The time is now. Apple is doing its part. We must do ours.
0. Vote in local elections 1. Buy a 100% renewable power plan 2. Get an EV or hybrid plugin vehicle 3. Be energy efficient (LEDs, efficient appliances, insulation, etc)
The consumer can make the crazy politics moot. If you have a choice, get a 100% renewables power plan. If you are due for a new vehicle, get an EV or plugin. There are some really good options out there now. They are great to drive and cheaper to own.
Being energy efficient is obvious. For warm weather places where AC usage dominates your power bill, getting LEDs and energy efficient appliances sets up a nice virtuous cycle since less heat from lighting and appliances means less heat for the AC to remove.
As EVs get more popular, it sets up a nice virtuous cycle with grid storage, which would enable more renewable usage, both grid size and residential. In 2017 and beyond, there are some really good EV and plugin hybrid choices. If you care, there aren't any excuses anymore. EVs are better vehicles than gas cars for the vast majority of your driving.
You basically lose nothing, if not have a net gain, while reducing your carbon footprint by 70%. You will do your part in adding renewables demand on utilities and auto companies.
Really? Then make headless Macs and displays. A Mac may last for seven years, but a display lasts more than 20 years. All-in-One Macs like iMac are a waste and environmental aggression!
Additionally, make Macs updatable, including RAM, SSD, GPU and microprocessor. Stop using proprietary connectors and proprietary form factors. And stop selling the very same update for two to tree times its market price.
I do not get me wrong. I love the Mac, but some Apple practices are unfair.
Building walls, pissing off china, showing no respect on Twitter, calling everything fake news, alternative facts, accusing Obama, this guy is a joke.
So no argument, then. Thanks for admitting it.
What is wrong with a wall? Who gives a shit about communist China, which has killed 60 million of its own people for disagreeing with the government? “Alternative facts” don’t exist BY THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD. Either something is true or it isn’t. Do you know what the Socratic method is? Do you know what the scientific method is? IF YOUR CLAIM DOESN’T STAND UP TO TESTING, IT’S WRONG. Get over it. Is your complaint about the news regarding your belief that the news is infallible or in regard to your unwillingness to believe anything that goes against your feelings? Obama’s personally responsible for a fair bit of the damage done to the country in the last 8 years. The numbers prove that.
LOL ... Got to ask, which fossil fuel funded, right wing think tank did you get your mail order qualifications from?
Thanks for admitting that everything I said is correct. You have no argument. You have no evidence. You have no refutation. You have no position of your own. If I’m wrong, prove it. Because the Universe tends toward entropy, and because the laws of thermodynamics state that a system will remain in its current state unless acted on by an outside force, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU–THE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING LOBBY–TO PROVE THAT THE SYSTEM IS CHANGING FROM ITS CURRENT STATE. It’s not on sane people, who know how to parse the field’s data. It’s on the people who say the data isn’t what the data is–and who have been caught changing it to suit their narrative–to prove their claim.
I don’t give a shit about your appeal to (false) authority.
see how CO2 as a greenhouse gas keeps the sun's heat trapped inside the atmosphere
Hi. No one disputed that. Learn how to read posts before you reply to them.
Also, Venus.
Is this your first day on the job? Serious question. Not even trying to hurt your feelings. Do you just literally know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the topic? Are you seriously just parroting things you’ve heard “authority figures” say without thinking about them or understanding them yourself? Please do answer this question in your next reply so that I know how to approach you from now on. Whether you’re just a hardliner bought and paid by lies or you just don’t know anything; I’m perfectly fine with being amicable with the latter.
“MUH VENUS” is not an argument. In no capacity is it an argument. In fact, it’s more proof of the opposite of what you want to claim. What’s Venus’ atmospheric composition? 96.5% carbon dioxide. What’s Venus’ temperature? 462°C. Okay. Let’s see… What’s Mars’ atmospheric composition? 95.97% carbon dioxide. What’s Mars’ temperature? −63°C HOLY FUCKING SHIT THAT HALF A PERCENT MAKES AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE DOESN’T IT WE’RE KILLING THE EARTH DESTROY ALL YOUR INDUSTRY GO LIVE IN CAVES I SAID SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
“But that’s nonsense,” you say. Except it’s the argument. Actually, it isn’t. It’s smaller. We’re talking about 0.0001 mole fraction CO2. But let’s pretend we’re talking about half a percent of the atmosphere’s composition, like between Venus and Mars. That’s an amazing temperature difference, isn’t it? Wow. All because of that tiny change in CO2. Nothing else. Could not possibly be anything else. Ever. Not a single thing is different between the two planets, except for that CO2.
Oh, wait, Venus is larger. And closer to the Sun. And has vulcanism. AND HAS AN ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE THAT IS 9000 TIMES HIGHER THAN FUCKING MARS. The composition is, in the grand scheme of things, FUCKING IRRELEVANT. Earth would be cold (not as cold) if it was at Mars’ distance. Earth would be hot (not as hot) if it was at Venus’ distance. It’s almost as though THE FUCKING SUN has something to do with the temperature of a planet. Nay, I’ll go a step further. Maybe, just maybe, THE FUCKING SUN has the… greatest… effect on a planet’s temperature. Tin foil territory, I know. But hey, maybe it’s true. And maybe there’s a way to show that empirically, just like maybe there’s a way to empirically show that CO2 INCREASES CAUSED BY HUMAN WHATEVER HAS DONE JACK SHIT in regard to EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF CLAIM MADE by your masters whom you so eagerly parrot.
I don’t know. Maybe. And maybe you should take five seconds to think about a topic before replying to it. Why am I angry? Take a wild fucking guess.
I'm going to go with our best & brightest minds over some anonymous guy named "Tallest skil" on a rumors forum.
Cry harder, “StrangeDays.” Appeal to authority. Ad hominem. You have no argument. You have no evidence. You have no refutation. You have no position of your own. If I’m wrong, prove it. Because the Universe tends toward entropy, and because the laws of thermodynamics state that a system will remain in its current state unless acted on by an outside force, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU–THE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING LOBBY–TO PROVE THAT THE SYSTEM IS CHANGING FROM ITS CURRENT STATE. It’s not on sane people, who know how to parse the field’s data. It’s on the people who say the data isn’t what the data is–and who have been caught changing it to suit their narrative–to prove their claim.
Your precious authorities–NOAA, NASA, the Department of Agriculture, ET. AL.–say exactly what I am saying. Not what you are saying.
Nobody said killing the planet, that's your straw man invention.
No, it’s the primary party line. If no one here said it, that’s irrelevant to the initial statements, which regard the concept of AGW in the first place (and all associated claims therein).
Warmer, melting ice caps, raising sea levels, loss of coastal land, etc.. All real and mesasurable.
All disproven. The Earth is cooler than a century ago. The ice caps are not deviating from the last 40 years (lol, that’s such fucking cherrypicking) of measurements. The rate in sea level rise has not changed in over 140 years, and is slower than at any time in the last 11,000 years. If coastal land is being lost, it is not due to the thing you already mentioned and didn’t need to repeat as a separate point. It is due to land subsidence. This has long been proven. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove your beliefs changing the state of things.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which is fact -- it's what prevents us from being a cold rock.
Nitrogen, oxygen… none of those do anything, huh? Oh! Quick quiz. Which gas is the THIRD most prevalent in Earth’s atmosphere?
If you don't believe man can produce gases that affect his living space
Thanks for asserting something that no one questioned.
do this fun experiment -- lock yourself in the garage with the car engine running, and see what happens. Harmless gases, right?!
That sounds suspiciously like a death threat for telling the truth. Interesting.
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last
century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of
the last century.
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most
of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest
years on record occurring since 2001. The year 2015 was the first time
the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the
1880-1899 average.6 Even
though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an
unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue
to increase.7
Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.
singularity said: Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last
century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of
the last century.
Funny how sea level is identical to 1870 (and 1901), then, huh? Funny how all the gauges show a 0.63mm/yr rise (which, again, is smaller than at any time in the last 11,000 years). Not 3.3. Not 2.6. Not 1.4. Certainly not “a meter by 2050.”
Sydney 1901: Sydney 2017: La Jolla 1871: La Jolla 2017:
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.
A conclusion that can’t really be reached given that all recordings show a temperature decrease. “WAA! IT’S ONLY UNITED STATES TEMPERATURES!” Because there is no other record of meaningful scientific value anywhere. The GHCND set of stations has slowly been closed down… and what’s this! The stations being closed down ARE FAR FROM THE EQUATOR. What does that mean? The average latitude of GHCND stations (This is a link to an auto-downloading compressed file of raw data. Heads up for seeing a file auto-download when you click it; I’m not trying to do anything to your machine) IS FIFTEEN FUCKING DEGREES CLOSER TO THE EQUATOR than it used to be. Do you imagine that might raise temperatures? If you answer no, don’t bother answering in the first place.
The United States has a network of of 1200+ USHCN stations with data going back to 1895 and earlier. The raw USHCN temperature record shows that there has been a slight cooling since 1920 (see above). USHCN is a subset of GHCND (Global Historical Climatology Network Daily.) Cooling doesn’t suit the needs of your masters, so they cherrypicked a small subset of GHCND stations (which show a large amount of warming since 1920) for use in the global GSN temperature record.
So let’s stop this madness, right? What happens when we take data from SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND SOURCES? That is, 1. stations active for a long time and 2. stations that don’t move (meaning keeping the same latitude). We see what I said above. NO. FUCKING. WARMING.
USGS research has shown no linkage between flooding (either increases or decreases) and the increase in greenhouse gases. Essentially, from USGS long-term streamgage data for sites across the country with no regulation or other changes to the watershed that could influence the streamflow, the data shows no systematic increases in flooding through time.
Not tornados. Five (nearly six now) consecutive years of below average events.
Not hurricanes. Every single indicator shows they’re not only becoming less frequent, but also less powerful.
Your narrative is predicated on laziness. Your narrative is predicated on people not doing their homework and not comprehending the data they see. Your narrative is predicated on appeals to authority and the expectation that your masters will never lie to you.
Ah using photos of some landmarks to show there hasn't been a rise in sea level. Well done as you can obviously discriminate any change in sea level from them. Uses a source then denigrates information from the same source. Post pictures of newspaper articles from 33 years ago as supportive evidence. Good job scientific knowledge hasn't increased or there is better understanding of the science behind changes since then. You can cherry pick graphs that you believe back up your viewpoint. You can cherry pick statements from sources that appear to back up your viewpoint but when you then attack those who use the same source as falling onto appeals of authority then you just show your hypocrisy and weak style of argument.
Ah using photos of some landmarks to show there hasn't been a rise in sea level. Well done
You missed the NOAA tide gauges, but of course you did, because your ideology was just blown the fuck out.
Uses a source then denigrates information from the same source.
No argument much?
Post pictures of newspaper articles from 33 years ago as supportive evidence.
“WAAAA APPEAL TO NOVELTY!”
Good job scientific knowledge hasn't increased or there is better understanding of the science behind changes since then.
The lack of interim change has been proven.
You can cherry pick graphs that you believe back up your viewpoint.
Can, but didn’t, which is why I linked directly to the FULL DATA SETS. You can plot it all on a spreadsheet yourself, like I did after I first found someone talking about the data from said sources. But you won’t. Because you’re lazy. And your masters said it’s not true, so that’s good enough for you.
You can cherry pick statements from sources that appear to back up your viewpoint but when you then attack those who use the same source as falling onto appeals of authority then you just show your hypocrisy and weak style of argument.
Sure thing, kiddo. Enjoy believing that we’re all going to die of heat as you freeze to death.
It is impossible to "fight" climate change, because the climate is always changing on account of the sun’s ever changing activity. Further, as another Apple user posed here, one volcanic eruption can put out as much “carbon emissions” as did the entire Industrial Revolution.
And let’s not kid ourselves about all this sudden concern from Apple over how the STATE needs to “save us” from the “big bad corporations”. Apple and other computer manufacturers used environmentally toxic chemicals in its products for decades. It wasn’t the STATE which caused Apple and other manufacturers to change their mind — it was pressure from the marketplace to change its ways.
Certainly everyone should be doing their own part to avoid polluting our shared planet. But this "Ice Age / Global Warming / Climate Change" nonsense is not "green" (notice even how the false narrative changes throughout the years).
If politicians REALLY cared about the environment, industrial hemp would have never been made illegal and remained so for the better part of a century. Rather, the STATE gives financial incentives to supposed “green” companies, like for example those that make autos powered by batteries which is definitely NOT green. The only “green” part about such deals cut between corporations and the STATE are the bureaucrats’ wallets being lined with more phony Federal Reserve Notes.
People should consider not being so gullible and recognize the fact that all this “Climate Change” rubbish is yet just another big scam against the People by the largest corrupt corporation of all: the US Federal Government.
— — —
(Since I'm not seeing my follow up post being approved as quickly as my initial post, I'll just post it here...)
WOW! "Tallest Skil" has entirely blown away the weak — and typical — arguments from "Singularity"! 8-)
Thank you "Tallest Skil" for addressing this nonsense with imperial facts. It's amazing how people are so prone to resist facts these days, but very prone to embrace the false narratives of their chosen bogus political ideologies.
I caught an interview a few months ago with Lord Christopher Monckton (http://www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com/home) who stated that the math used in attempts to "prove" "Global Warming / Climate Change" was bogus. For those interested in the truth of this matter, here's a YouTube video where he goes into greater detail:
Global Warming Propaganda Explained - Lord Christopher Monckton 2014 NIPCC Convention
I'm just thankful that there are scientific math geeks willing to spend much effort in studying the false claims of those alarmists who wish to spread fear among the People of the entire planet in order to advance their agenda of control and dominance, exemplifying the pinnacle of greed and lust for power. I'm just not skilled in these areas.
Since my years of being an Apple Macintosh "guru" from the late 80's ~ mid 90's, my experience and study since has primarily centered upon the philosophy of liberty and the principles of natural law (www.NaturalRightsCoalition.com — for anyone who might be interested).
Therefore, my attention toward all such fanciful claims of mankind causing "Climate Change", along with the previous bogus narratives, has mostly to do with recognizing the ongoing agenda of the STATE to usurp our various Natural Rights — which it has been doing in a gradual but steady pace arguably since 1913.
I only happened to run across this entire thread by accident, while I was searching around in attempts to help a dear friend of mine with her again dead MacBook Air. Apparently, there is a major issue with the logic boards failing on these "Air" models, and it appears Apple has not been forthright about the situation.
Perhaps Apple should spend more time focusing on making its products reliable — as it used to do under the management of Stave Jobs — rather than getting involved in areas it, and apparently many others, know absolutely nothing about. ;-)
WOW! "Tallest Skil" has entirely blown away the weak — and typical — arguments from "Singularity"! 8-)
Thank you "Tallest Skil" for addressing this nonsense with imperial facts. It's amazing how people are so prone to resist facts these days, but very prone to embrace the false narratives of their chosen bogus political ideologies.
I caught an interview a few months ago with Lord Christopher Monckton who stated that the math used in attempts to "prove" "Global Warming / Climate Change" was bogus. For those interested in the truth of this matter, here's a YouTube video where he goes into greater detail:
"Global Warming - A Scare that is Over!"
I'm just thankful that there are scientific math geeks willing to spend much effort in studying the false claims of those alarmists who wish to spread fear among the People of the entire planet in order to advance their agenda of control and dominance, exemplifying the pinnacle of greed and lust for power. Because I'm not skilled in these areas. Since my years of being an Apple Macintosh "guru" from the late 80's ~ mid 90's, my experience and study since has primarily centered upon the philosophy of liberty and the principles of natural law (www.NaturalRightsCoalition.com — for anyone who might be interested).
Therefore, my attention toward all such fanciful claims of mankind causing "Climate Change", along with the previous bogus narratives, has mostly to do with recognizing the ongoing agenda of the STATE to usurp our various Natural Rights — which it has been doing in a gradual but steady pace arguably since 1913.
I only happened to run across this entire thread by accident, while I was searching around in attempts to help a dear friend of mine with her again dead MacBook Air. Apparently, there is a major issue with the logic boards failing on these "Air" models, and it appears Apple has not been forthright about the situation.
Perhaps Apple should spend more time focusing on making its products reliable — as they used to be under the management of Stave Jobs — rather than getting involved in areas it, and apparently many others, know absolutely nothing about. ;-)
But you can start showing the data that disproves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it doesn't makes temperature grow.
CO2 lags all historical temperature increases.
Yes, climate changes. But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever. In order to establish an actual human impact in a statistically significant way, you must show a modern trend that deviates from a baseline of appropriate duration. Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation. Not only are we not in a period of “record high temperatures,” we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years.
There is absolutely no evidence that current temperatures are outside the trend of totally natural variation, and all attempts to make it appear that way are misleading you by truncating the data to a sample of statistically insignificant size. And then they apply their misleading, exponential curve-fits and smoothing effects for dramatic purposes. The earth had had ice caps for maybe about half of the time over the past 500 million years. The picture shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates.
The sea level has been rising at a very steady and predictable rate over the past 8-10,000 years since the emergence from the last major glacial period with no deviation at all from this trend even as humans began industrializing. When environmentalists show you graphs going back 50-100 years of rising sea level data, they omit the fact that this is both on-trend and completely expected.
We have no actual data that indicates that climate is in any way behaving abnormally, much less due to human impact. The only thing we have is a hypothesis that CO2 affects climate in a meaningful way, which is what climatologists attempt to model. But those models make terrible predictions.
If your hypothesis consistently churns out inaccurate predictions–no matter how many times you tweak the knobs and change little fudge-factors here and there–then your hypothesis is shit and must be discarded. Morons who believe in this garbage have no understanding of basic epistemology, let alone science–and that goes for the so-called “scientists” peddling this mystical bullshit.
CO2 is only hypothesized to have the impact on global climate that the alarmists claim. But this has failed to be demonstrated in two major (but related) ways. First, carbon dioxide levels are currently being measured at several hundred ppm higher than measured from ice core samples. Now, it must also be cautioned that you can’t necessarily compare these two sets of data because they represent two different methods of measurement, and have other potential biases. However, even assuming that its true that CO2 levels are much higher–and that they’re caused by human activity–current temperatures are not deviating from the normal historical trends in line with CO2.
A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2 ºC. Everyone agrees on this point because it’s a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere. Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).
The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8 ºC of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached.
The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather. Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. In the late 1990s, the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
There is no data to suggest a positive H2O feedback either now or in Earth’s past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth’s history with an assumed positive H2O feedback. It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them.
If there is no positive H2O feedback, we literally have nothing to worry about. The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, and surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind, it’s simply “CO2 = bad” and “experts say we’re warming faster then ever.” The more you know.
Not only are current temperatures not outside the normal trend, we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years. Also, current temperatures (at the peak of the current 100ky cycle) are actually lower than past 100ky cycles, meaning that we are expected to either warm further just by way of natural variation or we are in an unusually cold peak period.
Second, climate models that use CO2 as a major driver for global temperatures are not producing accurate predictions for global temperatures. This is at least good initial evidence that the alarmist stance on the CO2/climate hypothesis is false. Notice that current temperatures are in no way deviating from normal trends. and that the two “scary red dots” are not observed data, but “predictions.” But, as we already know, the observed data is wildly lower than the predictions. These people are completely full of shit.
So answer this simple question. Why is it always warmer in a city than in the surrounding suburban areas?
dasanman69 said: So answer this simple question. Why is it always warmer in a city than in the surrounding suburban areas?
You've never heard of the urban heat index? The thing for which you CORRECT when measuring temperature? There's no "gotcha" here. You're way out of your league. Every material has a different black body temperature and many man-made ones are warmer than their surroundings. One of the greatest PROBLEMS with the temperature record is that thermometers are PURPOSELY placed right next to large slabs of concrete, highways, and airports. This is in addition to closing down ones far from the equator. And to top it all off, when "corrections" are made, it is done in literally the exact opposite way from anything that makes thermodynamic sense. Instead of cooling the modern stations (the ones affected by the growth of cities), the historic stations are cooled. I'm out and about right now; I'll get you the hard data when I get home.
I only happened to run across this entire thread by accident, while I was searching around in attempts to help a dear friend of mine with her again dead MacBook Air. Apparently, there is a major issue with the logic boards failing on these "Air" models, and it appears Apple has not been forthright about the situation.
Perhaps Apple should spend more time focusing on making its products reliable — as they used to be under the management of Stave Jobs — rather than getting involved in areas it, and apparently many others, know absolutely nothing about. ;-)
There's no data suggesting that your Jobs/Cook theory on reliable hardware is correct.
Earth is considered a closed system, so all man made pollutions stay in it. If you have had an aquarium you would know that when you disturb the system it gets very bad quickly. Also there is consensus in the scientific world that humans are the cause for the abnormal lvl of co2 = facts.
Also there is consensus in the scientific world that humans are the cause for the abnormal lvl of co2 = facts.
Regardless of the historic amount of CO2 (guess what? Your chart's wrong), temperatures are decreasing, not increasing, and all the other claimed effects thereof are also not happening. The entire narrative is wrong.
Consensus ≠ fact. Appeals to majority (particularly when the majority doesn't exist in the first place) don't do anything to help an argument.
Comments
0. Vote in local elections
1. Buy a 100% renewable power plan
2. Get an EV or hybrid plugin vehicle
3. Be energy efficient (LEDs, efficient appliances, insulation, etc)
The consumer can make the crazy politics moot. If you have a choice, get a 100% renewables power plan. If you are due for a new vehicle, get an EV or plugin. There are some really good options out there now. They are great to drive and cheaper to own.
Being energy efficient is obvious. For warm weather places where AC usage dominates your power bill, getting LEDs and energy efficient appliances sets up a nice virtuous cycle since less heat from lighting and appliances means less heat for the AC to remove.
As EVs get more popular, it sets up a nice virtuous cycle with grid storage, which would enable more renewable usage, both grid size and residential. In 2017 and beyond, there are some really good EV and plugin hybrid choices. If you care, there aren't any excuses anymore. EVs are better vehicles than gas cars for the vast majority of your driving.
You basically lose nothing, if not have a net gain, while reducing your carbon footprint by 70%. You will do your part in adding renewables demand on utilities and auto companies.
What is wrong with a wall? Who gives a shit about communist China, which has killed 60 million of its own people for disagreeing with the government? “Alternative facts” don’t exist BY THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD. Either something is true or it isn’t. Do you know what the Socratic method is? Do you know what the scientific method is? IF YOUR CLAIM DOESN’T STAND UP TO TESTING, IT’S WRONG. Get over it. Is your complaint about the news regarding your belief that the news is infallible or in regard to your unwillingness to believe anything that goes against your feelings? Obama’s personally responsible for a fair bit of the damage done to the country in the last 8 years. The numbers prove that.
Thanks for admitting that everything I said is correct. You have no argument. You have no evidence. You have no refutation. You have no position of your own. If I’m wrong, prove it. Because the Universe tends toward entropy, and because the laws of thermodynamics state that a system will remain in its current state unless acted on by an outside force, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU–THE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING LOBBY–TO PROVE THAT THE SYSTEM IS CHANGING FROM ITS CURRENT STATE. It’s not on sane people, who know how to parse the field’s data. It’s on the people who say the data isn’t what the data is–and who have been caught changing it to suit their narrative–to prove their claim.
I don’t give a shit about your appeal to (false) authority.
Hi. No one disputed that. Learn how to read posts before you reply to them.
Is this your first day on the job? Serious question. Not even trying to hurt your feelings. Do you just literally know absolutely nothing whatsoever about the topic? Are you seriously just parroting things you’ve heard “authority figures” say without thinking about them or understanding them yourself? Please do answer this question in your next reply so that I know how to approach you from now on. Whether you’re just a hardliner bought and paid by lies or you just don’t know anything; I’m perfectly fine with being amicable with the latter.
“MUH VENUS” is not an argument. In no capacity is it an argument. In fact, it’s more proof of the opposite of what you want to claim. What’s Venus’ atmospheric composition? 96.5% carbon dioxide. What’s Venus’ temperature? 462°C. Okay. Let’s see… What’s Mars’ atmospheric composition? 95.97% carbon dioxide. What’s Mars’ temperature? −63°C HOLY FUCKING SHIT THAT HALF A PERCENT MAKES AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE DOESN’T IT WE’RE KILLING THE EARTH DESTROY ALL YOUR INDUSTRY GO LIVE IN CAVES I SAID SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
“But that’s nonsense,” you say. Except it’s the argument. Actually, it isn’t. It’s smaller. We’re talking about 0.0001 mole fraction CO2. But let’s pretend we’re talking about half a percent of the atmosphere’s composition, like between Venus and Mars. That’s an amazing temperature difference, isn’t it? Wow. All because of that tiny change in CO2. Nothing else. Could not possibly be anything else. Ever. Not a single thing is different between the two planets, except for that CO2.
Oh, wait, Venus is larger. And closer to the Sun. And has vulcanism. AND HAS AN ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE THAT IS 9000 TIMES HIGHER THAN FUCKING MARS. The composition is, in the grand scheme of things, FUCKING IRRELEVANT. Earth would be cold (not as cold) if it was at Mars’ distance. Earth would be hot (not as hot) if it was at Venus’ distance. It’s almost as though THE FUCKING SUN has something to do with the temperature of a planet. Nay, I’ll go a step further. Maybe, just maybe, THE FUCKING SUN has the… greatest… effect on a planet’s temperature. Tin foil territory, I know. But hey, maybe it’s true. And maybe there’s a way to show that empirically, just like maybe there’s a way to empirically show that CO2 INCREASES CAUSED BY HUMAN WHATEVER HAS DONE JACK SHIT in regard to EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF CLAIM MADE by your masters whom you so eagerly parrot.
I don’t know. Maybe. And maybe you should take five seconds to think about a topic before replying to it. Why am I angry? Take a wild fucking guess.
Cry harder, “StrangeDays.” Appeal to authority. Ad hominem. You have no argument. You have no evidence. You have no refutation. You have no position of your own. If I’m wrong, prove it. Because the Universe tends toward entropy, and because the laws of thermodynamics state that a system will remain in its current state unless acted on by an outside force, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU–THE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING LOBBY–TO PROVE THAT THE SYSTEM IS CHANGING FROM ITS CURRENT STATE. It’s not on sane people, who know how to parse the field’s data. It’s on the people who say the data isn’t what the data is–and who have been caught changing it to suit their narrative–to prove their claim.
Your precious authorities–NOAA, NASA, the Department of Agriculture, ET. AL.–say exactly what I am saying. Not what you are saying.
No, it’s the primary party line. If no one here said it, that’s irrelevant to the initial statements, which regard the concept of AGW in the first place (and all associated claims therein).
All disproven. The Earth is cooler than a century ago. The ice caps are not deviating from the last 40 years (lol, that’s such fucking cherrypicking) of measurements. The rate in sea level rise has not changed in over 140 years, and is slower than at any time in the last 11,000 years. If coastal land is being lost, it is not due to the thing you already mentioned and didn’t need to repeat as a separate point. It is due to land subsidence. This has long been proven. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove your beliefs changing the state of things.
Nitrogen, oxygen… none of those do anything, huh? Oh! Quick quiz. Which gas is the THIRD most prevalent in Earth’s atmosphere?
Thanks for asserting something that no one questioned.
That sounds suspiciously like a death threat for telling the truth. Interesting.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/indicators.php
and thats after the change new administrations attempt at silencing anyone who thinks differently to the guys at the top.
Sydney 1901:
Sydney 2017:
La Jolla 1871:
La Jolla 2017:
A conclusion that can’t really be reached given that all recordings show a temperature decrease.
“WAA! IT’S ONLY UNITED STATES TEMPERATURES!” Because there is no other record of meaningful scientific value anywhere. The GHCND set of stations has slowly been closed down… and what’s this! The stations being closed down ARE FAR FROM THE EQUATOR. What does that mean? The average latitude of GHCND stations (This is a link to an auto-downloading compressed file of raw data. Heads up for seeing a file auto-download when you click it; I’m not trying to do anything to your machine) IS FIFTEEN FUCKING DEGREES CLOSER TO THE EQUATOR than it used to be. Do you imagine that might raise temperatures? If you answer no, don’t bother answering in the first place.
So let’s stop this madness, right? What happens when we take data from SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND SOURCES? That is, 1. stations active for a long time and 2. stations that don’t move (meaning keeping the same latitude). We see what I said above. NO. FUCKING. WARMING.
At the very best (for your delusions), you (meaning your own authorities) can say that there has been zero change since modern recordings began. Your bastard king himself, James Hansen, ADMITTED TO THIS.
The AGW crowd doesn’t have a fucking leg to stand on.
Well, it would have to have all been in the first 10 of those years, then, because there has been zero warming in the last 25 years.
Yes, they’re becoming less extreme. What’s more, do you imagine? Not fires.
Not floods.
Not tornados. Five (nearly six now) consecutive years of below average events.
Not hurricanes. Every single indicator shows they’re not only becoming less frequent, but also less powerful.
Not even drought.
So what is it? What’s worse? Tell us. Is it anything at all? Anywhere? At any time? No. Of course, this has been known for a while.
It’s global cooling’s fault, after all! Oh, wait… NOAA wouldn’t want you to hear this now, would they?
Your narrative is predicated on laziness. Your narrative is predicated on people not doing their homework and not comprehending the data they see. Your narrative is predicated on appeals to authority and the expectation that your masters will never lie to you.
That’s the only way it has ever existed.
Uses a source then denigrates information from the same source.
Post pictures of newspaper articles from 33 years ago as supportive evidence.
Good job scientific knowledge hasn't increased or there is better understanding of the science behind changes since then.
You can cherry pick graphs that you believe back up your viewpoint. You can cherry pick statements from sources that appear to back up your viewpoint but when you then attack those who use the same source as falling onto appeals of authority then you just show your hypocrisy and weak style of argument.
No argument much?
“WAAAA APPEAL TO NOVELTY!”
The lack of interim change has been proven.
Can, but didn’t, which is why I linked directly to the FULL DATA SETS. You can plot it all on a spreadsheet yourself, like I did after I first found someone talking about the data from said sources. But you won’t. Because you’re lazy. And your masters said it’s not true, so that’s good enough for you.
Sure thing, kiddo. Enjoy believing that we’re all going to die of heat as you freeze to death.
And let’s not kid ourselves about all this sudden concern from Apple over how the STATE needs to “save us” from the “big bad corporations”. Apple and other computer manufacturers used environmentally toxic chemicals in its products for decades. It wasn’t the STATE which caused Apple and other manufacturers to change their mind — it was pressure from the marketplace to change its ways.
Certainly everyone should be doing their own part to avoid polluting our shared planet. But this "Ice Age / Global Warming / Climate Change" nonsense is not "green" (notice even how the false narrative changes throughout the years).
If politicians REALLY cared about the environment, industrial hemp would have never been made illegal and remained so for the better part of a century. Rather, the STATE gives financial incentives to supposed “green” companies, like for example those that make autos powered by batteries which is definitely NOT green. The only “green” part about such deals cut between corporations and the STATE are the bureaucrats’ wallets being lined with more phony Federal Reserve Notes.
People should consider not being so gullible and recognize the fact that all this “Climate Change” rubbish is yet just another big scam against the People by the largest corrupt corporation of all: the US Federal Government.
— — —
(Since I'm not seeing my follow up post being approved as quickly as my initial post, I'll just post it here...)
WOW! "Tallest Skil" has entirely blown away the weak — and typical — arguments from "Singularity"! 8-)
Thank you "Tallest Skil" for addressing this nonsense with imperial facts. It's amazing how people are so prone to resist facts these days, but very prone to embrace the false narratives of their chosen bogus political ideologies.
I caught an interview a few months ago with Lord Christopher Monckton (http://www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com/home) who stated that the math used in attempts to "prove" "Global Warming / Climate Change" was bogus. For those interested in the truth of this matter, here's a YouTube video where he goes into greater detail:
Global Warming Propaganda Explained - Lord Christopher Monckton 2014 NIPCC Convention
I'm just thankful that there are scientific math geeks willing to spend much effort in studying the false claims of those alarmists who wish to spread fear among the People of the entire planet in order to advance their agenda of control and dominance, exemplifying the pinnacle of greed and lust for power. I'm just not skilled in these areas.
Since my years of being an Apple Macintosh "guru" from the late 80's ~ mid 90's, my experience and study since has primarily centered upon the philosophy of liberty and the principles of natural law (www.NaturalRightsCoalition.com — for anyone who might be interested).
Therefore, my attention toward all such fanciful claims of mankind causing "Climate Change", along with the previous bogus narratives, has mostly to do with recognizing the ongoing agenda of the STATE to usurp our various Natural Rights — which it has been doing in a gradual but steady pace arguably since 1913.
I only happened to run across this entire thread by accident, while I was searching around in attempts to help a dear friend of mine with her again dead MacBook Air. Apparently, there is a major issue with the logic boards failing on these "Air" models, and it appears Apple has not been forthright about the situation.
Perhaps Apple should spend more time focusing on making its products reliable — as it used to do under the management of Stave Jobs — rather than getting involved in areas it, and apparently many others, know absolutely nothing about. ;-)
Thank you "Tallest Skil" for addressing this nonsense with imperial facts. It's amazing how people are so prone to resist facts these days, but very prone to embrace the false narratives of their chosen bogus political ideologies.
I caught an interview a few months ago with Lord Christopher Monckton who stated that the math used in attempts to "prove" "Global Warming / Climate Change" was bogus. For those interested in the truth of this matter, here's a YouTube video where he goes into greater detail:
"Global Warming - A Scare that is Over!"
I'm just thankful that there are scientific math geeks willing to spend much effort in studying the false claims of those alarmists who wish to spread fear among the People of the entire planet in order to advance their agenda of control and dominance, exemplifying the pinnacle of greed and lust for power. Because I'm not skilled in these areas. Since my years of being an Apple Macintosh "guru" from the late 80's ~ mid 90's, my experience and study since has primarily centered upon the philosophy of liberty and the principles of natural law (www.NaturalRightsCoalition.com — for anyone who might be interested).
Therefore, my attention toward all such fanciful claims of mankind causing "Climate Change", along with the previous bogus narratives, has mostly to do with recognizing the ongoing agenda of the STATE to usurp our various Natural Rights — which it has been doing in a gradual but steady pace arguably since 1913.
I only happened to run across this entire thread by accident, while I was searching around in attempts to help a dear friend of mine with her again dead MacBook Air. Apparently, there is a major issue with the logic boards failing on these "Air" models, and it appears Apple has not been forthright about the situation.
Perhaps Apple should spend more time focusing on making its products reliable — as they used to be under the management of Stave Jobs — rather than getting involved in areas it, and apparently many others, know absolutely nothing about. ;-)
NASA
CO2 is not pollution.
Regardless of the historic amount of CO2 (guess what? Your chart's wrong), temperatures are decreasing, not increasing, and all the other claimed effects thereof are also not happening. The entire narrative is wrong.
Consensus ≠ fact. Appeals to majority (particularly when the majority doesn't exist in the first place) don't do anything to help an argument.