The truth about the claim climate has always been changing

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 01 Aug 2019, 21:47

Not while all the people who believe in imminent climate disaster, and who think it is reasonable to demand a â€œzero carbonâ€� economy by 2025, are happy to believe in the pronouncements of Gail 5g Bradbrook and Roger Crowd-Control Hallam. Those two are obviously bought by the establishment, I wonder if the same has happened to Frank Lutz. As I see it he is a bit of a PR man, consequently any trust should be circumspect rather than just blind belief because he says what you want to hear..

As for your â€œlistened to and followed closelyâ€�, please point out where I gave this impression.

There might be a big upset soon given the slightly unusual activity in the Cascade mountains and west coast areas, which could shift world focus from the fear porn of CO2.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 02 Aug 2019, 13:19

Increased volcanic and siesmic activity could be due to global warming as ice sheets melt and move and sea level rises changing the loading on the earth's tectonic plates.

You might not have listened to Luntz himself, woodburner, but you listen to the twaddle and propaganda that is put out by the GOP and business people who listen to him.

As Luntz was bought by industry in the first place I suppose he might have been turned by money but if you follow where the really big money comes from he would be more likely turned for money by the big fossil fuel industries that have been "investing" in anti warming propaganda for decades..

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 02 Aug 2019, 19:48

While you, kenneal-lagger, level ridicule and insults at anyone who questions the things you believe in. A delicate flower indeed. While there is all the trumpetiting about claimed record high temperatures, bits of information about any low temperatures, are wished away. Letâ€™s hope nobody stumbles across them, oops, sorry, I did. The info comes from the met office, but no doubt you can post a reopst in your inimitable style of the extinction rebellion climate emergency, supported by buzzard killer Richard Benyon.

WHere is your data source for increased volcanic activity? Some donâ€™t agree but unfortunately they refer to a concensus, and it isnâ€™t the magical 97%, so it canâ€™t be true.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 02 Aug 2019, 21:26

Woodburner, you do understand what these models are based on ... right.

Some deep time geological facts about climate might be in order here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLBoEr ... dex=6&t=0s

Some of the above is positive and some of it is negative. But, all of it is based on changes that occurred massively more slowly than they are happening today.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 02 Aug 2019, 22:54

You may be correct, but â€œtodayâ€� spans around 150 to 200 years, there is no way of knowing the rates of change in any similar short span in pre-historic times. While the overall observable changes might have been at a total slower rate than changes today it is unlikely a 200 year spike could be isolated. When some of the major volcanic activities were occurring, there were some fast changes, but were these any better or worse than today? Biggest difference today is population. If extinction rebellion wants to get the climate sorted, extinction is going to be a significant requirement, since there doesnâ€™t appear to be anything else with similar possibilities.

ReserveGrowthRulz · Post by **ReserveGrowthRulz** » 03 Aug 2019, 04:57

Little John wrote: Some of the above is positive and some of it is negative. But, all of it is based on changes that occurred massively more slowly than they are happening today.

Sure. Except maybe the ones that can change things far faster than they are happening?

Has anyone besides me noticed that once folks get specific ideas in their heads, it seems to drive out the possibility of other things? Things in the past only changed the climate slowly. Not.

How about this as a thought experiment for those of little practice?

Which is more importance? Ceasing all CO2 emissions in order to "save" the world, wiped out shortly afterwards by a dinosaur killer, or sacrificing just about everything the planet contains or has, enslaving the human race itself if necessary, to stop an already happened before event of known probability from happening again? The consequences of which are civilization ending?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 03 Aug 2019, 08:06

woodburner wrote:You may be correct, but â€œtodayâ€� spans around 150 to 200 years, there is no way of knowing the rates of change in any similar short span in pre-historic times. While the overall observable changes might have been at a total slower rate than changes today it is unlikely a 200 year spike could be isolated. When some of the major volcanic activities were occurring, there were some fast changes, but were these any better or worse than today? Biggest difference today is population. If extinction rebellion wants to get the climate sorted, extinction is going to be a significant requirement, since there doesnâ€™t appear to be anything else with similar possibilities.

I don't need convincing about the bullshit that is extinction rebellion. So, we can park their shit show to one side. I know what they are, which is a corporate class invention just like the Greta Thunberg traveling circus show.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 03 Aug 2019, 23:36

Which is more importance? Ceasing all CO2 emissions in order to "save" the world, wiped out shortly afterwards by a dinosaur killer, or sacrificing just about everything the planet contains or has, enslaving the human race itself if necessary, to stop an already happened before event of known probability from happening again? The consequences of which are civilization ending?

Can you rephrase the question so it makes sense?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 04 Aug 2019, 00:51

woodburner wrote:
Which is more importance? Ceasing all CO2 emissions in order to "save" the world, wiped out shortly afterwards by a dinosaur killer, or sacrificing just about everything the planet contains or has, enslaving the human race itself if necessary, to stop an already happened before event of known probability from happening again? The consequences of which are civilization ending?
Can you rephrase the question so it makes sense?

Translation:

"Shit happens so why bother dealing with the difficulties and inconveniences of stopping shit that happens because of us"

ReserveGrowthRulz · Post by **ReserveGrowthRulz** » 04 Aug 2019, 03:59

Little John wrote:
woodburner wrote:
Which is more importance? Ceasing all CO2 emissions in order to "save" the world, wiped out shortly afterwards by a dinosaur killer, or sacrificing just about everything the planet contains or has, enslaving the human race itself if necessary, to stop an already happened before event of known probability from happening again? The consequences of which are civilization ending?
Can you rephrase the question so it makes sense?
Translation:

"Shit happens so why bother dealing with the difficulties and inconveniences of stopping shit that happens because of us"

Pretty amusing, your display of excellent bullshitting skills!