RenaissanceChemist Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 Discussion is impossible. Points may be made, but if they do not genuflect to the fraud, they are mocked, dismissed, ridiculed, and utterly ignored. The Weather Channel offered its list of Top 10 Weather Years. Curious to watch and see if it conformed to the Global Warming Fraud (Climate Change) Narrative, I took notes. Worst weather years on record in America were 1995, 2011, 1816, 2012, 1992, 1993, 2005, 1935, 2017, and worst of all, 2013. The storm of the century was March 12, 1993. $5.5 billion damage. This contradicts the claim that climate change is making hurricanes and tornadoes more violent and more frequent. The Great Drought of 1935 needs some explaining as well, but will never get a fair hearing due to the bias in favor of billions of federal research dollars coming down the pipeline. -3
Sensei Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) 26 minutes ago, RenaissanceChemist said: This contradicts the claim that climate change is making hurricanes and tornadoes more violent and more frequent. The level of damage made to cities is not strictly correlated to strengths and quantities of tornadoes, storms or hurricanes. They can go through sparsely populated area, while their strengths might be extreme. Your conclusions? They had to be weak storms because small damage in $$$.. ! Edited February 22, 2019 by Sensei
RenaissanceChemist Posted February 22, 2019 Author Posted February 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Sensei said: The level of damage made to cities is not strictly correlated to strengths and quantities of tornadoes. Storms or hurricanes can go through sparsely populated area, while their strengths might be extreme. Your conclusions? They had to be weak storms because small damage in $$$.. ! Disregard that single storm, or year. There is a gross inconsistency in the pattern, contradicting the Climate Change Narrative. Moreover, you can google the global warming scam/fraud or climate change scam/fraud, and get thousands of hits from books, papers, videos, and presentations to congress by very knowledgeable scientists of every stripe. This would not be possible if it were remotely as "factual" as claimed to be. Truth never lost ground by enquiry. - William Penn, Some Fruits of Solitude -2
Sensei Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 List of tornadoes, storms and hurricanes in U.S. for review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks The less fatalities do not mean, they were weaker, just that they passed through smaller villages rather than bigger cities (and people were better prepared)..
RenaissanceChemist Posted February 22, 2019 Author Posted February 22, 2019 Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born Margaret Mead, Anthropologist https://21sci-tech.com/Articles 2007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf 1 minute ago, Sensei said: The less fatalities do not mean, they were weaker, just that they passed through smaller villages rather than bigger cities (and people were better prepared).. You ASSUME. Any time I make a statement inimical to Al Gore and Company, I am instantly challenged to produce sources and references. Why don't you do just that, in the form of peer-reviewed papers which document the fatalities being exclusively attributable to storm route. 23 minutes ago, QuantumT said: Neil DeGrasse Tyson -2
QuantumT Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 Before you cry "FRAUD!", you need to consider motive. Who gains from the world abandoning fossil fuel? The richest most powerful people? Hell no! They lose the most! So who gains from this "fraud"?
RenaissanceChemist Posted February 22, 2019 Author Posted February 22, 2019 52 minutes ago, QuantumT said: Before you cry "FRAUD!", you need to consider motive. Who gains from the world abandoning fossil fuel? The richest most powerful people? Hell no! They lose the most! So who gains from this "fraud"? Do I have to explain it to you? 1. Al Gore has become a billionaire crying "global warming". He now rides around the world in a private jet, badmouthing "fossil fuel" which he burns by the tens of thousands of gallons. 2. Researchers who pocket government grants and contributions from brainwashed "environmentalists." 3. Fake News. The more inaccurate the story, the better it sells. 4. Sierra Club, National Geographic, and all the other Leftist organizations preach climate change in every issue and sell world tours in every issue. How about a $95,000 per person around the world tour by private jet? National Geographic. Hypocrisy on a massive scale. These are all rich and powerful people who use far more fossil fuel than the average schlep, which they DEMAND cut back his use of. Moreover, the socialists want to use this to transfer wealth from America to third world countries. -2
Ken Fabian Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) Surface temperatures - rising. Ocean heat content - rising. Global sea levels - rising. Sea ice extent - reducing. Glaciers - retreating. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet loss - accelerating. Of all the expected and measured indicators of global warming, storms and storm damage are amongst the most uncertain (and widely acknowledged as uncertain) - so starting there looks less like the overwhelming hit that proves global warming to be a scam than a distraction from the surface temperatures, Ocean Heat Content, Sea Levels and changes to land and sea ice. Or from the radiative properties of atmospheric gases for that matter. We get pseudonymous pseudo-experts much like you dropping in here, convinced of your own certainty - I could debate the points you make but I don't think you will give my responses any real consideration - you appear so filled misinformation I don't expect there is room for real information. The US and other nation's intelligence services can pick out guarded exchanges between would be terrorists but can't find evidence of a global conspiracy amongst tens of thousands of climate and related scientists, who mostly don't use encryption and do their work mostly on government run computer networks? A conspiracy with a burden of costs of trillions $US that successive conservative governments utterly failed to unearth? When all the work climate science does involves open record keeping and open publication and open scrutiny, secrecy is impossible and no grand conspiracy can be sustained. Whether commissioned by left governments or right, the expert advice keeps coming back the same; not because it is a conspiracy to produce the desired results but because it is not. Rather, they keep saying the same things because they are true. the climate problem is about responsibility and accountability (for the unaccounted consequences and costs of excess fossil fuel burning) - qualities that are not just compatible with Free Enterprise, Democracy and The Rule of Law, they are essential ingredients. Nations entering knowingly into agreements for mutual benefit - or avoiding mutual harms - does not undermine sovereignty. The best options we have for dealing with this unprecedented global problem involve innovative entrepreneurship - capitalist entrepreneurship - and opportunity for profit in the process; attempting to make this about socialism versus capitalism is not unusual, but it is wrong, from both directions. If the Climate "movement" appears to lean left that is because those who lean right keep refusing to join and participate. Edited February 22, 2019 by Ken Fabian 1
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 22, 2019 Posted February 22, 2019 ! Moderator Note This is a science forum. The default position is that of mainstream, accepted science. In this case, climate change is a very real threat to our world, and the fossil fuel industry is a big contributor. In any case, dice your thread amounts to little more than ill-informed rantings, it is being moved to the Trash. If you have your own scientific ideas to present that are outside of mainstream science, post them (along with your proof / evidence) in Speculations. If you would like to discuss aspects of mainstreams science, please do so.
Recommended Posts