Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The TRUTH about climate change

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rupikhalon001
    replied
    ^ sure...... don't wanna upset anybody and risk losing the $1 Billion subsidy they get.

    Leave a comment:


  • noodle
    replied
    https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/visio...-and-practices

    We take care to understand properly and reflect the true implications of medical or scientific study results that we obtain, especially those involving statistical data.
    And that explains why the CBC doesn't devote time to science-deniers & conspiracy theorists.

    Leave a comment:


  • noodle
    replied
    Yeah, Trump supporters sure have some ridiculous ideas.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrOilers
    replied
    Still laughing at the crazy idea of eating babies to fight climate change. Ha ha.

    Leave a comment:


  • noodle
    replied
    Research scientists benefiting from research funding? SO CONTROVERSIAL!

    Leave a comment:


  • MrCombust
    replied
    The TRUTH. Percentage of scientists who have financially benefited from "climate change" funding

    involved in the "fact check" post below............ 100%

    Let's look at the first guy....... Timothy Osborne.............

    Climategate e-mail sent to Timothy Osborne. Looks like Timothy Osborne was one of the original "hide the decline" guys. Remember the graph Michael Mann wouldn't defend in court and lost to Tim Ball? Timothy Osborne knows all about it.

    LOL

    From: Phil Jones <p.jones…>
    To: ray bradley <rbradley…>,mann… [Michael E. Mann], mhughes… [Malcolm Hughes]
    Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa… [Keith Briffa],t.osborn… [Timothy J. Osborn]

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil
    Last edited by MrCombust; 04-10-2019, 01:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • noodle
    replied
    The CBC doesn't typically trade in illogical conspiracy theories.

    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...imate-science/

    REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK

    These comments are the overall assessment of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article.
    Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit:
    This statement is unscientific. It ignores well-established understanding of climate and of what causes the climate to change. It makes cherry-picked statements, such as noting that some vegetation grows more with increased CO2 while ignoring the risks of serious damage arising from the climate change that is being caused by the same increase in CO2. The authors of the statement appear to be very unfamiliar with climate science: for example, they do not know that the amount of global warming we have observed is very close to the amount predicted by climate models.
    Twila Moon, Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder:
    The letter contains direct lies and cherry picks information about carbon dioxide and climate change impacts that are designed to mislead. I am also concerned that many of those who have signed the letter are well known climate deniers and are not actively involved in direct research on climate change and its impacts.
    Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:
    The text is a masterpiece: next to the political opinions expressed, every single sentence is either wrong, insignificant or irrelevant for the question whether climate change is a serious problem for humanity. Given how old the “arguments” are, the authors are clearly not aiming to convince scientists and thus making science more political, while disingenuously claiming to be against that.
    Amber Kerr, Researcher, Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of California, Davis:
    Each of the six claims has some element of truth to it (e.g. there is not much evidence that global warming is already making hurricanes more frequent). However, all six claims are presented in a biased and misleading way, giving the incorrect impression that anthropogenic climate change is a benign or beneficial force overall, whereas scientists and economists have repeatedly concluded that climate change is a massive and urgent problem.
    Giorgio Vacchiano, Assistant Professor, Università di Milano:
    The scientific content is completely inaccurate, undocumented, and fails to bring proof for its claims. The ending of the Little Ice Age in 1850 has no logical link with the fact that the Earth is warming now. Most past climate variations have been slower or less intense as the present one, and if they were as fast or severe they brought about mass extinctions in the biosphere. No explanation or proof is brought on the implausibility or inaccuracy of climate models (whose accuracy or uncertainty is precisely quantified and makes their use better than just random guesses). The last two statements are based on literature and common knowledge, but qualify as cherry-picking because they omit most negative effects of CO2 increase and warming (e.g. other clear trends in extreme events, damage to forests and crops by drought and heat waves).

    While reviewing the claims related to agriculture, I noted that only 26 out of the 506 signatories (5%) were professionals in biology, ecology, or environmental science. I suspect that the vast majority of signatories had little direct knowledge or understanding of this part of the petition that they signed. This made me curious to delve more deeply into the makeup of the signatory list.I usually try to steer clear of any ad hominem tactics, and instead evaluate claims solely on their own merits. However, the fact that this group is vocally promoting themselves as “knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields” made me wonder if that claim is actually supported by the signatories’ credentials. In a word, the answer is no.
    I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists. (Together, that’s 2.8% of the total.) Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one.
    The most prevalent groups of signatories were geologists (19%) and engineers (21%)—many of whom were implicitly or explicitly involved in fossil energy extraction. Most of the rest were physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. A large fraction of the signatories were not scientists, but rather business executives, writers, activists, and lobbyists (totaling 11.3%).
    I also noticed a peculiar omission in the list of signatories: women. Among the 506 names, only 24 were female names (with another 15 that were initials-only or unisex). That means that about 95% of the signers were men. Even for male-heavy fields such as geology and engineering, this is a staggering imbalance. I suspect that the imbalance may have been heightened by the fact that the signers skewed heavily toward the older generation – for example, there were 79 emeritus professors on the list (16% of the total).
    https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...imate-science/

    Leave a comment:


  • MrCombust
    replied
    Originally posted by seamusmcduffs View Post

    Edit: note I didn't actually watch MrCombusts video so I don't know if it's actually a conspiracy theory, but going off his post history I think that's a safe assumption.
    No need to tell us you don't read, or even watch before "refuting" my posts. That's been established a long time now.

    LOL
    Last edited by MrCombust; 04-10-2019, 01:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrCombust
    replied
    The TRUTH. 500,000 views on youtube. Not a word from the CBC

    The CBC will have a scientist on quirks and quarks that questions gravity, but.......

    No, the CBC won't report on anything that questions the climate mantra. Not even a letter from hundreds of scientists.

    Close to 500,000 views in just a few days................

    Leave a comment:


  • seamusmcduffs
    replied
    ^^ woops, can't admit mistakes, so better post another conspiracy theory YouTube video so people might miss that post. Here it is again in case you missed it.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/pro-trump-group-behind-aoc-protester-calling-to-eat-babies-2019-10


    1. A protester disrupted a Thursday town hall held by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Queens, New York, yelling that Americans should "eat the babies" to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change.
    2. Ocasio-Cortez attempted to calm the woman down, saying that "we all need to understand that there are a lot of solutions that we have" to slow climate change.
    3. President Donald Trump retweeted a video of the incident and called Ocasio-Cortez a "Wack Job." The president's eldest son tweeted that the woman "seems like a normal AOC supporter to me."
    4. But soon after a video of the incident went viral on Thursday night, a far-right pro-Trump group called the LaRouche movement announced on Twitter that it was behind the protester.
    Either way, regardless of the implications of this being an actual false flag, I'm not sure what one clearly insane person has to do with climate change and its validity.

    Edit: note I didn't actually watch MrCombusts video so I don't know if it's actually a conspiracy theory, but going off his post history I think that's a safe assumption.
    Last edited by seamusmcduffs; 04-10-2019, 01:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrCombust
    replied
    The TRUTH. Dr. Roy Spencer covers many aspects of climate change

    Dr. Roy Spencer is the keeper of the UAH satellite data. RSS and UAH satellite data measures the whole earth's temperature using orbiting satellites.

    Dr. Spencer explains a number of aspects of climate science from a genuine scientific perspective.

    Leave a comment:


  • noodle
    replied
    So MrCombust, MrOilers & Postmedia all fell for a "controversy" that was entirely contrived by right-wing supporters just like them.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/pro-...babies-2019-10

    • A protester disrupted a Thursday town hall held by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Queens, New York, yelling that Americans should "eat the babies" to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change.
    • Ocasio-Cortez attempted to calm the woman down, saying that "we all need to understand that there are a lot of solutions that we have" to slow climate change.
    • President Donald Trump retweeted a video of the incident and called Ocasio-Cortez a "Wack Job." The president's eldest son tweeted that the woman "seems like a normal AOC supporter to me."
    • But soon after a video of the incident went viral on Thursday night, a far-right pro-Trump group called the LaRouche movement announced on Twitter that it was behind the protester.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrOilers
    replied
    Eating babies to stop global warming actually makes more sense than Al Gore's carbon credit scheme.

    Leave a comment:


  • noodle
    replied
    State broadcaster receives state funding & disregards conspiracy theories when determining coverage, outraging conspiracy theorists...

    Not really seeing what's so terrible about any of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrCombust
    replied
    The TRUTH. Friends of Science explains the corruption of the CBC

    The CBC gets over a billion dollars in government funding and they push a political agenda not all Canadians subscribe to. If you are skeptical of climate change your tax dollars are still being funneled to the CBC to lie to you.

    Why didn't the CBC cover the story of 500 scientists questioning climate change?

    This video asks "why not ask them about it". Indeed.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X