4 ms·
It reminds me of the over-population warnings of the 1970s, where prominent scientists and politicians warned that mass starvation was right around the corner.
by missedthecue 5y ago
It reminds me of the over-population warnings of the 1970s, where prominent scientists and politicians warned that mass starvation was right around the corner. This constant doom and gloom at an extreme level seems to cause fatigue and apathy.
- willmadden 5y agoThat's exactly what it is. The "science" behind the climate change narrative is sponsored by groups that want to implement a global carbon tax, or any other justification they can think of to create a one-world government. It's exactly the same BS as the COVID manipulation we've endured since 2020. Water vapor is a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect than CO2 by three orders of magnitude. The current "models" do not accurately reflect the sun or water on earth. The fatigue and apathy is because the predictions has been serially wrong. So much so they had to rebrand "global warming" to "climate change". Normally intelligent people have let their hubris make them victims to globalist propaganda. It's disturbing to see how many people not only fall for it but parrot their programming ad nauseam and attack dissenters pointing out raw fact (like that unadulterated satellite temperate data shows the earth's temperature as relatively flat for the last 20 years, or that the 1930's were warmer than temperatures today). The earth will be cooler in 10 years, not warmer. We're heading into a grand solar minimum. Wait and see.
- gspr 5y agoShh. Show the calculations that back this insane theory up, or put a sock in it.
- willmadden 5y agohttps://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/6/849/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/6/849/htm https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1... There you go.
- markc 5y agoHardly. From the first article (which is mostly asking “what is climate“ and “should we expect climate not to change?”) we get its only really solid prediction: “it can be anticipated that many readers would find this paper useless, if not harmful.” Lol. The second paper was discredited and withdrawn though that hasn’t stopped deniers citing it endlessly.
- gspr 5y agoI will. But can you make your point, so I can make note of it when I see it argued in the paper?
- willmadden 5y agoDid you read the two papers? 1) hydrology professor shows that water is the largest driver of earth's climate (besides the sun of course) and that CO2 has proven to be an insignificant factor, both based on physics and on history, where CO2 levels were far higher, but temperatures did not rise in tandem. 2) Professor Valentina Zharkova predicting that the coming grand solar minimum will lower earth's temperature by around 1 degree C, based on past minima. Zharkova has a history of being right, by the way, which is more than I can say for the tabloid science currently being peddled in this thread.
- ajnin 5y agoHow convenient it must be to always have a paper or two ready that show warming trends are wrong and that it will stop in the next few years. It does not matter that the previous papers in the same vein were proven wrong by facts, like the ones that attempted to draw horizontal lines over the temperature graphs. Just come up with a new theory, pick some data that fits (in paper #2, why solar cycles 21-23 and not the others? No proposed mechanism behind the theory? No problem.), and here's your new justification to do nothing.
- willmadden 5y agoYes, pesky facts and science that aren't sponsored by grant money handed out by globalist controlled entities.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]