|
Replies: 47
| visibility 1
|
All-In [40928]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42945
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [111528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
it became political
May 28, 2022, 10:13 PM
|
|
when the out right deniers crawled up of from the bowels of the CATO Institute, and through their unholy alliance with Americans for Prosperity, convinced a broad swath of the Republican Party to dress in pantaloons and tricorn hats while weaponizing climate action as a liberal plot to take down the oil companies.
it was rather impressive and a testament to the power of think tanks and stupid people working together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13103]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14103
Joined: 11/2/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
I am just explaining how and when it became political.
May 28, 2022, 11:18 PM
|
|
Although I seem to recall Reagan removing the solar panels from the roof of the Whitehouse, that could have been the official watershed moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: No DOE / other grant money for non-CO2 warming studies
May 29, 2022, 2:24 AM
|
|
Too bad that Sagan either didn't know or (more likely) chose to not discuss the aspects of Earth's core on climate, and didn't discuss (he clearly knew) that water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas of the Earth's atmosphere. In 1985, he either didn't know about the solar heat cycles, nor did he know that the solar heat cycles had NOT been proven to be constant in length.
Also, Sagan either didn't know (unlikely) or chose not to mention (very likely) the enormous contribution of the Earth's core as a climate stabilizing factor during 1985 talk to the US Congress.
Although Earth's core activities are an enormous factor in climate; it is not a constant.
Seismic activity gives clues that the contribution of the earth's core to climate is not constant; the increase in seismic activity from the 2004 - 2021 period (~ 80 eruptions / yr) vs. the 1960 - 2003 period (~ 65 eruptions / year) correspond to the rise in the earth's temperature starting in the New Millenium.
The variations in the energy output from earth's core ... as indicated by cyclical changes in seismic activity ... should be studied vigorously. Unfortunately, there is little grant money to university scientists for investigating / studying this; therefore the work is done from where grant money comes (i.e., CO2 as global warming grant money).
Sure, increases in CO2 contribute to global warming. But the large extent to which changes in CO2 levels contribute to global warming is simply an unproven theory.
The NOAA's own paper in Oct. 2021 (if you look carefully at key data in their paper) reveals that their 'solar cycles' are not the cause of global warming in the New Millenium is an unproven theory; therefore their assertion that 'the only possible cause for global warming is man-made CO2) is also unproven.
CO2 content in the Earth' atmosphere is 0.8 grams per cubic meter.
CO2 content in the Venus' atmosphere is 2000 grams per cubic meter.
CO2 content in the Mars' atmosphere is 20.32 grams per cubic meter.
Contribution to Earth's temp. from earth's core: Major (radioactive components keeps major core elements molten)
Contribution to Venus' temp. from venus's core: Major (not radioactive; but close to sun and hot surface keeps core heat from dissipating rapidly)
Contribution to Mars' temp. from Mars' core: Minor (none; core is not molten)
Water vapor content in Venus's atmosphere = very small (couldn't find this)
Water vapor content in Mars' atmosphere = 0.0026 grams per cubic meter.
Temperature extremes on Earth: -126 F (Antarctica) to +136 F (Libyan desert)
Temperature extremes on Venus (approx) 800 F to 900 F
Temperature extremes on Mars (approx): -220 F to +70 F
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Yeah, it is a shame Sagan is nolonger with us
May 29, 2022, 5:20 AM
|
|
you could have explained to him how planets work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Yeah, it is a shame that some TNetters are lazy
May 29, 2022, 4:14 PM
|
|
If Sagan was so honest, then why did he mis-state (or 'forget') to mention these manifest truths to Congress?
Perhaps he recognized that Congressmen were like many TNetters ... they aren't interested or curious about the 'scientific' background that is driving one of the most societal / economic change that the USA has ever subjected to itself.
Why don't you do a bit of work and investigate whether water vapor is a greenhouse gas?
Maybe you'll see that as the climate gets warmer, more water evaporates from the ocean ... thereby creating more greenhouse gas ... and then making the climate warmer. In other words, why is this not an endless feedback loop to Hades?
Here's why: Factors other than greenhouse gases are the main drivers in the Earth's climate. Otherwise, we'd be Venus by now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
this is adorable.
May 29, 2022, 7:44 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31450]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10178
Joined: 1/28/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [840]
TigerPulse: 67%
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/19/21
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: I didn't think it was possible to smell bullsh*t through the
May 29, 2022, 9:58 PM
|
|
Show me where I'm wrong.
