cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

649 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, cobran20 said:

except for some major key countries that make all the difference - China (except for HK, Macau), the US and Russia

The US have withdrawn from the Paris agreements while the liar in chief is in charge. Here's a prediction for you. Once this clown is gone US will re-enter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, staringclown said:

The US have withdrawn from the Paris agreements while the liar in chief is in charge. Here's a prediction for you. Once this clown is gone US will re-enter.

That depends on who wins the 2024 Presidential election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe. Is that a prediction for the 2020? I'll wager on that.

Edited by staringclown
tense
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, staringclown said:

US has no issues with tariffs at the moment to combat such advantage. Most countries have signed up to the Paris accord. I think I see a solution.

The various agreements to reduce carbon emissions are routinely broken by the govts that agree to them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, staringclown said:

Hehe. Is that a prediction for the 2020? I'll wager on that.

I wouldn't place a bet.

USA elections are as much about who can be bothered voting as who the people want. IMO HRC lost in 16 because enough people who supported her, or at least not Trump, didn't bother to vote. In 2020 I suspect equal people will be more motivated to turn up to vote for or against Trump. Depends on the Dem alternative. Depends on the colleges. 

Trump is useless at everything he's done, but is a superb grifter. Politics is the long con and Trump is the master of long cons. 

You can't con an honest (wo)man and apart from 'sh*t hole' countries the USA has most dishonest people. So I predict Trump will win the next election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, zaph said:

The various agreements to reduce carbon emissions are routinely broken by the govts that agree to them.  

Correct. Like UN agreements often are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, zaph said:

I wouldn't place a bet.

USA elections are as much about who can be bothered voting as who the people want. IMO HRC lost in 16 because enough people who supported her, or at least not Trump, didn't bother to vote. In 2020 I suspect equal people will be more motivated to turn up to vote for or against Trump. Depends on the Dem alternative. Depends on the colleges. 

Trump is useless at everything he's done, but is a superb grifter. Politics is the long con and Trump is the master of long cons. 

You can't con an honest (wo)man and apart from 'sh*t hole' countries the USA has most dishonest people. So I predict Trump will win the next election. 

Why did the US not elect pay-to-play via the Clinton Foundation Hillary? It is obvious to anybody who doesn't have an extreme left bias!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How history repeats/rhymes. Here is another little from the past:

47390854_358988244665135_829443994009206

But to prove it, we need this:

The Role of Sunspots and Solar Winds in Climate Change

Quote

...Ironically, the only way to really find out if phenomena like sunspots and solar wind are playing a larger role in climate change than most scientists now believe would be to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Only in the absence of that potential driver will researchers be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earth’s climate.

What will happen if governments are conned into implementing full scale globull warming policies and nothing changes to the climate? Who will be held accountable for the $squillions wasted? Will those scientists on the government teat, who promote globull warming, be sacked for incompetence and required to return monies? I guess not ... it will be quietly brushed under the carpet and everybody told to move on by the UN/IPCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, zaph said:

I wouldn't place a bet.

USA elections are as much about who can be bothered voting as who the people want. IMO HRC lost in 16 because enough people who supported her, or at least not Trump, didn't bother to vote. In 2020 I suspect equal people will be more motivated to turn up to vote for or against Trump. Depends on the Dem alternative. Depends on the colleges. 

Trump is useless at everything he's done, but is a superb grifter. Politics is the long con and Trump is the master of long cons. 

You can't con an honest (wo)man and apart from 'sh*t hole' countries the USA has most dishonest people. So I predict Trump will win the next election. 

You left out the gerrymandering. Still, I'll take a punt. I generally try to keep optimistic. :) Obama won remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cobran20 said:

How history repeats/rhymes. Here is another little from the past:

47390854_358988244665135_829443994009206

But to prove it, we need this:

The Role of Sunspots and Solar Winds in Climate Change

What will happen if governments are conned into implementing full scale globull warming policies and nothing changes to the climate? Who will be held accountable for the $squillions wasted? Will those scientists on the government teat, who promote globull warming, be sacked for incompetence and required to return monies? I guess not ... it will be quietly brushed under the carpet and everybody told to move on by the UN/IPCC.

Speaking of accountability, you've brushed past the point on the trustworthiness of data sources. You use my sources as does Armstrong whilst simultaneously trying to discredit them. That doesn't make any sense even in your alternate reality. Swaize made a post on the Armstrong thread regarding evidence based decision making. I must admit it gave me a good gut laugh.

Quote

 I mean.... probably politics has OFTEN been like that, just childish and stupid debates instead of ACTUAL FACTS and debate trying to get to the BEST SOLUTION for the FUTURE of the country.

You responded without any irony. Blithely ignoring that evidence is required as part of any debate. And here you are again posting some ancient news article with no relevance to the debate at hand. Brushing sh*t under the carpet in exactly the same fashion as you accuse your opponents. But I guess that is what Trump supporters do.

Bait and switch, bait and switch. All good in the climate change denial whack-a-mole game. It's always cold somewhere right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

Speaking of accountability, you've brushed past the point on the trustworthiness of data sources. You use my sources as does Armstrong whilst simultaneously trying to discredit them. That doesn't make any sense even in your alternate reality. Swaize made a post on the Armstrong thread regarding evidence based decision making. I must admit it gave me a good gut laugh.

You responded without any irony. Blithely ignoring that evidence is required as part of any debate. And here you are again posting some ancient news article with no relevance to the debate at hand. Brushing sh*t under the carpet in exactly the same fashion as you accuse your opponents. But I guess that is what Trump supporters do.

Bait and switch, bait and switch. All good in the climate change denial whack-a-mole game. It's always cold somewhere right?

You want a fine example of bait & switch, here is one:

Why Global Warming Can Mean Harsher Winter Weather

If it is  hot, it is caused by global warming, if it is freezing, it is caused by global warming. A tennis player suffers from heat stroke, it is caused by global warming. It is a catch all excuse. That's why it is good to see the predictions from 20-30 years ago. Remember there is no prediction made by the IPCC/UN about frost & low soft commodity yields caused global cooling ... until closer to the time when they're re-work the theory to fit it in and claim it was predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's horsesh*t. As usual. Do you accept the temperature measurements by the vast numbers of people that measure them or not? You're already using them as evidence anyway via your articles. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

That's horsesh*t. As usual. Do you accept the temperature measurements by the vast numbers of people that measure them or not? You're already using them as evidence anyway via your articles. A simple yes or no will suffice.

If you are talking about the global measurements and their conclusions and you want a simple yes or no, then on balance the answer is no. Reason being that from time to time you get somebody who finds holes in their conclusions/data, like the article I published on this thread earlier where they found an report about rising seas (from memory) to be incorrect. I treat a lot of the reports & measurements from the IPCC with skepticism. Agrarian news with data from local farmers, I'm more confident about. Yes, that would apply to records for heating & cold. But from the news, I'm monitoring an overall change in trend to the downside in temperatures, which does reflect the forecasts made by the two dissenters I tend to find more accurate than anything coming out of the IPCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

If you are talking about the global measurements and their conclusions and you want a simple yes or no, then on balance the answer is no. Reason being that from time to time you get somebody who finds holes in their conclusions/data, like the article I published on this thread earlier where they found an report about rising seas (from memory) to be incorrect. I treat a lot of the reports & measurements from the IPCC with skepticism. Agrarian news with data from local farmers, I'm more confident about. Yes, that would apply to records for heating & cold. But from the news, I'm monitoring an overall change in trend to the downside in temperatures, which does reflect the forecasts made by the two dissenters I tend to find more accurate than anything coming out of the IPCC.

So you trust the data supplied to the "agrarian news". Who supplies that data? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, staringclown said:

So you trust the data supplied to the "agrarian news". Who supplies that data? 

Bureau ... and local farmers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, staringclown said:

5% truth from the most honest president in modern history.

I thought you'd like that. But you can also search and get different scores:

Trump Promise Tracker

Like the reports out of the IPCC, best taken with a grain of salt and follow those with the most accuracy, usually those with skin in the game who get punished rather than rewarded for incompetence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cobran20 said:

Bureau ... and local farmers.

Really. So the murdoch press interviews local farmers prior to publication. Is that what you're claiming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, staringclown said:

Really. So the murdoch press interviews local farmers prior to publication. Is that what you're claiming?

When they publish loss of yield in grains due to frosts for specific areas, they get their facts from local markets/farmers. Where else would they get such data - the local branch of the Labor party?!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well SC, here is another prediction from somebody with skin in the game. Care to bet against him/it?

Weather Channel Declares November Coldest in 50 years

Quote

... From a timing perspective, if we see next year get colder than this year, that will CONFIRM this is going to get much worse before it will get warm again and that first uptick may not take place until 2026. The computer is showing a commodity rally will arrive after 2020

very clear, precise forecast - not 100+ years from now like the BS by groups with track records worse than a broken clock, knowing that everybody will be long dead and their atrocious forecasting long forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cobran20 said:

When they publish loss of yield in grains due to frosts for specific areas, they get their facts from local markets/farmers. Where else would they get such data - the local branch of the Labor party?!!

Is this what you actually believe? Or are you taking the piss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, staringclown said:

Is this what you actually believe? Or are you taking the piss?

This meeting is to get your approval signature for the document. Alternatively, you can email your approval in advance.

Quote

... Industry sources....

and from your own ABC that good lefties consider unquestionable (and naturally totally 'unbiased'):

Frost damage dashes farmers' hopes of record harvest, as Perth shivers through chilly night

Quote

... Farmers woke to discover heavy frost gripping their wheat and barley crops, which were expected to deliver a combined 14 million tonne harvest this year.

Kojonup farmer Dan Ladyman, whose property is about 260 kilometres south-east of Perth, said the frost was fierce and widespread...

...Nyabing farmer Scott Crosby reported major damage on his cereal crops....

So where do you get your trusted data from? I know - organisations funded by governments (ie. tax payers monies), who have been wrong in their forecasts for at least 30 years and who have a major financial vested interest in keeping the 'dream alive' as it maintains their revenue streams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now