to define carbon footprint is "The total amount of greenhouse gases produced to directly and indirectly support human activities, usually expressed in equivalent tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)."

    Another definition (different, but the idea is the same) would be "the amount of carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds emitted due to the consumption of fossil fuels by a particular person, group, etc. also expressed in equivalent tons of CO2."

    Sounds pretty simple, right? Well, no, because although you can measure the output from your Ford F-150 from here to the store and back, just sitting in your house with the air conditioner on powered by electricity from the coal-fired generating plant three states away, or how much fossil fuel-powered energy it took to grow your food, take it to the supermarket, and cook it (and don't forget the methane-producing farts emitted by Sam the Steer who died in order that you might have your double quarter pounder with cheese).

    Measuring anyone's carbon footprint is, obviously, a tricky job; depending on whether you're a global warming fan or a global warming denier, it's pretty easy to cherry-pick the data to show that my carbon footprint is smaller than yours nyaah nyaah nyaah.

    Bottom line: in my opinion the idea makes a lot of sense, but since it's (1) fiendishly difficult to quantify objectively and (2) has been politicized up one side and down the other, it's not worth much except as a club to get nyaah nyaah nyaah points when you're debating someone whose ideas ares contrary t yours,
     
    Morgan101 likes this.
  28. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    most of the climate change and pollution in general is down to too many humans on the planet consuming all the resources and not giving a tinkers damn about the consequences, well mother nature has a way of getting her own back, a good SHTF will sort all that out, its just a matter of when not if.
     
    poltiregist likes this.
  29. Morgan101

    Morgan101 Expert Member
      235/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Thank you. I think that sums it up perfectly.
     
  30. TexDanm

    TexDanm Shadow Dancer
      525/575

    Blog Posts:
    1
    All of the numbers that the end of the world because of American cars fail to take into account the fact that just a very few decades ago most of the world was using coal to make energy, coal poweredships and trains and people were heating and cooking with wood and coal. If the elevated co2 levels were man made the sudden up sweap would have happened in 1900 rather than 2000. Co2 is the result of oxygenating any carbon source. We call that fire.
     
  31. TexDanm

    TexDanm Shadow Dancer
      525/575

    Blog Posts:
    1
    The thing is that you won't be exposed to two sides. They will only allow those that say what they are paid to say be on the show. This is like believing the trained pony experts that lawyers hire to testify in courts. They say whatever you pay them to say.

    Believe me, you have to dig deep and hard to get both sides of the story. Universities don't pay for people that are going to cut their financial throats. Once again, There is big money in bad news and not much in good news. How much money do you think the Catholic church would have if not for them "saving" you from hell. Jesus sent nobody to hell and only talked about love and forgiveness. THAT is why there is no book of Jesus in the Bible. Humans NEVER learn and con men keep using the same cons over and over.
     
    Morgan101 likes this.
  32. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    big protests in London about climate change going on as we speak.
     
  33. poltiregist

    poltiregist Expert Member
      247/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    What does the protesters want the world to do ? I expect when the food supply started running short because of trying to not use those nasty fossil fuels , they would protest about that to .
     
  34. F22 Simpilot

    F22 Simpilot Well-Known Member
      80/115

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Here's the thing about "global warming/climate change," what ever the word du jour is that fits the political religious narrative. Because quite frankly, I think "global warming/climate change" has become less about science and more about a religious doctrine of sorts. Really. Just read about Al Gore and how he latched onto the concept and ran with it all the while making money. Never mind the fact the Noble Peace prize is nothing but a joke especially since Obama got one and for what? He was only in office like a month?

    Anyway, is pollution bad? Yes. Should we lessen the amount of it? Yes. Do third world "shitholes" as Trump would say care like China or India? No. Yet we have regulation upon regulation to combat air pollution and everything else. Hell, during Obama's term his EPA went after tiny puddles in farmer's fields! Then I read the EPA bought a boat load of night vision goggles. WTF for!? If there is one thing for certain, the government doesn't know anything and spends your money like no tomorrow. And believe me when I say the government doesn't know anything. The EPA had all of these air monitors strapped to light poles and what have you around NYC after the 9/11 aftermath and they all claimed the air was perfectly fine. Yet to this day people are dying from inhaling the toxic air from the collapsed buildings. NASA was even caught fudging the numbers about "global warming/climate change" As it stands now it's mostly a garbage in garbage out science embraced upon by those who want control.

