96% of US NOAA Weather Stations Sited Wrong, Inflate Temperature Record
(www.heartland.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
It's not a blind spot. Studying how Climates and energy work make this whole thing a very simple issue.
Do you know what my Environmental Science class in University?
Watched "An Inconvient Truth".
Do you know why?
To absolutely tear it to shreds for being alarmist, bullshit, hysteria that was objectively, factually, wrong. Including Al Gore's argument that Global Warming had saved the world from Global Cooling, but only for a while.
Watermelons aren't scientists, they are Communists wearing yet another skin suit. Stop taking them seriously as academicians. If someone in a lab coat tells you "Sex is a Social Construct" you know that they are a Communist subverter. Now you need to see that this is true when they are wearing a lab coat and telling you "the Earth will die in 12 years."
Why do you think my example includes a bird in front of the gas station , rather than a box truck stopping 2 feet in front of you. Like a bird flying past a gas station 10 miles away from you, a sunspot doesn't decrease luminosity enough to effect you or the radiant heat you recieve. A box truck in front of you can block all direct sunlight. You are re-iterating my point.
Put it another way, there are geo-engineers (crazy people with PHDs in Engineering) that want to blot out the fucking sun to decrease temperatures. They basically need to create a fucking Stellaris Megastructure to reduce enough light and radiation to decrease the temperature by somewhere around 3-5 degrees. It would literally be pre-cursor to a Dyson Sphere, the largest thing ever constructed in human history, would bankrupt every national government, and would require many many mining operations on asteroids to source the metal, and all of that for a drop by couple degrees. A sunspot isn't even almost enough to cause the same level of luminosity drop that such a megastructure would create. ... but that is what is being argued that sunspots are capable of.
Can you recommend any non hysterical environmentalists?
It's been a while since I've been in that scene, so unfortunately not.
This is the biggest problem the scientific community actually has. The "Science Communicators" are all fucking Communists, so are the regulatory oversight bodies.
I always felt that the earth naturally goes through temperature changes but the climate alarmists seem like a cult. I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater so I’m sure there are legit environmentalists out there. Also I remember someone pointing out the reluctance to focus on nuclear energy when criticizing the climate cult
It's impossible to be both for Global Warming and non-hysterical. If you look at the satellite data for the last 50 years (drroyspencer.com), the temperature has been going up at a rate of about 1C (1.8F) per century. There's nary a trace of acceleration.
So, on average, we would expect the global average temperature to go up about 0.8C (1.5F) by 2100. And that's presupposing that we understand the dynamics of climate -- heck, we don't even understand cloud formation well enough to model it accurately.
(Edit: So the question to you is... if the middle of North Carolina becomes as hot as the north of South Carolina... is that really a problem? It doesn't quite work that way, but it's a good "1st order appproximation" to understand the depth of the hoax)
Global Warming is a hoax being pushed by politicians. And then propagated by guys like Gizortnik who, I think, suffers from having a physics background, and thus thinks that theory is more important than reality.
It very much is.
Fundamentally, the reason you actually want to use Nuclear Power from a business perspective... is that it's cheap.
At least, the fuel is cheap. Once you've got the fuel, you're basically set for decades. The amount of energy and expense that is actually needed to bring in coal or natural gas is absolutely extreme by comparison.
The KGB was the primary driving force of anti-nuclear movements in the west. This is because the USSR had already been absolutely stunned by the industrial and technological capacity of the US to produce nuclear weapons (going back to the days of the "Bomber Gap" panic) and needed any available mechanism to keep the US from running circles around them in the nuclear arms race. Additionally, it could work as a major economic victory against the US who would have to rely entirely on oil supplies, which would have to be acquired from Arab countries, which were currently very receptive to Socialism in the form of Pan Arabism.
One of the greatest victories the KGB ever had was the economic damage of the OPEC Oil Embargos which really hurt the US economy in the 70's.
Everywhere else in the world, Socialist and Communist states were fanatic about acquiring nuclear weapons as both a status symbol, and as a weapon to change power balances that the US (and even the Soviets) were crafting.
So, the USSR pushed it's cultural influences as a weapon to emphasize the dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors.
China has inherited this mantle. The Green Energy efforts are primarily enriching Chinese Lithium mines, and the anti-nuclear sentiment is still being funded (likely by them and the Saudis) to keep America from being energy independent.
And for just basic bitch environmental concerns, no one does more damage to the environment than Communists.