L

lollipop

Guest
Not knowledgeable enough to have an well-informed opinion on global warming, but what I do think is that there is way too much of an emphasis on CO2 as being the problem gas when there are so many other industrial pollutants that are far more toxic that aren't getting any attention
+1
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
I still say EMF pollution is by far the biggest threat to the climate. Especially if/when global 5G is rolled out.
 

Fractality

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
772
I'm mostly interested in this topic as it relates to major economic shifts.

45477081_10217737605141461_8843927047941128192_n.jpg
 

lampofred

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
3,244
I'm mostly interested in this topic as it relates to major economic shifts.

45477081_10217737605141461_8843927047941128192_n.jpg

Wow that is seriously interesting...

Is there a graph that goes further back?

EDIT:

Actually the correlation doesn't seem to really hold further back...

Resultado de imágenes de Google para https://smd-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/science-red/s3fs-public/mnt/medialibrary/2007/12/14/14dec_excitement_resources/cycle23_strip.gif

Resultado de imágenes de Google para http://facevaluewealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/US-GDP-with-recessions.jpg
 
Last edited:

PecosRiver

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
36
You must love cooking in corn oil and taking your Statins, both PubMed approved. This forum btw is about discernment and real science. Not blindly following the mainstream ideology.



That 97% study has been thoroughly debunked over and over. It was actually done by a college undergraduate.

The government has far more money than the oil companies (which for several years now have jumped on the climate change band wagon). Today if you aren't a climate alarmist your career is over.

I think there is a big difference between who funds the studies. I completely agree that big pharma is behind a lot of PubMed studies, but … even haidut rolls out a list of PubMed studies when he introduces a new supplement. So … all PubMed studies bad? And its easy to say that the 97% agree statistic is bunk - where is your peer reviewed article(s) that concludes this?
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Also it's worth saying that even if 97% of people believe something, doesn't make it magically true.

97% of people probably thought the earth was flat at one point after all, or that the sun revolved around the earth, etc...
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
I think there is a big difference between who funds the studies. I completely agree that big pharma is behind a lot of PubMed studies, but … even haidut rolls out a list of PubMed studies when he introduces a new supplement. So … all PubMed studies bad? And its easy to say that the 97% agree statistic is bunk - where is your peer reviewed article(s) that concludes this?
That's quite the strawman. I never said that all PubMed studies are bad. I am saying that not all PubMed studies are good. Subtle, but a difference nonetheless. Funny how you agree with that when it comes to big Pharma, but not Big Government funded ones.

It's not just easy to say; it's also easy to refute
97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" | Climate Dispatch
 
Last edited:

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Also it's worth saying that even if 97% of people believe something, doesn't make it magically true.

97% of people probably thought the earth was flat at one point after all, or that the sun revolved around the earth, etc...
"It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from." lol
 

Owen B

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
310
My science IQ is pretty abysmal but if people like charts the long-term history of the planet consists of very, very long periods of cold punctuated by very, very short periods of warming. The odds are against warming.

That's all I got.
 

Nokoni

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Messages
695
and change the conversation away from how industrial activity is destroying the environment.
So it's not merely to enable theft on a new, exciting, and unprecedented scale, but to apply some much needed misdirection as well. Another brilliant insight from the good doctor. Reminiscent of blaming smoking for the epidemic of lung cancer induced by nuking the country from sea to shining sea.
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
1,045
@pimpnamedraypeat not sure you saw this, but, again nice to see more evidence outside EU community supporting this.

Its gonna get pretry bad, lisa. The transition into ice ages is an electric discharge event which means mega Earthquakes and supervolcanos so majority of world population will die and the rest will not be living it up. And dont get me started on the crust shift :eek:


And what would be the warmest places on earth during this ice age? No obvious answer to this question I think.

Siberia is warming up ao is alaska. Desrt will green again it already

australia is blooming

3578808E00000578-0-image-a-47_1466390800444.jpg


Sahara is snowing

stream_img.jpg
 

Energizer

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
611
I asked Ray about this a while ago

" The solar constant, its brightness and heat emission, does have some sort of cycle, and I think there’s a fair likelihood that it could start to decrease in the next few years. Glaciers would probably cover much of north america and europe, but low latitude areas should be fine. " - Ray Peat

" It wouldn’t necessarily be as extensive as the big glacier period when parts of Washington and much of Illinois, Indiana and Ohio were covered, but the weather could be awful down to about 30 degrees latitude. " - Ray Peat

I live in northern Washington so I'm gonna become a human popsicle I fear.
This is also why user tyw has chosen to live in Australia.

I'm afraid of also becoming a human popsicle. I'm hoping this transition if/when it happens will be gradual enough that those of us who need to move will be able to move and not have to suddenly start living like the innuit, which while I mean no offense to them, I could never live like that, it's bad enough when we have snow in the winter.
 

triple

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2014
Messages
61
Having done small scale organic market gardening i will comment that i was keenly aware and able to view the results of weather over a number of years and observe that:

-cold=starvation [without major petro or tech intervention]
-warm=increased food production/advancement of science and culture [see below]


Also:CO2=fertilizer in the air. If i remember correctly at 150ppm CO2 all life will cease to exist on earth.

Life on Earth was nearly doomed by too little CO2


serveimage


serveimage


Also having experienced living in Canada without the benefit of mains electricity [for 5 years]in a remote location i can attest to this:

warmer=better [less work to survive vs colder]


Pollution of all types is the major problem we face as humans at the moment...



The forests in my area are growing at a great rate lately as they enjoy the increase in CO2 levels.

serveimage



So far in my lifetime i have survived:
1960's: ACID RAIN
1970's: GLOBAL COOLING
1980's: OZONE HOLE
1990's: GLOBAL WARMING
2000's: CLIMATE CHANGE
2010's: CLIMATE CHANGE -BUT WE CHANGED THE TIMELINE [again]

Al Gore is still shilling his crappy fairy tales while getting rich and buying low bank waterfront mansions...

ps: the best places to survive +/- climate change is near or surrounded by a large body of water [from historical previous Maunder Minimum data] due to the moderating effect of the mass of water.
 

managing

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,262
I think questioning scientific "consensus" is a good thing and something that this community is obviously predisposed toward. Questioning the popular narratives that correspond is also good.

Its quite likely that there are lots of ways in which humans are screwing up the planet, many of which have been mentioned here. The focus on climate change may distract from some of those, true.

It is highly unlikely, imho, that the increasing disequilibrium of carbon, the vast majority of which is human-caused, is not a leading factor in climate change. And, although "climate change" is sometimes criticized as a euphemism for "global warming" it should be appreciated here as a better term. Some places are getting warmer. Others colder. Some drier. Some wetter. Some net wetter, while experiencing longer dry periods and some net drier while experiencing more severe wet periods.

For example, the increasing temperatures of the southern hemispherical currents has isolated Antarctica, causing less mixing and thicker ice fronts (which resist erosion). So, is it true that more sea ice is forming in Antarctica? Yes. But the net effect is that the Arctic is losing more than twice as much sea ice as the Antarctic is gaining.

Is some of this change "natural"? Almost certainly. Is enough of it caused by humans to be concerned? Almost certainly. Is climate change the whole story? No way.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
I think questioning scientific "consensus" is a good thing and something that this community is obviously predisposed toward. Questioning the popular narratives that correspond is also good.

Its quite likely that there are lots of ways in which humans are screwing up the planet, many of which have been mentioned here. The focus on climate change may distract from some of those, true.

It is highly unlikely, imho, that the increasing disequilibrium of carbon, the vast majority of which is human-caused, is not a leading factor in climate change. And, although "climate change" is sometimes criticized as a euphemism for "global warming" it should be appreciated here as a better term. Some places are getting warmer. Others colder. Some drier. Some wetter. Some net wetter, while experiencing longer dry periods and some net drier while experiencing more severe wet periods.

For example, the increasing temperatures of the southern hemispherical currents has isolated Antarctica, causing less mixing and thicker ice fronts (which resist erosion). So, is it true that more sea ice is forming in Antarctica? Yes. But the net effect is that the Arctic is losing more than twice as much sea ice as the Antarctic is gaining.

Is some of this change "natural"? Almost certainly. Is enough of it caused by humans to be concerned? Almost certainly. Is climate change the whole story? No way.
No one is arguing that the Climate isnt changing. The problems is that there is no proof that it is man causing the changes. Insanely inaccurate models with an embarrassing lack of predictive power is not proof of anything except maybe proof that another agenda is at work. The ultimate test of any theory is prediction followed by experimental confirmation.
 

managing

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,262
No one is arguing that the Climate isnt changing. The problems is that there is no proof that it is man causing the changes. Insanely inaccurate models with an embarrassing lack of predictive power is not proof of anything except maybe proof that another agenda is at work. The ultimate test of any theory is prediction followed by experimental confirmation. Not jury rigged models based on manipulated data.

Have you ever seen any studies comparing the expected change from "natural" fluctuation compared to actual historical data?
 
Back
Top Bottom