Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: wtfatta

If you want to put blame on someone it is China, starting in the 70s they increased their carbon dioxide output to exceed the world's output today while the rest of the world has remained basically flat. when you compare charts they match up well.

We all have a responsibility if I'm going to try to lay blame at anyones feet. China's CO2 is definitely a factor but imagine how mitigated things would be if we hadn't harvested ~250 million acres of filters.

a reply to: jrod

The overwhelming majority of citizens understand man made climate change is real(80%+). It is only republican blow hards who deny it.

False. I deny the hoax, and I'm not a Republican. Try again.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Wayfarer

Most of us believe scientists because of the data, the rigor of the scientific method,

Oh horse shi.. Most of us would not know what the data meant if we were looking right at it. And most of us never see any data.

So most of us just belive it because some scientist said it. or Al Gore..

Some would blindly believe it (and that is of course culpability on the same order as those that would immediately discount it). However, data has already been shown as evidence in this very thread, so I'm not sure how you can claim we're blindly following without looking at the data.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: wtfatta

yet there were 5 times more CO2 when the dinosaurs roam the Earth. I bet there were no tropical plants and the Earth was a fireball.

www.livescience.com...]https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html[/quote ]

Were those levels around the same time as the impact that killed the dinosaurs? Perhaps that was a period of high volcanic activity.

You're right. At one point there were no tropical plants and the Earth was a "fireball".

a reply to: jrod

Scientists paychecks do not depend on that.

AH-HAHAHAHAHA!

You really think grants are not awarded based on what the grantor expects to see in the results?

AH-HAHAHAHAHA!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Wayfarer

Most of us believe scientists because of the data, the rigor of the scientific method,

Oh horse shi.. Most of us would not know what the data meant if we were looking right at it. And most of us never see any data.

So most of us just belive it because some scientist said it. or Al Gore..

Some would blindly believe it (and that is of course culpability on the same order as those that would immediately discount it). However, data has already been shown as evidence in this very thread, so I'm not sure how you can claim we're blindly following without looking at the data.

In this case, the data is but an input to the predictions, which is what we are being asked to act upon. The predictions are wrong - again and again and again. Ergo, the data is being modelled incorrectly. Start getting some predictions correct and you might find more people to sell the claims to.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jrod

Scientists paychecks do not depend on that.

AH-HAHAHAHAHA!

You really think grants are not awarded based on what the grantor expects to see in the results?

AH-HAHAHAHAHA!

TheRedneck

I tell you what, if these climate scientists were paid on being correct, they'd be in debt.
You are right - it is ALL about the grants.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
i bet this one is not a real Trump Tweet, but rather one of his staff tweeting under his name. We know now that this happens all the time. The words are too clear, there are no punctuation errors , the sentences are constructed properly and there are no miss-spellings.

Naw.

Merry Christmas.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jrod

Scientists paychecks do not depend on that.

AH-HAHAHAHAHA!

You really think grants are not awarded based on what the grantor expects to see in the results?

AH-HAHAHAHAHA!

TheRedneck

Having worked at a college, and watched as people applied for grants, for projects that they already knew the results before the first check cashed, yeah hence my skepticism.

I've watched some people with multiple Dr degrees get grants, they already knew the results, and would laugh about it in the lunch room. I would just sit there with my mouth wide open.

In academia, the more times you are right, the more power and prestige you get. Oh, and those bonuses based on the total grant dollars awarded.

So, the fix is usually in.

Fred..

originally posted by: jrod
You are just parroting a myth.

No, he isn't ... maybe taking out of proportions, but certainly not parroting a myth.

All research today, is done by stipendium. Every university should have a list of who gives money to what research. Without this support, you can't do your research. All research stipend is for specific research type ... and because of that, it is important that the topic is "popular", else you'll get very little support if any.

And what better topic, for stipend than "Oh my God, we need to research this because if we don't the world is going to end as we know it".

That's always a hot topic, especially since 99% of the entire human populace believe in some form of deiety, and inclusive in that religion is "I'm wicked, I have sinned ... I must repent for my sins, otherwise my holy deo is going to throw me in hell".

Always popular.

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Contrary to superstition, the numbers do not lie:

Plenty of evidence suggests that those numbers aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

How do you get a global average temperature for 1930 when there were hardly any weather monitoring stations in Asia, South America, Africa??? Is extrapolation just so great we can get accurate to a tenth of a degree for 100's of thousands of miles of area that has no real data?

Ah, well you see, there are other indicators. For example, Cherry Tree Flowering at Kyoto City. See, cherry trees are rather sensitive to temperature for when they bloom, so earlier blooming means earlier springs. It so happens that such blossoming had been recorded in Japan for quite a long time... and it looks like this:

Also, Al Gore never predicted that the ice caps would be melted by 2014. That is 100% a lie.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jrod

Scientists paychecks do not depend on that.

AH-HAHAHAHAHA!

You really think grants are not awarded based on what the grantor expects to see in the results?

AH-HAHAHAHAHA!

TheRedneck

The grants I got when I did research were for something nobody had tried before and nobody knew what the result would be.

So...

a reply to: fredrodgers1960

In academia, grants cannot even be submitted without a faculty member as the PI (Principle Investigator). So obviously, those faculty members who know how to get grants are a gateway for more students to get grants. When a grant is awarded, the institution receives 50% off the top, before a dime goes into actual research. It's a quite lucrative arrangement.

In order to get a grant, the potential grantee must show they are capable of achieving reliable results, which in most cases means they have already done the research. They simply give their conclusions on the application as 'expected results.' Then the money comes in, they spend a few months repeating what they have already done, often grabbing 'necessary' equipment they have always wanted in the process, and publish their results as 'findings.'

Actual research is getting done, but the money funding it is all built around a song and dance.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Greven

The grants I got when I did research were for something nobody had tried before and nobody knew what the result would be.

Consider yourself very fortunate, then. It usually doesn't work like that.

TheRedneck

Anyway, reason it's been cold has partly been due to displacement of the Arctic vortex again:


This has been so bad that Arctic sea ice extent has been sluggish growing and has now fallen below last year's record low levels:

I find nearly nothing as funny as this site and the already conservative pre-disposition of some (not all) to believe this is all a hoax, convinced that the scientists documenting global warming and its cause as nothing but people with an "agenda."

Let me spit out to you who also has an "agenda" - the oil companies that stand to lose billions, perhaps trillions, if the globe makes a huge effort at cutting down on fossil fuels.

But some of RW "critical thinkers" here, sure that they're being played, never even consider the possibility that the ones who could run the scam might well be the most powerful people on Earth, the richest, with the most to lose. They'd GAIN billions if people ignored the threat, but you'd rather put the agenda to scientists who might get a few thousand in a grant. BTW - to any climate scientist wanting BIG dollars? They'd get 10x the amount of grant money from the oil companies if they were willing to simply sell their research as part of an agenda. Of course, THAT doesn't matter.

Regardless, add energy to any closed dynamic system and you get greater extremes, in ANY system. That means more extremes in drought, heat, AND cold snaps, but the overall trend will be a globe with temps inching up. I live 40 miles off the gulf coast, and yet just ten days ago, the temperature HERE was lower than in northern Greenland, which was greater than 40 degrees ABOVE normal. So, folks, it's a global thing and our moron president (hey, he was called that by his own cabinet secretary, one who RAN Exxon) tweets about the local weather, not climate.

Anyway, carry on. Those mean scientists are trying to make your life difficult, and those billionaire oil execs truly have gold hearts and will only tell you the truth. That, of course, makes perfect sense, to those who won't believe anything different no matter what the evidence.

Trump's right you know....

And poverty has been eliminated because I have money in my bank account.

And violence has been eliminated because no one has assaulted me.

And pollution is no longer a problem because I have clean water and air in my house.

And.... that tweet was savage.... if savage means stupid.

originally posted by: fredrodgers1960
One more comment. The Earth has been changing since the dawn of time.

I asked someone earlier about a similar statement and I'm really curious. How do you know this to be true? Was there some written documentation discovered ?

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: notsure1
Lol those guys can barley predict whether its or not its going to rain tomorrow.

But yeah 100 yearss from now..

Climate = Weather patterns, apparently...

If this opinion is widespread then it makes sense that people have no idea what they’re talking about when they scream HOAX!

In which case, F it, I say we embrace Death...
It sure beats sharing a planet with a large group of people who spout off alternative facts on topics they do not actually grasp.

Climate is defined as an area's long term weather patterns, according to NOAA itself.

I question if you have any idea what you're talking about...