    #AOC is one of the dumbest people I have ever seen. She has no business being a representative of the people and a policy maker. She claims there are many things on which to impeach Trump, but when pressed on elaborating what those things are she couldn't say. That's the kind of plant life IQ this woman has. And to come up with a "Green New Deal" is horse shit because of one fact: Progress. From the time of the Industrial Revolution to now we have made monumental progress in terms of how we use fossil fuels. Ever hear of the London fog? It wasn't because of the dew point, it was the massive burning of coal. Many people died because of it and today China looks the same. In the U.S we have progressed in our technology, but places like China and India have a ways to go. But as we head further and further into the future and come up with more efficient means to create energy to do things, the idea of "global warming/climate change" becomes a moot point, null and void. Yet I have this sneaky suspicion that even when man kind has perhaps discovered cold fusion via the knowledge obtained from dark energy and dark matter, the Earth will still have climatic cycles of warm and cold.

    The thing that gets me is that the South pole is icing up, yet the North pole is melting. So something is going on, but that really doesn't fit the description of Earth getting warmer. It sounds more like we need to understand climate and everything else in between. Hell, satellites that give us this data is a relatively new thing. It would take at least 200 years to know if man is a real influence or not. And like I said, by that time energy usage will have evolved as it does through the natural course of time.

    Being quite honest. We don't have to worry about the Earth getting 2 degrees warmer creating a catastrophe. It's the magnetic field that's the real issue. And it's fading. The you really have a sixth extinction. It will be straight up book of Revelation. And there are super volcanoes out there that are just ripe for going off. Never mind a CME or X-flare which has and can happen.

    We are all but a fragile group of lifeforms in a very absolute chaotic universe.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2019
    poltiregist likes this.
  35. F22 Simpilot

    F22 Simpilot Well-Known Member
      80/115

    Blog Posts:
    0

    Pretty interesting. They protest across the English Channel in France about high fuel costs all due to the government's ideas about "global warming/climate change." Yet they protest in England because of "global warming/climate change."

    Ever watch that South Park episode where Earth was an alien reality TV show?
     
    poltiregist likes this.
  36. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    they are protesting in France about the general cost of living.
     
  37. F22 Simpilot

    F22 Simpilot Well-Known Member
      80/115

    Blog Posts:
    0
    That's not what I heard. But then again, what dictates the cost of living? One variable is the price of fuel. The other is inflation due to your politicians spending untold amounts of money. And that's pretty much what's going on here. Look at a box of cereal. Sucker costs at least 5 bucks. Yet a bushel ( about the size of a bucket) of grain will net you about $5.

    Greed and power will destroy us all. It is natural law.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/europe/france-yellow-vest-protests-intl/index.html
     
  38. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    fuel over here is mostly tax, about 75% of the cost is tax.
     
  39. F22 Simpilot

    F22 Simpilot Well-Known Member
      80/115

    Blog Posts:
    0

    That is pretty much what I thought. And I know Europe is a high tax place to live. Heck, we complain here in the U.S. Though with good reason. The Revolutionary War was fought over a smaller tax then we pay now. I mean, you have local, state and federal tax. Win the lotto? Guess what, at least half of that is tax. Unreal! Benjamin Franklin did say it best, "There are two things certain in life: Death and taxes."
     
  40. lonewolf

    lonewolf Moderator Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    your lotto is taxed? ours isn't, at least not the Lotto win isn't, but any interest we make on it is, which is fair enough.
     
  41. TexDanm

    TexDanm Shadow Dancer
      525/575

    Blog Posts:
    1
    Nearly EVERYTHING except food is taxed here and even food costs have hidden taxes. If you tax every person that touches it before it gets to the store a lot of the final untaxed cost IS tax.
     
Loading...

Share This Page