Topic: NASA admits climate change occurs because of changes in Earth's solar orbit... (Read 396 times)

People in Governments, and the wealthy elite, are absolutely having difficulty. They have two major options:
1. Develop the world so that it can hold tens of billions more;
2. Control the world by reducing its population, because there are way too many people to control effectively already.

If governments and the elite worked with and for the people rather than against them, there is almost no upper limit for the number of people the world could sustain. And if the world had more people, and the government and elite working for and with them, the additional geniuses that would be born would figure out how to open up and 'terraform' other planets so we could pick up out rightful heritage and populate the universe.

I mean, God knew just how large the earth was when He created it. He knew that in that original perfection, people would be populating it faster than rabbits or mink. So what if people messed His original plan up through sin? Stop messing the plan up, and develop the population so we can do what God had in mind originally... populate the universe.

I am not into conspiracy theories, but it is likely some governments around the world realized Earth won't be longer sustainable if World population continues to grow, so they are trying to pull off a population control system without actually talking directly about it, because such thing would be unconstitutional in many of the western democracies, specially in the United States.

The strategy could be for people to let their fear for the future to do all the dirty job and convince them that bringing more people into this planet is not worth it or fair for them, because of how difficult life has become.

Even if we see it as a scientific matter and not as a conspiracy, it is obvious we are supposed to reach a point where population stabilizes and not longer growth through time.

I did it for you.


And a few for you also as this is a very astute observation and well stated.

I've got a ton of merit points to hand out since I don't pay much attention to the system.  The thing quickly devolved into a rigged joke by the 'influencers' and their various circle-jerk schemes.  Such a shame because it could have some usefulness if there were not so many sleazy assholes like the 'merit cycling club' yahoos.

If I had some merits this would be one of the posts I'd be meriting. Alongside the other very informative and factual posts here. Props to those who are pointing out the facts.

I have nothing else to add because this topic is very saturated for me. Climate change propaganda is a designed to confuse, divide and instill fear into people. I believe it's as simple as that.

if you really think about it, YOU are the carbon they want to reduce LOL!

There are simply too many climate and other items, NOT included in the 'stories' of promoters of climate change, to make those stories to be true.


Two Elephants in the Climate Change CO2 Production Room

---

https://mishtalk.com/economics/two-elephants-in-the-climate-change-carbon-dioxide-production-room/
Noah Smith has a question: What about per capita emissions? I have answers.



Our World in Data, Per Capita and Annual CO2 Emissions

bUT wHAT aBOut per cApITA

----------

Noah Smith 🐇🇺🇸🇺🇦
@Noahpinion
·
Follow
bUT wHAT aBOut per cApITA



----------

Per capita emissions in the US are the worlds highest, but they are also crashing. China per capita emissions are rising fast.
...

---

What!? Now global warming depends on your skin? Looks like the climate change nuts really missed it.



So that's how the US is going to take over Russia. Convince everybody that there is global warming, and that we need to do something about it. Cool the earth down until the top half of the Northern hemisphere freezes to death. With everybody frozen to death in Russia, Siberia - and Canada - simply claim the lands for America. Lol.

And throw in Maui, below.


We don't have a climate crisis...we have an arson crisis.

---

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jose-david-m-50b08a240_greeces-minister-has-branded-those-responsible-activity-7101554188228141056-oMu4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
Greece's minister has branded those responsible "arson scum" after a staggering 79 people were arrested over the fires...
...

---

NASA and NOAA are both COMPLETELY political and fraudulent organizations.  All the others rely on funding from the major wealth pools, and most of them have promoted disproportionatly the useful-idiot types who think that scientific fraud is OK as long as it promotes and adgenda (often Communism.)  People who do have some respect for true science either keep their heads down or they are ejected from the industry and need to find new work.  Just like in the medical field, a tiny tiny fraction of them will speak up which is why I have some confidence in what I say about these things.

CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere thus significantly diminishing the meaning of percent changes.  A lot of the most agregious fraud promoted by the climate huxters revolved around making shit up about the historic records so that their graphs looked pretty.

On top of that, yes, efforts to 'dim the sun' via geoengineering very well could impact, or could have already impacted, the natural processes which largely dictate the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  If they can starve off plants of the energy they need, less CO2 will be sucked out of the atmosphere and into the tissues of plants and the animals which eat them.



One story I heard was that the Russians were scratching their head about this new 'global warming' thing 2 or 3 decades ago.  Their intelligence agencies were tasked with figuring out what the hell it was all about.  Rather quickly the answer went back upstairs:  'It's a scam - Don't worry about it.'

It is noted that the same sorts of geo-engineering looking artifacts exist in the skys over Russia as exist in the West.  Could be that they play ball because ultimately Russia's lands will be a lot more productive if the surface warms up a bit more.

It's worth note that the first talk about 'Global Warming' was way back in the 1950's or there-abouts IIRC.  It was proposed as a way to lessen the Northern ice packs and make it easier to transport goods globally.  The question was how to engineer it.

Closer to 2 degrees actually.

Are you trying to argue that "I barely notice a 2* F change in temperature with my skin, therefore 2* is a very small amount and climate change is nothing to worry about" ?


Maybe you're right and and the consensus among scientists is wrong.  I think it's the other way around though.



Putin joined the Paris agreement in 2019 and signed a decree ordering companies to reduce their emissions.

Climate change is real.  It's so clear that it's real that nearly every country in the world has accepted it and is working to fight it.  It's really just conspiratards and fossil fuel companies that are trying to argue it's not.  And when it comes to the conspiratards all of the arguments look just like this very thread.

- Conspiritard cherry picks and misinterprets data to argue it's not.  (Like when you created the subject of this thread).  

- Someone completely disproves their claim entirely.  (like when I posted this link)  

- Conspiratard completely ignores all the evidence that disproves their previous argument and makes a new similarly idiotic argument and the cycle continues.

^^^ How soon you forget. Your chart at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60845114 shows us that the temperature has risen less than 4 degrees F in 140 years. You also forget that the planet is finally getting back to normal like it was in the days of the mammoths.

All the harping about global warming is not going to affect anybody for hundreds of years, at the above rate of 4 degrees per 140 years. And when you consider the mammoths and the warmth that there was back thousands of years before then, by the time that kind of warmth gets back, the whole world will have adapted.

I didn't search for it, but I bet Russians like the idea of global warming. All we are trying to do is break Russia up. Come on. Give them their chance to live in warmth.

NASA has done a great job at countering pretty much every common climate denier talking point - which all seem to follow the same formula: Include a bunch of factoids that can be easily verified as true, and then just ignore a few key facts, sneak in a lie or two and boom, you've pwned the libs!  BADecker did it with the sun, and now you're doing it with fossil fuels and CO2.



This is true!  Not really relevant, but you've found an elegant way to frame CO2 as really not that big and just something the sheeple are overreacting to.  

Natural seasonal processes are a main driving force in changes to co2 levels, true!  But, it's only on a seasonal basis.  Here's what NASA says:



Nice and ambiguous.  I can't say you're wrong because you could easily make "way behind anything nature does" any two values and then argue about that instead of whether or not humans are responsible for a enough of an increase in CO2 levels that it's warming the planet.

Here's the key takeaway from NASAs page all about CO2:









Do you have a NASA conspiracy theory to explain their stance?  Or are they just bad at science?

But wait, it's not just NASA....here are a few Scientific organizations that have supported the argument that humans caused climate change.  (feel free to find one that's linked to George Soros or something so that you can dismiss the entire list.)

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society  
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina  
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences  
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration  
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research  
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia  
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters  
Society of Biology (UK)  
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences


https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-reaffirms-statements-climate-change-and-integrity
https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

^^^ Well, of course. I took my car to the mechanic today. I have a place in the car where I keep a little emergency cash. It isn't out in the open. They stole $20 out of it. I know because directly before I took the car in, I counted it out, because they did it before. I wanted proof for myself.

In addition, as usual, they tried to sell me on a high$price job that could easily be fixed by changing a belt on the engine.

The point is, regular people and companies are ripping people off. So, why not government officials hiring the media to convince people of climate-change. It's not illegal to lie to the people... just unconscionable.

That would not do it either, but these eco-clowns wouldn't know that anyway.

CO2 is only a minor component of 'greenhouse gasses.'  H2O is the primary one.  Natural seasonal processes are the main driving force behind CO2 on a annual basis where the burning of fossil fuels by humans is way way behind anything nature does.  Maybe if these climate-cultists light everything they see on fire it would have a non-inconsequential impact on the CO2 budget for a year or two, and probably next to nothing on 'climate' except for the unburnt carbon soot element of their games.

Did you know that every lump of coal, drop of oil, and cubic meter of methane in the earth is dwarfed by the amount of carbon simply desolved in the ocean?

Did you know that on geological time-scales, planet earth is suffering from a fairly extreme LACK of CO2 and plants are suffering for it?  One of the problems is that carbon is being sequestered in the form of carbonates from shelled creatures. (Think, White Cliffs of Dover.)  Some people hypothesize that 'Mother Gaia' evolved humans to try to get some carbon back to the surface.  If so, we humans have a LONG way to go to have much of an effect.

The whole 'eco' thing is mainly political.  Wouldn't be too far off base to say 'communist' as it is this group who are more prone to the 'ends justify the means' mindset and also to the mindset of 'creating worlds/realities'.  Typical Kabbalist/Lucifarian stuff.  Of course the vast majority of people who are active in the 'eco' movement really are in it for the right reasons insofar as they really did fall for the 'saving the earth' storyline/spell and cannot see the scam because they don't understand how science works.  Their thing is scientism.  The controllers who set the agenda, however, simply want something resembling Communism as a form of government.  That is to say, centralized control of resources since, of course, they expect (probably correctly) that they will be at the center.

Let's just get it straight  the real problem always come from us so far it's based on all our activities  you are right Gozie51 . Imagine all our toxic emissions  which causes some depletion  ,let's just take a look at the percentage countries which still embraces grey Economy  compared to those with green economy it's far comparable even those who claim to be using green economy still make use of grey  and you expect no climate change. Let's use  Africa as case study 90% of Africa relies on grey economy  the climate is still even fair for now seriously

^^^ Maybe burning trees and stuff, is the only way they can get enough CO2 into the atmosphere to make it look like we need climate-change control.

What I don’t understand is the sudden uptick in fires being started around the world by climate activists. I’m old enough to remember when climate activists were against the destruction of trees. Now they burn entire forests around the world to push their manmade climate change agenda. It’s disgusting and when liberals start showing CO2 numbers from the atmosphere next year to scare people, know it’s clearly been orchestrated.

One of the central dogmas inculcated into the minds of the climate-cultists by their controllers is that there are too many people on the planet.  Toxic soda straws are not a bug but a feature.  I didn't read about the straw thing but there have been many other such instances.  Very often the toxicity is associated with damage to the reproductive system.

The funny thing about the climate cultists (and other cultists) is that they are very tolerant of assaults against themselves.  This is especially the case the climate cultists in particular; they have been heavily programmed to blame themselves so in some weird unconscious way they justify such assaults and are thankful for them.  Kinda reminds me of the people who whip and beat themselves.

The roots of the population dogma can be traced back to Malthus and on through the 'elite' who have the resources to build and sustain the cult.  The 'Club of Rome' from the mid 1960's is where the strategy of the modern and widespread incantation of the cult originated.  Basically the principle that 'The enemy of man is man.'

What's in it for 'the elite'?  They already had locked up ownership and control of the earth's resources so there is little more real need to share 'their' resources with the 'useless eaters.'  Another element is that the smaller number of people who need to be controlled, the cheaper, easier, and less risky the job is.

When considering Venus, there are a lot of things to take into account. There aren't any plants to turn the CO2 into plant fiber and oxygen. The literal distance from the sun could easily make this kind of heat to happen without something like plants.

The earth is outside the Venus heat zone. And, it has plants to use up any excess CO2. And the more the plants, the more the earth can hold people. We need more people for the geniuses among them. They will help us find and terraform other planets. We are killing off our future with abortions.



I love it when people are looking into the future like a billion years. If I could look that far, I'd be rich off the stock market long ago.

Not entirely. The temperature on the surface of Venus is much higher than it should have been due to it's distance from the Sun.
The cause: currently Venus has an atmosphere with 96.5% CO₂, 93 bars (~93X of earth) atm pressure and the temperature on the surface is a "balmy" 467^oC (872F).
None of this could be "easily" explained by it's distance from the Sun.

Equally, Sun's luminosity increased 30% in the last 4 bil years or so, yet the temperature on the surface remained largely stable, periodic glaciation and warming notwithstanding.
The most common explanation is the presence of life.
Biosphere, so far, was able to buffer the increase in Sun's luminosity, but it is predicted that this buffering capacity will run out in about 1 bil years as the Sun's luminosity continues to increase.
The cause: relative short duration of the lifespan of G-type stars, like our Sun, and its eventual transformation into a red giant.

Actually, Earth mantains an almost constant distance from the Sun, because its eccentricity is very close to zero.
Its value is actually 0.016708.

So that means that unlike other celestial objects which have a very high value, we do not experiment extreme changes of temperature because of the distance between us and our Sun is almost the constant. Mostly the change during seasons is due to the inclination of the axis of Earth, which makes the north to receive less sunlight during certain months, while the south receives most solar radiation, and viceversa for the rest of the trajectory around the sun.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity


Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity

Really milking your sig campaign eh?

