Climate Change (Global Warming) 🥶🌍🌞

Dox said:
This ^^^ means absolutely fuck all without knowing ;

A. How were the 'randomised' 3000 papers chosen?
B. What keywords or keyword chains were used in their algorithm to come to their conclusions?
C. What context were those keywords actually employed within the papers?

'Man made global warming is real' as a keyword chain would find the desired result for the authors.

But what if the context was 'man made global warming is real is the claim of a deluded bunch of knob-ends and paid for shills'?
Click to expand...

Wow. Just fucking Wow.

How were randomised papers chosen - Err randomly bud .. WTF else does "randomised" mean?
What keywords? The keywords they state clearly in their methodology - read the bloody thing.
How were keywords employed? Again, as they state in the paper, to identify skeptical papers.

Is it really too much to ask that people read something before asking me to explain it to them?? Frankly I don't have the time.
 
Noobie said:
Given humans have only been on earth for 300,000 years, who recorded the other 470 million years? Them scientists are great at producing "models", "Projections" and data no one was here to collect
Click to expand...

WATCH THE VIDEO. IT IS NOT BASED ON MODELS BUT ON PARTICULAR FOSSILS THAT TRAP ATMOSPHERIC GASSES OF THEIR TIME.

The process by which they do that is described in the video - WATCH THE VIDEO.
 
Everclear said:
Wow. Just fucking Wow.
Click to expand...

You're right to be impressed.

Everclear said:
How were randomised papers chosen - Err randomly bud .. WTF else does "randomised" mean?
Click to expand...

You'll notice I put ' ' around randomised to signify my scepticism arounf how random they really were.

Everclear said:
What keywords? The keywords they state clearly in their methodology - read the bloody thing.
Click to expand...

I have and can't find them - please point me to them. There is an excel file with hundreds of bizarre (in the context of the study) words which I can't see as being the ones used.

Everclear said:
How were keywords employed? Again, as they state in the paper, to identify skeptical papers.
Click to expand...

But as I said, can the algorithm identfy context?

They claim to have checked 28 papers to see if their method stacked up, but don't offer any papers for us to check. It is clear that people with different biases can read the same material and draw different conclusions from it.

Everclear said:
Is it really too much to ask that people read something before asking me to explain it to them?? Frankly I don't have the time.
Click to expand...
 
1697735946253.webp
 
Everclear said:
WATCH THE VIDEO. IT IS NOT BASED ON MODELS BUT ON PARTICULAR FOSSILS THAT TRAP ATMOSPHERIC GASSES OF THEIR TIME.

The process by which they do that is described in the video - WATCH THE VIDEO.
Click to expand...

I did and it made it incredibly clear that much of the release and melt happened many times before humans existed.

So I'll ask you again, If the planet has been through freeze and heat several times in the last 5.5 million years and humans have only been on the planet for the last 300,000 years, how can climate change be man made if it happened several times before humanity began ?
 
Noobie said:
I did and it made it incredibly clear that much of the release and melt happened many times before humans existed.

So I'll ask you again, If the planet has been through freeze and heat several times in the last 5.5 million years and humans have only been on the planet for the last 300,000 years, how can climate change be man made if it happened several times before humanity began ?
Click to expand...

That is clearly explained at some length in the video. The causes and speed of "natural" climate change (which can include the emergence of new factors eg' the advent of plants) is analysed for at least the first half of the vid. Then the focus is put on the last 150 years in which the rapid rise in global temperature is looked at and it is highlighted how the compressed timeframe is not a "natural" feature of climate. So it is made clear that the previous rises and falls in global temperature took thousands of years, whereas presently the spike in temperature does not match that pattern.

The guy narrating the video puts it much better than me - he knows the science and explains matters clearly.

Why you would ask that question is puzzling. the answer is made crystal clear by objectively taking all the info of the video in. If you don't do that because it doesn't fit your prejudices that is a matter for you.
 
☀️






Initial Membersof theCO2Coalition

BELL, Larry: Launched the research and education program in space architecture at the University of Houston; author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax.

COHEN, Roger: PhD in physics, Rutgers University; Fellow of the American Physical Society; former Senior Scientist, ExxonMobil.

EVERETT, Bruce: Faculty, Tufts University’s Fletcher School; over forty years of experience in the international energy industry.

HAPPER, William: Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus), Princeton University; former Director, Office of Energy Research; Director of Research, U.S. Department of Energy; Member, National Academy of Sciences.