Yeah, I didn't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15066
Joined: 8/6/10
|
It's always been political. Watermelons.***
May 29, 2022, 10:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3615]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 8864
Joined: 5/16/22
|
Re: It's always been political. Watermelons.***
May 29, 2022, 11:00 AM
|
|
Nothing to do with science? It was all about politics for all the scientists around the world? That's impressive and very well organized. You have to give them credit for pulling that off with such a cohesive group and message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15066
Joined: 8/6/10
|
They're just grifters who produce what the politicians want.***
May 29, 2022, 11:47 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3615]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 8864
Joined: 5/16/22
|
Re: They're just grifters who produce what the politicians want.***
May 29, 2022, 7:57 PM
|
|
All over the world? That's cool. That's a good gig they have. I am sure living in Antarctica is the best grift of all of them. Imagine the chicks they get up there? It sucks they have to go to school and train for over a decade to get that grift, but like I said, the women make it worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: They're just grifters who produce what the politicians want.***
May 29, 2022, 8:18 PM
|
|
i know I want to spend my summers stuck indoors in Antartica, I would lie and fudge data to spend more time there too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: They're just grifters who produce what the politicians want.***
May 29, 2022, 8:46 PM
|
|
You clearly have minimal (if any) exposure to scientists who get grant money to 'prove' a theory again and again that has already been 'proven' by other scientists who had also gotten grant money.
Ignorance is bliss, as they always say, so believe what you want to believe.
Hanging out in FL as you prefer sounds nice; why not enjoy yourself? No sense in experiencing the colder parts of the world if that doesn't interest you.
However, there are more than a few people that would LOVE to go to Antarctica simply to see that continent's unique geology, experience its weather, and witness its exotic animal life.
Antarctica is not the same as when Ernest Shackleford 'visited' in 1915 and got stuck in the Weddell Sea ice floes. In 2022, you can get in and out of Antarctica with relative ease. And, believe it not, there are methods of communication based on radio waves and satellites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
So we are clear,, your argument is that
May 29, 2022, 9:09 PM
|
|
Climate Change is a global money grifting conspiracy that has permeated the governments of 81 developed nations and was clandestinely organized in secret, across dozens of languages and outside the attention of our intelligence agencies, so over paid scientists , analysts, and field researchers could keep their funding by lying to the world about potentially the greatest existential threat humanity faces in so far as its ability to live predictably on this planet?
you would have to be a real dickwad to perpetrate something like that, who could be so morally bankrupt that they would use the threat of global cataclysm to get their funding? I had no idea scientists were like this. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3615]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 8864
Joined: 5/16/22
|
Re: So we are clear,, your argument is that
May 29, 2022, 9:20 PM
|
|
Because you know they couldn't get a good job doing something else with all of that education. The only option for those highly educated people is to grift in all reality. Thy're stuck between a rock and hard place. Basically steal for a living and live in great places like Antarctica or at best teach middle school somewhere. They don't really bring much to the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: So we are clear,, your argument is that
May 29, 2022, 9:36 PM
|
|
scientists are all about the money, that is why they did not get into tech or finance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: So we are clear,, your argument is that
May 29, 2022, 11:12 PM
|
|
Giving you credit, you're sticking with this, and so I'll respond.
No, it's not just about making the most money possible. That's not what motivates most people.
Instead, it's about making the money that you want to be financially secure, working in an environment that you like, and having the psychological comfort that goes with job security.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And BTW, it is not as if the actual WORK that climate scientists do that's wrong. From those that I've read, the actual experiments and measurements that they make are very cool.
Rather, it's the conclusions that they draw from their data sets which are erroneous.
All too frequently the climate scientists cherry-pick a data set (typically an interval of time) which can be manipulated to reach the conclusion that they want.
All too frequently, they ignore other major factors in climate; it's easy to show that higher levels of CO2 trap IR light, which in turn leads to warming. Golf clap.
Their conclusions are false when reporting that anthropogenic CO2 is THE MAJOR factor in global warming.
They are wrong. Rising CO2 levels are a factor ... but only a MINOR factor.
