Weather Network ****s on Breitbart climate article

[♪alt13]

i can pull graphs out my *** too.

Please post some ****ty graph. I'm sure it will be good for a laugh.

this graph does not take into effetc changing orbit of earth. for example.

all these models lack info.

the climate is a complex thing, and we think science is settled based on models we made of this complex system.

yet most man made climate change models so far have failed, but we dont seem to call out the people out on it

Please tell us about the changing orbit of the earth and its effect on climate change.(pay attention to timescales)

 

[DutchJazzer]

Please post some ****ty graph. I'm sure it will be good for a laugh.



Please tell us about the changing orbit of the earth and its effect on climate change.(pay attention to timescales)

naah just like ll climate models failing. i will let the time pass, and get you more and more failed climate models. maybe after a few of those you will finally believe if not. whatever you are free to have your religion

 

[♪alt13]

naah just like ll climate models failing. i will let the time pass, and get you more and more failed climate models. maybe after a few of those you will finally believe if not. whatever you are free to have your religion

Willful ignorance. Yeah that sounds like your thing. enjoy

 

[Boris]

lol, it's not. That's my point.

No one that I have seen has opposed any of the bolded items. Well except maybe Boris.

The impact of climate change and man's affect on said change is debated but that doesn't mean people are opposed to any of the items on your list.

So in short, what debate?

Lol of course I would.

Liberals want everything to be perfect utopia. Well guess what humans evolved in ****ty environment an are immune systems rely on bein exposed to dirt an bad air an other stuff during are development. Science has proved this. Why do you think allergies are blowing up? Seems like everyone has one these days peanut allergies, lactose intolerant, celiac disease, peach allergies, on an on. Peanut allergies never ever existed when I was a kid. How you explain the boom in autism spectrum diseases?

We evolved burning fires in are crude Home structures an are immune system evolved along side. Fires inside homes are highly "toxic" if you listen to current epidemiologists but if you give it time they will realize eating dirt an breathing dirty air keeps us alive longer.

 

[Boris]

I am waiting for the environment alarmists to respond to this proof.

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/d2n-stopping-germs-12/kids-and-dirt-germs

A mounting body of research suggests that exposing infants to germs may offer them greater protection from illnesses such as allergies and asthma later on in life.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Is this the post you wanted me to reply to? Standard ad hominem and the normal leftist tactic of ignoring/denigrating sources rather than considering the facts and sources presented behind the opinions? And you wonder why I don't respond to this kind of drivel? Hilarious. Back on ignore.

It wasn't that one

*still waiting*

 

[Boris]

this graph does not take into effetc changing orbit of earth. for example.

all these models lack info.

the climate is a complex thing, and we think science is settled based on models we made of this complex system.

yet most man made climate change models so far have failed, but we dont seem to call out the people out on it

More from one of the worlds most prestigious intellectual institutions Stanford on how bad models are manipulating global warming hysteria.

https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

Lol the liberals were trying to claim sunspot inactivity was created by man made CO2 cause they have a model.

 

[cowhide]

Massive cuts to carbon emissions all at once would cripple the coal industry and industrial factories.

Yes we need to get off coal, yes we need to improve air quality, but you work your way into it. It doesn't just happen over night.

I have long advocated increasing research into alt energy sources and getting off oil. For example requiring all new semis to run off CNG and a scale of how long old rigs should run. Making hydrogen fuel cells a working tech for personal automobiles.

Push for improvements and cleaner industry but do it at a manageable pace. That's what I am saying. There is a balance.

For the record: I am not even a climate change denier. I think it clearly happens. I question how much of it is our fault and I doubt the impending disaster scenarios pitched in some publications but it clearly is happening. It is an issue.

Industries come and go so why wait? Coal is a main cause of air pollution. Procrastination isn't the way to go innovation along with conservation should be the path. Any progress that has been made will be wiped out in this next Administration simply so a few rich people can make more money while they pollute our environment even more. As humans it is our moral obligation to take care of the one planet that we know can provide us a place to live and to exist. I am not an expert on this subject and don't really care about the data but it seems like common sense would be enough to get people to take immediate action. Pouring chemicals into our underground waters and sending more CO2 into our air should be obvious to anyone that it isn't healthy for the planet and all living things.

 

[LogGrad98]

To be clear about something, CO2 in and of itself is not "pollution". It is necessary for plant life, and be extension animal life. Periods in earth's past with the highest CO2 levels and highest temperatures coincided with the greatest number and variety of living organisms in every sphere. See the panic mongering gets people with "common sense" to ignore certain well established truths top further the agenda. CO2 in the atmosphere is decidedly NOT a health risk.

 

[Gameface]

Yeah, to say more CO2 in our atmosphere is not healthy for the planet or ALL living things is flat out wrong.

More CO2 in our atmosphere is disruptive to the established zones inhabited by humans vs animals, to the areas currently designated for agriculture, for highly populated coastal areas, for established sources of fresh water.

Global warming is not the destruction of earth, is it the disruption of our current establishment.

 

[Beantown]

To be clear about something, CO2 in and of itself is not "pollution". It is necessary for plant life, and be extension animal life. Periods in earth's past with the highest CO2 levels and highest temperatures coincided with the greatest number and variety of living organisms in every sphere. See the panic mongering gets people with "common sense" to ignore certain well established truths top further the agenda. CO2 in the atmosphere is decidedly NOT a health risk.

Nobody said C02 was a health risk.......

But the particles and smog released with fossil fuel burning are extremely harmful to our health.

 

[Boris]

Nobody said C02 was a health risk.......

But the particles and smog released with fossil fuel burning are extremely harmful to our health.

Lol define extreme

they are healthy for immune system development.