What ever happened to that ridiculous climate change hoax.

[Mushroom]

No plan, no vision, no integrity, no ethic, no principles, no ideals.

Oh, they have clear ideals. They simply try to hide them because their ideals are almost entirely based in Marxism.

Even digging up almost century old Marxist groups and using them to try and tear down what is there now. Not even realizing the groups they are now endorsing were the very cause of the fall of the Weimar Republic and why the NSDAP rose to dominate Germany. They are so retarded that they can not seem to comprehend that the German People turned to the NSDAP because it represented stability that opposed the KPD, KAPD, and ANTIFA.

To moronic to comprehend that the aggression of Marxist based groups like ANTIFA is what directly caused the NSDAP to rise to power in the first place.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh, they have clear ideals. They simply try to hide them because their ideals are almost entirely based in Marxism.

Even digging up almost century old Marxist groups and using them to try and tear down what is there now. Not even realizing the groups they are now endorsing were the very cause of the fall of the Weimar Republic and why the NSDAP rose to dominate Germany. They are so retarded that they can not seem to comprehend that the German People turned to the NSDAP because it represented stability that opposed the KPD, KAPD, and ANTIFA.

To moronic to comprehend that the aggression of Marxist based groups like ANTIFA is what directly caused the NSDAP to rise to power in the first place.

Only if you interpret achieving totalitarianism as an 'ideal'.

There seems to be zero USMB leftist members who could definitively describe any principle or ideal held by U.S. leftists--their mantras are pretty much always vague statements of opposition to all who aren't them or goals/objectives of all who aren't them.

Also not sure that ANTIFA could be described as 'Marxist.' They and other leftist groups employing domestic terrorism/violence are definitely used as a tool by those 'deep state' leftists whose goal is totalitarianism with the them in total control of course. But if they even know who Marx was, I'm pretty sure they don't have a clue what he believed or intended.

 

[Mushroom]

Only if you interpret achieving totalitarianism as an 'ideal'.

It is not my ideals, that is their ideals. And the majority live in a fantasy world of their own creation.

And yes, they are based in Marxism. Neither ANTIFA of the early 20th century or the current ANTIFA even try to deny it.

But sure, those kinds love their Marxist heroes. Look at how many buy Che shirts made by slave labor in China.

 

[fncceo]

The Welcome Demise of Climate Change Catastrophism - Newsweek The Welcome Demise of Climate Change Catastrophism

I can’t decide if this is ironic or hypocritical… as “Newsweek” has been shoveling the CC narrative on an industrial scale for decades.

 

[ding]

Slight sidebar, but no it will not.

The magnetic field is created by our molten core. And it's a "super-sized" core for a planet of our size, thanks to the addition of the core of Theia some 4.5 gya. And it is so massive, current estimates expect it to still be molten for another 90 gy.

That is, however, if not for the fact that the planet itself will likely be destroyed in around 5 gy when it will be inside or on the edges of the sun. At which time tidal forces will likely rip the planet apart and the remaining core material will be absorbed by the sun.

The Earth's core will remain hot and molten for billions of years, with estimates suggesting it could take tens of billions of years to solidify completely, long after the Sun dies in about 5 billion years, at which point the Earth will likely be engulfed or vaporized anyway, but the magnetic field could weaken in 1.75 to 3.25 billion years, making the surface uninhabitable sooner. Heat comes from primordial energy and radioactive decay (Uranium, Thorium), which keeps the core hot, but the core is cooling, causing the inner core to grow and the magnetic field to eventually fade.

 

[Etymology gaslight]

I can’t decide if this is ironic or hypocritical… as “Newsweek” has been shoveling the CC narrative on an industrial scale for decades.

It's Pathos
Oddball and Starkey will explain it.

 

[Etymology gaslight]

The Earth's core will remain hot and molten for billions of years, with estimates suggesting it could take tens of billions of years to solidify completely, long after the Sun dies in about 5 billion years, at which point the Earth will likely be engulfed or vaporized anyway, but the magnetic field could weaken in 1.75 to 3.25 billion years, making the surface uninhabitable sooner. Heat comes from primordial energy and radioactive decay (Uranium, Thorium), which keeps the core hot, but the core is cooling, causing the inner core to grow and the magnetic field to eventually fade.