Solar radiation (for which uniformly predictable cycles cited by climate scientists are disproven by the NOAA's data per Oct. 2021 report) are a known major factor; variations in the earth's core ... despite universal acknowledgement that the Earth's core has an enormous impact on global climate ... has been ignored by the agenda-driven climate scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: So we are clear,, your argument is that
May 29, 2022, 9:42 PM
[ in reply to Re: So we are clear,, your argument is that ] |
|
There are good jobs for scientists who are willing to work outside of the academic bubble, but not all of them cannot cope with the pressure of the private sector / industrial employer's expectations for economically useful innovation.
Many of the private sector / industrial scientists are required to do work to improve industrial processes, and work in laboratories that are in a manufacturing plant's footprint instead of a garden-like college campus.
So it is not as if the scientists' ONLY option is to work for academia in climate science. There are scads of scientists (both academic and private sector / industrial) who are not climate scientists.
But whether 'industrial' work or 'academic' work, the scientist is expected to produce outcomes that their 'employer' wants them to produce.
The climate science / anthropogenic CO2 = global warming theory keeps getting 'proven' again and again and again (i.e., nothing new as far as meaningful research ... which is the real work of science) because the DOE, EPA, etc. keep coughing up grant money for those many scientists who have made a career (or who have meaningfully supplemented their careers) by climate science work.
SUMMARY: They are paid to 'prove' an outcome that shows anthropogenic CO2 = global warming. That's what their 'boss' (funder) wants them to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: They're just grifters who produce what the politicians want.***
May 29, 2022, 8:32 PM
[ in reply to Re: They're just grifters who produce what the politicians want.*** ] |
|
People believe what they want to believe ... especially if their friends believe the same stuff.
In the early 1970's, there was fear was that pollution was 'blotting out' the sun's rays, and the theory that such might lead to another ice age might was popular at that time.
That was popular amongst the ignorant Americans of that decade, and helped to spawn the environmental movement. (Not that the environmental movement was bad, but that a portion of it was popularized on a BS theory.)
But today's 'follow the science' neophytes don't understand that REAL science includes work that challenges the status quo of current 'settled science' theories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31450]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10178
Joined: 1/28/15
|
Re: They're just grifters who produce what the politicians want.***
May 31, 2022, 6:29 AM
|
|
“People believe what they want to believe”
You don’t say
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: They're just grifters who produce what the politicians want.***
May 31, 2022, 11:22 PM
|
|
Ha ha ... funny guy.
But other than reinforcement from your comparably ignorant friends on what to say, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15066
Joined: 8/6/10
|
It’s real simple: they don’t get paid if their results show no catastrophe.
May 31, 2022, 8:02 AM
[ in reply to Re: They're just grifters who produce what the politicians want.*** ] |
|
They’ll never get another grant again. It isn’t hard to understand. Scientists aren’t geniuses in lab coats. They are grifters. (Modern scientists, I should say).
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5673]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12153
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
May 29, 2022, 9:04 PM
|
|
The left put the nail in the Earth's climate coffin when they successfully scared everyone away from Nuclear Power. The anti-nuclear power movement started in the 60s and got popular among leftists and hippies in the 70s.
Instead of developing better, safer, cheaper, and more efficient nuclear power technologies for the last 60 years, the "follow the science" idiots on the left have been lying about it and trying, pretty successfully, to kill it.
Now we have China and India building fossil fuel plants faster than Hunter Biden can sniff a line of coke.
Great job lefties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3615]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 8864
Joined: 5/16/22
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
May 29, 2022, 9:23 PM
|
|
That was a mistake in hindsight imo. True. Why not start now though? Do we have any new ones being built?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
May 29, 2022, 9:43 PM
|
|
Nukes are a good idea ... no argument from me on that topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [840]
TigerPulse: 67%
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/19/21
|
There was an AP1000 plant under construction in SC
May 31, 2022, 1:14 AM
[ in reply to Re: Member when climate change was not political and ] |
|
Westinghouse mismanagement and bad ideas basically bankrupted SCE&G and Marlboro Electric so they were absorbed by (Dominion, I think). Result is that SC power customers will have higher bills for the foreseeable future to pay off the approx 10 billion debt. This all happened in the last 10 years; Fukushima didn’t have much to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: There was an AP1000 plant under construction in SC
May 31, 2022, 11:27 PM
|
|
If nuke plants aren't designed correctly, built on a site which is 'environmentally suitable,' and/or is shown to have construction flaws, then they are terrible investments.
Sometimes, nuke plants are held up after being constructed by NRC lawsuits which are intended to derail the construction (see Plant Vogtle).
But if the environmental studies, civil engineering, and actual construction are done properly ... and oh yes, if the US Gov't will quit playing politics with nuclear waste disposal sites (re: Yucca Mountain), then nukes are a valuable contributor to the USA's electrical grid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [840]
TigerPulse: 67%
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Yucca is completely dead. Not to return
Jun 1, 2022, 11:03 PM
|
|
Nevada has too much political influence now. The Greenwood site (or wherever the new AP1000 was planned, too lazy to look it up) wasn't bad. The problem was people making bad decisions, Westinghouse/Toshiba deciding to buy the construction company, etc. It's still a poor philosophy in this country to build a few massive power plants instead of distributing a lot of smaller plants. Just bad, bad logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
May 30, 2022, 9:34 PM
[ in reply to Re: Member when climate change was not political and ] |
|
Reported widely last year, P.R.China has plans to bring 43 new coal fired steam plants (i.e., electric generating plants) on stream during CY-2022.
These are each in the ~ 500 MW to ~ 750 MW capacity range (which is the typical size for P.R.Chinese steam plants).
Hmmm ... anyone think that CO2 will come out of these plants.
Hmmm ... anyone got any guesses about how many additional coal fired steam plants will be built and become operational in P.R.China before year end 2023?
For those that believe in anthropogenic CO2 as the main cause of the current increase in global temperature, they should realize that if the EU and the USA stopped all use of hydrocarbons dead in its tracks, that P.R.China (with more than a little help from India) will be producing more CO2 emissions than what's already being generated by another ~ 10 years.
But it's really good business for special interests and politicians to keep up the 'green energy' hoax, so it will continue to be blasted out to the American and EU citizens as their cause celebre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
May 30, 2022, 9:46 PM
|
|
you are only telling half of the story there bud, China has slowed its production of coal fired plants, they can't just stop building them altogether and continue growing. And the emissions coming from China are in large part due to the spending habits of consumers in the United states. Every time you buy a rubber dog turd and have it shipped over, you are contributing to their carbon emissions.
Certainly global trade and the offshoring of manufacturing with China has, by and large, kept the purchasing power of the dollar relatively high, but we are more responsible for their emissions due to our desire for cheaply made, disposable goods. So placing sole blame on China is a bit misguided when they contribute to 59% of the manufacturing of US bought goods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19901]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16718
Joined: 11/28/00
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
May 30, 2022, 9:52 PM
|
|
I agree. It's our fault they sent the China Virus Pandemic all over the world too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [840]
TigerPulse: 67%
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/19/21
|
China produces the most solar power (by a lot)
May 31, 2022, 7:59 AM
[ in reply to Re: Member when climate change was not political and ] |
|
the most wind power (by a lot) and the most hydroelectric power (by a lot). They are third in nuclear power but are building a LOT of new nuclear reactors and will eventually blow past everyone else in nuclear power too. They use the most coal overall but are not even in the top 10 per capita.
If “clean coal” ever becomes more than a George Bush fantasy, it’s more likely to come from research and application in China than anywhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111528]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73740
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: China produces the most solar power (by a lot)
May 31, 2022, 9:57 AM
|
|
there is no such thing as clean coal, you either capture most of the toxic metals and put them into a slurry pond, hoping it does not leak into the water table, or into the air. The former is what is referred to as clean coal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [840]
TigerPulse: 67%
Posts: 1084
Joined: 10/19/21
|
Clean coal is more about capturing the carbon
May 31, 2022, 8:24 PM
|
|
There are already ways to remove most of the mercury from the flue. NETL seems to have to jump to different emphases more often than any of the other labs when presidents change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: China produces the most solar power (by a lot)
Jun 1, 2022, 12:38 AM
[ in reply to Re: China produces the most solar power (by a lot) ] |
|
The technology to better manage the waste metals (by product from combustion of coal) has been fully developed is far from being 'finished.'
There is little motivation (either from private industry or from public funding) to conduct research / engineering studies on how to improve it.
Private industry foresees being regulated out of the coal as fuel business; there is no ROI from conducing the research as long as the current political environment is expected to persist.
And Mr. Powers (posting below) has it right with the NETL's objective being CO2 control, as opposed to by-product-metals management from combustion of coal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: China produces the most solar power (by a lot)
Jun 1, 2022, 12:31 AM
[ in reply to China produces the most solar power (by a lot) ] |
|
The USA quit doing clean coal research because it was not politically 'feasible' to keep it up.
Doing clean coal work is far more expensive (i.e., requires the construction of facilities to test the theories) than are measurements of CO2 and heat in the atmosphere and the environment.
That is a big reason why academicians prefer the comparatively cheap means of conducting research, i.e., CO2 / climate change instead of clean coal.
Clean coal would take a truly long term commitment (with long term funding and a critical eye towards directing funds away from 'stagnant' or unproductive technologies) from the US Gov't. Since hardly any US Gov't funded environmental programs which must transcend more than one presidential administration are politically desirable, then such programs are not funded.
In the meantime, PRC keeps building coal fired steam plants at a blistering rate, and the USA's apologists for the PRC's practices do backflips to apologize to the PRC for the USA 'pushing them' to do this. SMH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
Jun 1, 2022, 12:02 AM
[ in reply to Re: Member when climate change was not political and ] |
|
What tortured mental gymnastics ... blame the USA on P.R.China's decisions about building dozens of steam plants (for electricity generation).
Again, thank you for being engaged. Now I'll tell you what you privately know, but for some reason do not want to acknowledge publicly.
PRC, wanting to grow their economy, chose of their own volition to compete via low price. No one made them do it. PRC's 'buy market share via low prices' was entirely their own decision. PRC chose the least expensive way of generating electricity (given their own enormous reserves of coal) ... coal fired steam (electricity generating) plants as a component of having a cost advantage in their manufacturing infrastructure.
When phony USA environmentalists speak as if PRC is the victim when taking shortcuts on environmental matters ... simply because the USA (and the EU) tend to prefer to purchase cheap goods ... such talk is garbage and the USA's environmentalists know it.
It's not as if PRC is some helpless country similar to Haiti or Bangladesh.
N one 'made' PRC do this; PRC has been in position to sustain and grow their economy via less polluting means and via less evil labor practices (see Uyghurs), but they choose to do it their polluting way. But USA's environmental apologists continue to blame the USA and ignore the major culprit (i.e., PRC). This analogous to a bullied teenager (environmentalist) who's afraid to take on his school yard bullies (re: PRC) ... and then comes home and yells at his parents (USA) for being terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2018]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 3075
Joined: 7/30/04
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
May 31, 2022, 8:42 PM
|
|
I remember when the left was trying to control(scare) the masses with global cooling. It didn't get anyone on board so they switched to warming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2018]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 3075
Joined: 7/30/04
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
May 31, 2022, 8:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2018]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 3075
Joined: 7/30/04
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
May 31, 2022, 8:47 PM
|
|
HAARP
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
Jun 1, 2022, 12:20 AM
|
|
Few of today's climate change 'experts' in the media can recall HAARP, or have a remote understanding about its purpose.
But that doesn't limit them from blabbing on and on and on about the latest enviro fad ... anthropogenic CO2 as being THE cause of any cyclical changes in climate.
Heck, as recently as ~ 10 years ago the CO2 nuts had just learned that CO2 is inversely soluble in aqueous media (including salt water); this led to the propagation of the scare that previously dissolved CO2 would come out of the (warmer) ocean ... which in turn would lead to yet more CO2 in the atmosphere (therefore would make the planet yet hotter still) ... thus leading to a further reduction in dissolved-in-the-ocean CO2.
In other words, an irreversible and inexorable 'environmental feedback loop' that would cook the earth by ~ 2025.
Then apparently a few of the climate hoax scientists whispered to the climate change mouthpieces to hush about this, as it would ruin the 'climate change industry.'
But the beat goes on, and without any admission among the climate change shysters of their previous ignorance or stupidity in their narrative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
Jun 1, 2022, 12:07 AM
[ in reply to Re: Member when climate change was not political and ] |
|
You back up your posts with real research.
Unfortunately, today's leftists back up their words by repeating words from other leftists ... who heard their stuff from yet other leftists.
Pretty soon they will PROVE that the Earth is flat, and that the flat Earth is ... wait for it, wait for it ... settled science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2018]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 3075
Joined: 7/30/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Member when climate change was not political and
Jun 1, 2022, 12:05 AM
[ in reply to Re: Member when climate change was not political and ] |
|
Absolutely! But you'll never get anyone of today's leftists to acknowledge this.
Their innumerable previous mistakes are 'ancient history,' but THIS TIME they just KNOW that they are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 47
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
