Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

Jump to new
Ann that "opportunistic propaganda" you talk about is just an accurate reflection of the extreme weather conditions which are a recognized outcome of global heating.

The super hot fires caused by extreme heat conditions. The extreme storms caused by extra moisture carried in a warmer atmosphere. The aerial rivers of moisture are normal. What is different is the substantially extra volume.

In that context you can also add the increased incidence of cloud burst events which really cause some damage.
https://www.reference.com/science/causes-cloudbursts-54781f4980076b0b
 
At this juncture, I consider important to express my dismay and disappointment that so many have neglected to contribute any qwarx to this discussion.

Whilst I do readily acknowledge that the thread topic doesn't explicitly require inclusion of any qwarx, I am finding it extremely difficult to contain my contempt for those oblivious to the usefulness and profundity of qwarx.
 
cynic said:
At this juncture, I consider important to express my dismay and disappointment that so many have neglected to contribute any qwarx to this discussion.

Whilst I do readily acknowledge that the thread topic doesn't explicitly require inclusion of any qwarx, I am finding it extremely difficult to contain my contempt for those oblivious to the usefulness and profundity of qwarx.
Click to expand...
Competent people indulge in forums to make meaningful contributions.
So I will add meaning to my reply.
First, we are late into this thread and you have expressed nothing of merit.
Second, what you "consider important" is of no relevance to the thread.
Third, your "dismay and disappointment" is of no relevance to the thread.
Fourth, wanting to add a new topic of no relevance to climate is merely another of your attempts to distract readers from your demonstrable incompetence.
Fifth, what you "readily acknowledge" is of no relevance to the thread.
Sixth, your "contempt" is of no relevance to the thread.
In conclusion, your contributions are of no relevance.
 
rederob said:
Competent people indulge in forums to make meaningful contributions.
So I will add meaning to my reply.
First, we are late into this thread and you have expressed nothing of merit.
Second, what you "consider important" is of no relevance to the thread.
Third, your "dismay and disappointment" is of no relevance to the thread.
Fourth, wanting to add a new topic of no relevance to climate is merely another of your attempts to distract readers from your demonstrable incompetence.
Fifth, what you "readily acknowledge" is of no relevance to the thread.
Sixth, your "contempt" is of no relevance to the thread.
In conclusion, your contributions are of no relevance.
Click to expand...
Nothing in your contribution was qwarx.
Do you actually know what qwarx is?
 
rederob said:
Yes, here's a classic which thinks a simple google search proves his point - and it's from a person who says he was a scientist and worked with climate scientists:

First, this topic is not controversial in climate science, only in the blogosphere or wherever science deniers congregate. Glaciation and deglaciation occur at different rates and there are dozens of science papers explaining these natural processes. Determining the lags is the tricky part as there are so many factors in play.
Second, if there was logic to the claim, then what is now evident would be impossible.
Finally, there is zero science to the claim that "CO2 has a negligible impact on the greenhouse phenomenon". You either deny completely there is a greenhouse effect, or you accept that the yardstick for measuring a greenhouse effect is the CO2 molecule.

<edited to add "the" to a sentence for clarity>
Click to expand...

Your scientific illiteracy is showing, in neon lights.

It's remarkable that someone jumping up and down so passionately about this issue is so uninformed, but hey, it's 2019, you don't need an education, you don't need to be informed, to have an opinion and consider it valid.

CO2 is not the main greenhouse gas. It's comical that you think it's universally known among scientists that CO2 is the single greenhouse gas when it's not even the main one.

It's difficult to put into words how incredibly wrong you are, and not a single climate scientist in the world would agree with you, but hey, angrily berate me all the same. As I said, this is 2019, you don't need to know anything to feel entitled to an opinion.
 
Sdajii said:
It's difficult to put into words how incredibly wrong you are, and not a single climate scientist in the world would agree with you, but hey, angrily berate me all the same. As I said, this is 2019, you don't need to know anything to feel entitled to an opinion.
Click to expand...
Your problem is not understanding that a GHG which is a feedback mechanism cannot drive temperature.
Whatever you think you know is definitely wrong wrt to climate change.
And I know that there is no credible climate scientist that would think as you.
 
Sometimes when receiving an intentional insult, it pays to interpret the insult within the context of the issuer's personal convictions.

In recent times, I have noticed that, doing so, often reveals intended insults to actually be unintended compliments! (Thankfully the issuer concerned hasn't intentionally praised me, as the contextual implications would then be true cause for concern).

I am truly overjoyed at the enormity of the volume of unintentional praise I have received consequent to my participation in this thread!

However, I would still like to see a lot more qwarx included in the discussion!!
 
rederob said:
Your problem is not understanding that a GHG which is a feedback mechanism cannot drive temperature.
Whatever you think you know is definitely wrong wrt to climate change.
And I know that there is no credible climate scientist that would think as you.
Click to expand...

After displaying your complete misinderstanding of the entire system, it's comical that you'd act like you have any idea. I'm literally a scientist, I've studied climate. I know what the actual climate scientists say, and I'd gladly put my knowledge against yours. You seem to be stuck simply on the media narrative, which is even worse than the climate scientist narrative, which is itself inherently and obviously biased, but even that doesn't say what you do.

I don't know why you tell me I don't understand something I do understand. Well, I suppose I do; it's because you are so fixed in your belief that CO2 is a feedback mechanism (the fact that complex life exists on this planet and it didn't become a furnace billions of years ago proves it's not as you say it is!) and you can't even consider that someone else may see that it works differently, even when they bluntly say so.