HARTNETT-WHITE, Kathleen: Distinguished Senior Fellow in Residence and the Director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment (CEE) at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

IDSO, Craig: Founder and Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; Member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society.

LINDZEN, Richard: Emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology; Member, National Academy of Sciences; author of numerous papers on climate and meteorology.

MICHAELS, Pat: Director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute; a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists; former Virginia state climatologist; program chair, Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society.

MILLS, Mark: Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Chief Executive Officer, Digital Power Group, a tech-centric capital advisory group; Faculty Fellow, McCormickSchool of Engineering and Applied Science, Northwestern University.

MOORE, Patrick: Co-founder, Chair, and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit Strategies, a Vancouver-based consulting firm on environmental and sustainability issues; founding member of Greenpeace (nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a director of Greenpeace International).

NICHOLS, Rodney: Former President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Academy of Sciences; Scholar-in-Residence at the Carnegie Corporation of New York; Executive Vice President of The Rockefeller University; R&D Manager, Office of the Secretary of Defense.

O’KEEFE, William: Chief Executive Officer of the George C. Marshall Institute; founder of Solutions; Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, American Petroleum Institute; Chief Administrative Officer of the Center for Naval Analyses.

ROGERS, Norman: Founder of Rabbit Semiconductor Company; Policy Advisor to The Heartland Institute; member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

SCHMITT, Harrison: PhD in Geology from Harvard University; Astronaut and last man to walk the moon (Apollo 17); Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; former U.S. Senator from New Mexico.

SPENCER, Roy: Climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville; served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center; Co-Developer of satellite temperature measurement system.

STEWARD, Leighton: Geologist; Environmentalist; Author; Chairman of Plants Need CO2.org; Chairman of the Board of The Institute for the Study of Earth and Man at SMU; past Chairman of the National Wetlands Coalition; twice Chairman of the Audubon Nature Institute.YAPPS-

COHEN, Lorraine: M.S. in chemistry and an M.B.A. in marketing; former Communications & Marketing Manager, ExxonMobil; columnist for the Examiner newspapers
 
Last edited:
Everclear said:
That is clearly explained at some length in the video. The causes and speed of "natural" climate change (which can include the emergence of new factors eg' the advent of plants) is analysed for at least the first half of the vid. Then the focus is put on the last 150 years in which the rapid rise in global temperature is looked at and it is highlighted how the compressed timeframe is not a "natural" feature of climate. So it is made clear that the previous rises and falls in global temperature took thousands of years, whereas presently the spike in temperature does not match that pattern.

The guy narrating the video puts it much better than me - he knows the science and explains matters clearly.

Why you would ask that question is puzzling. the answer is made crystal clear by objectively taking all the info of the video in. If you don't do that because it doesn't fit your prejudices that is a matter for you.
Click to expand...

I could give you a spade to keep digging that hole you're in if you wish.

The causes and speed of "natural" climate change
Click to expand...

Most who are open minded understand the theory of a living planet going through it's own natural cycles. Science supports this

Your suggestion however is that natural cycles of the earth of some 5.3 million years, stopped in the last 150 in exchange for man made climate change, that is complete and utter bolloxs

That's like having a cake, putting the icing on, then claiming the cake underneath doesn't exist. You silly sausage.

Humanity may have their hand on the speed of the change but it's impact is miniscule and scientists whose very income relies on saying the loch ness monster exists are being seen as the new saviours.

A key hint here with the level of fraud involved, why are they asking on the rich countries to change the climate? Because the poor countries have fek all money to trick into paying out for something which is a normal event.

The planet is a living breathing thing with it's own cycles, ignoring that is where your problems start.
 
Last edited:
Noobie said:
Humanity may have their hand on the speed of the change but it's impact is miniscule and scientists whose very income relies on saying the loch ness monster exists are being seen as the new saviours.
Click to expand...

So all science is corrupt? Well then we're all fucked as we have to ditch all scientific knowledge across every field of science.

Humanity's impact is miniscule? Oh shit sorry I didn't know you had a PhD and a track record of research in this area :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

You should watch the vid I posted in the Conspiracy theory thread as you match the description perfectly. You have a baseless prejudice that you desperately want confirmed. You want laymen level simple answers, not complicated science that you can't understand.

Simply put, what you have to say is irrelevant.
 
Everclear said:
So all science is corrupt? Well then we're all fucked as we have to ditch all scientific knowledge across every field of science.
Click to expand...