Which is better predicted "science"
The atmosphere
the center reserve mass earth
thermal BTU end value...


Or the sun...
If so why ?

How come Democrats own heat ?

 

[Mushroom]

but the magnetic field could weaken in 1.75 to 3.25 billion years, making the surface uninhabitable sooner.

Which is completely meaningless, as in around 1 billion years (give or take 100 million years or so) the sun will increase in brightness and energy output to the point that the planet will be uninhabitable by all but extremophiles living under the surface of the planet. And that would be without any possible reduction in the magnetosphere.

This is no insult to you at all, but I often shake my head at how little most understand how "little time" is left on our planet for living organisms. Or how exceptional our planet is in both placement and how events early on in the history of the planet shaped what is here today.

Such as our sun and planet forming some 4.6 gya, and only around 100 million years later our planet colliding with a similar planet and leaving us the legacy that allows life to exist as we know it even today. Where as the closest planet to our own in such capabilities had their core "die" and the magnetosphere faded away some 3.8 gya.

From start to end, the history of life on the planet will be no more than around 6 billion years. Short of extremophiles trapped under the surface whenever the planet breaks apart.

Because no matter what, ultimately entropy wins in the end. Even the universe dying in around a googol years based on heat death and proton decay.

So remember to set an alarm for around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years from now to remind yourself of this. Then you can watch the universe die at Milliways. -laugh-

 

[EMH]

Don't be shy. If you have actual Earth data that supports your claims in that thread, repost it here.

That's all your side can do right now, is have the data shoved in your face, lie, and claim it isn't there.

Earth SAP is not going up, not for the past 60 years, proving Earth is neither warming nor experiencing an ongoing net ice melt.


CO2 FRAUD "faux skeptics" don't like that. They support CO2 FRAUD because they are part of it. They want it to continue. They want dumb Americans to believe there has been "warming" when there has been none. So this is where we are...


THREE PLANETS, all having rising SAP when WARMING

Mars
Pluto
Earth


What happens when Earth actually does warm, as it did during Jurassic?


"During the Jurassic Period, the Earth's climate was much warmer and wetter than it is today."

Learning from the Past: Earth's atmosphere before the age of dinosaurs

then the giant flying creatures of the dinosaur age could only fly if the atmospheric pressure was much higher than it is now: at least 3.7–5.0 bar





They cannot refute 600 miles to the pole
They cannot show us one single photo documenting "ocean rise"
They have no breakout in cane activity
They've been lying about Antarctic ice since CO2 FRAUD began in 1988
The actual unFUDGED satellite and balloon data shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere
They have no real data showing atmospheric warming at all
They squirt bleach in coral and blame that on "warming" that does not exist


They cannot even answer basic climate questions correctly...

Thread 'Any honest media person with the courage to actually ask climate questions?'

Feb 12, 2024

Apparently not.

Not on Faux

Not on RAV or OANN


What questions will the media never ask?


1. Why does one Earth polar circle have 9+ times the ice of the other?
2. Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?
3. If the oceans are "warming" why is the record decade for canes still the 1940s?
4. If the oceans are "rising" why can't we see one single photo of land sinking?
5. How did Co2 thaw North America and freeze Greenland at the same time?



The Co2 Fraud is bilking America out of $200 billion per...

• EMH
• Replies: 92
• Forum: Media

• 
• 
• 

 

[EMH]

as in around 1 billion years

Goog AI

Google Search

5 billion years, not 1

 

[EMH]

I can’t decide if this is ironic or hypocritical… as “Newsweek” has been shoveling the CC narrative on an industrial scale for decades.

And Faux News cannot even have its hosts ask the most basic climate questions, because both Faux and CO2 FRAUD are card carrying members of Alliance for Treason Against America

 

[EMH]

but the core is cooling

I really wonder where that claim comes from. If the core was cooling, there would be a reduction in magma releases, and most likely the convection currents would also be affected... most likely slowing down tectonic plate movement.

 

[Winco]

It's welcome has worn out.
The hysterically motivated flocked
as lemmings to the promise of controlling weather.

