Crime Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say

[Yorick]

hm, gore pictures in a meat thread.

sounds about right.

do you throw soup on art pieces as well?

finish your homework and go to bed.

 

[N13]

Animals need oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide. Plants need carbon dioxide, emit oxygen.

The planet balances it out.


The main influencer is the sun.

 

[dirtypablo]

hm, gore pictures in a meat thread.

sounds about right.

do you throw soup on art pieces as well?

finish your homework and go to bed.

Well the 'gore' was pictures of the factory farming process, so it was on topic.

Anyways, are you really trying to insult me by implying I'm a child when you were making (not even good) your mom jokes just a few posts up?

 

[Ruprecht]

Stop reading the Epoch Times.

This is how you end up like the TS and believe that the government is secretly vaccinating us through mosquitoes and that Tibetans have anti-gravity tech they aren't sharing with us.

Beargrounds mindlessly cut and pasting from an Epoch Times repost of ancient propaganda from "meteorologist" (aka retired TV weatherman) Anthony Watts is entirely "on brand".

 

[Source]

welp, I asked for a source, and I guess I got it.
well played.

You were the one being an asshole. I also knew you were wrong about the mag and the dates. At that point I had no reason to believe you were debating in good faith. Why would I provide you a source given the context?

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

<p>1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.</p>

skepticalscience.com

 

[blackheart]

Animals need oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide. Plants need carbon dioxide, emit oxygen.

The planet balances it out.


The main influencer is the sun.

yes, just ignore all empirical data and evidence. reality is whatever you want to believe

 

[N13]

yes, just ignore all empirical data and evidence. reality is whatever you want to believe

Yeah, project your own internal bullshit on me.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Idiots

You just got owned. This response is not a good look.

 

[Super_Nintendo]

What if Democracy and Climate Mitigation Are Incompatible?

Elected officials work through compromise, but a warming planet waits for no one.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[dirtypablo]

Animals need oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide. Plants need carbon dioxide, emit oxygen.

The planet balances it out.


The main influencer is the sun.

How does the temperature on the moon compare to the temperature on earth? Given their similar proximity to the sun, what's driving the difference?

 

[Super_Nintendo]

The global greening continues despite increased drought stress since 2000​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989423004262

 

[jefferz]

What if Democracy and Climate Mitigation Are Incompatible?

Elected officials work through compromise, but a warming planet waits for no one.

foreignpolicy.com

So, do you want to tell us what's in the 20-minute text to speech bullshit in your link, or do you expect us to listen to it?

 

[Super_Nintendo]

So, do you want to tell us what's in the 20-minute text to speech bullshit in your link, or do you expect us to listen to it?

 

[N13]

How does the temperature on the moon compare to the temperature on earth? Given their similar proximity to the sun, what's driving the difference?

Something called atmosphere.

 

[High Test With da Best]

View attachment 1027047
Sorry, had the year and mag wrong, but my point still stands.

The climate doesn't need you to preach for it.

Boy, wasn't exactly new real estate in '73, but congrats if you took the tip and bought into Marvin Gardens 51 years ago!

 

[BearGrounds]

So for all of the people attacking the source, was no money wasted on bad science, and are the readings taken by the NOAA legit and trustworthy?

 

[Siver!]

So for all of the people attacking the source, was no money wasted on bad science, and are the readings taken by the NOAA legit and trustworthy?

For sure money will have been wasted under this particular banner.

A fucking lot of it.

We only have to look at stories like the Baroness Mone one that broke here in the UK re: Covid/PPE to realize how much money will have been siphoned off by corrupt arseholes at every turn. They don't have to be involved in pseudo-science, even, pseudo-business is everywhere. It's inescapable. Politicians 'awarding' money to friends/businesses.

For real, the world over.

None of that de-legitimizes climate change or the need to act, though. It just underscores the world we live in.

 

[BearGrounds]

For sure money will have been wasted under this particular banner.

A fucking lot of it.

We only have to look at stories like the Baroness Mone one that broke here in the UK re: Covid/PPE to realize how much money will have been siphoned off by corrupt arseholes at every turn. They don't have to be involved in pseudo-science, even, pseudo-business is everywhere. It's inescapable. Politicians 'awarding' money to friends/businesses.

For real, the world over.

None of that de-legitimizes climate change or the need to act, though. It just underscores the world we live in.

If the NOAA (a government agency) is corrupt and conducting trash science, we cannot trust their data when it claims we've had the warmest year on record, can we?

It delegitimizes the organization, and anything they're espousing based upon that faulty/manipulated data.

That's the issue.

But people in here just wanna keep throwing them money anyway (without getting to the bottom of it), it seems, despite that potential corruption. Why? Epoch Times.

 

[Roop Holstry]

My friend works for NOAA and is highly ranked in the organization. While it’s not his area of expertise (he does the oceanic stuff) I’ll see if he has any insight on this. I’ll ask him when he gets back from his meeting overseas and bump thread if anything interesting comes up.

 

[Siver!]

If the NOAA (a government agency) is corrupt and conducting trash science, we cannot trust their data when it claims we've had the warmest year on record, can we?

It delegitimizes the organization, and anything they're espousing based upon that faulty/manipulated data.

That's the issue.

But people in here just wanna keep throwing them money anyway, it seems, despite that potential corruption. Why? Epoch Times.

NOAA relates to one country.

If the US was the only country producing this data, that would matter more to me.

But they're not.




JRA-55 is Japanese.
HadCRUT is British.
C3S (ERA5) is European.

China seem to be finding the same data.

You don't have to rely on NOAA or NASA if you don't like.