We're talking pretty short term, not the wide variations seen throughout history. If the earth warms 2 or 3 degrees from what it was in the pre-industrial era, shit is gonna melt and seas are gonna rise. It's elementary.
We're talking pretty short term, not the wide variations seen throughout history. If the earth warms 2 or 3 degrees from what it was in the pre-industrial era, shit is gonna melt and seas are gonna rise. It's elementary.
There might be more to climate change than the IPCC would have us believe.
For me it has to do with understanding the complexity of nature, and having studied anthropology. Quite frankly, I know history. I know that climate, throughout history, has had an effect on the rise and fall of civilizations.
In the past, humankind had nothing to do with the long term fluctuations of the general mean temperature. It has been much warmer than it is today, and much cooler.
For the government, corporate and cultural elites to use global climate change as an excuse to impose global government, they will need to have much more convincing proof that we are changing the weather in a radical way, more than it has changed naturally. Frankly, I haven't seen it. Our global weather system is a far more complex and dynamic system than to be controlled by just one input. Those beating their chests saying they "understand" the science are, in fact, deluding themselves.
We're talking pretty short term, not the wide variations seen throughout history. If the earth warms 2 or 3 degrees from what it was in the pre-industrial era, shit is gonna melt and seas are gonna rise. It's elementary.
And so? What does that have to do with us? What makes anyone think that our civilization can do anything about it any more than medieval European, ancient Chinese, or the Mayan civilization could do anything about long term global weather fluctuations. They couldn't. And neither can we. All we can do is mitigate our coping strategies and not let the global elites extract monetary gain from the lower classes based on a lie.
There might be more to climate change than the IPCC would have us believe.
For me it has to do with understanding the complexity of nature, and having studied anthropology. Quite frankly, I know history. I know that climate, throughout history, has had an effect on the rise and fall of civilizations.
In the past, humankind had nothing to do with the long term fluctuations of the general mean temperature. It has been much warmer than it is today, and much cooler.
For the government, corporate and cultural elites to use global climate change as an excuse to impose global government, they will need to have much more convincing proof that we are changing the weather in a radical way, more than it has changed naturally. Frankly, I haven't seen it. Our global weather system is a far more complex and dynamic system than to be controlled by just one input. Those beating their chests saying they "understand" the science are, in fact, deluding themselves.
So, the graphic above is brought to us by Cliff Harris and Randy Mann.
“I believe this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself.” Harris said in the article by James Hagengruber. This would be The Rapture. The premise of this argument appears to be: human beings are not responsible for climate change because it is part of God’s greater Plan, therefore investing in costly forms of clean energy is not necessary or useful."
BigCityLib Strikes Back: What The Hell Is Long Range Weather?
This is the official temp record
We're talking pretty short term, not the wide variations seen throughout history. If the earth warms 2 or 3 degrees from what it was in the pre-industrial era, shit is gonna melt and seas are gonna rise. It's elementary.
And so? What does that have to do with us? What makes anyone think that our civilization can do anything about it any more than medieval European, ancient Chinese, or the Mayan civilization could do anything about long term global weather fluctuations. They couldn't. And neither can we. All we can do is mitigate our coping strategies and not let the global elites extract monetary gain from the lower classes based on a lie.
Well, now that just wouldn't be correct.
Sure it is. I don't debate or refute the projections of this chart that was posted at all. All I am saying is that the data and modeling used to make these projections are short sighted. These people need to take logic classes. Most people that debate AGW do not deny that warming is occurring, they just have issues as to how precisely we can determine the driving force.
Correlation DOES NOT prove Causation.
Did you look at the charts I posted?
What do you notice about them? That's right, they can both be correct, (the graphs I posted,) and in line with the chart that was just posted. They are congruent. Look at the date range. You will notice that dates for the temperature ranges I posted are much longer. Why do AGW theorists want to take such a short sighted view of the Earth's temperature fluctuations? One has to wonder if they have a hidden agenda, or if they are just ignorant.
So what does that tell us? It tells us that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a good theory for explaining what we see occurring in nature. Why? Because long terms global temperature fluctuations have been occurring long before heavy industry, energy use, and mass transportation was engaged in by our species.
Why do AGW supporters refuse to see the obvious right in front of their faces, even when their own charts and models show what is essentially truth?
Sure it is. I don't debate or refute the projections of this chart that was posted at all. All I am saying is that the data and modeling used to make these projections are short sighted. These people need to take logic classes. Most people that debate AGW do not deny that warming is occurring, they just have issues as to how precisely we can determine the driving force.
Correlation DOES NOT prove Causation.
Did you look at the charts I posted?
What do you notice about them? That's right, they can both be correct, (the graphs I posted,) and in line with the chart that was just posted. They are congruent. Look at the date range. You will notice that dates for the temperature ranges I posted are much longer. Why do AGW theorists want to take such a short sighted view of the Earth's temperature fluctuations? One has to wonder if they have a hidden agenda, or if they are just ignorant.
So what does that tell us? It tells us that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a good theory for explaining what we see occurring in nature. Why? Because long terms global temperature fluctuations have been occurring long before heavy industry, energy use, and mass transportation was engaged in by our species.
Why do AGW supporters refuse to see the obvious right in front of their faces, even when their own charts and models show what is essentially truth?
