Jump to content


NASA Confirms


  • Please log in to reply
543 replies to this topic

stalkervision #81 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 00:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 68509 battles
  • 9,682
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

If you want to get the real poop from the horses mouth on this topic look up a PBS tv show on how Exxon fudged all kinds of reporting on global warming figures it discovered while doing basic geological research into oil deposites. 

Sort of like the Tobacco companies did on lung disease and their products.


Edited by stalkervision, Jul 04 2019 - 00:30.


TheManFromKekistan #82 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 00:45

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 28 battles
  • 3,134
  • Member since:
    02-03-2017

View Poststalkervision, on Jul 03 2019 - 18:28, said:

If you want to get the real poop from the horses mouth on this topic look up a PBS tv show on how Exxon fudged all kinds of reporting on global warming figures it discovered while doing basic geological research into oil deposites. 

Sort of like the Tobacco companies did on lung disease and their products.

 

Oh the 2015 nyc court case that went nowhere off the premise that the faulty science exxon did in the 70's was ignored in the 2010's because it was you know, faulty? That horses mouth? I can only assume you are trolling at this point. :P



stalkervision #83 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 00:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 68509 battles
  • 9,682
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
No but thanks for playing.:P

TheManFromKekistan #84 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 00:54

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 28 battles
  • 3,134
  • Member since:
    02-03-2017

View Poststalkervision, on Jul 03 2019 - 18:53, said:

No but thanks for playing.:P

 

 

:trollface:



stalkervision #85 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 68509 battles
  • 9,682
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
The majority of the scientific community except for the industrial funded cherry pickers agree with me and so did Exxon in it's original long term studies till they decided these weren't good for it's bottom line.  You should really stop watching so much Fox news.

stalkervision #86 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 68509 battles
  • 9,682
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
Now do you want to argue the case that smoking is actually good for you as the Tobacco companies did before their own research showed how dishonest they actually were being?

cKy_ #87 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:17

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 4504 battles
  • 2,292
  • [PUBBY] PUBBY
  • Member since:
    09-29-2018


TheManFromKekistan #88 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:21

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 28 battles
  • 3,134
  • Member since:
    02-03-2017

View Poststalkervision, on Jul 03 2019 - 19:08, said:

The majority of the scientific community except for the industrial funded cherry pickers agree with me and so did Exxon in it's original long term studies till they decided these weren't good for it's bottom line.  You should really stop watching so much Fox news.

 

Ok. Link them or some form of proof past some forum text. As to cable media I unplugged long long ago. Cnn or fox its all bullcrap and agenda driven narratives with little to do with reality and everything to do with pandering to base emotion to get you to keep tuning in for your next dose of doom n gloom. :rolleyes:

 

View Poststalkervision, on Jul 03 2019 - 19:11, said:

Now do you want to argue the case that smoking is actually good for you as the Tobacco companies did before their own research showed how dishonest they actually were being?

 

What does this have to do with the topic?

 

View PostcKy_, on Jul 03 2019 - 19:17, said:

 

A random youtube blogger is now valid scientific proof. Oh dear you gaiz.. :trollface:

 

 

 

 

 



cKy_ #89 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:24

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 4504 battles
  • 2,292
  • [PUBBY] PUBBY
  • Member since:
    09-29-2018

View PostTheManFromKekistan, on Jul 04 2019 - 12:21, said:

A random youtube blogger is now valid scientific proof. Oh dear you gaiz.. :trollface:

 

 

I'm trying to provide scientific proof am I? I didn't realise that, my bad. Totally not just laughing at your kind



stalkervision #90 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 68509 battles
  • 9,682
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostcKy_, on Jul 03 2019 - 19:17, said:

I bet climate change deniers are Flat Earthers also and we would have as much success convincing them otherwise as we do in this subject.:D



TheManFromKekistan #91 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:31

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 28 battles
  • 3,134
  • Member since:
    02-03-2017

View PostcKy_, on Jul 03 2019 - 19:24, said:

 

I'm trying to provide scientific proof am I? I didn't realise that, my bad. Totally not just laughing at your kind

 

So you are trolling too then.. :rolleyes:

 

I don't really get your line of argument. No one here is denying climate change or that it will become catastrophic in the coming decades and centuries. The problem is that the solution that the media based political and scientific types are proposing would be diametrically opposed to the solutions we actually need to pursue. It's almost like they want the world to not only be unprepared but to take active measures that would guarantee massive global depopulation by decimating our industrial and power generation base. :confused:



cKy_ #92 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:36

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 4504 battles
  • 2,292
  • [PUBBY] PUBBY
  • Member since:
    09-29-2018

View PostTheManFromKekistan, on Jul 04 2019 - 12:31, said:

 

So you are trolling too then.. :rolleyes:

 

 

I'm glad you finally figured it out. I could practically see the black smoke pouring out your ears as you tried to figure that one out



stalkervision #93 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 68509 battles
  • 9,682
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostTheManFromKekistan, on Jul 03 2019 - 19:31, said:

 

So you are trolling too then.. :rolleyes:

 

I don't really get your line of argument. No one here is denying climate change or that it will become catastrophic in the coming decades and centuries. The problem is that the solution that the media based political and scientific types are proposing would be diametrically opposed to the solutions we actually need to pursue. It's almost like they want the world to not only be unprepared but to take active measures that would guarantee massive global depopulation by decimating our industrial and power generation base. :confused:

Yes man made emissions and pollution have no real and substantive affect on the environment negatively speaking and we should just ignore this and in fact pollute More as this opposite behavior will make us all a lot healthier !  Bring back leaded fuels ! They are good for the environment and good for you !



TheManFromKekistan #94 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:43

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 28 battles
  • 3,134
  • Member since:
    02-03-2017

View PostcKy_, on Jul 03 2019 - 19:36, said:

 

I'm glad you finally figured it out. I could practically see the black smoke pouring out your ears as you tried to figure that one out

 

Ok.

 

View Poststalkervision, on Jul 03 2019 - 19:38, said:

Yes man made emissions and pollution have no real and substantive affect on the environment negatively speaking and we should just ignore this and in fact pollute More as this opposite behavior will make us all a lot healthier !  Bring back leaded fuels ! They are good for the environment and good for you !

 

Then go yell at china and africa and india as they are the primary global polluters on every level. America contributes about 1% of the global pollution those three countries pour into our air and seas. Show me the last sat photo that showed the entire mainland of america under a completely impenetrable blanket of thick toxic smog. 



stalkervision #95 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 68509 battles
  • 9,682
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
You do know that solar generation of electricity tech has made massive leaps in tech as has wind generation oh and so has fusion tech? Cogeneration tech also as has battery storage systems. 

cKy_ #96 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:44

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 4504 battles
  • 2,292
  • [PUBBY] PUBBY
  • Member since:
    09-29-2018

View PostTheManFromKekistan, on Jul 04 2019 - 12:43, said:

Then go yell at china and africa and india as they are the primary global polluters on every level. America contributes about 1% of the global pollution those three countries pour into our air and seas. Show me the last sat photo that showed the entire mainland of america under a completely impenetrable blanket of thick toxic smog. 

 

That's the attitude!



stalkervision #97 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 68509 battles
  • 9,682
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
As I recall we got out of that treaty as we did the Iran nuclear containment one. Therefore we have only ourself to blame.

Edited by stalkervision, Jul 04 2019 - 01:48.


stalkervision #98 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 01:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 68509 battles
  • 9,682
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
He never saw LA or NYC or numorous other American cities covered in similar pollution.

TheManFromKekistan #99 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 02:00

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 28 battles
  • 3,134
  • Member since:
    02-03-2017

View Poststalkervision, on Jul 03 2019 - 19:43, said:

You do know that solar generation of electricity tech has made massive leaps in tech as has wind generation oh and so has fusion tech? Cogeneration tech also as has battery storage systems. 

 

Sure and gen 4 molten salt thorium reactors are right around the corner which means goodbye fossil fuel needs as those types of reactors can use both the 100,000 years worth of thorium we have sitting around doing nothing as its considered a waste product of rare earth mining or the better option is to build a huge set of plants on top of the uranium waste sites as it can use that as fuel too. A bonus to using uranium waste as fuel is that it consumes the waste almost completely in the reaction and the new waste product has a half life of only a few hundred years instead of tens of thousands and is far far far less toxic.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/12/powering-the-future-with-no-compromises/

 

 

 

View PostcKy_, on Jul 03 2019 - 19:44, said:

 

That's the attitude!

 

[edited] off. :rolleyes:

 

View Poststalkervision, on Jul 03 2019 - 19:47, said:

As I recall we got out of that treaty as we did the Iran nuclear containment one. Therefore we have only ourself to blame.

 

The paris accords were not ratified by congress and were invalid. Also it did nothing to actually combat the pollution those nations put out. The terms of the accord basically allowed the big three polluters to not only keep polluting but increase their pollution levels whist america which has no global pollution issues must further cut back on fossil fuel use and pay a huge carbon tax in the trillions to subsidize the expansion of said big three polluters. In what alternate reality was that a good deal for america? 

 

View Poststalkervision, on Jul 03 2019 - 19:50, said:

He never saw LA or NYC or numorous other American cities covered in similar pollution.

 

Yeah in the 70's and early 80's with the occasional weather induced ozone alert nowadays. When was the last time any american city had endemic smog? Can you post some pictures of those american residents walking around in thick smog and breath masks like happens most days in china?



Klaatu_Nicto #100 Posted Jul 04 2019 - 03:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,750
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on Jul 03 2019 - 11:17, said:

No Experimental Evidence For The Significant Anthropongenic Climate Change

In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC reportAR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution  of  the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity.  In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

 

Spotty coverage: Climate models underestimate cooling effect of daily cloud cycle

Princeton University researchers have found that the climate models scientists use to project future conditions on our planet underestimate the cooling effect that clouds have on a daily — and even hourly — basis, particularly over land.

https://www.princeto...ily-cloud-cycle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users