"But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

[novaphile]

Hahaha, probably, but it was before my time.

In case it helps, I was taught about 'the greenhouse effect' and the role of carbon dioxide, and John Tyndall's work (in 1859) that identified carbon dioxide as a culprit...


... in first year High School science in 1975

I joined Friends of the Earth in 1979 and am still a member of The Alternative Technology Association (AKA Renew Australia) to this day.

https://renew.org.au/

 

[Venom]

It's unfortunately difficult to compare climate trends over the lifespan of a human.

It makes it easy to deny.

 

[alfaniner]

This reminds me of what one of these idiots said -- apparently seriously, and it might have been emptyg -- that people lived five million years ago in much hotter climates and they got along just fine.

Reality check from Time Magazine:


As I posted in another thread, below is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chart. Despite all the studies and hyperbole, greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase and they're increasing by a lot.
[IMGW=500]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1474&pictureid=13596[/IMGW]

"Look at that line! Hardly any variation in it at all!"

 

[RoboTimbo]

Climate Change is yesterday's problem.

the biggest threat now is kids thinking about transgenderism.

And books! Don't fergit the evil printed wird! We gots to bern 'em!

 

[Pixel42]

5 million years is plenty of time for evolution to adapt plants animals and ecosystems to new temperature regimes.

200 years is not...

Note that the graph actually shows it is currently almost as warm as it was five million years ago, so Hercules56 is even wrong about that. The point that marks where the temperature is projected to be in 2100 is warmer. Look also at the rapidity of the current rise, it's essentially a straight vertical line (and bear in mind the scale of the X axis is not linear, it's logarithmic).

For temperatures "much warmer" than it will be by the end of this century you need to go back 50 million years. That's the Eocene maximum, when there was no ice and sea levels were about 150 metres higher than they are now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Climate

 

[Trebuchet]

This reminds me of what one of these idiots said -- apparently seriously, and it might have been emptyg -- that people lived five million years ago in much hotter climates and they got along just fine.

Reality check from Time Magazine:


As I posted in another thread, below is a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chart. Despite all the studies and hyperbole, greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase and they're increasing by a lot.
[IMGW=500]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1474&pictureid=13596[/IMGW]

Nonsense. Surely EmptyG knows the earth is only 6000 years old!

 

[dann]

Do people here actually not realise that "Global Warming" refers to average global temperatures?

And that the postulated rise is a fraction of a degree per decade (depending on who collates/massages the numbers)?

If Phoenix, Arizona is unusually hot then somewhere else it's unusually cold.

Comical.

Not on this planet.

Strong storms and flooding as well as oppressive heat move through the U.S. and abroad, during what scientists say was the hottest week in recorded history. Meteorologist & climate specialist Jeff Berardelli says this may be just the beginning. "It's astonishing to see it happening but we expected this to happen," he said. "The key here is slowing it down so we can adapt and nature...can adapt as well."
Climate change disrupting jet stream, causing extreme heat around the globe (MSNBC on YouTube, July 10, 2023)

But the idea of 'adapting' to anthropogenic global warming is incredibly stupid. 'Adapting' to climate change means that the individuals and whole species that can't adapt die (out). Climate change needs to be stopped and reversed. Slowing it down is not enough.
Here in Scandinavia, I have been enjoying both the hot summers and the warmer winters of recent decades. It's not as much fun closer to the equator. And it won't be fun here when the sea level really begins to rise, but that probably won't happen in my time.

Humans have so far had a unique attitude to 'adapting': Instead of adapting to nature, we have adapted nature to us: We have made clothes out of it to keep us warm in places we weren't naturally adapted to live, built houses out of it to protect us from the cold and the rain, made it produce food adapted to human needs and tastes and even irrigated fields to make nature produce food in places where it otherwise couldn't have.

Adapting to nature by learning to live on rafts doesn't appeal to some of us. The people who have made the big bucks by selling fossil fuels have air-conditioned yachts (not usually CO₂ neutral, by the way). Most other people don't. Not even the anthropogenic-global-warming deniers in this thread, I suspect.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

We could easily adapt to the maximum amount the seas will rise if we do nothing.
At worst it will be about 200m. It sounds bad, but most land is above that, and there is enough flat land to use then.

