Log In
Register
11.29am
26 January 2017
Offline
Trusting PragerU (a fake university funded by conservative oil baron billionaires) as if they’re an objective source on climate change is hysterical. I mean, everyone has their biases and their opinions will inevitably shift their perception in some way, but PragerU are way beyond that.
Saying ‘the science isn’t settled’ is just a nice way of saying ‘let’s not do anything about this threat that the evidence overwhelmingly points to, because if we move too hastily we might just… guarantee a liveable planet for our children and future generations’.
All the ‘evidence’ climate deniers have is pretty much gotten through a misrepresentation of facts or through outright lying.
For example, let’s take conservative ‘comedian’ (an accurate title, but not in the way he thinks it is) Steven Crowder, who published a video called ‘Top 5 Climate Myths Debunked’ (he’s now deleted it after having every single point debunked repeatedly) in which he argued, amongst other things, that the ice caps AREN’T melting but actually growing, citing an article based off of satellite data collected by NASA showing that the Antarctic ice sheet showed ‘a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001’. Hmmmm, pretty convincing, right? This is from NASA, after all…
What Crowder conveniently leaves out is that… there is more than one ice sheet on the planet. The Greenland ice sheet lost an average of 215 billion tons of ice a year from 2002-2011, which if we compared against the specific Antarctic sheet Crowder cites is a net loss of 103 billion tons of ice per year. The loss is actually speeding up, too, as we can see by this graph:
Also, the ice sheet that IS growing is just one of multiple sheets in Antarctica, which is overall also showing a net loss of ice. Which we can see by this graph:
Source: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data…..assessment
The article that Crowder cites: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/…..an-losses/
Then there’s the question of – if the ice is in fact growing, where’s all this bloody water coming from?
Crowder’s website later published an article titled
“CLIMATE CHANGE FAIL: Melting Glacier is Growing Again”
Ooh… very dramatic. They point out that an ice sheet in Greenland that had been shrinking in the past is actually undergoing a period of growth. This is the quote they cite in their article:
The Jakobshavn (YA-cob-shawv-en) glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles (3 kilometers) and thinning nearly 130 feet (almost 40 meters) annually. But it started growing again at about the same rate in the past two years, according to a study in Monday’s Nature Geoscience.
You can back this up, too, since the ice sheet did in fact grow from October 2016 to January 2017.
Look! Here it is! Here’s all the stunning recovery this ice sheet made, in defiance of all those big government liberal communists who make up 97% of the scientific community! Still, as pointed out by youtuber Hbomberguy in his excellent video on this topic (who pointed me in the way of the sources I’m using here), October 2016 to January 2017 is an oddly specific period of time, especially since this stuff has been measured for decades now. I wonder what happens when we look a bit further back in time?
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
Ron Nasty, The Hole Got FixedI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
11.37am
15 November 2018
Offline 
Here is the evidence for Trump’s denial, which I forgot to put in my previous post:
Sure sounds like he believes him.
I’ll look some more for a direct quote.
The following people thank 50yearslate for this post:
Ron Nasty, The Hole Got FixedLove one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018:
2019: 
2020:
11.47am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
In case you missed it, @50yearslate, I’ve already quoted Trump calling climate change a “hoax” and an “expensive hoax”.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
11.49am
15 November 2018
Offline Here we go!
Good golly- imagine it being cold in winter!
It is possible to be focused on multiple important things at once!
Gosh- imagine using cold temperatures in one place as evidence in reference to the climates of the entire world!
The following people thank 50yearslate for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed, QuarryManLove one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018: 2019: 2020:
1.27pm
Members
18 March 2013
Offline Lol bringing Shapiro back into the mix, I remember watching a video of his on climate change (I watch him for comedic purposes, the rubbish he comes out with at times, tickles my funny bone) and he said something along the lines of “if sea levels rise and start to come inland, people will just sell their homes and leave”……….
…….
……
……
……
“sell their homes”?
Who is going to buy a bloody house that’ll be flooded constantly and/or destroyed in the next few years?!?!?
And nobody in the room reacted to such a stupid comment.
Wake up sheeple!
The following people thank AppleScruffJunior for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed, QuarryMan
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
1.34pm
15 November 2018
Offline Ron Nasty said
In case you missed it, @50yearslate, I’ve already quoted Trump calling climate change a “hoax” and an “expensive hoax”.
Oops, sorry, I did miss that.
Love one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018: 2019: 2020:
6.46pm
26 January 2017
Offline This extract from the hbomberguy video (full video here) I mentioned should delight you if you haven’t seen it already @AppleScruffJunior
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
7.53pm
17 October 2013
Offline 50yearslate said
Wigwam said
Got a cold……..take vitamin C?
Yes?
We know how to kill a virus?
Depends on the virus…
We have cured polio?
I think so?
Lightening doesn’t strike in the same place does it?
Actually, it does.
We have 5 senses…Don’t we
Yes.
We evolved from apes…….Gorillas and chimps didn’t we?
Not really… it’s just that we all evolved from the same organisms.
We only use 10% of our brains……..We all know that.
Nope.
Hair and fingernails grow after death…….Don’t they?
Also no.
What is the point you are trying to make here?
Also, to answer your question about whether Trump has explicitly denied the existence of climate change, yes, I believe he has.
Trump needs to get himself and his stupid laws out of my state
Linus Pauling in 1976 demonstrated that vitamin C warded off colds through increased resistance or cured colds…….He’d cheated and cherry-picked his results ..Double blind studies showed them to be false…… People still believe what they want to believe…..
Never been a cure for polio………Can’t kill a virus they are not alive….they carjack cells…….You can deactivate them….(OK I’m being pedantic here sorry)…We have at least 4 more senses…..Proprioception…Break an ankle and you have to re-learn that one or you’ll be more likely to break it again….basically it boils down to after a while you know exactly where that light switch is or when to duck your head…….Thermoception, sense of heat… equilibrium, sense of balance interoception…….look that one up.
I’d add that we have even more senses……we know when we’re hungry or full……Want a s**t or a pee……..and most importantly the subtle difference between a fart and a s**t……. I’d also argue that our shins are designed to seek out and find sharp corners in the dark unfamiliar surroundings…….
My point I thought was made by Black matter/energy……That
Science, even fairly settled science can surprise us…….After 1000s of years of study 95% of what’s out there passed us by…….
Climate science is not settled……
The earth has heated up and cooled down long before the missing link between us and the apes first drew breath……..
As for lightening? one method of staying safe while caught in a storm on a golf-course is to take out of your bag wave above your head a 1 iron
Even God can’t hit a 1 iron
8.19pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Whether you choose to accept it or not, @Wigwam, 97% of scientists agree that climate change is happening, and that its biggest driver is man-made — which is a scientific consensus. You can say the science is not settled, but there you disagree with nearly the totality of the world’s scientific community…
Try reading the NASA site on the scientific consensus which quotes leading scientific organisation after leading scientific organisation who say climate change is man-made.
The science IS settled… it’s just that there are those who want to deny the evidence because of the changes it means making to how life is lived and the choices we make.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
QuarryMan"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
8.54pm
17 October 2013
Offline The Shapiro clip is funny…….555! Shapiro hadn’t thought that one through…555!
Perhaps, if I’m being kind he thought the Government would be in the house market having been confused by the Liberal anti gun lobby suggesting a gun buy-back …….When you didn’t buy your gun from the Government and they would be using your tax dollars to buy them off you……
To give a general response to you all…….
There are several questions…..
1. Is Trump a denier?……I think he’s a questioner. Quotes dating back to 2014 before Global Freezing then Global warming were reconciled into the catchall ‘Climate Change’ the science was out then and still is……We can’t predict weather or climate patterns with any accuracy……But there is a consensus stretching to an almost religious belief that no one dares question that it is down to man……Not that the climate changes….. but just how much human activities contribute to those changes…..It’s hard to calibrate from one unknown what another unknown is….Just my view.
2. PragerU is fake……Why? The vid I posted was from the co originator of Greenpeace…… The stats’ are out there…..I haven’t seen a vid dedicated to refuting the one I posted ……..If it was fake science, (as it could be), refuting it would be an easy task for the masses of PragerU haters……Scoffing PragerU is just going for the man and not the ball…..
3. The science isn’t settled….all the predictions from ’74, ’75……2000……of a new Ice age ….or flooded continents because of warming within 10 years have proved wrong….We don’t know enough.
4. No doubt in my mind we should go for a cleaner planet……
But I don’t believe in empty threats or promises …… Man is not…. and never has been in control of the weather for any promises made to be met…..I’m suspicious in what I see as the weaponisation of weather for political purposes.
5. I’m a mistrustful b*****d…Guilty.
Finally……(you can amuse yourself with further discussion if you want)…..Finally then there are enormous dangers to life on earth…
The originators of the Doomsday Clock…….begun incidentally by nuclear scientists probably out of guilt by having let the Nuclear Justin Trudeau out of the bottle… is set at 2 mins to midnight…….
Nuclear war……Climate change……bioterrorism……AI…..It’s clear we are in a perpetual pickle……
As the great Philosopher Benny Hill said:….’Treat every day as though it is your last…..
.Because one day you’ll be right!’
9.24pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline The first UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report was published in 1990, @Wigwam.
The actual science on whether there is man-made effect on temperature actually dates back to 1896:
Yes, the science has changed and been refined over the years, and some terms have changed over the years, but that doesn’t mean the science is new, and that it isn’t agreed on by nearly all scientists.
As I said before, there is a consensus. That’s not changed by your wanting to ignore it.
You may not like the consensus that’s been arrived it, but however much you want to pretend the science isn’t settled, nearly every scientist disagrees.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
QuarryMan"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.55pm
26 January 2017
Offline We know humans are causing it (or at least significantly contributing to it) because
– We know CO2 is a heat trapping gas (we’ve known this as far back as the 50s).
– We know humans produce a ton of CO2.
– We can see that the increases in global temperature have correlated sharply with our rapid industrialisation and population increases (and thereby increases in CO2).
– We are fairly sure that although the climate has changed significantly over long periods of time in the past, as far as we can tell it has never changed this rapidly or this drastically.
– There is a significant amount of evidence for the effects of it already: the sea level which has been rising for several decades, the hole in the ozone layer, the rapid disappearance of the polar ice caps etc etc etc…
It’s also a mischaracterisation to treat it as a case of humanity ‘controlling the weather’ because that’s clearly not what we are talking about here, and using such terminology frames the issue as something ridiculous before the conversation even begins. Weather is not the same as climate, and it’s not a case of ‘controlling’ it as much as it is a case of our activities inadvertently influencing it through the by-products of our activities.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with being sceptical about these things, Wigwam, but the problem with your scepticism is that if we are right that climate change exists and is caused by humans (as the evidence overwhelmingly suggests), the more we delay doing something about it the worse the effects are going to be and the harder they are going to be to tackle.
As for the PragerU video – here’s a pretty good response. Potholer is a good channel, actually. You might appreciate his video “a conservative solution to climate change”, for one.
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
1.57am
17 October 2013
Offline Ron Nasty said
The first UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report was published in 1990, @Wigwam.The actual science on whether there is man-made effect on temperature actually dates back to 1896:
Yes, the science has changed and been refined over the years, and some terms have changed over the years, but that doesn’t mean the science is new, and that it isn’t agreed on by nearly all scientists.
As I said before, there is a consensus. That’s not changed by your wanting to ignore it.
You may not like the consensus that’s been arrived it, but however much you want to pretend the science isn’t settled, nearly every scientist disagrees.
As I said elsewhere…..Consensuses can change dramatically……There was a 97% consensus that babies were safest to sleep on their stomachs……Now there’s a 97% consensus that they are better off sleeping on their backs………..
[Image Can Not Be Found]
[Image Can Not Be Found]
A medical specialist reports: “No adverse effects on the nose, throat and sinuses from smoking Chesterfield!”
A lot of stupid people took up smoking……perhaps they were mightily reassured by Drs Phlegm & Cough of Harley Street. I bet they are sorry now??
2.31am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Well, the first ad you use comes from before proper scientific testing of tobacco, and the second comes from a period when tobacco companies were starting to realise tobacco was harmful and had tame scientists they were paying to say tobacco wasn’t harmful – the equivalent of climate change deniers.
I fail to see that they show anything, @Wigwam, other than the science develops, and that there are scientists who will sell their soul for the love of money.
The Chesterfield ad in particular is from a time when the scientific community were starting to realise the damage tobacco does, and the tobacco companies were covering up how much they knew about the harm their product was causing (something many tobacco companies were later successfully sued over).
