“Nothing To Do With Man” – Astrophysicist Says Climate-Cultists “Are On A Gravy Train” To Make Money

[konradv]

Well, we agree on something, what do you know! When we come up with it, I am all in. Until that time, let the market decide in what direction we should go in, NOT the government!

The problem is that the market doesn’t have a good record for safeguarding the environment.

 

[mamooth]

There are hundreds of billions of dollars of government money going to subsidize the climate cult.

Suuuuuuuure there is.

Who feeds you this stuff, and why do you fall for it?

And why do you expect anyone outside of your cult to believe it?

 

[mamooth]

CO 2 levels have been much higher than today without it being hotter than today.

Explain that.

CO2 isn't the only thing affecting climate

This is basic stuff, and all deniers faceplant at it. You shouldn't be annoying the grownups.

 

[imawhosure]

The problem is that the market doesn’t have a good record for safeguarding the environment.

You are 100% correct! Problem is, you haven't convinced 50% of the people that MMGW is an enviro issue, because you haven't proven that MMGW is a real thing. You are guessing, and that is NOT scientific.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you are truly an A&P then yeah, you can repair cars. The skill sets are similar. I know this for a fact because I have been working with A&Ps for decades at the air races. My friend is the FBO at Stead, and they can repair anything mechanical from a two stroke drone engine to a jet engine in a Mig 21.

I am not an A&P. I worked on military aircraft and we specialize further where an A&P requires fuel systems, engine and structural expertise military only focus on one of the three.

And I do not care if your 'friends' are able to work on anything. It is irrelevant, expertise on one is meaningless to expertise in the other. That is a simple reality. If you think a POV combustion engine is similar to an aircraft jet engine then you are being obtuse on purpose. Just like your geology degree is meaningless when evaluating psychology.

 

[FA_Q2]

That is pure unadulterated bullshit. Like I said, science is science. We use the same methods, and systems.

What you are describing are high priests spreading the scriptures....which is ridiculous.

Yes, you use the same METHODS.

You do not, however, have the same EXPERTISE.

For a supposed PHD, you seem to not understand English.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have a PhD in geology. Geology is what is called an exact, or hard science. Climatology is an INEXACT science, or a soft science.

I suggest you read up on the differences.

You are exposing your scientific illiteracy for all to see.

So you have said for years. That you think your degree in geology means you are an expert in other fields exposes your 'scientific illiteracy for all to see,' not mine. That climatology does not and cannot make exact predictions due to the complex and interconnected nature of what it studies has, quite literally, nothing to do with anything I have said anywhere on this thread. Does your geology degree give you special insight and authority to make claims in other soft sciences like economics or psychology?

Go on, tell us how you are qualified to make authoritative statements about psychology.

 

[Nostra]

No. But it shows very clear that the sun is not the reason for the growing CO2-emissions now. It's man made.

How?

 

[FA_Q2]

You inherently missed the point I made. It's okay. I get that a lot from those who disagree with me. Do have a great day.

Then explain it to me.

 

[Nostra]

Because you morons never try to do anything about China. China and India are 90% of the problem. That shows you don't believe your own propaganda. AGW is a scam designed to extract money from taxpayers, and nothing more.

That Simp still won't get it.

 

[Nostra]

CO2 isn't the only thing affecting climate

This is basic stuff, and all deniers faceplant at it. You shouldn't be annoying the grownups.

Uh, his graph was on CO2 levels, Shitstick.

 

[westwall]

So you have said for years. That you think your degree in geology means you are an expert in other fields exposes your 'scientific illiteracy for all to see,' not mine. That climatology does not and cannot make exact predictions due to the complex and interconnected nature of what it studies has, quite literally, nothing to do with anything I have said anywhere on this thread. Does your geology degree give you special insight and authority to make claims in other soft sciences like economics or psychology?

Go on, tell us how you are qualified to make authoritative statements about psychology.

The fact you resort to the "high priest" paradigm says even more about you.

 

[westwall]

The problem is that the market doesn’t have a good record for safeguarding the environment.

Better than socialist governments. By orders of magnitude.

 

[westwall]

Yes, you use the same METHODS.

You do not, however, have the same EXPERTISE.

For a supposed PHD, you seem to not understand English.

For a human you seen unable to think critically. Like I said. I am qualified to teach any climatogy class. Graduate level included.

A climatologist would be lost in a graduate level geology class.

Hell, I think the vast majority would be in serious trouble with optical crystalography which is a 2nd year class.

That's where we had lots of geology majors suddenly change to geography.....which you will see a lot of climatologists have as their undergrad degree.

 

[konradv]

You are 100% correct! Problem is, you haven't convinced 50% of the people that MMGW is an enviro issue, because you haven't proven that MMGW is a real thing. You are guessing, and that is NOT scientific.

We know CO2 absorbs energy
We know CO2 has been increasing
Therefore, if it doesn’t stop, temps will go up

If the CO2 isn’t because of human activity, where is it coming from? The deniers seem to have all the answers, except that one. If you can’t answer it, then you’re the one that isn’t being scientific.

 

[westwall]

We know CO2 absorbs energy
We know CO2 has been increasing
Therefore, if it doesn’t stop, temps will go up

If the CO2 isn’t because of human activity, where is it coming from? The deniers seem to have all the answers, except that one. If you can’t answer it, then you’re the one that isn’t being scientific.

The Earth. Mankind contributes less than 5% of the global CO2 budget.

All the rest is natural.

 

[zaangalewa]

How?

One man alone is not able to be so stupid as you play to be. Sigh. Whatever: You can see in this diagram a kind of wave which repeats itselve - in the size of decades of thousands of years. The last lowest level in this periodic swing was the time when human beings and dogs became friends. Starting from this point starts to change the characteristics of this periodic swing. It became more and more a steep straight line and left the periodic 150-300 ppm CO2 scheme. The question here is how the sun is able to do this. But nothing was special with the sun in the last 20,000 years what had been different from the 400,000 years before. So the idea of this astrophysicist is not plausible in context of the gowing CO2 emissions and the growing average temperature on earth. Looks like the main cause for this problem is our use of fire with fossile carbon reservoirs.

 

[konradv]

The Earth. Mankind contributes less than 5% of the global CO2 budget.

All the rest is natural.

Humans produce more CO2 in less than a week than all the volcanoes on earth do in an average year.

CO2 emissions: Human vs volcanoes

 

[westwall]

Humans produce more CO2 in less than a week than all the volcanoes on earth do in an average year.

CO2 emissions: Human vs volcanoes

Not really. And besides, the rain forests are the largest creators of CO2 on the planet. BY FAR!

You really should crack open a book so you can actually learn something.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Biggest tipping point comes when people realize AGW varies from shuck and jive to outright, blatant fraud.