It's Good News Friday! (CLIMATE CHANGE)

Pretending you were ever anything but an abusive DUI-ing drunkard, and trust fund baby.

Is that so?

Now this I agree with.
The longer version is that from 1965-1979 there were a ton of scientific papers that predicted cooling. They greatly outweighed global warming papers.

More at the link.
https://angusmac.net/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

A blog by an engineer to who dabbles in climate science.
That wasn't even a good try.

You’re free to refute any of it.

Not sure what FF is trying to get at here. Even if the consensus among climatologists about which way the temperature is heading was indeed wrong in the 1970s, it doesn't take a scientist to see firsthand that there is something seriously fucked up with the climate and it's not getting better.

Hell, I was in Nevada and California two months ago and I've never seen water levels that low.

Buffalo, NY was hammered last week with one of the most brutal, coldest snowstorms it's seen in centuries and only a few days later it's patio weather.

Climate change deniers like to use anecdotal evidence to prove their point. I say the anecdotal evidence actually proves them wrong.

So it's your position that everything is fine, mankind isn't fucking up the environment and we should just carry on as usual?

Hey, but the oil industry knows the real score.
They love and care about us all, and would never hurt us.
Just like big tobacco, Monsanto, and Union Carbide.

A blog, linked by a liar who we know doesn't even read/watch the things he posts, that admits the evidence doesn't make the case it wants and so is looking for ways to selectively interpret it.

All of this to try and show that scientists doing calculations with slide rules six decades ago didn't have the same ability to model the climate.

This attempt to underpant gnomes your way to a case is almost impressive in its ineptitude.

Nope, it's to show that for decades scientists have been making climate prediction that don't come true, but they use it to scare people and push propaganda as well as a political agenda and the media is complicit in it. It's alarmist.

Nope, it's my position that we shouldn't fall for this alarmist rhetoric and propaganda that politicians want to use to control our lives and wreck the economy.

That's not at all related to the criteria your linked blog is using to try and massage the data into the conclusion it wants.

And that's why you fail, because most of your political and social views start with the assumption that there's a labcoated communist boogeyman standing in the corner.

So your default is to focus on the things that have been proven wrong, which are in the minority, instead of the overwhelming amount of data that says things are not great and we are having a negative affect on the environment

That's quite a childish way to look at it

I don't think it's childish at all to be weary of politicians pushing agendas, spreading propaganda, wreck the economy and trying to control our lives.

No, it's childish to focus on that which is happening but in a very tiny degree, versus the monumental amount of evidence out there that says we need to not fuck up our environment

You're taking the fringe route and ignoring the mainstream part of what's actually happening

Paranoia isn't skepticism.
Skepticism accepts evidence.
Paranoia only accepts the story it wants to be true.

I think FF is down with ODD (Yeah you know me)

Unless that evidence is contrary to the accepted narrative on social media.

Yeah, there's no climate deniers on Twitter, or Facebook, or Reddit, or whatever skinhead biker-bar hellhole you go to.
It's all a uni-mind.

Remember, all climatologists are in on it, so only non-climatologist amateurs can be trusted!
That's how getting at the truth works!

Climatologists that get grants from universities and want to keep their jobs are going to manipulate data and produce the results their masters want.

Subway Dayton

Scientists get famous by making waves.
Look at Darwin, for fuck's sake.
Or Einstein.
Or the discoverer of string theory.
If someone had a legitimate testable theory that knocked down global warming, and worked with the evidence, he'd go for it, and you'd hear about it on a bigger venue than a fucking blog.
Just like real evidence of aliens will be on the news, not a fucking Discovery channel show.
Science doesn't work like cubicle jockeys sucking up to management for the fancy corner office.

Yes, the big rich mean researchers are picking on the poor underresourced fossil fuel industries.

Here's the thing about the truth regarding climate change: it sucks, and most of the scientists involved would love to be able to find out that we actually aren't screwing things up.

If someone could prove that coal isn't actually damaging and we can use it as much as we want that would be fucking amazing. However reality isn't decided by what is most convenient for us.

Let's put aside the cherry picked articles from the fucking 1960s, and ignore your conspiracy theories about scientists motivations, and look at basic facts:

Do you dispute any of the following?

1. Human activity is taking sequestered carbon (wood, coal, oil, gas) and emitting it into the atmosphere.
2. These emissions have contributed to raising atmospheric CO2 levels to levels not seen for several million years.
3. Increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are scientifically demonstrated to have an insulation effect, resulting in the Earth retaining more of the sun's energy than it would have otherwise.

If you don't dispute any of those then congratulations, you agree with the scientific consensus. If you do disagree with any of them then I would love to see your evidence.

Hi @Bill Carson

More evidence that oil companies have been covering up global warming. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994

Wyoming wants to ban electric car sales.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...makers-propose-ban-on-electric-vehicle-sales/

And it's dead.

This is going to make @Uncle Albert and @Bill Carson cry.