35 replies to this topic

[Bernie]

https://www.theguard...anos-antarctica

[dwnowhere1]

Here's the original of Endenhofer's remarks:

 

https://www.nzz.ch/k...n_neu-1.8373227

 

What gets missed in the translation is that climate change "will cause" a wealth shift -- instead of "is the cause" of the wealth shift.

Edited by dwnowhere1, 01 October 2019 - 09:34 AM.

[fib_1618]

As I suspected, no one is asking the question.

 

In the meantime, here's an almost 2000 year scientific graph based on 18 geological proxies of temperature from 12 locations around the Northern Hemisphere (sort of looking at the colored layers you see at the Grand Canyon) that was published in 2007 for your further digestion...it pretty much tells the story when it comes to human's having anything whatsoever to do with the changes of the Earth's climate.

 

Fib

[trioderob]

i dont know if global warming is true or not but each car on the road puts out 11,400 lbs of co2 per year and there are 1.5 billion in the world driving around

 

might do something 

[aca123]

Solid "research".

Author of the posted "scientific" graph - Craig Loehle (climate change denier). Published 2007 in "Energy&Environment". Impact factor of the magazine 0.319 (as of 2012).

Author of one of the most comprehensive studies - Shaun Marcott. Published 2013 in "Science". Impact factor of the magazine 41.04 (as of 2018).

 

Little quote from NASA.gov website:

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position".

[fib_1618]

Solid "research".

Author of the posted "scientific" graph - Craig Loehle (climate change denier). Published 2007 in "Energy&Environment". Impact factor of the magazine 0.319 (as of 2012).

Author of one of the most comprehensive studies - Shaun Marcott. Published 2013 in "Science". Impact factor of the magazine 41.04 (as of 2018).

 

Little quote from NASA.gov website:

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position".

 

NASA is wrong...in fact, anything Government based has never been right unless it's part of a bigger agenda.

 

Fib

[dowdeva]

Geoenginnering sent a global survey to so-called reputable weather scientists.  This is the results.  I have 100 more links too, by reputable 'scientists'.

 

https://www.geoengin...eering-reality/

 

Did anyone even know that weather anchors have to sign non-disclosure agreements these days? Did anyone even take a look at the links I posted? I have 1000 more.

 

 Does anyone know about Morgellons, a condition which comes from chemtrails, and that people have had PLASTIC LIKE SCAR TISSUE consisting of both biological and plastic like material SLOUGH FROM THEIR SKINS WITH THE WORDS NSA IN IT? It's called Brandauthen, a process for molecular authenticating, the patent is blatently on the web.

 

That's the mark of the beast, in addition to the other military agendas, not the chipping everyone is so afraid of.  We are all walking cell phones now, don't even bother throwing yours away if you don't want to be tracked.

 

No wonder Zorro never posts here anymore.

Edited by dowdeva, 01 October 2019 - 02:31 PM.

[andr99]

https://www.liberoqu...-emergenza.html

 

500 scientists from all over the world write a letter to ONU saying the data supporting climatic cathastrophism are all wrong.

 

Zorro should get back to post here, again

Edited by andr99, 01 October 2019 - 03:03 PM.

[hhh]

But, but, but an autistic 16 year old says we're all going to die!!!!!!

[pdx5]

I for one put my money on the climate scientists instead of the naysayers. 

The reason for this is science is self-correcting.  

A theory (or theories) is (are) proposed and then tested and retested until a probable valid theory emerges

That theory is a probability since all things in life have very few exact (perfect) answers to things.  Math being one of the few.

The naysayers argue these are normal climate cycles.  But as everyone here knows, cycles have different lengths.

.I have yet to hear any naysayer say we're dealing with a 5, 500, 1000, or 1,000,000 year climate cycle.

So if the probabilities point to the need for action now, is it not better to error on the side of caution, then

get caught with your pants down?

 

For those who use the net to gain information and support their positions, they need to first determine whether in fact

that information is in fact True (valid)!

 

My2Cents.

 

 

If humans can warm the climate by burning fossil fuels, it will delay onset of next ice age. Many more millions will die during the next ice age than few degrees of warmer temps. More people die in winter than summer.