On the Insidiousness of "We have 12 Years to Save the Planet." - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15014173
LaDexter wrote:LMFAO!!


So, 90% of Earth ice is on LAND MASS ANTARCTICA.

7% of Earth ice is on LAND MASS GREENLAND

97% of Earth ice is one the two LAND MASSES closest to an Earth Pole....

and land MOVES....

70 million years ago, Antarctica had DINOSAURS....

because it was NOT on the SOUTH POLE....

LOL!!!


Technically it erodes into newer shapes that appear to move due to changes in the shoreline caused by erosion(basically "pushing" land), as well as the minor shifting of the tectonic plates.. But I digress...

Technically it doesn't "move".
#15014223
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Tectonic movements over millions of years are a complete red herring. LaDexter is pretending that because he knows one thing that can cause global climate to change, over millions of years, then that's the only thing that can cause climate change. This is an insultingly stupid argument to try and make. Please ignore it.




This is all the "warmer" side can say. The proof is there. The data is there. Their theory is completely false. Co2 has no effect on Earth climate.

If Earth has two polar oceans, that is the "warm Earth" parameter.

If Earth has two polar continents, two Antarcticas, then Earth is much colder, water levels are lower etc....


Co2 went up in the atmosphere. The data recorded no warming. The "warmers" then fudged the data.

And THAT's their "evidence" = FUDGE.
#15014225
Let's look at the data....

We have two and only two measures of ATMOSPHERIC TEMPS, satellites and balloons....

In 2005, the "warmers" had a problem. Co2 was up....

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8917093/ns/te ... vaporates/


"While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."



The data from the two different sources was HIGHLY CORRELATED. The "surface warming" is 100% about URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT. The warmers had no basis to challenge the satellite or balloon data, since there was nothing wrong with either. Both proved that

WHEN Co2 rises in the atmosphere, there is NO WARMING because of that.


and then the "warmers" fudged both with 2 UNCORRELATED "corrections," so that those here who can only parrot and shout down could parrot that fudge and vote to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on a NON PROBLEM.
#15014264
Pants-of-dog doesn't seem to understand what he parrots. He cites "temperatures." What he really means is temperatures JUST ON LAND, overwhelmingly in GROWING URBAN AREAS.... which do this as they grow....


https://www.wrdw.com/home/headlines/3438781.html


"It causes temperatures in the city to be 1 to 10 degrees warmer than in rural areas."


So that is how you get "warming" from the ground series = just count growing urban areas


Meanwhile, in the ATMOSPHERE, WHERE the Co2 is.... there is NO WARMING.....

but you need a BRAIN to understand that, instead of just bawking "temperatures..."


Co2 in the atmosphere goes up, temperature in the atmosphere does nothing.... NO CORRELATION = THEORY REJECTED
#15014304
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Tectonic movements over millions of years are a complete red herring. LaDexter is pretending that because he knows one thing that can cause global climate to change, over millions of years, then that's the only thing that can cause climate change. This is an insultingly stupid argument to try and make. Please ignore it.

All the arguments you guys make for the cause of climate change seem stupid to me.
#15014322
LaDexter wrote:Pants-of-dog doesn't seem to understand what he parrots. He cites "temperatures." What he really means is temperatures JUST ON LAND, overwhelmingly in GROWING URBAN AREAS.... which do this as they grow....

https://www.wrdw.com/home/headlines/3438781.html

"It causes temperatures in the city to be 1 to 10 degrees warmer than in rural areas."

So that is how you get "warming" from the ground series = just count growing urban areas

Meanwhile, in the ATMOSPHERE, WHERE the Co2 is.... there is NO WARMING.....

but you need a BRAIN to understand that, instead of just bawking "temperatures..."

Co2 in the atmosphere goes up, temperature in the atmosphere does nothing.... NO CORRELATION = THEORY REJECTED


This is called the heat island effect.