People are just crazy. They’ll swear to anything if it fits with their beliefs. Most liberals probably think Mars is cooler than the Earth because there isn’t any pollution on Mars. It really isn’t brain surgery. The farther from the giant flaming ball we’re circling in space you get, the cooler the temperature. That’s the main factor.

How in the world funny can you get? You know about the mammoths frozen in the ice in northern lands... some with grass they were eating still in their mouths and still in their stomachs. What does this mean? You might be able to think of more things, but to me it means that the Northern lands were once way warmer than they are not... maybe as warm in some areas as the African jungles. Or do you think aliens took the mammoths out of the African jungles and dropped them in Northern Siberia and Northern Canada? Lol.

Look at the chart in your link. Notice that the chart goes for about 140 years. Notice on the right side that the temperature only rises over that period to the tune of 2 decrees C. That's less than 4 degrees Fahrenheit, in 140 years! Do remember the mammoths from the previous paragraph? At best, the earth is super-slowly trying to get back to normal.

Now, if you look at this 140-year chart, you will see the little 11-year sun cycles plotted in. Notice how much larger the heat waves of each 11-year cycle are. But the global warming and cooling is much less, though cumulatively it adds up to a whopping less-than-4-degrees Fahrenheit in 120 years.

"WORRY! WORRY! Global warming is going to get you... maybe next week!" Lol.

Personally, I can't wait for the healthy, warm planet we used to have.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

NASA admits the Sun isn't causing global warming^^^^
(And they do a really good job explaining why they know it's not)

Remember Krakatoa in the late 1800s? When it blew, it darkened the skies around the whole of planet earth. And there were others. And solar cycles swing climate change back and forth every 11 years or so.

I'm sure that mankind contributes a tiny amount to climate change. But it is so small that if we didn't have solar changes and volcanoes interfering with out measurements, we might be able to measure human climate change.

Regarding CO2, often other chemicals are released by man right along with the CO2. But CO2 along with oxygen are the building blocks of life... especially plant life. If we had more CO2, we wouldn't need chemical fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides on our fields. The plants would grow so strong and healthy that they would resist 'bad' stuff all by themselves.

All the CO2 greenhouse effect stuff is simply speculation. And here is how speculative it really is. When people thought they could build a biosphere habitat, where they would live sealed off from the world, it barely worked for a period of time. Ultimately it failed.

Is NASA saying human activities are not the reason for climate change ? I doubt that humans don't contribute hugely to the change in the environment, although there are natural occurrence that could affect the climate like.carbon dioxide which is emission from vehicles, there is nitrous oxide, vapour from boiling water other substances and there are more that are human activities causing change. The issue is most of the causes of climate change is human factor, smoking is also part of it.

I can’t believe that the idea our temperature is determined by how far we are from the sun is considered controversial today.

Is anybody going to talk about the eco-friendly straws people in certain places were forced to use being toxic? Are we really going to continue to let governments poison their citizenry in the name of climate change?

I still believe that global warming is due to human activities, not due to external factors of the earth.. don't look for excuses for something destructive

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/





tldr:

"Increasing Greenhouses Gases Are Warming the Planet"

"Human Activity Is the Cause of Increased Greenhouse Gas Concentrations"

"Evidence Shows That Current Global Warming Cannot Be Explained by Solar Irradiance"

Climate change is a real phenomenon. They say sins of fathers are bestowed upon the sons. I think this holds true for our generation. The way our previous generations has polluted this earth. We are bou to pay the price whether it is due to gasoline or orbital derbis. If we don't mend our ways we are doomed.

There isn't any climate change that hasn't been happening for thousands of years. And that's about how long propaganda groups have been successfully propagandizing the sheeple.


Climate propaganda exposed by critical scientists and citizens

Climate change has been going on for thousands of years. Global warming is simply part of the climate change up and down swing.

Possibly mankind just might be able to kill off most life on planet earth - by using things like chemtrails and pharmaceuticals dispersal. But the Great Barrier Reef near Australia shows us we are failing in that project.


Mainstream media downplays good news at Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

So you are finally figuring out that big oil is into money and energy wherever they can find it.


Either you are missing what is really going on, or you are trying to hide it.



No. Because since Russia turned off the gas, everybody is seeing that 'green' energy isn't enough. How are we seeing it? By the way Western Europe is scrambling to find more energy, because their 'green' isn't really doing anything.

I'm not your Mommy. Ask her to find your pacifier for you.

