Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Necrosis on June 26, 2026, 02:07:55 AM
-
https://nltimes.nl/2026/06/25/first-ever-code-red-alert-issued-heat-netherlands-40degc-tomorrow
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/super-el-nino-breaking-into-atmosphere-july-forecasts-summer-fall-shift-united-states-canada-europe-fa/
who would have thought digging up C02 that took millions of years to form in the bedrock and burning it at astronomical rates would cause problems? Venus doesn't have cars and the CO2 levels have the planet burning up, obviously it can't be man made!
-
I mean there will always be mentally ill contrarians that will argue anyway, nothing to do with facts or reality even as temps hit 39C under shade. More to do with tribalism, faith, emotions, etc.
-
The biggest moron is Necrosis from the failed country of Canada.
-
The biggest moron is Necrosis from the failed country of Canada.
We got one boys! a moron in the wild!
Record temps year over year, month over month.
Coach will soon post about local weather to rebut the evidence.
-
I always felt I couldn't comment on the science as that seemed much too complicated. I thought the people who loudly claimed it was impossible humans could affect the temperature seemed to be complete morons; I know most of them had zero relevant education. At the same time the green movements or whatever you you'd call them also had an agenda and a reason to exaggerate with guaranteed catastrophic scenarios.
-
I always felt I couldn't comment on the science as that seemed much too complicated. I thought the people who loudly claimed it was impossible humans could affect the temperature seemed to be complete morons; I know most of them had zero relevant education. At the same time the green movements or whatever you you'd call them also had an agenda and a reason to exaggerate with guaranteed catastrophic scenarios.
Go back to the science... > 99% scientific consensus that human activity causes climate change (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966)
For people that have worked with scientists or been around them of have done science themselves even on an undergrad level, they will know that scientists are the ultimate contrarians, they are intensely competitive and do not easily agree with each other but they respect the final arbiters, peer review and the scientific method.
There is no debate that humans cause climate change/global warming, mentally ill or tribal-centered faith-based individuals can whatabout/ad hominem all they want
-
Top photo is from 2014 about the predicted higher Summer temperatures in France in the year 2050
Bottom photo is now in June 2026, with a DEI "person of color" weatherman, as is probably obligatory in communist France
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D4E22AQFPwjX7iaVHPw/feedshare-shrink_800/B4EZ746twLJ0Ac-/0/1782292602144?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=iHpxiR863I0aTYEYUbaV8bnX3S2fc_07JF0lD4k7hzM)
40 degrees celcius = 104 F
-
Top photo is from 2014 about the predicted higher Summer temperatures in France in the year 2050
Bottom photo is now in June 2026, with a DEI "person of color" weatherman, as is probably obligatory in communist France
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D4E22AQFPwjX7iaVHPw/feedshare-shrink_800/B4EZ746twLJ0Ac-/0/1782292602144?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=iHpxiR863I0aTYEYUbaV8bnX3S2fc_07JF0lD4k7hzM)
40 degrees celcius = 104 F
It's accelerating because we are doing nothing about it. If the AMOC collapses food is going to be a problem.
With super el nino this year, europe is going to be hammered. East coast of the states will be colder because of the polar vortex being pushed down. I wouldn't be shocked to see 45 plus in europe july and august.
-
Modern lefties get angry if you don’t go along with the propaganda du jour.
-
The biggest moron is Necrosis from the failed country of Canada.
-
The biggest moron is Necrosis from the failed country of Canada.
The biggest moron is Necrosis from the failed country of Canada.
Say it again for the people in the back.
Earth = 4.5 BILLION years old
Humans recording temperature on earth = 150 years
But I'm sure paying a "climate change" tax will "fix" the problem Al Gore made up. ::)
-
"OMG This is the hottest week in human history. Civilization is ending!" ::)
Meanwhile in 2003, Europe had a heatwave that killed 70,000+ people over 23 years ago.
Each year we go through the same doom mongering news cycle ::)
Europeans are soft :D
(https://i.ibb.co/k6P07tHQ/Chat-GPT-Image-Jun-26-2026-06-49-19-PM.png)
-
Have Europeons never heard of fans or air conditioning? These temps are normal SoCal temps, try running out to AZ or Death Valley for awhile.
-
Yes.
-
Maybe who the fuck knows these days really
Media made covid out to be the new plague. So I never really listen to them. And the scientific field are also bought out and or follows the narrative media and politicians set out..
-
I lived in Phoenix, AZ for 10 years. Average summertime daytime temp was about 105-109 F. The world ended so I moved to South Carolina where its a chilly 90 degrees.
To prevent any more catastrophes I purged my home of carbon dioxide but unfortunately all my plants died. I got plastic ones to fill in the voids.
-
What are you hoping to achieve by starting this thread?
Comments like chaos's where he doesn't understand that we can track temperature for up to 450 million years and makes the hilariously dumb comment about 150 years. He thinks a thermometer is the only way to track it LMAO!!
