cobran20

Debunking The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Consensus

1349 posts in this topic

Use Google translate  this Norwegian, leftist publication SC. Then remember that it is July/summer in the Artic and the predictions they've made about the artic.

Share this post


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

That's rich coming from you who've provided absolutely no proof of anything. You rely on google alerts to post any headline around the world that had some cold weather. You don't even read the articles. That's why you post a school kids blog and call it proof. 

Here's the homogenised data versus the actual data - massive difference eh?

 
temperature-trends.jpg

Firstly, I don't have to prove anything as I'm not an advocate of globull warming theory. All I'm doing to comparing their predictions based on the theory over the last 30-50 years versus the actuals and they've been wrong. Shame those scientists were not forced to bet their house on their predictions - nothing like skin in the game to make you accountable.

As far as your chart, the article in the Australian from Marohassy is behind a paywall, so I can't paste the contents, but I've found other sites (here and here) that refer to it, with some lovely tables. I like this bit in particular:

Quote

by Jennifer Marohasy on July 18, 2017:

TWO weeks ago, in response to my queries the Australian Bureau of Meteorology acknowledged that it had put in place limits on the lowest temperature that an individual weather station could record.

Once again, if you consider Marohassy to be an unqualified charlatan, then feel free to contact her and tell her as such. It should be easy for you to point the irrefutable facts from the settled science. Make sure you keep us posted on the exchange. Ditto for the NZ professor. I'm awaiting with great anticipation to your postings on those exchanges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Columbia University a known right wing publication?

Otherwise that picture of Europe in 1741 shows a drought that is worse than today.

Was that also caused by humans?

Surely, there no cycle(s) that repeat over time!

Share this post


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

Firstly, I don't have to prove anything as I'm not an advocate of globull warming theory

Fine. I'll lock the thread. Because if you have no burden of proof, you're just trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone feeling positive about denial any more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am!

The issue is not change, but the role of human activity in being responsible for the change. My bullsh*t detector is still going off because there are too many people with skin in the game (economic or political) making lots of noises.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mr Medved said:

I am!

The issue is not change, but the role of human activity in being responsible for the change. My bullsh*t detector is still going off because there are too many people with skin in the game (economic or political) making lots of noises.

So the temperature is rising but humans have nothing to do with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both fuel (e.g., back-burning policies) and arson have had a major influence on this bushfire season. It is quite possible if not probable these factors have had more impact than temperature.

I'm no expert nor looking to become one so not looking for a soapbox.

Share this post


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

Both fuel (e.g., back-burning policies) and arson have had a major influence on this bushfire season. It is quite possible if not probable these factors have had more impact than temperature.

Yeah, what I was asking was whether you agreed with the proposition that temperatures were rising. If the rises weren't caused by humans then you must have some alternate theory?

Quote

I'm no expert nor looking to become one so not looking for a soapbox.

Mr M, I don't consider you as an irrational actor. Plus, I like your taste in music. I too am not after a soapbox. But after a month of choking on toxic smoke my patience for deniers is wearing thin.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Temperatures fluctuate over time, due to cosmic activity such as solar flares, moving of the poles, volcanic activity, etc. which are unrelated to human activity. That's why I remain sceptical not in denial. So I'm happy to accept temperatures in general may be rising but not as an excuse to usher in some political ideology like world government, more taxation, loss of fundamental rights, etc.

Agriculture has been around a speck of time, industrialisation even shorter. So I'm not going to jump to conclusions - especially when I'm so ignorant.

If there's agreement on rising temperatures, then what? I think that's where opinions will differ and why cobran was also sceptical. Too many people trying to make a buck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this thread was locked?

Anyway - I don't think anybody is disputing climate change.

The big questions are:

How big is the anthropogenic component?

What can be done about it? (Hint: global taxation is not the solution...)

Why can't we have a campaign to plant a billion trees around the globe in 10 years? We just need a tree-roots [sic] campaign where 10 million people world-wide commit to planting 10 trees per year for the next decade.

Edited by AndersB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr Medved said:

Temperatures fluctuate over time, due to cosmic activity such as solar flares, moving of the poles, volcanic activity, etc. which are unrelated to human activity. That's why I remain sceptical not in denial. So I'm happy to accept temperatures in general may be rising but not as an excuse to usher in some political ideology like world government, more taxation, loss of fundamental rights, etc.

Agriculture has been around a speck of time, industrialisation even shorter. So I'm not going to jump to conclusions - especially when I'm so ignorant.

If there's agreement on rising temperatures, then what? I think that's where opinions will differ and why cobran was also sceptical. Too many people trying to make a buck.

The issue isn't ideological. Plenty of right wing governments accept the science. Other factors such as solar flares, moving of the poles, volcanic activity are in the model. 

If there's agreement on rising temperatures, then what?

We fix it like we did with acid rain and the ozone hole. I'm not against people making a buck. In fact that is essential. Harnessing market forces to fix the problem is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, AndersB said:

I thought this thread was locked?

Anyway - I don't think anybody is disputing climate change.

The big questions are:

How big is the anthropogenic component?

What can be done about it? (Hint: global taxation is not the solution...)

Why can't we have a campaign to plant a billion trees around the globe in 10 years? We just need a tree-roots [sic] campaign where 10 million people world-wide commit to planting 10 trees per year for the next decade.

I unlocked it. thus is my super power.

How big is the anthropogenic component?

Big enough to change the outcome.

What can be done about it? (Hint: global taxation is not the solution...)

Why can't we have a campaign to plant a billion trees around the globe in 10 years? We just need a tree-roots [sic] campaign where 10 million people world-wide commit to planting 10 trees per year for the next decade.