Kind of weird then how the biggest recipient of donations from the oil industry is Manchin, the one Dem who was against the climate bill. And that the bill only passed once he'd wrung out a load of concessions for new fossil fuel exploration in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. You seriously think he's actually an uncover tree-huggin' eco-warrior whose overriding desire is to promote green energy?



You have a fundamental misconception of what science is, and how it advances.



Why, because Russia has turned off some magical unknown green energy pipeline, that supplies the rest of Europe? Are you sure? So shutting off the gas pipeline is just an elaborate ruse, and really Russia is depriving the continent not of gas, but of renewables? 

The conclusions scientists draw from scientific study are rather faith based. Consider over the last 300 years, all the scientific conclusions that were considered hard fact until some other scientist came along and proved them wrong. Until you realize two things about science, your faith in it is misplaced:
1. Science is mostly not understood by the scientists who are discovering/examining it, until...
2. the engineers come in and attempt to use the science, thereby correcting the mistakes the scientists make.

The way you seem to have faith in science is the same way religious people have faith in God. You are making science a religion for yourself, and you don't even want to look at this fact.



The real reason you don't get it is because you don't want to get it. You are living in a fantasy world, partially propagated by the oil companies.

Oil people who are serious, know what it takes to build up an energy-producing system. It took the oil giants a hundred years to build their system into what it is today. 'Green' can't begin to compete, never will be able to, and they know it. In fact, 'green' is just barely hanging on with all the subsidies it gets from government. And the war in Europe has shown the Western European governments just how little 'green' really works. To promote 'green' is to promote failure so that when people realize how much of a failure it is, they will dive back into oil all the way.

I know. We all need to wake up and put a little more depth and scope into our thinking. I commend you for your attempts.

I wrote some on the science behind climate change back when I was interested in it many years ago.  The science was/is many pay-grades above what almost anyone here could hope to understand.  "It had the Pi equation and everything."  It's not a current interest of mine having deduced long ago, thorough modestly rigorous means, that it is a scam.

More fertile grounds are to be found in exploring the whos' and whys' and general implementation of the scam and watching it's evolution.  The 'carbon tax' scammers are winning this round thanks to idjuts like you take their scientism hook, line, and sinker and become their most effective foot-soldiers.  They call you 'useful idiots.'


As I expected, you didn't get it.  It involves supply/demand curves and artificial scarcity.  Nobody is going to stop using fossil fuels.  Ever.  It's just a matter of what the users pay those who claim ownership of the resources.

If someone spends pretty much their entire time in P&S attacking every example of scientific evidence that is presented, then it seems reasonable to conclude that their arguments are faith-based rather than fact-based. If they then cite as a source of authority an institution that they've previously and routinely disparaged, then that just lends weight to the conclusion that they're simply seeking out anything that anybody says that supports (or, more often, and more superficially, merely appears to support) whatever half-baked notion they have already decided, sans evidence, is the indisputable truth.




No, I don't get it, because this is complete nonsense. You do realise that the oil companies make vast profits, and indeed have announced record-breaking profits during the last few weeks? But you contend that they are actually intent on destroying their own gargantuan money-making machine in order to further a green agenda? Seems somewhat unlikely. 

There was never any denial from the scientific community of natually causing climate changes. Why is everyone trying to make it seem like there is a big climate change conspiracy done by scientists? Yes, climate change is a natural process, however, our planet is equipped with mechanisms to counter, lessen, or just keep those changes on track to where the environment can (in most cases) can adapt to them. What you are missing from this short story is that human climate impact has tilted and jolted that natural safety mechanism and the planet is unable to catch up to it. So no, climate change is not caused by humans, we just sped up the process, removed the safety measures, and put everything out of wack. Good job.

When a bunch of simps are chumped by huxters such as NASA and their spreading of fake science, then the simps have _no_ leg to stand on when NASA comes clean on 'the science'.  That is good reason to call attention to it.

As for 'big oil', they are the biggest sponsors of the 'green' scammers who are making bank off the whole charade.  Last I looked oil was going for something like $90/barrel and it technically easier and cheaper to extract/transfer than it ever was due to a variety of developments.  Do get it?  Probably not.

Weird to see someone with such an aversion to science and facts suddenly regarding NASA as a source of authority. But there we go, even Big Oil shills can surprise us from time to time.

You may be interested in this illustration of climate change from a former NASA employee:

https://xkcd.com/1732

Climate change is real, but it has little to do with habits of people. Maybe if we set off thousands of nukes, maybe then we might be able to affect climate change.


NASA admits climate change occurs because of changes in Earth's solar orbit...