-
Comments like chaos's where he doesn't understand that we can track temperature for up to 450 million years and makes the hilariously dumb comment about 150 years. He thinks a thermometer is the only way to track it LMAO!!
I saw that too :)
-
https://nltimes.nl/2026/06/25/first-ever-code-red-alert-issued-heat-netherlands-40degc-tomorrow
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/super-el-nino-breaking-into-atmosphere-july-forecasts-summer-fall-shift-united-states-canada-europe-fa/
who would have thought digging up C02 that took millions of years to form in the bedrock and burning it at astronomical rates would cause problems? Venus doesn't have cars and the CO2 levels have the planet burning up, obviously it can't be man made!
Scam, money grab, farce, hoax…
-
I see some trauma bonding in this thread!!! :D How cute!!
I wonder what the temperature was on August 23rd 450,000 years ago? Or to make it easier for the super smart scientists that would never get suckered into climate change, how about the entire year of 450,000 to 450,001? Let us know what the average temperature was could you?
-
We can send satellites into orbit that provide invisible internet around the world with laser precision but can't figure out ice cores. We can develop artificial intelligence and quantum computers but carbon dating befuddles us.
We need president camacho to weigh in.
-
so you are just comment trawling ?
I am trying to be entertained. Should I have loftier goals with my threads?
-
What are you hoping to achieve by starting this thread?
To reinforce the knowledge that he is led around by the ring in his nose.
-
What are you hoping to achieve by starting this thread?
He’s a fake doctor full time troll!
-
What are you hoping to achieve by starting this thread?
Maybe he is trying to help / educate. For instance, if you are buying a house you have to think 10 to 20 years ahead. You want the house to increase in value, but you don't want to get into trouble because your regio runs out of water. Or turns into an oven, or if your house burns down.
As climate change is science, so about things you can measure, be smart and take it into account.
https://nypost.com/2026/06/26/us-news/utah-gov-spencer-cox-bans-july-4th-fireworks-over-historic-wildfire-conditions-across-state/
In many parts of the world the climate seems to be getting more extreme. Higher temperatures, droughts or excessive rainfall etc etc
For your health and as a property owner something to look into.
-
I see some trauma bonding in this thread!!! :D How cute!!
I wonder what the temperature was on August 23rd 450,000 years ago? Or to make it easier for the super smart scientists that would never get suckered into climate change, how about the entire year of 450,000 to 450,001? Let us know what the average temperature was could you?
Maybe consider for once that you wrote something dumb instead of doubling down?
-
It's accelerating because we are doing nothing about it. If the AMOC collapses food is going to be a problem.
With super el nino this year, europe is going to be hammered. East coast of the states will be colder because of the polar vortex being pushed down. I wouldn't be shocked to see 45 plus in europe july and august.
most scientists who are climate crisis advocates agree that its too late now anyway, it needed action in 2010
No point now
-
Maybe consider for once that you wrote something dumb instead of doubling down?
Maybe once consider you're being mislead?
most scientists who are climate crisis advocates agree that its too late now anyway, it needed action in 2010
No point now
Yes, they should have raised taxes much sooner than when Al Gore invented global warming!!
-
Maybe once consider you're being mislead?
Yes, they should have raised taxes much sooner than when Al Gore invented global warming!!
they told us in 1922 that the ice caps would be gone by 1950
-
they told us in 1922 that the ice caps would be gone by 1950
Scientists seeking funding and journalists seeking an audience agree: panic sells.
“Global cooling is going to kills us all!” “No, wait: global warming is going to kill us all!”
Here's the list - an amazing chronology of the last 120 years of scare-mongering on climate
1895 - Geologists Think theWorld May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” –Washington Post
1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age
1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote andHis superior’s objection for context
1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” —Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT
2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
2006 - “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” –Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
2007- “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007
2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” – Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program atNASA, see above for Hansen quotes
They said the quiet part out loud in 1998 and 2007. :o
-
You can do what ever you like to sustain your pomposity
Nah, retards who deny this are causing massive issues for the rest of us and literally dragging humanity down. They should be shamed. It's not up for debate, it's a fact. As you can see, there are folks who still deny what 99% of scientists all around the world agree on. They should be shamed.
-
most scientists who are climate crisis advocates agree that its too late now anyway, it needed action in 2010
No point now
It likely is, the chlathrate gun has been fired.
-
Scientists seeking funding and journalists seeking an audience agree: panic sells.
“Global cooling is going to kills us all!” “No, wait: global warming is going to kill us all!”
