Another ship stuck trying to prove lies...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am just going to put this here, a video of a presentation done not to long ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU&index=2&list=LLd9P3BK0ThwkcHLRRmpGxxg

I chose this particular lecture because he has found the very same anomalies in the government reports that I have found, and his plots from the source data look the same as mine (as they should, it's from the original data). Don't forget, in the late 70's and early 80's it was all the panic about global cooling and the new ice age. Funny how they shifted pretty quickly (relatively) speaking isn't it??

as a physicist, whether you believe in this climate issue or not, the complete and utter manipulation of the data is blatant and goes beyond unethical, because governments are making policy decisions based on, IMO junk science.

And for the record; yes the arctic ice is shrinking, but antarctic ice is growing alarmingly fast. Glaciers melting doesn't really impress me, they have been since the last ice age when they were deposited, nothing new there.

I won't get into the individual points that have been presented here on this forum, but I do ask you to LOOK at the data yourself, then ask yourself...why is it that only 'certain' data is used? I think it's because they are looking for confirmation bias, and they easily find it.

I could go on for hours, because I have pulled all the data, I have plotted it, and the conclusions being made are false, and it's a fraud. This is about taxation and wealth redistribution and has almost nothing to do with 'climate'.

And for Pete's sake, please STOP saying Climate Change, that is a tautology, climate is always changing by definition. There is allot of really shoddy stuff floating around out there, try to think and do some work yourself and don't just climb on the climate bandwagon.
 
Last edited:
HippieSmell said:
I honestly don't think that's an option any more. The power vacuum would probably create more wars, as hard as that is to believe. I also think the dollar would collapse because of it. It's a globalized world and we either continue to lead and make it more globalized, or we pull back and watch it restructure, perhaps painfully.
Click to expand...

I'm totally ok with the world warring with itself. As for WW2, our departure from the world most definatley did not cause the entire thing. It had been going on for quite a while before we were attacked. The only reason we were attacked in the first place is because the Chinese and other "allies" failed to uphold their agreements and defend us (shocker) either on purpose to drag us into it to help them, or by negligence, that is up for debate. Germany's attempts in both ww1 and ww2 to dominate the world were none of our business, and most certainly neither is the Middle East anymore.

We are not part of the world community, we are used by it both fiscally and militarily, even more so now than in the past. I could quite literally give a crap about the rest of the worlds abilities to defend their own borders. We can't be their surrogate military, especially when these countries literally do squat for us these days.

Being involved in this crap world community literally has brought us nothing as a nation other than debt and death, I'm tired of loosing friends and loved ones to other people's problems and having to pay for it to boot.

In my opinion, we need to just totally pull out of the world and out of these international entanglements like the UN and NATO. Then let them all fend for themselves for a while and let the world restructure itself. The Middle East will never stop fighting, never. It's foolish to think they will, or that any intervention on our behalf will make a difference. The rest of the world doesn't spend any money on their military because they don't have to, we do all of their grunt work for them. As long as we are allied with them, we will have to keep burning through cash to keep our "stick" big enough to ward off attacks to not only ourselves, but the rest of these degenerate nations too.

Lots of things financially need to happen to disconnect our currency from the world market before that actually could happen, otherwise I do agree the dollar would likely tank. But given proper notice of our departure, and the slow disconnect from the world markets, I think our currency would not only be ok, but would end up stronger than ever.

Edit:

Just one rednecks opinion though.
 
Last edited:
uwish said:
I am just going to put this here, a video of a presentation done not to long ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU&index=2&list=LLd9P3BK0ThwkcHLRRmpGxxg

I chose this particular lecture because he has found the very same anomalies in the government reports that I have found, and his plots from the source data look the same as mine (as they should, it's from the original data). Don't forget, in the late 70's and early 80's it was all the panic about global cooling and the new ice age. Funny how they shifted pretty quickly (relatively) speaking isn't it??

And for the record; yes the arctic ice is shrinking, but antarctic ice is growing alarmingly fast. Glaciers melting doesn't really impress me, they have been since the last ice age when they were deposited, nothing new there.

And for Pete's sake, please STOP saying Climate Change, that is a tautology, climate is always changing by definition. There is allot of really shoddy stuff floating around out there, try to think and do some work yourself and don't just climb on the climate bandwagon.
Click to expand...
The global cooling scare was a small group of scientists, iirc. Global warming is much more universally accepted.

The antarctic ice sheet growth is explained by warmer waters bringing more moisture and dropping more snow. I believe the ice thickness is increasing, but not surface area.

Is human induced climate change better? It's just so much to say...

I didn't watch the video, but I might later. But, I'm not sure what qualifies an EE to upend accepted research in an unrelated field.
 
So, I did some quick reading on the guy in the video. He's basically saying the temperature data for the US is falsified, and this disproves AGW. His gripe is that the temperature data is adjusted, which is a completely valid technique and needed to get reliable and usable data. Nevermind the US is a very small amount of land, globally, and global temperatures are still rising. There are also other ways to measure warming, the most interesting to me is the shift in plant and animal range consistent with warming. Unless you believe plants and animals are in on the conspiracy.
 
HippieSmell said:
The global cooling scare was a small group of scientists, iirc. Global warming is much more universally accepted.

The antarctic ice sheet growth is explained by warmer waters bringing more moisture and dropping more snow. I believe the ice thickness is increasing, but not surface area.

Is human induced climate change better? It's just so much to say...

I didn't watch the video, but I might later. But, I'm not sure what qualifies an EE to upend accepted research in an unrelated field.
Click to expand...


I think you should really look into the "97%" that the climate people keep spouting, I mean look at the source of where that data comes from. I think it will change your mind. There really is no consensus, science isn't a democracy. Remember we went from 'new ice age' to 'global warming' to 'climate change' primarily because the data, the real data from the source, shows no significant warming.

At any rate, I will leave it there; all I am really saying is, think critically and don't just take what the media and what government groups (with an agenda) say at face value all the time.
 
uwish said:
I think you should really look into the "97%" that the climate people keep spouting, I mean look at the source of where that data comes from. I think it will change your mind. There really is no consensus, science isn't a democracy. Remember we went from 'new ice age' to 'global warming' to 'climate change' primarily because the data, the real data from the source, shows no significant warming.

At any rate, I will leave it there; all I am really saying is, think critically and don't just take what the media and what government groups (with an agenda) say at face value all the time.
Click to expand...
There is a near complete consensus among climate scientists. And I do think critically, but some people need to think less conspiratorially. Better yet, look at the organizations that fund these climate change denier groups if you want to see a wealth distribution scam.
 
HippieSmell said:
There is a near complete consensus among climate scientists. And I do think critically, but some people need to think less conspiratorially. Better yet, look at the organizations that fund these climate change denier groups if you want to see a wealth distribution scam.
Click to expand...

Precisely! The climate change deniers are actually fairly localized to the US (and Norway) - I wonder why?
Everywhere else in the world it's a pretty broadly accepted theory (in science everything is a theory - the only field where you can actually proof things is mathematics) and acted upon. Most people get it that it's better to be on the safe side than to get faced with a situation that can't be fixed anymore.
Some, like the inhabitants of the Marshal Islands or Bangladesh, have already to face the consequences.

Bent said:
I'm totally ok with the world warring with itself. As for WW2, our departure from the world most definatley did not cause the entire thing. It had been going on for quite a while before we were attacked. The only reason we were attacked in the first place is because the Chinese and other "allies" failed to uphold their agreements and defend us (shocker) either on purpose to drag us into it to help them, or by negligence, that is up for debate. Germany's attempts in both ww1 and ww2 to dominate the world were none of our business, and most certainly neither is the Middle East anymore.

We are not part of the world community, we are used by it both fiscally and militarily, even more so now than in the past. I could quite literally give a crap about the rest of the worlds abilities to defend their own borders. We can't be their surrogate military, especially when these countries literally do squat for us these days.

Being involved in this crap world community literally has brought us nothing as a nation other than debt and death, I'm tired of loosing friends and loved ones to other people's problems and having to pay for it to boot.

In my opinion, we need to just totally pull out of the world and out of these international entanglements like the UN and NATO. Then let them all fend for themselves for a while and let the world restructure itself. The Middle East will never stop fighting, never. It's foolish to think they will, or that any intervention on our behalf will make a difference. The rest of the world doesn't spend any money on their military because they don't have to, we do all of their grunt work for them. As long as we are allied with them, we will have to keep burning through cash to keep our "stick" big enough to ward off attacks to not only ourselves, but the rest of these degenerate nations too.

Lots of things financially need to happen to disconnect our currency from the world market before that actually could happen, otherwise I do agree the dollar would likely tank. But given proper notice of our departure, and the slow disconnect from the world markets, I think our currency would not only be ok, but would end up stronger than ever.

Edit:

Just one rednecks opinion though.
Click to expand...

Well, if the world is warring itself the US will also be affected, first maybe just indirect but once there is a victorious side it may become a target as well. And nuclear fallout knows no borders.
Though if I would intend to start WWIII to conquer the world, I would just take the US out as a precaution (a few high altitude nukes will do fine to disable the US). And if I get that idea, be sure Russia and China (or whoever else has plans for world domination) will have already plans to eliminate a potential thread, whether they go to war with each other or with anyone else. China is actually quite open about that (carrier killers).

A disconnect from the rest of the world is not possible - not even remotely. Any country that ever tried that either abandoned it again or failed miserably - the US would not be an exception, especially not in today's interconnected world. (Unless you want to join the Amish and leave all the devil's technologies behind.)

That WWI was the sole and exclusive fault of Germany is a propaganda lie. All the European powers were itching for war to get even or protect their interests: Great Britain wanted eliminate the growing German navy (William II's favorite toy) as an unwanted competition to the Royal Navy's domination of the seas back then. France wanted revenge for the defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. And Russia hoped for a distraction from its social problems to prevent the revolution the war ultimately triggered. Any incident was welcome.
That the German Empire planed to dominate the world after WWI is another baseless propaganda lie. Not only was there not even the remotest chance to accomplish that nor did this ever crossed the Emperor's or General Staff's minds. Hitler was the one who wanted to conquer eastern Europe (France, and all the other west European states were just collateral damage he actually wanted to avoid).
BTW: the Lusitania was a valid target for German U-Boots as it was carrying military cargo. The whole incident was orchestrated by Great Britain to drag the US into the war on its side. Of course a good deal of German stupidity helped along just fine (Zimmermann Telegram)

As for WWII: Had the US stayed and made sure the peace treaty would have been fair to build a stable democracy in Germany and not the British and French revenge on Germany it turned out to be, Hitler would have never found the fertile grounds to rise to power. The real irony is that he later got all the concessions on the reparations from France and Great Britain they had previously denied the democratic governments of the Republic of Weimar. The harsh reparations ultimately caused the democratic governments of Germany to fail and pave the way for Hitler's rise.

As for the US staying neutral: Had the US not covertly supported Britain and later entered the war (the attack on Perl Harbor was very welcome to the US government at the least - I actually think they at least let it happen, if not actually intentionally provoked it) Germany would likely have been successful to subdue Great Britain and the Soviets. After some consolidation and with the advanced rocket and jet engine technologies Germany had at that time, the US would have been the next target. Initial concepts for supersonic intercontinental bombers to attack the US already existed. If you plan on world domination you don't leave anyone behind, especially no one who could become a thread.

As for China back then - it was engaged in a bloody civil war of which Japan took advantage. China was for sure in no shape to stop the Japanese expansion. I'm not even sure if China back then had a treaty with the US for mutual defense - actually, I highly doubt it.
 
Great post everyone, the only thing I will add is we are a world nation already. Look at who owns all of our companies? Europe owns most, China owns a few. As we continue to sell out to the competition we have to wonder what is truly American Made, by American Companies? "When you say Bud", those words use to stand for something.
 
I find it funny how climate change sheeple listen to the hypocrites that are leading the movement, ignore or don't understand the science that it's based on is false, and don't care that the labs keep getting shut down for falsifying data.
 
cougareyes said:
I find it funny how climate change sheeple listen to the hypocrites that are leading the movement, ignore or don't understand the science that it's based on is false, and don't care that the labs keep getting shut down for falsifying data.
Click to expand...

I think this statement deserved some evidence.
 
The earth has experienced climate changes before humans ever arrived. The idea that we are the main factor in causing the continuous shift is interesting because volcanoes pollute the ozone in much larger amounts than my '01 Explorer. Thanks for wasting our hard earned taxes on looking at pieces of ice and water. Go use it to get a haircut hippies. While I typed this dozens of sea turtles were eaten by sharks and replaced by hundreds of hatchlings.
 
reef thief said:
The earth has experienced climate changes before humans ever arrived. The idea that we are the main factor in causing the continuous shift is interesting because volcanoes pollute the ozone in much larger amounts than my '01 Explorer. Thanks for wasting our hard earned taxes on looking at pieces of ice and water. Go use it to get a haircut hippies. While I typed this dozens of sea turtles were eaten by sharks and replaced by hundreds of hatchlings.
Click to expand...
That's very eloquent. Also, volcanoes do not output more CO2 than burning fossil fuels.
 
reef thief said:
The earth has experienced climate changes before humans ever arrived. The idea that we are the main factor in causing the continuous shift is interesting because volcanoes pollute the ozone in much larger amounts than my '01 Explorer. Thanks for wasting our hard earned taxes on looking at pieces of ice and water. Go use it to get a haircut hippies. While I typed this dozens of sea turtles were eaten by sharks and replaced by hundreds of hatchlings.
Click to expand...

It's all good and fine if driving your Explorer is more important than that the next generation still finds an environment worth living in.

As for the sharks - we kill those intentionally (for shark fin soup) or unintentionally (as by-catch) at a rate of 100 millions a year. Those don't eat sea turtles anymore... Sharks are being hunted to extinction - mostly out of carelessness or superstitious believes.
Sea turtles are primarily under thread because of human actions (not necessarily climate related).

As for the taxes - we wouldn't have to pay as much if the 1% that control 90% of all wealth would actually pay their fair share instead of getting tax break after tax break.

HippieSmell said:
That's very eloquent. Also, volcanoes do not output more CO2 than burning fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Volcanos putting out CO2 is actually something quite important as under normal conditions CO2 would over time be depleted - bound by corals, coralline algae and similar organisms or chemical reactions. Though burning of fossil fuels - CO2 bound and stored away over millions of years - adds to this more than just a bit.

To consider is also that when catastrophic climate change occurred in earth's history it usually also triggered mass extinctions.
 
ThRoewer said:
Volcanos putting out CO2 is actually something quite important as under normal conditions CO2 would over time be depleted - bound by corals, coralline algae and similar organisms or chemical reactions. Though burning of fossil fuels - CO2 bound and stored away over millions of years - adds to this more than just a bit.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but that's not what he's saying. He thinks volcanoes have more impact on co2 levels than burning fossil fuels.

This is what I don't understand. This type of misinformation has been around for decades. The science gets better and moves forward, but the same counter augments get recycled over and over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

liverock
Was cleaning my computer and found this interview from 2000....
Replies
3
Views
1K
olsonjl
O
TXAlbert
Corals in Danger
Replies
0
Views
393
TXAlbert
TXAlbert
seth16
WAY OT: I just about DIED when i saw this...HAHAHA
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
seth16
seth16
Back
Top