ADVERTISEMENT

Climate change skeptics poll

My worldview of climate change is…..

  • Climate change is fake

    Votes: 9 14.1%
  • Climate change is real, but not significantly influenced by man

    Votes: 15 23.4%
  • Climate change is real and significantly influenced by man, but we’ll adapt

    Votes: 19 29.7%
  • CC is real, significantly influenced by man, and we won’t adapt, but let Jesus take the wheel

    Votes: 6 9.4%
  • Climate change is real but overblown

    Votes: 15 23.4%

  • Total voters
    64

Why is there migration from blue run northern states to red run southern states?
In the long run maybe it’s not such a great idea?
 
"Once in a millenium" rain event in the Northeast. 9 Million people under flood advisories.

Another case of once in a millenium becoming again, right now, this year

230710083425-04-stony-point-flooding-file-restricted-070923.jpg



 
Like I said, when Obama sells his at-sea-level estate because he feels it will be under water shortly, and starts exclusively flying private because of his fear of emissions...

I'll start taking it seriously.

Until then...money grab/grift.
Obama has certainly demonstrated his share of hypocrisy over the years. Planning a birthday party during Covid at his Martha's Vineyard estate with 700 invited guests - - later dramatically scaled back after public criticism - - is one example. But if you think owning a home on Martha's Vineyard and "flying private" (I think you botched that part of the sentence, but I know what you meant) reflect hypocrisy when it comes to climate change, that's a swing and a miss.

Neither Obama's home, nor any house on the Vineyard, is going to be under water anytime soon. And even if that were the case, that's his risk to assume and impacts no one other than Obama and his family. With respect to flying private, I would think commercial air transportation for a former president would be a logistical nightmare for his Secret Service detail, and disruptive for other travelers.
 
Obama has certainly demonstrated his share of hypocrisy over the years. Planning a birthday party during Covid at his Martha's Vineyard estate with 700 invited guests - - later dramatically scaled back after public criticism - - is one example. But if you think owning a home on Martha's Vineyard and "flying private" (I think you botched that part of the sentence, but I know what you meant) reflect hypocrisy when it comes to climate change, that's a swing and a miss.

Neither Obama's home, nor any house on the Vineyard, is going to be under water anytime soon. And even if that were the case, that's his risk to assume and impacts no one other than Obama and his family. With respect to flying private, I would think commercial air transportation for a former president would be a logistical nightmare for his Secret Service detail, and disruptive for other travelers.
Derp...

 
It’s all a scam.
Many politicians and bigwigs are unfortunately completely wedded to their jetset lifestyle. That doesn't alter the science of climate change in the least.

Would it be better if they always walked the walk rather than merely talked the talk and did stupid shit merely for show? Of course. Many advocates for more sustainable living do in fact eschew jet transportation and go to great lengths to curb their personal CO2 production. I wish it were the norm.

Is prompting others to change their ways far preferable to anti-science denialism? Absolutely.
 
Normal Wells hit 100 deg. F last weekend. No, Norman Wells did not have a flu bug or something. I am talking about the town of Norman Wells:
F0w6DNuaIAQaWFy
 
Many politicians and bigwigs are unfortunately completely wedded to their jetset lifestyle. That doesn't alter the science of climate change in the least.

Would it be better if they always walked the walk rather than merely talked the talk and did stupid shit merely for show? Of course. Many advocates for more sustainable living do in fact eschew jet transportation and go to great lengths to curb their personal CO2 production. I wish it were the norm.

Is prompting others to change their ways far preferable to anti-science denialism? Absolutely.
If the U.S. government provides me a personal private jet, I will be the largest climate cult advocate anyone has ever seen.

I will make Greta look like Daniel Plainview.
 
The earth has warmed and cooled since it was formed. Those periods have lasted hundreds of years to thousands. I think it is smart to be concerned with what type of impact human interaction has on the environment. The problem is that the environmental movement is led by people who act like lunatics.
They’re not acting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13
Congratulations, Mr. Obvious. "Recorded human history" with respect to temperature measurements indeed means the period of time in which humans have recorded temperature.

Guillaume Amontons had a decent gas themometer in the late 1600s and IIRC Ben Franklin had weather data including temperature logged for Philadelphia by the mid-1700s. But a database comprehensive enough to ascertain a mean global temperature probably hasn't existed for more than 100 years.

That said, would it concern you if the 100 hottest days of the past 100 years all occurred within the past 10 years?
It is only because NSAA and others adjusted the temps from the back years and ignore that we were coming out of a mini-ice age. It is no hotter in our area than any year and we are in summer without. It had been 104 back in 1998 but hasn't broken 95 yet this year. Scientists are dealing with misinformation as a result are misleading people about the Earth's temperature. They don't want to explain to people they distorting the temperature because they get money to say people are causing.
 
Many politicians and bigwigs are unfortunately completely wedded to their jetset lifestyle. That doesn't alter the science of climate change in the least.

Would it be better if they always walked the walk rather than merely talked the talk and did stupid shit merely for show? Of course. Many advocates for more sustainable living do in fact eschew jet transportation and go to great lengths to curb their personal CO2 production. I wish it were the norm.

Is prompting others to change their ways far preferable to anti-science denialism? Absolutely.
I hate to tell you we scientist have been readjusting temperatures from the past. Look at the dust bowl and record temps but NSAA adjusted the temps down so they would be the highest on record. We have been coming out of a mini ice age from the 1820's so temps would rise. None of the sea level predictions haven't happened so far so they have altered the "science" of climate change.
 
It is only because NSAA and others adjusted the temps from the back years and ignore that we were coming out of a mini-ice age. It is no hotter in our area than any year and we are in summer without. It had been 104 back in 1998 but hasn't broken 95 yet this year. Scientists are dealing with misinformation as a result are misleading people about the Earth's temperature. They don't want to explain to people they distorting the temperature because they get money to say people are causing.
This is no different than someone reminding us that it snowed today, so how can we be getting warmer. Its average temperatures throughout the year, not one day.

Got any proof that NASA is fudging their thermometers and getting paid to do so?
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
This is no different than someone reminding us that it snowed today, so how can we be getting warmer. Its average temperatures throughout the year, not one day.

Got any proof that NASA is fudging their thermometers and getting paid to do so?
Never mind, Snopes researched this and found this rumor to be FALSE.
 
  • Love
Reactions: outside shooter
rebuttal from the deniers, working in as many grammatical errors as I can: yabbut, your wrong, Snopes is LIBRUL and lies alot two. Their alway's making up there stuff! You can't make up you're own fact's!
 
Last edited:
Stop runnin.
Every now and then I show weakness, unfortunately, and click on "show ignored content". I then see what the losers like you have to say. But I'm trying not to do that. You and your dozen other screen names that you have used in the past kind of clog up my ignore list. The world is a better place, though, when not reading your bullshit. The fact-checking /correcting of your goofball takes would consume half my day
 
Every now and then I show weakness, unfortunately, and click on "show ignored content". I then see what the losers like you have to say. But I'm trying not to do that. You and your dozen other screen names that you have used in the past kind of clog up my ignore list. The world is a better place, though, when not reading your bullshit. The fact-checking /correcting of your goofball takes would consume half my day
It’s very convenient that everyone who dismantles your arguments for all to see is a “loser” or “bullshit”.

Well done.

Disengage. Run along.
 
No, I really don't, but I'm convinced there's been a change. Sure, we still get the occasional hard cold snap, but they seem to be fewer and further between.

We also seem to panic nowadays when it does get cold or snowy. Seems like they're all the time cancelling school just for it being cold, and will cancel it for snow flurries that don't even cover the grass. I don't think they ever cancelled for cold when I was a kid, and they only had snow days when the roads were damn near impassable.
Yep back in the 1960’s through 1980’s in Bloomington, kids and teachers hoped the snow wouldn’t commence until like 4:30am to prevent plows from clearing roads by 6:30am when busses roll out- otherwise we had school!
 
I keep telling you how these people think but you don’t listen
Resource/climate/pollution/economy concerns related to overpopulation became a thing before you or I were born. Well, before Abe Lincoln was even born.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

Then the population bomb book in the 1960s ramped up the concern.

Population reduction over time doesn't involve killing people and it doesn't necessarily mean you need a Draconian one child policy like China had. A healthy, educated society tends not to grow past critical resource limits.
 
Last edited:
Resource/climate/pollution/economy concerns related to overpopulation became a thing before you or I were born. Well, before Abe Lincoln was even born.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

Then the population bomb book in the 1960s ramped up the concern.

Population reduction over time doesn't involve killing people and it doesn't necessarily mean you need a Draconian one child policy like China had. A healthy, educated society tends not to grow past critical resource limits.
But you know more than the richest and one of the smartest people on the planet? Well of course.

 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT