cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

202 posts in this topic

Not sure why you went with the darkies for the breeding restriction. They tend to use f*ck all compared to the whites of the world. Or are you scared the darkies want the whites standard of living (you still don't think global warming is unproven right?).

 

If you don't think global warming exists why would you care about the darkies breeding? they use less resources, provide an abundant source of cheap labour.

 

Shouldn't you want the white people to not breed so they don't provide competition against your own kids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why you went with the darkies for the breeding restriction. They tend to use f*ck all compared to the whites of the world. Or are you scared the darkies want the whites standard of living (you still don't think global warming is unproven right?).

 

If you don't think global warming exists why would you care about the darkies breeding? they use less resources, provide an abundant source of cheap labour.

 

Shouldn't you want the white people to not breed so they don't provide competition against your own kids?

 

Countries suffering from over-population and its results like famine are in asia/africa. Western countries are actually de-populating if it wasn't for the net immigration. Nothing to do with 'darkies' as you put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing if you don't breed :) ironically breeding is the biggest threat according to a few headline hitters recently...

 

Even better when it all goes absolutely tits up _I_ will probably be okay and every single person I have met that is anti the whole deal will be f*cked. Because I looked at their actions and started planning for the catastof*ck they were trying to deliver because they don't want to change their lives and are suspicious others have better lives.

 

In the same way all marketing staff should work help desk a week a year all people ought to have to live a week on "average world income and resources" a year. Pretty sure that would change a few opinions.

 

Myself and Ms clown are holding our end up in the non-breeding stakes so to speak. Of course, I don't mind practising. It's interesting that breeders are less concerned than non-breeders about the future. They have more skin in the game.

 

As Tor said - nothing! 

As to a governor of the BoE warning about global warming climate change, well he would surely be an expert in the field ... probably more accurate than Flannery!

 

Tell Peabody energy that the cost of doing nothing is nothing. 

 

 

 

Just five years ago, the company was worth $20 billion – far short of the market capitalisation of ExxonMobil, to be sure, but a cautionary tale nonetheless at a time when investors are pressuring the company to explain how it will deal with climate change. And it is not an isolated example brought low by mismanagement. Rather, it is part of an industry in structural decline.As Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, wrote at the end of last year, 2015 was a terrible year for the coal industry.  “Coal companies have been going bankrupt and share prices have been in freefall.
The second largest American producer, Alpha Natural Resources, filed for bankruptcy in August. Peabody Coal, the most vocal lobbyist for coal as a vector of international development, saw its stock collapse from $116.10 on December 31, 2014 to $9.32 at the time of writing (in December).”

 

I heard a story today about the price of property in Collinsville. Might be worth a look if you think coal will make a comeback long term. Houses are going for ~100k  :)

 

 

 

 

Also agree with Tor that overpopulation is a bigger issue. China's one child policy (now two I believe), should be enforced throughout Asia & Africa.

 

Enforced? By who? Try enforcing breeding prevention here let alone Asia and Africa. Pretty sure they've had enough of white men telling them "do as I say not as I do". sh*t, I thought a global policy on climate change was difficult. Clearly, I lack ambition. :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enforced? By who? Try enforcing breeding prevention here let alone Asia and Africa. Pretty sure they've had enough of white men telling them "do as I say not as I do". sh*t, I thought a global policy on climate change was difficult. Clearly, I lack ambition. :clap:

 

I'd start by putting conditions on the endless charity money being provided to third world countries, most of which ends in corrupt government hands.

Handouts only to adults (preferably men as it is a quicker & easier surgery/snip) who had 1 child and then agreed to being sterilised. If they don't like it, no money - simple!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd start by putting conditions on the endless charity money being provided to third world countries, most of which ends in corrupt government hands.

Handouts only to adults (preferably men as it is a quicker & easier surgery/snip) who had 1 child and then agreed to being sterilised. If they don't like it, no money - simple!

Hmmm...

 

On the bright side it seems renewable capacity has over taken coal according to the BBC. Not energy produced but capacity to produce. Need a bit more redundancy but a landmark nevertheless...

 

Renewable energy capacity overtakes coal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read a super long and super interesting article in "Nature"

 

it shows that a model that has been right 97% in the last 30 years about the suns intensity and which if calculated into the 1700s also shows the cooling that happen then, that model shows that temperatures will fall 2019 into 2050 

That is also what Martin Armstrongs models show

That is also the opposite of the Government propaganda

 

I dont know how, yet, but i try to get ready, maby moving to SE asia where i calculated the economic growth will be from a demographic standpoin until 2050 and its warm there :)

Edited by Swaize

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read a super long and super interesting article in "Nature"

 

it shows that a model that has been right 97% in the last 30 years about the suns intensity and which if calculated into the 1700s also shows the cooling that happen then, that model shows that temperatures will fall 2019 into 2050 

That is also what Martin Armstrongs models show

That is also the opposite of the Government propaganda

 

I dont know how, yet, but i try to get ready, maby moving to SE asia where i calculated the economic growth will be from a demographic standpoin until 2050 and its warm there :)

 

Not another skeptic!  :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I met a guy who moved from Australia from Cambodia. Described the locals as "poor Cambos". All the (even remotely) smart ones were killed off by Pol Pot so the local populace is mostly lowly educated, lowly skilled.

 

Reward comes with risk, personally it's not on my short list of places to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just hoping it is like in Sydney when November is way hot and December is okay... last winter was hell at training. Barefeet fighting with snow coming in the door is supposed to build spirit and stuff but I'm not japanese and it just makes my feet cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/11/2016 at 9:21 AM, cobran20 said:

 

This is weather not climate C. The equivalent of saying the share market posted a loss on one day therefore a secular trend is wrong.

see the map below? The blue bits show cooler than average. The red bits show warmer than average. There's a lot more red bits. You see the trend?

 

2016GlobalAdjusted_Map_Jan-Jun_1050_718_

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2016 at 9:25 PM, staringclown said:

 

This is weather not climate C. The equivalent of saying the share market posted a loss on one day therefore a secular trend is wrong.

see the map below? The blue bits show cooler than average. The red bits show warmer than average. There's a lot more red bits. You see the trend?

 

2016GlobalAdjusted_Map_Jan-Jun_1050_718_

 

If the climate is getting warmer as claimed, then explain this!

Scott and Shackleton logbooks prove Antarctic sea ice is not shrinking 100 years after expeditions

Quote

Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after poring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton.

Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change.

But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming.

It also explains why sea ice levels in the South Pole have begun to rise again in recent years, a trend which has left climate scientists scratching their heads.

The decisions being made by governments based on evidence provided by those scratching their heads is costing countries $$$$$$$$$ of tax payers & private monies.

But will they be made accountable when they stop scratching!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's easily explained. My references are from reputable sources and yours are bullsh*t.

Share this post


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

Well that's easily explained. My references are from reputable sources and yours are bullsh*t.

Quote

...The Pine Island research was published in Nature.

Isn't Nature one of the more prestigious science publications? I doubt just any 'trash' would be published in such magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I asked Swaize for a link and he/she didn't answer. Perhaps you can? Link please?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heh we have already established that Cobran won't say if he thinks climate change is real or not, he just says "other people don't think it is". If there is a bubble which the liberals lived in for the US election then there is probably one for the crazies as well.

Share this post


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

heh we have already established that Cobran won't say if he thinks climate change is real or not, he just says "other people don't think it is". If there is a bubble which the liberals lived in for the US election then there is probably one for the crazies as well.

How you like to misquote Tor. I've consistently said that whilst I'm not a scientific expert on the matter, I have my serious doubts. I personally have not seen an increase in the heat in Australia over the last 40 years or so. The local expert (Tim Flannery) has had enough egg on his face regarding his predictions to make an omelette to feed an army. I also can't help noticing that many of the climate alarm organisations receive government monies for funding. So it pays to keep the concern! As a contrarian, I expect the sheeple will have been conned. If so, it will come at a major cost of wasted funds.

Share this post


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

Well I asked Swaize for a link and he/she didn't answer. Perhaps you can? Link please?

 

Nature magazine requires registration. So you can do that and then search for it.

In the meantime, the article seems to also have been published in The Cryosphere, which I understand to also be a reputable scientific journal.

Share this post


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

I've consistently said that whilst I'm not a scientific expert on the matter, I have my serious doubts. I personally have not seen an increase in the heat in Australia over the last 40 years or so.

Yeah we went through that. You don't know anything, your opinions matter anyway and all science must be presented to you in a form you understand without training, experience or knowledge but still matches what you see in the morning. blah blah blah.

_BUT_

You are not denying climate change.

_HOWEVER_

You are not supporting climate change.

_THEREFORE_

" Cobran won't say if he thinks climate change is real or not, he just says "other people don't think it is" "

_SEEMS_

A valid statement. If you would care to say that you have an opinion either way then my statement is obviously incorrect. You never do though.

If my "seems" is incorrect please explain how your inability to just say yes or no is harder than your tortured phrasing and qualifications. What in the hell are you so afraid of that you can't just say "nah it's sh*t" and you always want weasel words so you can back out of anything? Scared your kids are going to find an archive of this in 30 years and you want to have the opportunity to say "but see I said I wasn't qualified to have an opinion so I just joined in to spread information"?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the Nature paper:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature20136.html

Here is a key statement in the abstract:

"Here we show that the present thinning and retreat of Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica is part of a climatically forced trend that was triggered in the 1940s"

In the article the authors state:

"This finding provided the first hint that the recent retreat could be part of a longer-term process that started decades or even centuries before satellite observations became available."

and

"Our core data—constraining the opening of an ocean cavity to 1945—provide the first quantitative support for the idea that the changes we observe currently in the Amundsen Sea were triggered by a climatic anomaly in the late 1930s to 1940s, a link that has, until now, remained largely speculative."

Share this post


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

Yeah we went through that. You don't know anything, your opinions matter anyway and all science must be presented to you in a form you understand without training, experience or knowledge but still matches what you see in the morning. blah blah blah.

_BUT_

You are not denying climate change.

_HOWEVER_

You are not supporting climate change.

_THEREFORE_

" Cobran won't say if he thinks climate change is real or not, he just says "other people don't think it is" "

_SEEMS_

A valid statement. If you would care to say that you have an opinion either way then my statement is obviously incorrect. You never do though.

If my "seems" is incorrect please explain how your inability to just say yes or no is harder than your tortured phrasing and qualifications. What in the hell are you so afraid of that you can't just say "nah it's sh*t" and you always want weasel words so you can back out of anything? Scared your kids are going to find an archive of this in 30 years and you want to have the opportunity to say "but see I said I wasn't qualified to have an opinion so I just joined in to spread information"?

Seriously Tor, you need help. Since I presume you're in Japan, try here for a start.

Share this post


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

In the article the authors state:

"This finding provided the first hint that the recent retreat could be part of a longer-term process that started decades or even centuries before satellite observations became available."

and

"Our core data—constraining the opening of an ocean cavity to 1945—provide the first quantitative support for the idea that the changes we observe currently in the Amundsen Sea were triggered by a climatic anomaly in the late 1930s to 1940s, a link that has, until now, remained largely speculative."

And how do those who claim man-made gases were the culprits to the recent spike in global warming respond to that?

I have a couple of questions as well.

I notice that in the operation of my air conditioner and fridge; both of which are designed to cool temperatures, a large proportion of heat is produced. That heat has to be dispelled in order to gain and maintain the cold. I understand the earth emits infrared energy as a way of staying cool, otherwise our planet would simply get hotter and hotter.

I just wanted to ask what happened in the lead up to previous ice ages of planet earth. (I don't dispute their existence) How does any hot planet cool sufficiently to enter an ice age? Where does the heat go? I would have also thought this is not dependent upon the planet itself, but its external source of heat. In our case the sun. Wouldn't such previous periods  of heating and cooling have been dependent upon the activity, or lack of, of the sun.

Is the sun a constant, or is it, as I am led to believe, a dynamic heat/energy source, where the sun goes through periods of high and low activity?

What is the normal lag time for such events of the sun, for impact upon the earth? Days, weeks, months, years? Its only 8 minutes!!

Just pondering.

Share this post


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

And how do those who claim man-made gases were the culprits to the recent spike in global warming respond to that?

I have a couple of questions as well.

I notice that in the operation of my air conditioner and fridge; both of which are designed to cool temperatures, a large proportion of heat is produced. That heat has to be dispelled in order to gain and maintain the cold. I understand the earth emits infrared energy as a way of staying cool, otherwise our planet would simply get hotter and hotter.

I just wanted to ask what happened in the lead up to previous ice ages of planet earth. (I don't dispute their existence) How does any hot planet cool sufficiently to enter an ice age? Where does the heat go? I would have also thought this is not dependent upon the planet itself, but its external source of heat. In our case the sun. Wouldn't such previous periods  of heating and cooling have been dependent upon the activity, or lack of, of the sun.

Is the sun a constant, or is it, as I am led to believe, a dynamic heat/energy source, where the sun goes through periods of high and low activity?

What is the normal lag time for such events of the sun, for impact upon the earth? Days, weeks, months, years? Its only 8 minutes!!

Just pondering.

Previous episodes of global warming were also man made due to Neanderthals starting fires to cook mammoths. Cooling was caused when they ran out of forest wood! :)

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