• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Donald Trump Speaks Out on Climate Change Hoax

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,243
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, I can't help but admit he's turned quite a few heads with his passionate vocalizations on immigration, then deftly endured the choppy seas of a full-fledged network transition for the Miss USA pageant. He is casting the Republican party in an entirely new light.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Two-Headed Boy
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,588
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Well, I can't help but admit he's turned quite a few heads with his passionate vocalizations on immigration, then deftly endured the choppy seas of a full-fledged network transition for the Miss USA pageant. He is casting the Republican party in an entirely new light.

Indeed. Surely this is a Republican party that will capture the hearts of millenials.


They took our jerbs!
 

Xann

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
1,782
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
NBC Attempts to Downplay Trump

 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Trumpet blows.

There, FIFY.
(Especially when you consider how *loud* the guy is).

An off-the-wall question, though; if (as I thought I read recently) he really does take *Oprah* as his running mate,
will he be more of a spoiler for the Dems or The Pubs?
 

Luke O

Super Ape
Joined
Mar 25, 2015
Messages
1,729
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
954
The world does not have time to unwind all the progress we have made to combat the climate change we have wrought on this planet. Besides, doing so only benefits the super rich in terms of becoming richer.

Here's a thought, if I were a super rich, uncaring bastard and hellbent on publicly denying climate change (but I actually know it would be happening), I would be building an underground facility to weather out the storm while the lesser monetised perish.

This is from right-wing loony Alex Jones, just so right-wing loonies know this shit is for real.

» What Do They Know? Why Are So Many Of The Super Wealthy Preparing Bug Out Locations? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
 

Luke O

Super Ape
Joined
Mar 25, 2015
Messages
1,729
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
954
I didn't even mention the hair. I thought in modern US politics, appearance is everything. You want THAT to be your head of state?

His hair may well be the exiled Galactic Emperor Maudriniux from the Andromeda Galaxy, using mind control on Donald to wield power over the Earth!

tumblr_mdptnbbsRL1rqzdyxo1_500.jpg


Living in the UK, we're used to alien rule from our reptilian royal family. They sure won't be happy with Maudriniux in charge of the US though, he bankrupted Andromeda.

Galactic politics FTW
 

Xann

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
1,782
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The world does not have time to unwind all the progress we have made to combat the climate change we have wrought on this planet. Besides, doing so only benefits the super rich in terms of becoming richer.

Here's a thought, if I were a super rich, uncaring bastard and hellbent on publicly denying climate change (but I actually know it would be happening), I would be building an underground facility to weather out the storm while the lesser monetised perish.

This is from right-wing loony Alex Jones, just so right-wing loonies know this shit is for real.

» What Do They Know? Why Are So Many Of The Super Wealthy Preparing Bug Out Locations? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Hahaha, you think they're doing all that because of global warming? It appears you're thinking exactly what they want you to think. This planet is in for a much greater challenge than global warming over the coming century.

Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of those hedgefund managers are doing it for that very reason, as it doesn't take too many brain cells to fill their shoes. The lemmings are just following their leaders just like the rest of us.
 

Luke O

Super Ape
Joined
Mar 25, 2015
Messages
1,729
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
954
Hahaha, you think they're doing all that because of global warming? It appears you're thinking exactly what they want you to think. This planet is in for a much greater challenge than global warming over the coming century.

Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of those hedgefund managers are doing it for that very reason, as it doesn't take too many brain cells to fill their shoes. The lemmings are just following their leaders just like the rest of us.

What, keeping the starving poor out?
 

Kanra Jest

Av'ent'Gar'de ~
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
2,388
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
It could be possible that they are all just manipulative power hungry politicians. Republicans, Democrats, all hold corruption. Bush was a hated republican, now Obama a hated democrat. Every time people grow excited for some new "beacon of hope" reaching out to "help" these people, they end up hating them once elected showing their hope was manipulated for them to get into office and do their own thing at any other expense. Or they do and say things contrary to their original game face, mask they've put on.

As for global warming, hoax or not, I do not have a solid opinion. But the world is experiencing shifts and changes that I would think need to be looked into.
 

Xann

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
1,782
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What, keeping the starving poor out?

Aye, that will be part of it no matter what the root cause of destruction is, global warming, global cooling, forced lobotomies via vaccine, pretty much anything and everything.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,996
For the climate change deniers on our forum, I want to find out if we have different facts, if we have different interpretation of facts, or if we just look at data differently, look at completely different data, believe/disbelieve different evidence, or what.

Which of these facts are disputed by the climate change deniers on the forum?
1) NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record shows a rapid rise in CO2 levels, with a rise in CO2 levels from 1950 to 2014 of about 80 ppm.
2) Cumulative fossil fuel CO2 emissions from North America based on Regional CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring from the carbon dioxide information analysis center show that this region output over 200 million metric tons of CO2 during this same time.
3) The CRUTEM 4 data shows positive global temperature anomaly data since around 1980, and temperature anamolies of arount 0.8 degrees C since 2000.
4) The World Glacier Monitoring Service, in their 2007 report, reported a cumulative average loss of about 9.5 m of glacial length from 1975 to 2005 in the 30 glaciers it was monitoring.
5) Satellite sea level observations from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center show a sea level rise of about 52mm since 2000.

I could list more facts, but we'll see where the real areas of disagreement are, and exactly how we think about cause and effect. There is obviously a lot more going on.

Which of these scientific concepts do the climate change deniers dispute?
1) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat. It is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, after water.
2) The combustion of simple hydrocarbons will tend to produce carbon dioxide in a process of complete combustion.
3) Trapped heat will tend to melt ice. The melting ice produces feedback loop in warming as the albedo of the ice is lowered.
4) The salt from sea water doesn't readily get incorporated into ice, so when it melts, it lowers the density of the melt water and thereby increases sea levels in the face of Archimedes principle.

Which of these climate change conclusions do the climate change deniers dispute?
1) We as a species have been producing a lot of carbon dioxide from our burning of fossil fuels.
2) The production of the CO2 contributes to the global greenhouse effect.
3) That greenhouse effect has been especially stark since industrialization.
4) The results have been noticeable changes in climate like sea level rise (also drastic changes in weather patters and migration of pollinating species, and many other interactions).
5) We need to change our form and style of energy usage to avoid (or at least attempt to avoid) major crises in climate...not limited to, but including, the flooding of coastal habitable regions of the world.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
ygolo said:
1) NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record shows a rapid rise in CO2 levels, with a rise in CO2 levels from 1950 to 2014 of about 80 ppm.

There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature increases. Temperatures have gone up (1930s and the medieval warming period) independent of CO2 levels. Also, since CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas, would you suggest we start regulating water vapor as well :D ?

Perhaps we should start taxing Seattle for rainfall since Seattle is a major contributor of water vapor (the major greenhouse gas)?

2) Cumulative fossil fuel CO2 emissions from North America based on Regional CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring from the carbon dioxide information analysis center show that this region output over 200 million metric tons of CO2 during this same time.

And yet, the last 18 years have seen no increase in global or North American temperature. This is why the climate change community has started to tinker with real temperature results. If the data doesn't agree with your ideology, just change the data.

3) The CRUTEM 4 data shows positive global temperature anomaly data since around 1980, and temperature anamolies of arount 0.8 degrees C since 2000.

"As CA readers know, Phil Jones keeps his CRU data secret. Embarrassingly, the UK Met Office relies on this secret data and says that it is unable to provide this supporting data for the most relied upon temperature data set in the world. Their statements in response to FOI requests as to what they actually […]
By Steve McIntyre"

Climate Audit

Basically CRUTEM 4 data is garbage because it's not available for peer review by the public.

4) The World Glacier Monitoring Service, in their 2007 report, reported a cumulative average loss of about 9.5 m of glacial length from 1975 to 2005 in the 30 glaciers it was monitoring.

"From the RGI, we can learn that there are 198,000 glaciers in the World. However, this is a slightly arbitrary quantity, as it depends on the quality of the digital elevation model used, mapping resolution, and the minimum-area threshold used. Most analysts use a minimum area threshold of 0.1 km2; they will not map anything smaller than this due to difficulties in distinguishing between glaciers and snowpacks. If these small glacierets are including, the number of glaciers in the World could be up to 400,000, but they would still only account for 1.4% of the World’s glacierised area."

The Randolph Glacier Inventory

30 out of 198,000 glaciers is basically irrelevant.

5) Satellite sea level observations from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center show a sea level rise of about 52mm since 2000.

What is the precision of measuring sea level from several thousand miles? Call me skeptical, but I don't think we can measure anything with a precision of millimeters from outer space, especially a moving surface.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,996
[MENTION=20113]Tellenbach[/MENTION] / [MENTION=9627]Xann[/MENTION]

You didn't answer my questions directly. I wanted to see if you disputed particular facts. You didn't say that the data given were not indeed the data shown, so am I to assume that the facts are as I set them, just the interpretations and conclusions that you disagree with? Or are you saying the particular data sets I mentioned are wrong, faulty or doctored?

---
Your response to fact 1) is to say that there is no correlation. But there clearly is. You just do the math.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

The math shows a 100ppm increase corresponds to about a 3 degree C increase. Either you explain why the data itself is wrong, or you are using the word "correlation" in a non-standard way.

---
Your response to fact 2) is to say that there is no increase in North American and global temperatures, which is again patently false. One source of that data is in fact 3). There are others.

---
You seem to be indicating that fact 3) is based on some form of fraud. But it is based on reconstructions from stations. Yes, it is heterogenous and incomplete data, but they were reconstructing data going very far into the past. The very blog you link shows Steve McIntyre to have an ax to grind of some sort.

But if you don't want to believe the CRU data, what about the other source? For that matter, what about your own personal experience of the seasons (or lack of them)? What about the long standing drought in the state [MENTION=20113]Tellenbach[/MENTION] was chosen to live in? What about the record extremes of weather being set year after year?

---
The link you used in response to fact 4) shows the same trends as the one you were skeptical about for the 30 representative ones. I was in fact, considering taking one of the many studies that very source links as alternative versions of fact 4. So, what is you point?

---
Electromagnetic radiation can be used for very accurate measurement when combined with triangulation from many sources. But if this seems too complicated, why not just go to coastal cities and see the process yourself?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...l-rise-east-coast-gulf-of-mexico#.VZdTTPlVhBc
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
ygolo said:
But there clearly is. You just do the math.

CO2 levels today are higher than they've been in the 1930s and during the medieval warming period, but temps were higher in the 1930s and during the medieval warming period. That is a fact. This means that other factors are at play and no one disputes this.

ygolo said:
Or are you saying the particular data sets I mentioned are wrong, faulty or doctored?

Who knows? No one but the keepers of the data know for sure and they won't let me or anyone else see the raw data. Surely, if the data is as presented, they'd have no reason to hide it from the public.

ygolo said:
The math shows a 100ppm increase corresponds to about a 3 degree C increase. Either you explain why the data itself is wrong, or you are using the word "correlation" in a non-standard way.

Paleoclimatology is pseudo-science.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years.

One would have to be a gullible person to believe that we can measure temperatures with any precision several hundred thousand years ago. There's an entire book written about paleoclimatology and the fraudulent practices of these clowns. Look up the work of Steve McIntyre; he's a statistician who peer-reviewed the hockey stick papers.

Either you explain why the data itself is wrong, or you are using the word "correlation" in a non-standard way.

Excel has a fun trend line function for its scatter plots. You can do linear regression analysis and derive an R^2 coefficient from it. A perfect correlation would be a 1; no correlation or random data would be a 0. Paleoclimatology relies on correlation coefficients of less than 0.3 to make these grand pronouncements.

What about the long standing drought in the state @Tellenbach was chosen to live in? What about the record extremes of weather being set year after year?

Look at the recent hurricane record; we're at a very slow activity period for hurricanes the past 15 years. There have been no global warming for the past 18 years. California has had droughts in the past; it's a semi-arid region.

Electromagnetic radiation can be used for very accurate measurement when combined with triangulation from many sources. But if this seems too complicated, why not just go to coastal cities and see the process yourself?

It'd be easier if you just posted a proof of concept paper on using satellites to measure water depth. I'd be especially interested in the precision of such a technique.

So, what is you point?

30 samples out of 198,000 is statistically irrelevant. Show me the data when they've collected data from 3,000 glaciers.
 
Top