The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Infrared radiation sterilizes some insects? Seems legit.

Heat kills our sperm too.That's why our's is protected in an adaptive container,which can rise and fall,modulating internal temperature.
There is a limit as to what the human body can withstand though.At some point one must be indoors in a climate-controlled environment,or else.
Or lower the heat.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I know. Just like all the climate change computer models where the source data is a secret.
Just believe it.

Huh? All the data is public.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

I don’t have a problem.

I listed four articles with slightly different takes, which the first one
“The Washington Post” was the origin of the story for the other three.

You evidently do not like the last author.

That would be your problem, not mine.

Which doesn’t change the fact that mistakes were made or intentionally included by quote unquote “official climate scientists” trying to show a increase above the natural warming trend.

If anything, it shows that “independent analysis” is not only warranted, it is needed...





>

Has it been proven that there was an intent to defraud? Did not the very people who published,realize their own mistake,and correct it?
And didn't everyone else mention that it didn't make that much difference in the first place?

[oil pan 4]

So the complete computer model program where they like to show the polar ice caps melting and everyone dieing this century is available to the public?
Because I know a mechanical engineer who specializes in computer modeling who really wants to see one of these models.
He has been trying to get a hold of one for a few years now.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

May the side with the most money win.

The side in this, with the most money - is lying.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by slowmover

Keep your social credit slave collar shiny. No matter how many humiliating lies it takes. Which is the point of them.

No, the point of social credit is that we're living in increasingly "share" based
communities. Social rating is absolutely crucial to correctly calculate the risk of someone's behavior vs the potential profit of doing business with them.

I wouldn't let anyone borrow my vehicle knowing nothing about them, and I'd let anyone borrow it if they had a track record of being responsible.

Building a sharing community is absolutely vital to stem wasteful consumerism and conserve resources. Sharing and environmentalism and cost reduction are all related.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I never said man has no influence on the environment.

Dark matter and man driven climate change have things in common. Both are based on guesses, both take creative math to work, both ignore the obvious answers, both are used to explain things we don't fully understand.

My comment didn't say you denied human effects on environment, it said you deny effects on climate. You've created a straw man rebuttal against something I didn't argue. You have said that humans do not contribute to global warming, or at least not in any significant way.

I'm against the notion that the science has been settled in either extreme conclusion, which is why your opinions end up being criticized by me. There are way too many variables to know with a high degree of certainty to what extent humans affect climate change, and to what extend that is bad (for humans).

What is the obvious answer to dark matter? I've not even heard of a guess as to what it is besides possible unaccounted for matter that doesn't interact in our universe except gravitationally.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

"My browser does not give me a broken red line for heatwave, but says that freebeard should be capitalized."



You should find a way to read them without going to Facespook itself, lest you become one too. That's what Facespook do.



Disruptive technological advance is technically re-arranging, so yeah.


I can tell when I'm being socially engineered.

On this end of the computer,I'm receiving:
Quote:
then within a box:
Originally Posted by aerohead
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
Lies.All lies,just ask e.e. cummings.
close box
then:
"My browser does not give me a broken red line for heatwave,but says that freebeard should be capitalized."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have any idea what any of this means!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I just find it no coincidence that icon and gold are going to study the interaction between the sun and thermosphere, then icon is up for a week and nasa starts talking about a lack of thermosphere warming due to lack of solar activity.
Coincidence? I think not.

You can't find anything on it, but I used to work with nasa at Langley on and off. I have probably only mentioned that a dozen times or so.
Just say a little bird told me.
I get much better information than someone with a 4 year English degree trying to compose a news article out of science they don't understand.

All I'm saying,is that you threw this stuff out as if it's going to revolutionize everything we know,and when I do a search for them,I come up empty-handed.
How am I ,or anyone else to interpret this?
If NASA isn't currently offering any information about icon/gold,are they at all important?
I worked around NASA for 30-months straight,at Edwards AFB,but that doesn't mean anything.
Who's the 'someone with a 4-year English degree?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I just find it no coincidence that icon and gold are going to study the interaction between the sun and thermosphere, then icon is up for a week and nasa starts talking about a lack of thermosphere warming due to lack of solar activity.
Coincidence? I think not.

You can't find anything on it, but I used to work with nasa at Langley on and off. I have probably only mentioned that a dozen times or so.
Just say a little bird told me.
I get much better information than someone with a 4 year English degree trying to compose a news article out of science they don't understand.

Have you walked up beyond the troposphere (where climate change is occurring) looked at what's between there and the thermosphere?
Do you realize that there's no coupling between the two?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's true,that cosmic particles bombarding the upper atmosphere can produce secondary,energetic particles,which can travel down to the troposphere,and act as ionic condensation nuclei for cloud formation,but this phenomena is already part of climate modeling,and no surprise to climatologists.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

I'm here to raise awareness that we have a much more pressing problem than climate change that will hurt us much worse and much sooner. Which is resource depletion. Humans are already several decades into ecological overshoot. As was predicted 45 years ago in "The Limits To Growth". The best we could hope for now is an oscilating correction if we could let logic be the guide back to a simpler way of life where most people could grow their own food. But awareness is still too faint. People that even contemplate that there is anything whatsoever wrong still hold out uneducated hope for a techno salvation. But if the scale of our consumption is put into context it is obvious that rebuildables can never replace even a small portion of the carbon energy we are current blessed with. Not to mention the diminishing ore quality of several key minerals that have been consumed and washed away.

Because of only a 5% per year reduction in energy access over 10 years the Russian economy fell to 1/2 after the break up of the Soviet Union. Corruption and inequity took over. And many people apparently killed themselves.
.
It takes only the slightest trend toward degrowth in our current socio-economic system to cause a big collapse.
.
We are headed for a future with less. We will go kicking and screaming but it would be much better to guide ourselves down intentionally.

I respect your opinion and fought for your 1st Amendment right to share it,but I would respectfully argue that you may be saving a few in the short term,only to realize orders of magnitude greater suffering if we knowingly let all our weather patterns be disrupted.
Everything on Earth evolved for a world without fossil fuel combustion.