You've said CO2 is the only greenhouse gas, or perhaps you just meant the only one of significance. Go look up what the biggest one actually is. I'll give you a hint - it's really, really common on this planet, and it's not CO2.
 
Sdajii said:
You've said CO2 is the only greenhouse gas, or perhaps you just meant the only one of significance. Go look up what the biggest one actually is. I'll give you a hint - it's really, really common on this planet, and it's not CO2.
Click to expand...
What I know is how GHG's affect radiative forcing. You are claiming to be a scientist, have studied climate, know what other other scientists say, but never once mentioned radiative forcing. In simple terms it means you ignorant wrt to climate. I generally don't like using Wiki, but here it provides the easiest way to see that the global warming potential of water vapour is inconsequential in climate science.
If that was not enough then maybe this link puts to bed your ideas.
You, like those others in denial of climate science, seem unable to understand that an abundent GHG like water vapour reacts to changes in temperature. Whereas GHGs which are accumulating due to human influence drive the temperature that leads to more water vapour in the atmosphere.

This statement from you also proves that you are somewhat clueless here:
Sdajii said:
Well, I suppose I do; it's because you are so fixed in your belief that CO2 is a feedback mechanism (the fact that complex life exists on this planet and it didn't become a furnace billions of years ago proves it's not as you say it is!) and you can't even consider that someone else may see that it works differently, even when they bluntly say so.
Click to expand...
I never said that and never would say that. Instead I have explained that the gas you obliquely referenced as the main greenhouse gas and the biggest - water vapour - is in fact inconsequential in terms of climate change.
So please do put your knowledge against mine as I am not sure you know much in this field.
 
I cannot understand how anyone can justify the drawing of firm and/or concrete conclusions before giving due consideration to the relevant qwarx.

I trust that it is only a matter of time before the intelligent participants to this thread start doing exactly that, because, I know that only the inept amongst us, would dare to continuously overlook the relevance and import of qwarx to the matters being discussed.
 
Joules MM1 said:
https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg
---------------------
National Geographic‏Verified account @NatGeo 6h6 hours ago
The average annual temperature in the high-elevation park increased 3.4˚F in the 20th century, worsening a range of troubles

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...0119env-climatechangepark::rid=&sf206264073=1
Click to expand...

Well there you go Joules, just as Tim Flannery keeps quoting in his book, "The Weather Makers" Gaia and her balance at work.

From your link... "That has worsened a trifecta of troubles—bark beetles, wildfires, and invasive plants such as cheatgrass"

A wildfire will get rid of bark beetles and invasive plants.
 
basilio said:
Ann that "opportunistic propaganda" you talk about is just an accurate reflection of the extreme weather conditions which are a recognized outcome of global heating.

The super hot fires caused by extreme heat conditions. The extreme storms caused by extra moisture carried in a warmer atmosphere. The aerial rivers of moisture are normal. What is different is the substantially extra volume.

In that context you can also add the increased incidence of cloud burst events which really cause some damage.
https://www.reference.com/science/causes-cloudbursts-54781f4980076b0b
Click to expand...

That little pic in the article is sun reflecting through clouds and I believe it is actually Photoshoped using a feature called 'lens flare', more faked stuff. :rolleyes:

Cloud bursts are just rain fall and can cause flooding, big deal, more scare tactics using mundane events.
The scary rain events are called rain bomb, here is an awesome video I found a while back, these are the things that can cause damage as the water smashes down causing flash flooding and property damage without warning. I don't think this is a faked video because there is no link to climate change.

 
Come off it Ann. You can't "fake" the biggest and most intense bushfire ever experienced in Califonia.
Equally you can't "fake" a storm that produces enough rain to create mudslides that trash communities.

The story was looking at how the realities of extreme weather which are the product of global warming are already impacting on California.
 
basilio said:
Come off it Ann. You can't "fake" the biggest and most intense bushfire ever experienced in Califonia.
Equally you can't "fake" a storm that produces enough rain to create mudslides that trash communities.

The story was looking at how the realities of extreme weather which are the product of global warming are already impacting on California.
Click to expand...
Basilio,
While i agree on the global warming caused by humans, i would bet you a lot of activities can also explain some of these intensive fires.
Here in Australia, vegetation management, tree clearing laws and development in outer suburban areas are leading us to disasters.i do not doubt California had similar issues
 
basilio said:
Come off it Ann. You can't "fake" the biggest and most intense bushfire ever experienced in California.
Equally you can't "fake" a storm that produces enough rain to create mudslides that trash communities.

The story was looking at how the realities of extreme weather which are the product of global warming are already impacting on California.
Click to expand...

This is the way the you fellas are doing enormous damage to your cause when you link one unrelated thing ie faked photos and cloud bursts to a previous unrelated post of California fires and mudslides and wrap them together and then misquote people by implication. It is something we notice.

This linking to unrelated things appears to be quite a feature in general of the majority of things I see on the internet regarding GW and it is one of the major things that makes me go....hmmm?

Nowhere did I suggest the California fires or mudslides were faked, I said you fellas were being opportunistic and using it as propaganda for your cause.

Accidents and natural disasters can not all be linked to Climate Change and if the CC folk persist in doing this it will become abundantly clear to us ordinary folk it is simply a political self-interest group calling wolf, over and over. Eventually we will all just ignore you.

As an example, the Federal Government just before an election appears to have enough confidence they may not receive too much of a backlash by getting two new coal-fired powerstations built, one in Victoria and one in NSW for around $6Billion.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-a-6-billion-coal-plants-proposal-australian
 

Similar threads

basilio
Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
220 221 222
Replies
4K
Views
304K
basilio
basilio
Top