The Sciences are like charities. , both give employment, both are run as business's and the last thing either of them want is for everything to be okay, so from a company point of view "suggestion" is a useful tool such as maybe, could be, projections etc etc.

Now if you struggle with that then everything I say from this point may confuse you, but hey, I have 5 minutes :p

Everclear said:
Simply put, what you have to say is irrelevant. You have a baseless prejudice that you desperately want confirmed.
Click to expand...

Having said I feel climate change is real, where is the predjudice?

Your claim it's man made is based on no science and you care so much about it, why do you keep buying vehicles. you don't even believe your own shit

You claim science proves climate change is man made despite being unable to explain why the planet has been around for millions of years and humans only 300,000 years. Science shows the planet has had several ice ages and extreme heat cycles in it's lifespan. How can that have happened with no humans.

Whilst I enjoy the sillyness you often offer, it is sllyness never the less.
 
Noobie said:
The Sciences are like charities. , both give employment, both are run as business's and the last thing either of them want is for everything to be okay, so from a company point of view "suggestion" is a useful tool such as maybe, could be, projections etc etc.

Now if you struggle with that then everything I say from this point may confuse you, but hey, I have 5 minutes :p



Having said I feel climate change is real, where is the predjudice?

Your claim it's man made is based on no science and you care so much about it, why do you keep buying vehicles. you don't even believe your own shit

You claim science proves climate change is man made despite being unable to explain why the planet has been around for millions of years and humans only 300,000 years. Science shows the planet has had several ice ages and extreme heat cycles in it's lifespan. How can that have happened with no humans.

Whilst I enjoy the sillyness you often offer, it is sllyness never the less.
Click to expand...

This is just dribble. The vid answers and rebuts you. End of story.
 
Everclear said:
This is just dribble. The vid answers and rebuts you. End of story.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what video you are talking about…but does it mention anything about where temperature records are now taken from? Having been relocated to places such as in proximity to active volcanos; airport runways; city centres filled with glass cladded skyscrapers?

In other words, places that don’t represent the vast majority of the planet.

My guess is, that that isn’t mentioned.
 
Dox said:
You’ve watched it, can’t you answer the question?

I’ve seen enough globalist propaganda thanks.
Click to expand...

Fuck off, watch it yourself.

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW IT IS "GLOBALIST PROPAGANDA" IF YOU WON'T WATCH IT???????????????

Obviously you live in a tiny little echo chamber where only "information" that supports your prejudices is allowed in.

That is the definition of an incredibly insular ignorant mind.

you-cant-fix.gif
 
Everclear said:
Fuck off, watch it yourself.

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW IT IS "GLOBALIST PROPAGANDA" IF YOU WON'T WATCH IT???????????????

Obviously you live in a tiny little echo chamber where only "information" that supports your prejudices is allowed in.

That is the definition of an incredibly insular ignorant mind.

View attachment 88268
Click to expand...

How do I know?

Because you posted it.

If you can’t answer the question just say so 🤣
 
Barry Hell said:
www.alilybit.com

The Connection Between Covid-19 and Climate Change

Behind nearly every WEF climate and pandemic proposal is a technocratic solution facilitating the unelected globalists’ Great Reset Agenda.
www.alilybit.com www.alilybit.com
Click to expand...
Dox said:
Very good article
Click to expand...

So a conspiracy theory article by a person with the qualifications of "Former Air Force pilot and intelligence agent. I have always defended this nation - and still do!" carries weight?

Jesus, start quoting Letters to the Editor from Joe Bloggs of Manchester as having credibility 🤣🤣🤣
 
Everclear said:
So a conspiracy theory article by a person with the qualifications of "Former Air Force pilot and intelligence agent. I have always defended this nation - and still do!" carries weight?

Jesus, start quoting Letters to the Editor from Joe Bloggs of Manchester as having credibility 🤣🤣🤣
Click to expand...

As always....'try' to discredit the author or source...it's so much easier than trying to disprove the evidence.

It's not difficult to work out your MO in your job.
 
Dox said:
As always....'try' to discredit the author or source...it's so much easier than trying to disprove the evidence.

It's not difficult to work out your MO in your job.
Click to expand...

I don't have to "try and discredit" the source. The Source is a nobody with no qualifications.

Yet you sheep follow the bullshit of a NOBODY because it fits in with your baseless preconceptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom