User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Anti-Prosperity Democrats Joe Biden & Kamala Harris Are Wrong: Climate Change & Globa

  1. #1
    Points: 7,612, Level: 20
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 138
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Sunsettommy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    925
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,133
    Points
    7,612
    Level
    20
    Thanks Given
    1,476
    Thanked 915x in 540 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Anti-Prosperity Democrats Joe Biden & Kamala Harris Are Wrong: Climate Change & Globa

    C3 Headlines


    Anti-Prosperity Democrats Joe Biden & Kamala Harris Are Wrong: Climate Change & Global Warming Are Natural, Not A Result of CO2


    August 11, 2020


    Excerpt:





    Out of touch, and well outside the boundaries of the U.S. mainstream moderate electorate, Democrat Joe Biden and his fringe left colleagues have been declaring that the world - as we know it - is soon going to end due to a global warming and a resulting climate change apocalypse.


    But is that a reasonable, rational pro-science expectation?


    Instead of focusing on the major reason of a natural rebound progression of global warming since the Little Ice Age, the anti-growth, anti-prosperity Democrats point to the smaller human related impact: fossil fuel emissions (CO2) from modern industrial/consumer activities.


    The Democrat Party's anti-growth, anti-prosperity, anti-CO2 platform has become a dominant party position ever since the June 1988 climate doomsday Congressional testimony of NASA's chief climate scientist, James Hansen.


    It was from that Congressional testimony that the doomsday prophecies of unprecedented global temperature change from CO2 became the lodestone of the party's faithful.


    So, how good have those doomsday global warming change prophecies been since June 1988 (32 years ago)? In a one-word summation: lousy.


    LINK


    I will be interesting to see how many people really understand the chart.







    "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." Ronald Reagan

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Sunsettommy For This Useful Post:

    MMC (09-20-2020)

  3. #2
    Points: 7,612, Level: 20
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 138
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Sunsettommy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    925
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,133
    Points
    7,612
    Level
    20
    Thanks Given
    1,476
    Thanked 915x in 540 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Woodfortrees


    1998




    Warmed about .15C in 22 years, a whopping .075C per decade rate.


    1988





    Warmed about .45C in 32 years, a massive per decade warming rate of .15C


    It is clear the rate of warming is decreasing over the last 32 years, the main warming phase was in the 1990's, far less since.




    Previous per decade warming rates are similar, but without that bogeyman enemy CO2 flirting/teasing up with is molecular hot legs.....


    Here is an interview with warmist Dr. Jones who killed the AGW bogeyman 10 years ago.

    BBC


    Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

    Roger Harrabin

    13 February 2010


    Excerpt:

    A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?



    An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.


    Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).


    I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.


    So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.


    Here are the trends and significances for each period:


    LINK
    Last edited by Sunsettommy; 09-20-2020 at 12:57 AM.
    "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." Ronald Reagan

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Sunsettommy For This Useful Post:

    MMC (09-20-2020)

  5. #3
    Original Ranter
    Points: 856,783, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496111
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,110
    Points
    856,783
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    152,941
    Thanked 147,121x in 94,143 Posts
    Mentioned
    2547 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I posted a thread about the coming grand solar minimum (and that we have been in a grand solar maximum the last 100 years or so). It mentioned that man-made climate change (AGW) is supported by computer models. Solar driven climate change is supported by multiple observational and evidence-based facts.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    MMC (09-20-2020)

  7. #4
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunsettommy View Post
    C3 Headlines


    Anti-Prosperity Democrats Joe Biden & Kamala Harris Are Wrong: Climate Change & Global Warming Are Natural, Not A Result of CO2


    August 11, 2020


    Excerpt:





    Out of touch, and well outside the boundaries of the U.S. mainstream moderate electorate, Democrat Joe Biden and his fringe left colleagues have been declaring that the world - as we know it - is soon going to end due to a global warming and a resulting climate change apocalypse.


    But is that a reasonable, rational pro-science expectation?


    Instead of focusing on the major reason of a natural rebound progression of global warming since the Little Ice Age, the anti-growth, anti-prosperity Democrats point to the smaller human related impact: fossil fuel emissions (CO2) from modern industrial/consumer activities.


    The Democrat Party's anti-growth, anti-prosperity, anti-CO2 platform has become a dominant party position ever since the June 1988 climate doomsday Congressional testimony of NASA's chief climate scientist, James Hansen.


    It was from that Congressional testimony that the doomsday prophecies of unprecedented global temperature change from CO2 became the lodestone of the party's faithful.


    So, how good have those doomsday global warming change prophecies been since June 1988 (32 years ago)? In a one-word summation: lousy.


    LINK


    I will be interesting to see how many people really understand the chart.







    .


    All of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence points to warming of about 0.18 degrees C. per decade since 1970 that is anthropogenic, not natural.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57

    Human vs. Natural Contributions to Global Warming







    The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming





    The IPCC projections since 1990 have been reasonably accurate. I don't understand what is being plotted on the vertical axis of your graph.

    Last edited by skepticalmike; 09-21-2020 at 06:09 PM.

  8. #5
    Original Ranter
    Points: 856,783, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496111
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,110
    Points
    856,783
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    152,941
    Thanked 147,121x in 94,143 Posts
    Mentioned
    2547 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bump
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    I posted a thread about the coming grand solar minimum (and that we have been in a grand solar maximum the last 100 years or so). It mentioned that man-made climate change (AGW) is supported by computer models. Solar driven climate change is supported by multiple observational and evidence-based facts.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  9. #6
    Points: 146,432, Level: 91
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 218
    Overall activity: 50.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    zelmo1234's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    156533
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    MICHIGAN
    Posts
    55,756
    Points
    146,432
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    24,077
    Thanked 19,817x in 14,204 Posts
    Mentioned
    429 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by peter1469 View Post
    i posted a thread about the coming grand solar minimum (and that we have been in a grand solar maximum the last 100 years or so). It mentioned that man-made climate change (agw) is supported by computer models. Solar driven climate change is supported by multiple observational and evidence-based facts.

    how dare you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Using the four letter word FACT in a discussion about climate change. That is just playing dirty pool mister.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to zelmo1234 For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (09-21-2020)

  11. #7
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    I posted a thread about the coming grand solar minimum (and that we have been in a grand solar maximum the last 100 years or so). It mentioned that man-made climate change (AGW) is supported by computer models. Solar driven climate change is supported by multiple observational and evidence-based facts.
    Man-made climate change is supported by much more than computer climate models. It is supported by physics and simple calculations based on climate forcings and climate sensitivity. Solar driven climate change can't explain any of the warming during the past 50 years.

  12. #8
    Points: 664,075, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433119
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,306
    Points
    664,075
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,903
    Thanked 80,708x in 54,608 Posts
    Mentioned
    2009 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Cliate is changing, warming, but it is not a crisis. The left is using it for redistribution of wealth.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Matt Dillon (09-23-2020),Sunsettommy (09-23-2020)

  14. #9
    Points: 146,432, Level: 91
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 218
    Overall activity: 50.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    zelmo1234's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    156533
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    MICHIGAN
    Posts
    55,756
    Points
    146,432
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    24,077
    Thanked 19,817x in 14,204 Posts
    Mentioned
    429 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    Man-made climate change is supported by much more than computer climate models. It is supported by physics and simple calculations based on climate forcings and climate sensitivity. Solar driven climate change can't explain any of the warming during the past 50 years.
    How do you explain all of the warning and cooling trends before the industrial revolution and all of the carbon emissions that resulted from that???

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to zelmo1234 For This Useful Post:

    Matt Dillon (09-23-2020)

  16. #10
    Points: 143,146, Level: 91
    Level completed: 3%, Points required for next Level: 3,504
    Overall activity: 66.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43432
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,225
    Points
    143,146
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    55,896
    Thanked 43,437x in 28,111 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunsettommy View Post
    C3 Headlines


    Anti-Prosperity Democrats Joe Biden & Kamala Harris Are Wrong: Climate Change & Global Warming Are Natural, Not A Result of CO2


    August 11, 2020


    Excerpt:





    Out of touch, and well outside the boundaries of the U.S. mainstream moderate electorate, Democrat Joe Biden and his fringe left colleagues have been declaring that the world - as we know it - is soon going to end due to a global warming and a resulting climate change apocalypse.


    But is that a reasonable, rational pro-science expectation?


    Instead of focusing on the major reason of a natural rebound progression of global warming since the Little Ice Age, the anti-growth, anti-prosperity Democrats point to the smaller human related impact: fossil fuel emissions (CO2) from modern industrial/consumer activities.


    The Democrat Party's anti-growth, anti-prosperity, anti-CO2 platform has become a dominant party position ever since the June 1988 climate doomsday Congressional testimony of NASA's chief climate scientist, James Hansen.


    It was from that Congressional testimony that the doomsday prophecies of unprecedented global temperature change from CO2 became the lodestone of the party's faithful.


    So, how good have those doomsday global warming change prophecies been since June 1988 (32 years ago)? In a one-word summation: lousy.


    LINK


    I will be interesting to see how many people really understand the chart.








    It shows they really worked to make it more complicated than they needed to.

    I don't know why they just did not plot temperature vs CO2 since they used two scales anyways. Then everyone would understand that the CO2 is not increasing with the temperature increase.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts