The Green Room

Status
Not open for further replies.
...So ok .. What issue is settled? If you are referring to Climate change.. I thought science was never settled and it is certainly not.. and it is not even close to proven... again follow the money.. he who pays will get the results they are looking for.. its all subjective.. and they nit pick what they find and hide the stuff they dont agree with.. Its the way man works
The religion of scientism. They will call "Climate Change Denier". So you say "but I think climate always changes". That brings rage. It also brings a change of the charge against you.
Now you are guilty of not acknowledging Anthropogenic Climate Change. So you might say that of course, we cannot be without effect. That isn't good enough. The charge will change again.
It all comes down to if you do not immediately agree with whatever the kook says, you are guilty.
 
I'm interested in whether or not any one of the climate change enthusiasts have ever questioned or contradicted what another co-believer here said on the subject. Can any of them point to an instance?
 
I remember being in junior high school in the early 1970’s. I had a friend who did a oral report on global cooling. The science was there we were heading towards another ice age. I always wondered what happened to that theory? I finally found an article that said those scientists that said the earth was cooling off in the 1970’s didn’t know what they were talking about, they were fringe scientist. Is that how the current global warming theory will be looked at 40 years from now?
 
I remember being in junior high school in the early 1970’s. I had a friend who did a oral report on global cooling. The science was there we were heading towards another ice age. I always wondered what happened to that theory? I finally found an article that said those scientists that said the earth was cooling off in the 1970’s didn’t know what they were talking about, they were fringe scientist. Is that how the current global warming theory will be looked at 40 years from now?
Did pretty much every climate scientist say that in the early 70's?
 

Gordon, observe how dishonest your source is.

The "father" of global warming alarmism was previously a global cooling alarmist. He was a science advisor to Presidents. He was later Editor in the top climate journal. He popularized the term "climate change denier" and advocated that everyone call skeptics that kind of name. He was a huge figure in the IPCC coercion force while also maintaining that he hated the divisiveness and attacks and always tried to reduce that aspect. :) They get away with the most absurd lies due to protection by the big money press. The late Stephen Schneider.

wiki:
"Stephen Henry Schneider
(February 11, 1945 – July 19, 2010)[1] was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Schneider served as a consultant to federal agencies and White House staff in the Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.
0
Schneider's research included modeling of the atmosphere, climate change, and the effect of global climate change on biological systems. Schneider was the founder and editor of the journal Climatic Change and authored or co-authored over 450 scientific papers and other publications. He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report and was engaged as a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) at the time of his death. During the 1980s, Schneider emerged as a leading public advocate of sharp reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. In 2006 Professor Schneider was an Adelaide Thinker in Residence advising the South Australian Government of Premier Mike Rann on climate change and renewable energy policies.[2] In ten years South Australia went from zero to 31% of its electricity generation coming from renewables.

An annual award for outstanding climate science communication was created in Schneider's honor after his death, by the Commonwealth Club of California.[3] The Stephen Schneider Memorial Lecture of the American Geophysical Union honors Schneider's life and work.[4]

Early work
Schneider grew up on Long Island, New York. He studied engineering at Columbia University, receiving his bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering in 1966. In 1971, he earned a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and plasma physics.[5] Schneider studied the role of greenhouse gases and suspended particulate material on climate as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Schneider was awarded the Marshall Scholarship.

In 1971, Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. Ichtiaque Rasool titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138–141). This paper used a one-dimensional radiative transfer model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded that:


t is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °K. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.[6]
 
Last edited:
The mash has truffles.
New Years is the time for gluttony in Japan …

Egg Custard with Foie Gras & Black Truffle topping:
BFC205B1-7C17-4149-BA23-99D1E80451EC.jpeg

Japanese Spiny Lobster with white miso:
B8716676-D6C2-4016-BDB8-A1D152B48BCE.jpeg


Traditional Japanese New Year’s Day 1st meal - mochi and chicken balls in homemade dashi :
281E63AD-25CD-47C0-A5F2-E307969C445F.jpeg
 
Look at how the article from Scientific American is just a political lie, whole cloth.

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be​

Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science

Just "NO". It is simply an absurd political lie in a top science magazine.

"Schneider studied the role of greenhouse gases and suspended particulate material on climate as a postdoctoral fellow at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Schneider was awarded the Marshall Scholarship.

In 1971, Schneider was second author on a Science paper with S. Ichtiaque Rasool titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" (Science 173, 138–141). This paper used a one-dimensional radiative transfer model to examine the competing effects of cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. The paper concluded that:


It is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °K. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.[6]
 
The other problem I have with climate change is how long have humans had the ability to accurately track the weather? 150 years? Yes there is written history but it’s somewhat anecdotal since accurate tracking of the weather wasn’t done. I have always agreed man is a selfish species and is not having a positive affect on the earth, I just don’t buy into the specific ideas of global warming/climate change although it’s certainly possible.
 
The subject of how a believer can ever break from the cult is fascinating. Is being shown that he is a believer of lies promulgated by his most respected sources, enough?
I think the answer to that question is a resounding "No". Even admitting one instance is tough going for believers, when the evidence of being lied to is in the face.
 
The other problem I have with climate change is how long have humans had the ability to accurately track the weather? 150 years? Yes there is written history but it’s somewhat anecdotal since accurate tracking of the weather wasn’t done. I have always agreed man is a selfish species and is not having a positive affect on the earth, I just don’t buy into the specific ideas of global warming/climate change although it’s certainly possible.
Constant re-jigging of the record and subsequent losing of the past is the main problem. Look what happened to "The Pause"of warming. They "disappeared" it by re-jigging the record. Done by the guy who warned that they were coming to a gunfight with a knife. So as an official he used a bazooka on the record because a year of flurrying different excuses in dozens of papers, wasn't working.
"bazooka isn't a good fit for the implement or method used. He used the bazooka on the opposition. What he used on the temperature record was a jack to tilt the past playing field to remove the decade and a half flat spot where nothing was happening.
It was the 1 in 20 odds of being wrong in their estimate of warming which was fast approaching and needed quick remedy, so he acted by rejigging the record after so many papers failed to correct the look of failure.
They had tried rejigging estimates of aerosols behavior, they had said the heat was going deep into the ocean instead of atmosphere, cloud behavior changes, they had every team member wiggle and jiggle for a year, no luck.
So "fix the record" time it was.
The boss of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
fixed it for them. You don't have to sneakily raise the present temp where everyone can see what you did in times of modern measuring and recording devices, when you can simply lower some of the past. Raising the present would have had an unwanted rebound effect as well. You'd have to keep cheating the record every year for a while to avoid having a flat spot.
 
Last edited:
Climate change is more than just possible…the massive amount of evidence says its real and existential. Some of this evidence which goes back millions of years is contained in analyzing bore hole cores (Greenland) where actual samples of ancient air samples are contained within the ice samples accurately dated to the seasons. And written records go back much further for example Japanese records of a massive ghost tsunami around 1700 AD which it turns out came from an earthquake in the Pacific Northwest. Note that PBS had a Nova-type show ‘Earth Emergency’ (WED NITE) which examined the current climate situation including certain feedback loops.
The evidence is everywhere
 
My knowledge and experience in climate change is absolutely anecdotal.
In living in the same location for 61 of my 65 years I have observed that my local climate has changed.
It became somewhat noticeable approx 10 years ago, and in the last 5 years rather obvious.
2021 especially punctuated the increase in high and low temperatures here in the lower mainland and in B.C. in general.
After a summer of extreme (for this area) heat and lack of moisture, we are now in a rarely seen streak of sub zero temps.
It's been abnormal to say the least for a habitually temperate zone.
I suspect/observe that this is a new normal.
 
I am a land surveyor and took a class on testifying in court as an expert witness. The teacher said to never admit you guessed something, you estimated it instead. Let me tell you, when they are looking at data from millions of years ago, they are estimating the data to get results, in other words guessing. When I see something like the temperature is 1.37 degrees warmer than it was 500 years ago, how exactly do they know that?

It’s important to understand how things like climate change is determined. If I put 3 penny’s on a table and ask how many there are, the answer is definite. People are taking a bunch of data and getting an answer that is not black and white. My big problem when reading about climate change is they never use words like “might”, “maybe”, or”could be”. It doesn’t help the climate change in now a political pawn now.
 
Climate change is more than just possible…the massive amount of evidence says its real and existential. Some of this evidence which goes back millions of years
Absolutely. But what liars can do with evidence is a different subject, is it not?
Here we have a prime example of what I alluded to earlier... the claims against "climate deniers" always changes when skeptics are obviously agreeing that climate change always occurs. The charges are then of "but they deny anthropogenic climate change". And if that is agreed with, then...
 
I accept that the Earth’s atmosphere is in a constant state of flux, and probably man’s activities have had significant nega impact on climate since the industrial revolution. It’s just that there’s nothing I can really do as an individual. Perhaps nothing can be done collectively either. Maybe it’s part of the grand design. We just have to adapt.

In the meantime I’m now marveling at the progress in beef production here in Japan. There are some positive trends in the world these days. Just look at this marbling, 10 years ago it would’ve been impossible to raise cattle like this…

7A048C7F-9758-42E7-BD27-E5143EADCD2E.jpeg


Ah, the tie back to Green - one less methane farting cow in Kobe to spoil the atmosphere.
 
It will be interesting to see if any believer can admit that the Scientific American article is a complete lie.
 
I accept that the Earth’s atmosphere is in a constant state of flux, and probably man’s activities have had significant nega impact on climate since the industrial revolution. It’s just that there’s nothing I can really do as an individual. Perhaps nothing can be done collectively either. Maybe it’s part of the grand design. We just have to adapt.

In the meantime I’m now marveling at the progress in beef production here in Japan. There are some positive trends in the world these days. Just look at this marbling, 10 years ago it would’ve been impossible to raise cattle like this…

View attachment 110730

Ah, the tie back to Green - one less methane farting cow in Kobe to spoil the atmosphere.
I think it's a bit cheaper to buy a tub of lard. That beef looks delicious though.
 
Did pretty much every climate scientist say that in the early 70's?
Mostly only the ones that worked for big oil. The whole global cooling thing was (and still is ) just another con based on the idea that ice ages came and went on a regular schedule and we were overdue.

Much like the cigarette companies saying " We don't know if smoking is harmfull" . Both big oil and big tobacco had scientists that knew the basics of the harm to follow since the fifties.

Today's big pharmaceutical companies seemto be following the same playbook.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back