• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Climate Change(d)?

I looked up the location of her district. It's along most of coastal Georgia, but it does include a lot of rural areas as well. I wonder if she'll change her mind if the coastal climate changes.

You still do not understand that climate changes naturally and there is variability? :rolleyes:
You don't understand that literally every climate change researcher understands the climate changes naturally and there is variability.

Sothernhybrid and Al Gore, Greta scoldilocks Thurnberg etc are not researchers. They are just part of the ignorant masses who go along with this climate catastrophe cult.

Really chucking it down with rain this weekend.
1. Never claimed Al Gore or Greta Thunberg are "researchers".

No but you referenced my response to Southernhybrid who clearly doesn't understand that climate changes naturally and has variability.
2. Even when there are legitimate climate change researchers who disagree with you you simply dismiss them.

Yes, I dismiss the crap that gets trotted out on here because it is never is legitimate research.

3. You believe in "doing your own research" so technically by your own definition of "research" anyone can be a researcher. And furthermore, you yourself are not a "researcher", so why should we trust anything you have to say on climate change?

You and others are trying to convince me that we are in the midst of a catastrophic, unprecedented climate change emergency and I must therefore pay a shit load of taxes, give up my modern life and freedoms in order to "save the planet". Why would I do that unless there was compelling evidence that 1. There is a "climate crisis" and 2. My increased tax etc. will save the planet in what, ten, 20, 30 years time? It's male bovine excrement.

It's an end of times cult.
 
The Net Zero cult is running into reality as more countries, this time Australia turn their back on it

The Liberal Party has officially dumped its commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050 and opened the door to nuclear energy, building new coal power stations and extending the life of existing ones. After weeks of internal turmoil and a tense five-hour meeting between all 51 Liberal MPs and senators on Wednesday, leader Sussan Ley announced the party will abandon its policy commitment to achieve net zero emissions by mid-century. 'If elected, we will remove the 43 per cent 2030 target and its net zero by 2050 target from the Climate Change Act,' she said. 'Australians deserve affordable energy and responsible emissions reduction. And the Liberal Party believes we can do both - but affordable energy must come first,' Ley said. 'Under Labor, there has been this trifecta of failures: prices up, reliability down, and emissions flatlining. 'Labor's net zero policies of mandates and taxes are hurting businesses, and they're pushing up prices. 'Despite promises of cheaper energy, prices have increased substantially under Labor.'Energy spokesman Dan Tehan said the party was not opposed to opening new coal power plants. 'We will take a technology agnostic approach. So we will let the market determine how we go about that approach.

Daily Mail

Hopefully there enough sane people in Australia who will vote for this.

"After weeks of internal turmoil and a tense five-hour meeting between all 51 Liberal MPs and senators on Wednesday, leader Sussan Ley announced the party will abandon its policy commitment to achieve net zero emissions by mid-century".

Well, that's 51 out of 226 total MPs and Senators, so it's not really "Australia", so much as 22.5% of Australia's government; And clearly not all of them are in wholehearted agreement, or there would have been no turmoil, no tension, and a five minute meeting.

The Liberal Party are one part of the then right-wing coalition that was recently soundly thrashed in the May 3 election, causing the coalition to break up, and which was won in a landslide by Labor; Labor holds 94 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives (the highest number of seats ever won by a single political party in an Australian election), and 28 of the 76 Senate seats, making Labor the largest Senate bloc (for the first time since 1984). The Liberal Party has 28 MPs, and 20 Senators, (and the three others who make up their 51 are Queenland LNP members who choose to side with the Liberals rather than the Nationals).

The meeting being reported here is not representative of some fundamental shift in Australian politics away from Net Zero; It is rather the desparate effort of a losing political party to find a way out of its current shambles.

The coalition was hamstrung in large part by the so-called "Teal independents", basically these are the portion of the Liberal Party who rebeled against the coalition's opposition to Net Zero, which they saw, in part, as being driven by the National Party (the other party in the coalition).

So we have three major blocs in play here: Labor, who support Net Zero and won in a landslide;
Teal, who support Net Zero, broke away from the Liberals over that issue, and caused large numbers of Liberal MPs to lose formerly "safe" seats; and
Liberal, who have finally decided, after a massive electoral drubbing, and a lot of heated argument, that the solution to their woes is to double down on opposition to Net Zero, in the hope of rebuilding the shattered coalition with the National Party.

As usual, reading the Daily Fail has given you an impression of what is happening that is so simplistic as to be completely wrong. What you are seeing is not "Australia opposes Net Zero"; It is "Australia is so keen on Net Zero that the coalition opposing it fell to bits, and one small fraction of that former coalition is now trying to patch things up by getting off the fence and sucking up to the fraction who always opposed Net Zero".
 
Last edited:
I never said I'm a researcher although one can research actual science news and reach conclusions until and unless new evidence comes out to demonstrate that the former evidence was wrong. https://www.sciencealert.com/neil-d...ent-in-climate-change-is-simply-irresponsible

You can read the article or watch Neil. Or you can actually look up some of the evidence for the rapid climate change due to human activity. Oh who am I kidding? People stuck in denial aren't going to understand or accept the truth if they don't like it. I don't even know why someone like that bothers to discuss this topic, other than to try and rattle others. I don't give a fuck, as I've never have been bothered by how an idiot tries to insult me. That's on them, not me.

We have a poster here who seems to think he knows more then the brilliant astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson among other highly educated scientists who have studied this for decades. I think I'll take Tyson's opinion over some one who denies the truth because the weather is usually nice in Santa Monica. There is no arguing with someone who has their head stuck in the sand and who's most brilliant responses go something like this; :rolleyes:

Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks we might not be able to stop the effects of climate change. The astrophysicist shared this bleak outlook during an appearance on CNN's GPS in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Harvey.


"I worry that we might not be able to recover from this because all our greatest cities are on the oceans and water's edges, historically for commerce and transportation," Tyson told CNN's Fareed Zakaria.


"And as storms kick in, as water levels rise, they are the first to go."


Given the overwhelming evidence that human activity has a grave influence on the climate, Tyson argued that questioning its scientific basis is a waste of time.
 
The climate has hardly changed. There has been an imperceptible increase in global average temperature.

Everything else has remained remarkably stable.

It really is an end of times cult.
 
Meanwhile in the early 1930s, TSwizzle is laughing off the "Germany hoax" as Chamberlain decides to not make a big deal over Sudetenland.

It is a good thing Jamaica took the risk seriously, having one of the largest landfall hurricanes on record in the Atlantic, so late in the hurricane season as well. They got things lined up to help cover damage costs.
 
The stridency of Swiz’s denials is a big fat tell.
He doesn’t even believe the crap he posts here.
But it gets him the attention he is denied IRL.
What a bore.
 
OMG!!!!11!!!1!!!!1 It is hurricane season and *gasp* there has been a hurricane!!!111!!!111!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!1111!!!!1
 
OMG!!!!11!!!1!!!!1 It is hurricane season and *gasp* there has been a hurricane!!!111!!!111!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!1111!!!!1
I understand that data doesn't count, only legislation and government actions that you agree with. But here is a chart anyway.

628546481afd0.image.png


Yes, you believe that trends don't matter even when they agree with predicted outcomes because deltas gonna be deltas and this is merely coincidence. Or the rate of change isn't high enough to cause armageddon, therefore, we don't need to worry about it. Measles don't kill that many people... why do we even bother with vaccines?
 
Yes, you believe that trends don't matter even when they agree with predicted outcomes because deltas gonna be deltas and this is merely coincidence. Or the rate of change isn't high enough to cause armageddon, therefore, we don't need to worry about it.

*yawn*

Measles don't kill that many people... why do we even bother with vaccines?

This is so dumb.
 
A bit of an anecdote:
When I was a kid growing up here in the valley.
There was no wine industry.
Too wet, I guess.
Now it is a big part of the economy here.
And now they are planting olives!
 

No but you referenced my response to Southernhybrid who clearly doesn't understand that climate changes naturally and has variability.
Just because there is natural change doesn't mean what we are seeing is natural. Or safe for humanity.

2. Even when there are legitimate climate change researchers who disagree with you you simply dismiss them.

Yes, I dismiss the crap that gets trotted out on here because it is never is legitimate research.
It doesn't say what you want. That doesn't make it not legitimate. You keep trying to rebut it by referring to how it gets mangled in the popular press.

3. You believe in "doing your own research" so technically by your own definition of "research" anyone can be a researcher. And furthermore, you yourself are not a "researcher", so why should we trust anything you have to say on climate change?

You and others are trying to convince me that we are in the midst of a catastrophic, unprecedented climate change emergency and I must therefore pay a shit load of taxes, give up my modern life and freedoms in order to "save the planet". Why would I do that unless there was compelling evidence that 1. There is a "climate crisis" and 2. My increased tax etc. will save the planet in what, ten, 20, 30 years time? It's male bovine excrement.

It's an end of times cult.
It's not unprecedented, the Earth has seen such swings before. There are virtually no fossils found in such times--that looks pretty catastrophic to me.

And the answer isn't taxes--taxes are being used as an incentive because people won't put up with actual regulation. The only viable answer is to switch to nuclear power. And that would be trivial if the safety rules were sane--risk per kwH of power rather than as safe as feasible. Competing technologies should be regulated to the same overall risk level (as in harm done per unit of product produced) even if that makes some of them totally non-viable.
 
The climate has hardly changed. There has been an imperceptible increase in global average temperature.

Everything else has remained remarkably stable.

It really is an end of times cult.
Doesn't matter how many times you say this, that won't make it true.

The local change is far from imperceptible. It's utterly obvious in growing seasons, it's utterly obvious in days that I would be comfortable going for a hike.
 

It's an end of times cult.
You're still doing the ridiculously stupid thing where you're just assuming scientists believe the world will end due to climate change. Not the case. You claim you care about science? Stop strawmanning scientists.
 
Last edited:
The climate has hardly changed. There has been an imperceptible increase in global average temperature.

Everything else has remained remarkably stable.


It's an end of times cult.
You're still doing the ridiculously stupid thing where you're just assuming scientists believe the world will end due to climate change.
Not the case. You claim you care about science? Stop strawmanning scientists.

My ire is more directed at the people on here who constantly post crap about the climate apocalypse. However, there are activist scientists who do peddle this apocalypse shit, Michael Mann is one of them.

COP30 has ended the same way as all the previous COP.

It is a catastrophic 63 degrees this morning!
 
First explain what YOU mean by apocalypse, and then quote those here who you say are predicting your definition.

To many people the Dust Bowl was apocalyptic.


The Dust Bowl was a period of severe dust storms that greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the American and Canadian prairies during the 1930s. The phenomenon was caused by a combination of natural factors (severe drought) and human-made factors: a failure to apply dryland farming methods to prevent wind erosion, most notably the destruction of the natural topsoil by settlers in the region.[1][2] The drought came in three waves: 1934, 1936, and 1939–1940, but some regions of the High Plains experienced drought conditions for as long as eight years.[3] It exacerbated an already existing agricultural recession.

Today the mid west aquifers that have been pumped for a long time are drawing down and can not be relished. This has been known for a long time.

Midwest aquifers are drawing down
due to over-extraction for irrigation, particularly in the Ogallala Aquifer, leading to lower water tables, reduced capacity, and potential land subsidence. Factors like increased agricultural demand and climate change exacerbating drought conditions are the primary drivers of this depletion, threatening long-term water supply for both agriculture and communities.


Record snowfall in recent years has not been enough to offset long-term drying conditions and increasing groundwater demands in the U.S. Southwest, according to a new analysis of NASA satellite data.

Another problem ta has been around for a while, Ca agriculture wells went deeper until until they had salt water incursion.

Saltwater is intruding into California's coastal wells, primarily due to excessive groundwater pumping that lowers the water table. To combat this, California uses seawater barriers with networks of injection wells that pump fresh water underground to create a pressure barrier, preventing saltwater from seeping into freshwater aquifers. This issue is a long-standing problem in areas like Los Angeles, which relies heavily on its groundwater supplies for drinking water.


I;'d say water consumption beyond replenishment qualifies as apocalyptic. We don't live very long without water and food grown with water.

Even without climate issues he Colorado River is almost entirety consumed. Yet Vegas grows. The Oakland Raiders moved to LV bulidng a new stadium. Quite crazy considering water issues.



Southern Nevada gets nearly 90 percent of its water from the Colorado River, which begins as snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains.
 
From a couple of years ago in Teh Gruaniad “science” section.

The era of global warming has ended and “the era of global boiling has arrived”, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, has said after scientists confirmed July was on track to be the world’s hottest month on record. “Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning,” Guterres said.

Teh Gruaniad

What nonsense.
 
From a couple of years ago in Teh Gruaniad “science” section.

The era of global warming has ended and “the era of global boiling has arrived”, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, has said after scientists confirmed July was on track to be the world’s hottest month on record. “Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning,” Guterres said.

Teh Gruaniad

What nonsense.
The UN secretary general is not a climatologist; His education is in physics and electrical engineering, but primarily he is a politician and diplomat. It's his job to influence public opinion, not to teach climate science, and that's what he's trying to do here.

Even a total moron should grasp that a quote from a politician is unlikely to be science, despite being found in the science section of a newspaper.

The science content is the bit you didn't highlight:

scientists confirmed July was on track to be the world’s hottest month on record

Nothing else there is being presented as science, and it is clearly and obviously the opinion of one person - António Guterres - speaking in his capacity as a high-ranking politician.

If you persist in denigrating the science, while making clownish blunders in your determination of the difference between science and political opinion, there is no reason for anyone to take your opinions seriously.

You claim that the climate scientists are wrong, but every single example that you have presented as a factually wrong (or even factually dubious) claim, comes from someone who isn't a climatologist at all.

It seems that not only do you not know what climatologists are saying, but that you don't even know how to identify a climatologist to begin with.
 
From a couple of years ago in Teh Gruaniad “science” section.

The era of global warming has ended and “the era of global boiling has arrived”, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, has said after scientists confirmed July was on track to be the world’s hottest month on record. “Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning,” Guterres said.

Teh Gruaniad

What nonsense.
Awe, Swiz. An era is a long long time. The Boiling Era will still just be getting underway by the time you expire. If it was the kind of thing you imagine and it nonetheless did turn out to be a problem, it would be easily rectified in a few years, so no reason to be concerned. But that’s not the reality. I tend to suspect that climate heat pressure might be a better thing for the planet than relative stability, just because it will help humans to slow their reproductive roll one way or another.
The planet has a fever and we are the germs.
 
Still waiting for Fizzle to quote us on saying we are heading to an apocalypse.

Maybe he has a limited vocabulary and does not know what apocalypse means.

a·poc·a·lypse
/əˈpäkəˌlips/
noun
noun: Apocalypse; noun: the Apocalypse; noun: apocalypse; plural noun: apocalypses
1.
the complete final destruction of the world, as described in the biblical book of Revelation.
"the bell's ringing is supposed to usher in the Apocalypse"
(especially in the Vulgate Bible) the book of Revelation.
singular proper noun: Apocalypse

2.
an event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale.
"a stock market apocalypse"


So, who on the thread is predicting a global biblical scale apocalypse

Fizzle, no response to my post on water?
 
From a couple of years ago in Teh Gruaniad “science” section.

The era of global warming has ended and “the era of global boiling has arrived”, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, has said after scientists confirmed July was on track to be the world’s hottest month on record. “Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning,” Guterres said.

Teh Gruaniad

What nonsense.

Yes it is nonsense. You are correct. It is hyperbole. What is not nonsense is the physical observations of global warning and the effects, and the science that links global warming to human pollution.

For some reason you seem to always quote the Guardian.

Sensationalism has always been a part of selling media. You quote osensationalism but never sober facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom