Jump to content

Some things I didn't know about the atmosphere and climate


iowaboy1965

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, brahamfireman said:

So..... is current atmospheric CO2 levels something to be concerned about????

Expect a convoluted politician double talk answer sometime this evening. With Google graphs and published articles by "accredited" climate scientist's paid by .gov.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientific data from billions of years ago… 

suppose we start as recently as Ted Danson a couple decades ago… and all the doomsayers since …. All citing scientific data from billions of years ago. And why is it always ten years to the second Flood? 
   The term “climate change “ is not that old. They had to change it from “global warming” because every time Al gore made a climate speech it was during a snowstorm, or 3 ice cutters frozen in Antarctic waters. Thus the latter term ceased to be convincing.

   What ever happened to “global cooling “ of the seventies? And the propellant in the aerosol cans that was depleting the ozone layer… what did they change it to, to suddenly make the earth heat up too much? And a little later , Freon…. If we bring that back the earth might cool off again. 

  As I mentioned earlier, the earth aged half a billion years since the war on hair spray… that might be one clue as to why no one trusts these “scientists “. 
    My I-phone has begun insisting that every plural word requires an apostrophe to be spelled correctly…. All this space-age equipment used to study the earth, weather patterns, pollution levels … can’t even master basic English…. designed by more “scientists “. I also find it odd that none of these scientists never seem to be credited for their work. They don’t even seem to have names… Hewlett-Packard, maybe?
    For the record, Creationists believe the earth is 6000 years old not 5000…. Which is suspiciously the same age as the Bible. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, F-301066460puller said:

Expect a convoluted politician double talk answer sometime this evening. With Google graphs and published articles by "accredited" climate scientist's paid by .gov.

The only articles and social media links posted in this thread so far have been discrediting climate change. 
You, oddly enough, have a Google screenshot on one of your posts. 
 

If you’ve been reading along, I’ve already stated my position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MTB98 said:

The only articles and social media links posted in this thread so far have been discrediting climate change. 
You, oddly enough, have a Google screenshot on one of your posts. 
 

If you’ve been reading along, I’ve already stated my position. 

Not a graph or an article. A Wikipedia about NAMING storms. A for effort though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, F-301066460puller said:

He states both opinions what ever suits his fancy at the time

Such as? 
I’ve laid out my thoughts on the subject explaining why I think that way. You on the other hand keep posting about things you think I’ve stated or what you think I should be stating.  
Please show where I’ve stated contradictory opinions or give it a rest. 
 

15 minutes ago, F-301066460puller said:

Not a graph or an article. A Wikipedia about NAMING storms. A for effort though

Quick source when you were trying to prove some type of point about naming storms. 
Still, no social media posts or Google links from me in this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's probably one of the mad scientist behind covid.  Now trying to move peoples attention away from her and her demented cronies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2023 at 5:56 PM, MTB98 said:

Such as? 
I’ve laid out my thoughts on the subject explaining why I think that way. You on the other hand keep posting about things you think I’ve stated or what you think I should be stating.  
Please show where I’ve stated contradictory opinions or give it a rest. 
 

Quick source when you were trying to prove some type of point about naming storms. 
Still, no social media posts or Google links from me in this discussion.

https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/never-google?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

You seem to have me confused with some other posters in this thread. I haven’t posted any Google links or screenshots nor have used Google to search for anything I’ve posted. 
Do you actually have any of your own thoughts from your own critical thinking or done any research of your own regarding CO2? Or anything? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2023 at 1:21 PM, Drysleeves said:

And then there's this:

 

That is a very nice way of saying a "Bold Faced Lie". And they are open and truthful about these lies.

We are going to screw people up the a$$ and they will never know it is happening.

And we get rich!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few different conversations to be had about this. One is the science of it all- burning carbon fuels and the actual emissions from that. That is easily calculated and can be verified. 
Another is the actual effects, if any, of adding extra C02 and other gases and particulates to the atmosphere. 
Lastly, the gov’s response and regulations of the emissions along with creating a long term stable energy policy for now and into the future. 
As a society, we seem to be skipping over the first two parts and only focusing on the last part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

There are a few different conversations to be had about this. One is the science of it all- burning carbon fuels and the actual emissions from that. That is easily calculated and can be verified. 
Another is the actual effects, if any, of adding extra C02 and other gases and particulates to the atmosphere. 
Lastly, the gov’s response and regulations of the emissions along with creating a long term stable energy policy for now and into the future. 
As a society, we seem to be skipping over the first two parts and only focusing on the last part.

Pure science vs applied science.  

We are going down the road of a less stable and more expensive electrical energy supply.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gearclash said:

a society, we seem to be skipping over the first two parts and only focusing on the last part.

That's because that's where the money is and the fear factor to condition people to accept a certain desired outcome. 

What I'm seeing is what scientists actually agree on is very narrow portion and the media is exaggerating and implying agreement that isn't necessarily there on some of what they are spouting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Gearclash said:

Pure science vs applied science.  

We are going down the road of a less stable and more expensive electrical energy supply.

 

I wasn’t saying that I agree with decisions being made, merely saying the conversation needs to happen before making policies. 
Nuclear power was discussed in the video I linked with Steven Koonin. Making electricity should be easy but for media hysterics about the dangers and all the regulatory hurdles it’s not. 

51 minutes ago, iowaboy1965 said:

That's because that's where the money is and the fear factor to condition people to accept a certain desired outcome. 

What I'm seeing is what scientists actually agree on is very narrow portion and the media is exaggerating and implying agreement that isn't necessarily there on some of what they are spouting.

Both the interview you linked and the one I linked discuss the IPCC and how the media reports and constructs narratives. That’s why it’s mportant for people to inform themselves without media bias.  Look up information directly from its sources.  

Both of the scientists in the linked interviews were gov scientists but we’ve been told by others in this thread we can’t believe them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MTB98 said:

I wasn’t saying that I agree with decisions being made, merely saying the conversation needs to happen before making policies. 
Nuclear power was discussed in the video I linked with Steven Koonin. Making electricity should be easy but for media hysterics about the dangers and all the regulatory hurdles it’s not. 

Both the interview you linked and the one I linked discuss the IPCC and how the media reports and constructs narratives. That’s why it’s mportant for people to inform themselves without media bias.  Look up information directly from its sources.  

Both of the scientists in the linked interviews were gov scientists but we’ve been told by others in this thread we can’t believe them.

Nuclear is the safest and cleanest energy out there. Again government gets in the way. I grew up in DeWitt County Illinois 10 miles from nuke plant. It actually helps the environment because all the land around it is now wildlife habitat and they built a lake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, F-301066460puller said:

Nuclear is the safest and cleanest energy out there. Again government gets in the way. I grew up in DeWitt County Illinois 10 miles from nuke plant. It actually helps the environment because all the land around it is now wildlife habitat and they built a lake.

That’s not far from where I grew up. I’ve spent quite a bit of time on Clinton Lake over the years. 
My wife and I both have family in the area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...