Their scientists were the equivalent of the climate change deniers that the oil companies etc. trot out to deny their product is damaging.
To any Forumpudlian taking part in today’s worldwide demonstrations and strikes…
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed, QuarryMan"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
2.45am
17 October 2013
Offline The ads saying how Dr Sputum recommends cigarettes for your health……went on well into the 50’s. I remember them…..I’m pleased to say I never fell for them…. though many did.
I thought the asthma one…… which was the first I came across…. dated as it was, was just too sadly ironic to leave out.
You say:
“I fail to see that they show anything, @Wigwam_1, other than the science develops, and that there are scientists who will sell their soul for the love of money.”
That’s all you need to see……
I’ll make my own mind up thankee…….I’ve never been one for following the herd…..Or I’d have been a smoker like some others on here!
5.07am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline What you choose not to see, @Wigwam, is that the science you choose to support is the equivalent of the Chesterfield ad.
Me, I’m fully aware of the damage tobacco does, accept the science, would never recommend it to other people should they be non-smokers, and would never inflict the effects of my smoking on other people, and don’t smoke around those who don’t want me to.
The scientists were right about tobacco. I accept the consensus on tobacco, and reject those few paid scientists who claimed it was good for you.
You choose to believe there is no consensus on climate change, that the science isn’t settled, and think the steps needed to limit climate change are unnecessary – making the same choice as the paid Chesterfield scientists who argued tobacco does no harm despite the consensus and truth that it does.
Whether you accept it or not, you’re arguing against the consensus, as were those scientists who claimed there was nothing wrong with tobacco, and that it was actually good for you.
What happens if the deniers you choose to believe are as wrong as those who claimed tobacco had health benefits?
Then the world is fecked, not just your own health.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
5.20am
17 October 2013
Offline Here’s an interesting attempt to balance the main viewpoints……There’s lots to be found out there…..
To say that the science is settled is wrong……Science per se is rarely settled…….we are always learning more…….
As it stands today I side with the skeptics here…..You’ll likely side against them……. That’s fine….
But until we agree that the science is NOT settled it would be hard to see a way either of us can usefully employ our time in discussion……You can just repeatedly insist the science is settled…..ending the debate……. while I insist it isn’t……Because …….It ain’t.
5.22am
Members
18 March 2013
Offline @QuarryMan said
This extract from the hbomberguy video (full video here) I mentioned should delight you if you haven’t seen it already
I’m angry I didn’t do a similar thing, could have jumped on that gravy train. I saw that video about 8 months ago? Well ahead of the trend, grrr!
The following people thank AppleScruffJunior for this post:
QuarryMan
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
5.33am
17 October 2013
Offline You say:
“You choose to believe there is no consensus on climate change, that the science isn’t settled, and think the steps needed to limit climate change are unnecessary – “
I can see there’s a consensus…….Just as I see one here…….But I don’t think a consensus is always correct…..That’s been the point of almost every post I’ve made with regard to this……I’m skeptical…….basically the world’s climate has always changed..We don’t understand why or how much change is down to us.
I’m not against environmental changes at all…….Just they need to be shown to be valid changes……..And then they must be adopted by all the world’s polluters not just the US.
As for the rest of your post…..I’ve quoted it because I’m not 100% sure what you’re on about…?? The health concerns that stem from smoking are clear and proven……Where that’s the case I’m happy to go along with a consensus that makes scientific sense.
“Whether you accept it or not, you’re arguing the consensus, as were those scientists who claimed there was nothing wrong with tobacco, and that it was actually good for you.
What happens if the deniers you choose to believe are as wrong as those who claimed tobacco had health benefits?
Then the world is fecked, not just your own health.”
7.58am
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline Ron Nasty said
To any Forumpudlian taking part in today’s worldwide demonstrations and strikes…
Wow
That was an amazing experience – they estimate around 150,000 people showed up to the Melbourne rally. I’ve never seen our city so packed!
I’ll post pictures tomorrow, too tired to find any.
I hope the rest of the world follows our lead when the various strikes start in each timezone.
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
QuarryMan, Ron Nasty#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 
2017 awards: 
2018 awards:
2019 awards: 
2020 awards:
2021 awards:
3 Guest(s)