Musk dismisses predictions from scientist on climate change. Says we have 20 years to fix the world.

Your putting the cart before the horse, all I see is endless grumbling about how what's being said doesn't meet your expectations. But your expectations are immaterial, they do not originate in sound scientific reasoning but your own intuition and that's where you're failing.

You suspect people's motives and that's because you're drawn to conspiracy fantasies, it is the fascination and intrigue of the alleged conspiracy that excites your mind, not the quest for truth.



Take the 600 miles to the pole issue.

Any land not in ice age within 600 miles to a pole?

Any land in ice age outside of 600 miles to a pole?

100% correlation, which is why you avoid it...


YOU ARE THE "DENIER."

You deny the truth of Earth climate change documented right in front of you, because you are not interested in truth or the environment, you are interested in using CO2 FRAUD to bilk taxpayers, grow government, and steal money for yourself.



Your side has NO ACTUAL DATA, just FUDGE.


And you may live long enough to observe your heroes, all 3000+ fudgebaking liars, offed by firing squad....


WE WANT OUR $20 TRILLION BACK....
 
What the fuck does that mean? how can 90% of something be said to be increasing?

View attachment 1058745

You are relying on intuition to describe what you expect to see in the world. Intuition plays no role in mathematics and the complex differential equations that govern atmospherics, fluid dynamics and climate.

This is all I see when trumpanzees mouth off about things they don't understand, they make huge assumptions that are false and wonder why the educated amongst us ridicule them.

For the fifth time, please cite a reputable peer reviewed source that agrees with your claims about satellite based infra red sensors not needing a correction, you clearly have none.

As the saying goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You also seem to not understand that the human race has never collectively faced a thing like climate change, so of course we can expect some disagreements and some controversies that's normal, nobody alive today or at any point in recorded history has ever faced such an immense problem.

Squeaking little foot stamping trumpanzees like you are just a waste of time, all you seem to care about is supporting your pet conspiracy theories.

I am by nature a skeptic, I do not take everything I read at face value, I do research and I look at disputes and try to make sense of what's being said, I am an evolution skeptic for example but you can bet I do not ramble on like you've been doing, I can support my position on EVERYTHING that I believe with sound reasonable arguments, data and sources.

Why the fuck does this even matter to you anyway?

28 trillion tons? Sounds like a lot!
How many trillions of tons are left?
How many new nuclear reactors should we build, to save the rest of the ice?
 
I am by nature a skeptic



If 28 trillion tons of ice melted, the net ice melt, wouldn't you be able to show us ONE SINGLE PHOTO of "ocean rise?"

Given all the compressed air trapped inside that ice, wouldn't that increase SURFACE AIR PRESSURE???


One thing is for certain, you are not at all SKEPTICAL of FUDGED FRAUD that is easily outed as such. You are a HORSESHIT EXCUSE OF A "DETECTIVE"
 
Yes, the earth has experienced ice about 5 times. Most of earth's history has been ice free.



Careful.

Certainly Earth took a while to solidify and cool after the collision 4.5 billion years ago.

But it is the simple truth that land within 600 miles of a pole or closer goes into continent specific ICE AGE. There is 100% correlation of that on Earth today, and no reason to believe it has been altered (other than +/- 200 miles from "warmest Earth" aka Jurassic - little to no land near the poles, and "coldest Earth" aka two polar continents .... "two Antarcticas")


Don't let CO2 FRAUD wordsmith you. Know what an ICE AGE really is....


 
Careful.

Certainly Earth took a while to solidify and cool after the collision 4.5 billion years ago.

But it is the simple truth that land within 600 miles of a pole or closer goes into continent specific ICE AGE. There is 100% correlation of that on Earth today, and no reason to believe it has been altered (other than +/- 200 miles from "warmest Earth" aka Jurassic - little to no land near the poles, and "coldest Earth" aka two polar continents .... "two Antarcticas")


Don't let CO2 FRAUD wordsmith you. Know what an ICE AGE really is....


Screenshot_20230908-163041.png



This chart shows the last three ice ages, as I've said, there's been five.

Here's a fun fact - mankind has never melted any of them.

Edit - the chart inadvertently shows that there's no correlation between co2 and temperature
 
View attachment 1059316


This chart show the last three ice ages, as I've said, there's been five.

Here's a fun fact - mankind has never melted any of them.



Parroting fudged fraud and incorrect definitions doesn't work that well....


Try spending 2 minutes reading the OP of the link...
 
Parroting fudged fraud and incorrect definitions doesn't work that well....


Try spending 2 minutes reading the OP of the link...
No thanks, because of two things -

Anthropogenic origin of global warming is an unproven conjecture because it's just based on general circulation models (complex computer programs in laymen terms)

And

Consensus is not science

I prefer to stick to factual data derived by geologists, as in the chart. When a scientist of one science field suddenly becomes a "climate scientist" that's supposed to somehow have the knowledge of 50+ other science fields, then that person is really called a "political scientist" funded by the government.

If DOGE strips that funding, watch the number of climate scientists evaporate and go back to their regular field of study. But while the money is there, grab it.
 
20 years to fix the world? It will take me more than that to put my
disaster kitchen, greasy stove, messed up fridge --etc etc in order
 
No thanks, because of two things -

Anthropogenic origin of global warming is an unproven conjecture because it's just based on general circulation models (complex computer programs in laymen terms)

And

Consensus is not science

I prefer to stick to factual data derived by geologists, as in the chart. When a scientist of one science field suddenly becomes a "climate scientist" that's supposed to somehow have the knowledge of 50+ other science fields, then that person is really called a "political scientist" funded by the government.

If DOGE strips that funding, watch the number of climate scientists evaporate and go back to their regular field of study. But while the money is there, grab it.


There is only one person on the internet pushing that theory. That theory is correct, and every other "factual data derived by geologists" is BS and easily proven so.

But if you want to blindfold yourself and parrot fudged fraud, that is your choice to be a misinformed moron.
 
But if you want to blindfold yourself and parrot fudged fraud, that is your choice to be a misinformed moron.
Irony !! Lol

Data is determined, past co2, temperature, sediments of floods, fossils etc... put them on a chart. A climate scientist takes data, puts it through a computer model that churns out shit to follow the political narrative to get the tax dollars out of your pocket, and you are a prime gullible candidate. You are a right dateless candidate.

One SIMPLE question, LOOK at the chart, why doesn't co2. and temperature correlate?
 
Last edited:
[Openly weeps] ...

How can it be "factual" and "derived" at the same time? ... must be a geology thing ...
Factual - Concerned with what is actually the case; actually occuring

Derived - obtain something; get

So what actually occured, what was the co2, where is trapped/can be found etc.. So let's obtain it, let's measure it, let's get the information.

You know, geologists. The climate scientists make up data to match the political narrative, and if science gets in the way, they go back to good ole science, claim it was all flawed, new equipment means it's now bla bla, and our computer models and consensus is correct science.

The meaning and comprehension of words is actually an English thing.

If we didn't have bakes like you in society, we wouldn't be in this mess with this climate shite.
 
Less? the US is by far the biggest energy consumer on earth. Nuclear power is very very dangerous, far more dangerous that people grasp.

The earth's resources are finite.
Oil is constantly made by the earth. There is plenty of it and enough to get us into another era without the climate change hucksters becoming rich off the taxpayers coming and going.
 
A climate scientist takes data


LOL!!!

Missing the first part of it. "Climate scientists" are not about data, they are about fudge.



LOOK at the chart, why doesn't co2. and temperature correlate?


They never did. CO2 does absolutely nothing. The question is then what does cause Earth climate change, and you were just showed that, and refused to even read it.
 
LOL!!!

Missing the first part of it. "Climate scientists" are not about data, they are about fudge.






They never did. CO2 does absolutely nothing. The question is then what does cause Earth climate change, and you were just showed that, and refused to even read it.
Can I ask you a question?
 
Back
Top Bottom