All we need to do is start moving populations from the areas most affected, (most of Africa, the Middle East, India, Mexico, the American midwest and coastal areas, the whole of Southern Europe, Indonesia, and any European city near a coast) to locations that will become usable. Northern Canada and Northern Russia are vast areas of flat land that will become usable then.
Not to mention Greenland and Antartica.

Sure, there are no cities or infrastructure there, so we would need to build that. And the land is currently unable to support agriculture, so we would need to ensure the soil becomes useful. And of course we'd need to integrate all these different cultures. And maybe the governments currently owning these areas might have a different opinion.

But if we all pull together we can do that, after all it's not like mass migrations due to environmental changes in the past ever led to problems.

So let's not hurt today's economy by being careful, as that would deny humanity of the future the joy of such a challenge.

 

[Pixel42]

The reasonably stable climate which has prevailed over the ten thousand years during which our civilisation has arisen is the exception, not the rule, and absent human activity the current interglacial would have ended and another glaciation would have begun after another few thousand years.

There was a fascinating paper a few years ago by a team at Copenhagen University which estimated how long we could have prevented another glaciation if we'd left the fossil fuel in the ground until we needed it for that purpose, and then burnt just enough to turn what would have been a large dip in temperature into a much shallower one. It came out at about half a million years. That's at least the next half a dozen glaciations we could have prevented, maintaining the global temperature within the narrow range we're used to. Instead of which we started burning through it when we were only just past the peak of the current interglacial, and by most estimates have used up approaching half of the available fossil fuel in just a couple of centuries. Which is why the global temperature has taken off like a rocket, and we're buggered. Serves us right, really.

 

[Puppycow]

Anyone notice the severe floods all over the world in recent days?

Spain


Kyushu, Japan


New York State

 

[Hercules56]

Like all other worldwide crises, we will not take global warming seriously until we are at the edge of a precipice of destruction. But this time it may be too late due to deforestation which could make greenhouse gas increases a self-creating snowballing monster. I think one of our major Achilles heel is that we're trying to reduce emissions without reducing the main cause of the emissions which is our worldwide addiction to consumerism.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Thinking back to the OP, isn't it usual that a hoax is perpetrated in order for the hoaxer to gain something? Money, power, notoriety, lolz...something.

So my curious question is: What do climate-change skeptics think the climate-change hoaxers stand to gain by playing such a huge, decades-long hoax?

Power? Hardly. More likely to be attacked and denigrated.

Money? How do you make a profit of changes that are bringing cheaper, renewable technologies that lots of countries are making?

Fame/notoriety? Who remembers these climate-change warriors' names?

I'm struggling to think of why, if this IS a hoax, it actually benefits the hoaxers.

Comments?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Thinking back to the OP, isn't it usual that a hoax is perpetrated in order for the hoaxer to gain something? Money, power, notoriety, lolz...something.

So my curious question is: What do climate-change skeptics think the climate-change hoaxers stand to gain by playing such a huge, decades-long hoax?

Power? Hardly. More likely to be attacked and denigrated.

Money? How do you make a profit of changes that are bringing cheaper, renewable technologies that lots of countries are making?

Fame/notoriety? Who remembers these climate-change warriors' names?

I'm struggling to think of why, if this IS a hoax, it actually benefits the hoaxers.

Comments?

Right wing conspiracies often hinge on vague statements about "them" taking "power". Obviously the climate con is how the International Jew (because let's be real, dig an inch into any of this crap and it's all anti-Semitism) will seize control of world economies.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Right wing conspiracies often hinge on vague statements about "them" taking "power". Obviously the climate con is how the International Jew (because let's be real, dig an inch into any of this crap and it's all anti-Semitism) will seize control of world economies.

Yes, but how will the Jews seize control using the climate hoax? Threaten banks with excess clouds?

Also, didn't they already take over the world hundreds of years ago? Before this climate thingy?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, but how will the Jews seize control using the climate hoax? Threaten banks with excess clouds?

I think the idea is conquer by deception. If the world governments actually think it's real, they may act accordingly (kinda quaint to assume this imo).

Also, didn't they already take over the world hundreds of years ago? Before this climate thingy?

Even the best machines need maintenance and updates. It takes a lot of work behind the scenes to keep the One World Government humming along.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I think the idea is conquer by deception. If the world governments actually think it's real, they may act accordingly (kinda quaint to assume this imo).

So... The governments think climate change is real, thus they do...what? Sell off the institution, give up and go on holidays? Mad panics in the office? Hunker down and wait for it all to blow over? I'm honestly struggling to see a credible link between climate change hoaxing and the Jewish New World Order happening.

Even the best machines need maintenance and updates. It takes a lot of work behind the scenes to keep the One World Government humming along.

Tell me about it! The cost of making and distributing membership cards alone is staggering.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

From what I recall from previous area's of the internet that proposed this, the 'argument' goes something like this:
The Evil / brainwashed (jewish) scientists fake the climate change.
This allows the jewish-nazi-communists to use the panic to take over the governments
The UN then takes over all governments, hunting down red-blooded True Americans with black helicopters / fake UFO's / FEMA camps (and only those people the rest of the world obviously rolls over)
Once in power this new jewish/communist/nazi government will do *whatever the poster in question hates*
Profit!!

 

[Trebuchet]

Thinking back to the OP, isn't it usual that a hoax is perpetrated in order for the hoaxer to gain something? Money, power, notoriety, lolz...something.

So my curious question is: What do climate-change skeptics think the climate-change hoaxers stand to gain by playing such a huge, decades-long hoax?

Power? Hardly. More likely to be attacked and denigrated.

Money? How do you make a profit of changes that are bringing cheaper, renewable technologies that lots of countries are making?

Fame/notoriety? Who remembers these climate-change warriors' names?

I'm struggling to think of why, if this IS a hoax, it actually benefits the hoaxers.

Comments?

Money. Large companies, especially in the fossil fuel industry, have a vested interest in keeping it in use. Note that for US corporations, "long term" means the quarter after this one. It's all about current profits and stock value.
Supporting them are right wing politicians depend on them for campaign funding. And right wing news media who are able to sell ad space for crappy pillows to suckers who believe them.

And I just realized I misread the post I replied to. But according to the deniers, it's still money. All those billions of dollars going to scientists, according to the right wing politicians and media.

 

[dann]

Like all other worldwide crises, we will not take global warming seriously until we are at the edge of a precipice of destruction. But this time it may be too late due to deforestation which could make greenhouse gas increases a self-creating snowballing monster. I think one of our major Achilles heel is that we're trying to reduce emissions without reducing the main cause of the emissions which is our worldwide addiction to consumerism.

There is no worldwide 'addiction to consumerism', and even if there were, CO₂ emissions wouldn't depend on consumption but on how the products for consumption were produced:
By using wind and solar power? No CO₂ emissions!
By using fossil fuel? Contributes directly to the greenhouse effect!
If the electricity fueling your Tesla comes from fossil fuels, you might as well drive a gas guzzler.

67% of electricity in Denmark in the first six months of 2023 was solar or wind. In the first six months of last year, it was only 51%. Wind and solar is now also cheaper than other kinds of electrical power.
Grøn strøm satte nye rekorder i første halvår (Ritzau/Energy-Supply.dk, July 10, 2023)

 

[dann]

We could easily adapt to the maximum amount the seas will rise if we do nothing.
At worst it will be about 200m. It sounds bad, but most land is above that, and there is enough flat land to use then.

The main problem with your idea is that there is no actual "we".
In Europe, the Dutch (30m), the Danes (34m), the Estonians (61m), the Latvians (87m), the Lithuanians (110m), the Irish (118m), the Moldovans (139m), the Hungarians (143m), the British (162m), the Fins (164m), the Belarusians (170m), the Polish (173m), the Ukrainians (175m) and the Belgians (181m) will probably disagree with you.
List of countries by average elevation (Wikipedia)

Outside of Europe, the Maldivians (1.5m) will be the first to go.