We need rain. And an absence of Bolsanaro

Equally, why can't we have a market driven solution for a transition to non fossil fuel energy?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a disgrace that SloMo has not been charged, or at least investigated for assaulting that woman in the bush fires. Forcibly grabbing a hand and shaking it is assault; There is no discussion. Morrison assaulted that woman.

Maybe we should stand around and sing Hellsong's more serious assaults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, zaph said:

What a disgrace that SloMo has not been charged, or at least investigated for assaulting that woman in the bush fires. Forcibly grabbing a hand and shaking it is assault; There is no discussion. Morrison assaulted that woman.

Maybe we should stand around and sing Hellsong's more serious assaults.

This man is a cheat, thief and liar. Jail for him!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/01/2020 at 0:49 PM, zaph said:

This man is a cheat, thief and liar. Jail for him!!

Well, to be fair he wouldn't be jailed just for climate change denial. He's met Trump and is trying on Trumpism for size. I'm not sure it will work here. I certainly hope not.

I've been quiet for a few months now. The sheer ridiculousness of the rabbit hole that we have been dragged down by cobran20 is apparent to all.

This is not meant to be a gloating post. But I'm still choking on smoke with 4 weeks left of summer. More a reset of the debate. Looking at you Anders.

Adaptation and mitigation arguments in a vague concession to the reality don't seem to be cutting the mustard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2020 at 11:05 PM, staringclown said:

Well, to be fair he wouldn't be jailed just for climate change denial. He's met Trump and is trying on Trumpism for size. I'm not sure it will work here. I certainly hope not.

I've been quiet for a few months now. The sheer ridiculousness of the rabbit hole that we have been dragged down by cobran20 is apparent to all.

This is not meant to be a gloating post. But I'm still choking on smoke with 4 weeks left of summer. More a reset of the debate. Looking at you Anders.

Adaptation and mitigation arguments in a vague concession to the reality don't seem to be cutting the mustard. 

So you've decided to open the thread again after, in true leftard fashion, closed it as no dissent is allowed.

So what is so special about the fires:

It has been hotter, fires have burnt larger areas

and here is another example.

Naturally it's Their ABC, in its ever left bias tried to tell us that it is all climate change and not arson.

But then the truth cannot be suppressed forever:

Quote
"A data collation and investigation plan has been developed to review the cause and impacts of the more than 1700 bushfires already reported to police; and consider the 12,000 fires recorded by the Rural Fire Service since August 2019," police said in a statement released on Friday.
 
Of those 1700, police say that 716 were deliberate lit.

716/1700 = 42.11% of fires investigated so far have been caused by arson ... and there we were told it was caused by globull warming.Yet Their ABC told us it was barely 1%.

But it's Their ABC is not reporting the cold records being made around the world. The Electroverse site is tracking them.

As I have posted earlier, the globull warming alarmist crowd have made forecasts for the last 30+ years, and proved to be false, which explains why the NOAA/IPCC,BOM/Others have been caught fudging the raw data to make their case and save face.

As Armstrong likes to say, follow the money to find the truth. It is about the tax revenues from a carbon tax. The Canadian government introduced a carbon tax on its people in 2019 at $20.00 per tonne of CO2 and is set to rise to $50 a tonne by 2021.

So far Armstrong's forecast is on the money.

So feel free to shut the thread again, ban me altogether or in even more leftard fashion do both as well as delete this posting. Watch the elections. Like the Federal election in March, the silent majority has caught onto the BS. My money is on Trump to win again as the left and it's policies are clearly on the nose.

I won't bother responding again as I don't bother with forums moderated to force the admin's outright bias.

 

 

thumbnail.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2020 at 2:17 PM, cobran20 said:

So you've decided to open the thread again after, in true leftard fashion, closed it as no dissent is allowed.

<mindless ranting/>

Nope. I closed the thread to you because you're this guy...

Quote

 

The social media ars*hole’s guide to being right

DETERMINED to win every argument even when you’re clearly wrong? Follow the example of the worst ars*holes on social media: 

Quote dubious research
Don’t just assume you’re outgunned when you find yourself debating economics with a famous economics professor. You can still come out on top by quoting the ill-informed ramblings of some oddball’s blog and mocking your opponent for not having read it.

Don’t concede valid points
Recognising the value of what your opponent is saying is for losers and centrists. Winners steamroll over any and all interlocutors and paint their attempts to be reasonable as lunatic fringe madness.

Ignore facts
It’s hard to be wrong when you pick and choose which facts are true or false depending on your beliefs. By turning a blind eye to a vast body of peer-reviewed research you can still claim that the Earth is flat or that the conclusion of Game of Thrones was brilliant.

Rally a lynch mob
If all else fails gather together some like-minded knuckleheads and intimidate whoever disagrees with you into submission. You’ll still be wrong of course, but at least now nobody will bother to engage with you.

Be the last man standing
Does the person you’re arguing with, 144 tweets into the thread, tire of saying the same thing again and again and abandon the argument? That counts as a win. Add a few mocking, dismissive comments then move on triumphant to the next sucker.

Quote

I won't bother responding again as I don't bother with forums moderated to force the admin's outright bias.

Bye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind people expressing different viewpoints. I don't think it's helpful to shut down conversation, but one should recognise when an immovable object meets an irresistible force. :)

Oh, and it's happy happy joy joy as climate alarmism has been knocked off the news thanks to a pandemic virus that is about to sweep the globe. As an aside I've been watching it closely and am of the view it will unavoidably spread throughout the world. Some experts are predicting 50-70% of the global population will catch the virus and I tend to agree based on what I have observed. It will be more about case management... the scary thing is that many symptoms are treatable but hospitals are overwhelmed so have to turn away patients... and they die due to lack of medical treatment.

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