It is well known and has been accounted for in temperature recordings, and has been shown to not be the cause behind higher temperatures.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_h ... al_warming

    Because some parts of some cities may be hotter than their surroundings, concerns have been raised that the effects of urban sprawl might be misinterpreted as an increase in global temperature. Such effects are removed by homogenization from the raw climate record by comparing urban stations with surrounding stations. While the "heat island" warming is an important local effect, there is no evidence that it biases trends in the homogenized historical temperature record. For example, urban and rural trends are very similar.[17]

    The Third Assessment Report from the IPCC says:

      However, over the Northern Hemisphere land areas where urban heat islands are most apparent, both the trends of lower-tropospheric temperature and surface air temperature show no significant differences. In fact, the lower-tropospheric temperatures warm at a slightly greater rate over North America (about 0.28°C/decade using satellite data) than do the surface temperatures (0.27°C/decade), although again the difference is not statistically significant.[17]

    Ground temperature measurements, like most weather observations, are logged by location. Their siting predates the massive sprawl, roadbuilding programs, and high- and medium-rise expansions which contribute to the UHI. More importantly, station logs allow sites in question to be filtered easily from data sets. Doing so, the presence of heat islands is visible, but overall trends change in magnitude, not direction. The effects of the urban heat island may be overstated. One study stated, "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures." This was done by using satellite-based night-light detection of urban areas, and more thorough homogenisation of the time series (with corrections, for example, for the tendency of surrounding rural stations to be slightly higher in elevation, and thus cooler, than urban areas). If its conclusion is accepted, then it is necessary to "unravel the mystery of how a global temperature time series created partly from urban in situ stations could show no contamination from urban warming." The main conclusion is that microscale and local-scale impacts dominate the mesoscale impact of the urban heat island. Many sections of towns may be warmer than rural sites, but surface weather observations are likely to be made in park "cool islands."[114]
#15016499
Maybe I'm going crazy here but I'm beginning to suspect that AOC is some kind of FBI psyops catfishing project. Her stupidity and ability to put her foot into her mouth, such as the recent controversy of her crying at an empty parking lot fence in the Obama era and saying it was about Trump's border policies, seem too consistent to be real. The reason I'm posting this here is because I've begun to suspect that the "12 years to save the planet" thing is really about deliberately trying to get these millennials to melt down, as I will attempt to briefly explain.

First, to understand millennials, one has to understand Tinder and the great recession. There’s been a progression of women’s rights (almost exclusively in their capacity to be sluts and nowhere else), then a monopolization of the sluts by a minority of men (jointly facilitated by Tinder and a bad economy). This in turn manifested as an increase in social pressures that most men could not meet, later being coupled with a rejection of the older women because the men are not faultless in this and a used, older woman is of course less attractive. This kind of environment would naturally lead to feelings of inadequacy, paranoia, fear and vengefulness.

Ultimately, after a lifetime of having reacted to this environment as I described it, instead of setting the ground work for and building up the underlying economy and skills necessary to effectively cope with old age, this kind of person’s self-destruction could take on an exponential quality.

Finally, once the baby boomers are all dead and my generation votes for open borders and free health care for everyone (including non-citizens), it would basically be the end of the west. At least one or two western European countries are pretty much doomed as it is already. In order to prevent this from happening, the millennial SJWs need to be taken out of the picture, either by being given a really good economy (what's happening now) so that they can salvage themselves or by being struck emotionally at the peak of their mid-life crisis, when they will be at their most vulnerable. As I mentioned earlier, that's roughly just over ten years from now as an average.

I could have believed this was all coincidental if AOC was not so incredibly stupid. I continue to struggle to believe that anyone is actually this consistently dumb and hypocritical. It's almost easier to believe that this is a set up.

Sad!
#15016512
Hindsite wrote:Don't believe in the false prophets. Turn to the Holy Bible for the truth.
Praise the Lord.

The Bible's proved utterly useless. It didn't help us in the age of discovery. It didn't help us with astronomy. It didn't help us with the Agricultural revolution. It hasn't helped with any technological development. Its proved utterly useless as a predictor of future events. It didn't stop the Jews being conquered by several Pagan empires. It didn't stop Christian Rome being overrun by Pagan barbarians and it did nothing to stop the Muslim invaders.
#15016514
Rich wrote:it hasn't helped with any technological development.


Yes because the Printing Press wasn't invented inorder to PRINT GUTENBERG'S BIBLE(Which happened to be a Catholic Bible by the way)!

Oh and Cinema Culture wasn't totally invented by the Salvation Army in Melbourne Australia. Invented the first dedicated Film Studio in the world, Limelight Studios, in order to make short Bible movies based on Jesus. Held the first ever dedicated Movie Sessions they did.

Yeah totally the Bible didn't help technological developments. Duh. This is just two major examples where it obviously did.

Do some reading please:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_ ... .27s_press
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limelight_Department
#15016534
colliric wrote:Yes because the Printing Press wasn't invented inorder to PRINT GUTENBERG'S BIBLE

Subtracting the sarcasm, that seems accurate:

Around 1439, Gutenberg was involved in a financial misadventure making polished metal mirrors (which were believed to capture holy light from religious relics) for sale to pilgrims to Aachen: in 1439 the city was planning to exhibit its collection of relics from Emperor Charlemagne but the event was delayed by one year due to a severe flood and the capital already spent could not be repaid. When the question of satisfying the investors came up, Gutenberg is said to have promised to share a "secret". It has been widely speculated that this secret may have been the idea of printing with movable type. Also around 1439–40, the Dutch Laurens Janszoon Coster came up with the idea of printing.[17] Legend has it that the idea came to him "like a ray of light".[18]

Until at least 1444 Gutenberg lived in Strasbourg, most likely in the St. Arbogast parish. It was in Strasbourg in 1440 that he is said to have perfected and unveiled the secret of printing based on his research, mysteriously entitled Aventur und Kunst (enterprise and art). It is not clear what work he was engaged in, or whether some early trials with printing from movable type may have been conducted there. After this, there is a gap of four years in the record. In 1448, he was back in Mainz, where he took out a loan from his brother-in-law Arnold Gelthus, quite possibly for a printing press or related paraphernalia. By this date, Gutenberg may have been familiar with intaglio printing; it is claimed that he had worked on copper engravings with an artist known as the Master of Playing Cards.[19]

By 1450, the press was in operation, and a German poem had been printed, possibly the first item to be printed there.[20] Gutenberg was able to convince the wealthy moneylender Johann Fust for a loan of 800 guilders. Peter Schöffer, who became Fust's son-in-law, also joined the enterprise. Schöffer had worked as a scribe in Paris and is believed to have designed some of the first typefaces.

Gutenberg's workshop was set up at Hof Humbrecht, a property belonging to a distant relative. It is not clear when Gutenberg conceived the Bible project, but for this he borrowed another 800 guilders from Fust, and work commenced in 1452. At the same time, the press was also printing other, more lucrative texts (possibly Latin grammars). There is also some speculation that there may have been two presses, one for the pedestrian texts, and one for the Bible. One of the profit-making enterprises of the new press was the printing of thousands of indulgences for the church, documented from 1454 to 1455.[21]

In 1455 Gutenberg completed his 42-line Bible, known as the Gutenberg Bible. About 180 copies were printed, most on paper and some on vellum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg

So he was a bit of a chancer, looking to make money out of those with spare cash, such as the religious, whether wanting miracles, indulgences or bibles. I wouldn't say religion 'helped', any more than 'gullibility' did.
#15016766
The Bible's proved utterly useless. It didn't help us in the age of discovery. It didn't help us with astronomy. It didn't help us with the Agricultural revolution. It hasn't helped with any technological development.


None of this is true. :roll:
#15016791
Rich wrote:The Bible's proved utterly useless. It didn't help us in the age of discovery. It didn't help us with astronomy. It didn't help us with the Agricultural revolution. It hasn't helped with any technological development. Its proved utterly useless as a predictor of future events. It didn't stop the Jews being conquered by several Pagan empires. It didn't stop Christian Rome being overrun by Pagan barbarians and it did nothing to stop the Muslim invaders.

I believe the Holy Bible was meant mainly to help us discover God's relationship to humans and how best to live our lives. It was not meant to help us with all those other details you mentioned.

Hong Wu wrote:I could have believed this was all coincidental if AOC was not so incredibly stupid. I continue to struggle to believe that anyone is actually this consistently dumb and hypocritical. It's almost easier to believe that this is a set up.

Sad!

It is harder for me to believe that there were so many stupid people in New York that would actually vote for the bug-eyed AOC.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

From 2016: The US Is Preparing to Oust Presi[…]

A very worthy project for a left-wing loony. :lol[…]

Another school shooting

What we are saying is that before you should be a[…]

One odd correlation is that between freedom and s[…]