Just answer the following question:

Are the Ocean Temperatures Warming or NOT?
Are sea Creatures? Crab?




You this is NOT about weather, ONLY an idiot would mention "Weather."
Oops ....... as lemmings to the promise of controlling weather.
which oceans creature are changing location because of Ocean Temperature rises?

Many ocean creatures are changing their geographic range as ocean temperatures rise. In general, species are moving toward the poles or into deeper, cooler water. Here are well-documented examples across different groups:

Fish​

• Atlantic cod – shifting northward in the North Atlantic
• Mackerel – expanding into Arctic waters
• Tuna (bluefin, yellowfin) – moving farther north and south than historical ranges
• Salmon – altered migration timing and range, especially in the Pacific
• Lionfish – expanding into new areas as waters warm

Invertebrates​

• American lobster – moving north from southern New England toward Canada
• Snow crab – shifting into deeper, colder waters
• Squid – rapidly expanding poleward due to fast life cycles
• Jellyfish – increasing in abundance and range in warmer waters

Marine Mammals​

• Whales (humpback, gray, right whales) – changing migration routes and feeding grounds
• Dolphins – appearing in regions previously too cold
• Seals – losing ice-based habitats and shifting distribution

Corals & Reef Species​

• Tropical corals – experiencing die-offs in warmer areas, while new reefs form at higher latitudes
• Reef fish – moving with coral habitats or into subtropical zones

Reptiles​

• Sea turtles – nesting beaches shifting poleward; sex ratios changing due to warmer sand

Plankton (Foundation of the Food Web)​

• Phytoplankton & zooplankton – shifting poleward, affecting entire marine food chains

Why this matters​

• Disrupts fisheries and coastal economies
• Causes predator–prey mismatches
• Introduces invasive species into new ecosystems
• Alters entire food webs

If you want, I can:

• Give specific regional examples (e.g., Atlantic vs Pacific)
• Focus on one species in detail
• Explain how fast these shifts are happening
• Connect this to human impacts like fishing or food supply

 

[EMH]

Then people wonder why myself and others say you are the epitome of "anti-science".

especially since you are part of CO2 FRAUD, and you have the gall to call someone you cannot refute "anti science"


The bottom line is, in 2012 North American Ice Age had to be re-written by CO2 FRAUD, since the case against them was that Greenland froze while North America thawed at the same time. All of a sudden the 50 million year old North American Ice Age was reinvented into a series of Dennis Quaid ice ages.

None of that stands up to any scrutiny at all


Your side defines "ice age" as a period where all ice on the planet grows, and an "interglacial" as when all ice retreats. Greenland vs North America completely refutes that. But it is your job to shout down that truth and continue to lie about it.


The "Milankovich" claim is that 2.5 mile thick glaciers on or near Chicago in the past 3 million years were really only 70k years old.

As with "interglacials" the existing ice cores on AA and Greenland refute both. We have 2.7 million years of ice core data from AA and that isn't much more than halfway down. That's the only place on Earth with 2.5 mile thick glacier now. Milankovich's claim of 70k years is also destroyed by Greenland, where we have 130k years of ice core data, and that isn't even halfway down, and that ice is barely 1 mile thick.

Thread 'How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?'

May 15, 2023

This is where the climate debate is now stuck.

Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today.

Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very "Dennis Quaid" approach to ice ages - they are lightning fast, quick, and agile. They come and go really fast.

Since 2010, Milankovitch has replaced "North American Ice Age" with the claim that the ice on Chicago recently that was 2.5 miles thick was only 75k years old.

Really....

My side, which is...

• EMH
• Replies: 134
• Forum: Environment

• 

Let's start with the very basics on planet Earth today. Why is there ice age glacier south of Arctic Circle on Greenland, but no such ice age glacier north of Arctic Circle on Alaska?



Everyone can see the difference...

ice age

Not ice age

• 
  
• 
  

Start the Jeopardy! music....

 

[EMH]

Many ocean creatures are changing their geographic range as ocean temperatures rise.

If oceans were warming, which they are not, we would see an increased in cane activity, and we don't.


Strongest decade for canes the 1940s, second place the 1890s...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

If oceans were rising, which they aren't, you'd be able to show us a photo documenting that, but you can't, and maybe you should ask why...

 

[ding]

I really wonder where that claim comes from.

No need to keep wondering.

The Earth's core cooling is governed by thermodynamics, specifically the fundamental principle that heat flows from hotter to colder regions, but the mechanisms for this slow loss involve various heat transfer processes like conduction and convection, driven by the core's immense heat and radioactive decay, with a new mineral (post-perovskite) potentially accelerating this heat loss.

Thermodynamics:

• The core is incredibly hot, and the universe is much colder; therefore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that heat must naturally flow outwards from the core to space, a process that has been happening since Earth formed.

Heat Transfer Mechanisms:

• Convection: In the liquid outer core and mantle, hot material rises, and cooler material sinks, creating convection currents that efficiently move heat upwards.
• Conduction: Heat moves through solid layers (like the crust and the core-mantle boundary) via conduction, a slower process.
• Radiogenic Heat: Radioactive decay of elements within the mantle and core continuously generates new heat, slowing the overall cooling.

Recent Discoveries:

• Research indicates that the mineral bridgmanite (and its transformation into post-perovskite) at the core-mantle boundary conducts heat more efficiently than previously thought, suggesting the Earth's interior may be cooling faster and could become geologically inactive sooner.

In essence, thermodynamics provides the "why" (heat must escape), while heat transfer (convection, conduction) describes the "how" (the physical processes moving the heat).

 

[ding]

If the core was cooling, there would be a reduction in magma releases, and most likely the convection currents would also be affected... most likely slowing down tectonic plate movement.

Which will eventually happen.

Earth's plate tectonics are expected to slow and eventually stop as the planet cools, with models suggesting this could happen in roughly 1 to 5 billion years, depending on the specific cooling rates and mantle dynamics considered, with some estimates pointing to around 1.45 billion years when the mantle becomes too cool to flow, halting surface activity like mountain building and volcanism.

 

[EMH]

Which will eventually happen.

Earth's plate tectonics are expected to slow and eventually stop as the planet cools, with models suggesting this could happen in roughly 1 to 5 billion years, depending on the specific cooling rates and mantle dynamics considered, with some estimates pointing to around 1.45 billion years when the mantle becomes too cool to flow, halting surface activity like mountain building and volcanism.

Is there any evidence that is happening now?

Are tectonic plates "slowing?"

Are there less magma releases?

 

[ding]

Is there any evidence that is happening now?

Are tectonic plates "slowing?"

Are there less magma releases?

What part of....

"Earth's plate tectonics are expected to slow and eventually stop as the planet cools, with models suggesting this could happen in roughly 1 to 5 billion years"

...did you not understand?

 

[ding]

Is there any evidence that is happening now?

Are tectonic plates "slowing?"

Are there less magma releases?

Again...

The Earth's core cooling is governed by thermodynamics, specifically the fundamental principle that heat flows from hotter to colder regions, but the mechanisms for this slow loss involve various heat transfer processes like conduction and convection, driven by the core's immense heat and radioactive decay, with a new mineral (post-perovskite) potentially accelerating this heat loss.

Thermodynamics:

• The core is incredibly hot, and the universe is much colder; therefore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that heat must naturally flow outwards from the core to space, a process that has been happening since Earth formed.

Heat Transfer Mechanisms:

• Convection: In the liquid outer core and mantle, hot material rises, and cooler material sinks, creating convection currents that efficiently move heat upwards.
• Conduction: Heat moves through solid layers (like the crust and the core-mantle boundary) via conduction, a slower process.
• Radiogenic Heat: Radioactive decay of elements within the mantle and core continuously generates new heat, slowing the overall cooling.

Recent Discoveries:

• Research indicates that the mineral bridgmanite (and its transformation into post-perovskite) at the core-mantle boundary conducts heat more efficiently than previously thought, suggesting the Earth's interior may be cooling faster and could become geologically inactive sooner.

In essence, thermodynamics provides the "why" (heat must escape), while heat transfer (convection, conduction) describes the "how" (the physical processes moving the heat).