Here's the list - an amazing chronology of the last 120 years of scare-mongering on climate
1895 - Geologists Think theWorld May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” –Washington Post
1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age
1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote andHis superior’s objection for context
1989 -“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Discover magazine, October 1989
1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
2006 – “It is not a debate over whether the earth has been warming over the past century. The earth is always warming or cooling, at least a few tenths of a degree…” —Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT
2006 – “What we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes. It is always…warming or cooling, it’s never stable. And if it were stable, it would actually be interesting scientifically because it would be the first time for four and a half billion years.” —Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London
2006 - “Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.” –Senator James Inhofe, Monday, September 25, 2006
2007- “I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007
2008 – “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress” – Dr. John S. Theon, retired Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program atNASA, see above for Hansen quotes
They said the quiet part out loud in 1998 and 2007. :o
Someone with evidence against warming would receive more fuding. Also this list is pure bullshit lol
-
We can send satellites into orbit that provide invisible internet around the world with laser precision but can't figure out ice cores. We can develop artificial intelligence and quantum computers but carbon dating befuddles us.
We need president camacho to weigh in.
Ice cores?
How is that possible when the world is so hot?
Don't take it personally when I say you are a dumbass.
No one as stupid as you could possibly become a medical doctor.
-
Go back to the science... > 99% scientific consensus that human activity causes climate change (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966)
Sure. I remember arguing with someone who is on this thread where I said I often have to defer to "the experts" and the consensus of those who work in a certain field, because it's impossible for me to understand everything myself. And that I thought that's how most people live their lives. That's not how it works he said, it's easy to tell when the consensus is wrong, but I couldn't get clarification on how I could easily find out the "truth" about certain things. At the same time sometimes the consensus could be wrong, or at least substantially wrong so I'm a bit skeptical of certain things. For example the scientific "consensus" is that there are no races or racial disparities in intelligence which I feel is a semantics trick by the scientific community and any scientist who who goes against it is ostracized.
-
Ice cores?
How is that possible when the world is so hot?
Don't take it personally when I say you are a dumbass.
No one as stupid as you could possibly become a medical doctor.
Good point!!!
-
Sure. I remember arguing with someone who is on this thread where I said I often have to defer to "the experts" and the consensus of those who work in a certain field, because it's impossible for me to understand everything myself. And that I thought that's how most people live their lives. That's not how it works he said, it's easy to tell when the consensus is wrong, but I couldn't get clarification on how I could easily find out the "truth" about certain things. At the same time sometimes the consensus could be wrong, or at least substantially wrong so I'm a bit skeptical of certain things. For example the scientific "consensus" is that there are no races or racial disparities in intelligence which I feel is a semantics trick by the scientific community and any scientist who who goes against it is ostracized.
It would be very hard to measure that because of epigenetics.
-
Of course Climate Change is real. The climate changes over the Earth's billion year history.
What's not real is Global Warming.
That's why the eco-leftists and sociopathic con-artists don't call it Global Warming anymore.
-
Of course Climate Change is real. The climate changes over the Earth's billion year history.
What's not real is Global Warming.
That's why the eco-leftists and sociopathic con-artists don't call it Global Warming anymore.
im going to have to ask you to relax or leave the thread. Getting angry vibes here and I forgot to put trigger warnings in the op
-
It would be very hard to measure that because of epigenetics.
Yes and I remember you saying some study showed improving IQ substantially was possible.
However I did read about guidelines given to the scientific community on how to disseminate new genetics research to the public due to fear of it stoking racism. I think many scientists do think different population clusters definitely differ in cognitive performance due to genetics but they will weasel out on the obvious conclusions and implications by saying there are "many" high IQ blacks or whatever. Which doesn't really change anything about averages etc. But anyway... I guess my point was that science can be disseminated, manipulated, weaponized and used for political ends in different ways.
WRT Covid it seems the lab leak theory was seriously discussed by everyone from the start but I remember it was said to have been completely dismissed by the "scientific community"; I remember this well. So what is claimed is the "scientific consensus" can be affected by political pressures.
-
im going to have to ask you to relax or leave the thread. Getting angry vibes here and I forgot to put trigger warnings in the op
Right, you forgot to warn us.
-
https://www.dw.com/en/europe-heat-wave-extreme-weather-france-italy-germany/live-77663026
few records, nothing to see here!
-
Of course Climate Change is real. The climate changes over the Earth's billion year history.
What's not real is Global Warming.
That's why the eco-leftists and sociopathic con-artists don't call it Global Warming anymore.
Right? Some self proclaimed super smart snow mexican claims the science doesn't lie, but the science has been wrong since the 1800's, but now NOW!!! it's right. I mean, it's not like we've never had heat or cooling records before, first time in history!!!!! Nothing to see here.
-
Right? Some self proclaimed super smart snow mexican claims the science doesn't lie, but the science has been wrong since the 1800's, but now NOW!!! it's right. I mean, it's not like we've never had heat or cooling records before, first time in history!!!!! Nothing to see here.
i love that you refer to me a super smart, it's very sweet. Thank you, sincerely.
-
Like everything else the far left does, it only reads what it wants to see. :)
-
You're on the Wrong Forum for your Agenda, MussieNecrosis
-
they told us in 1922 that the ice caps would be gone by 1950
Wes, please kindly confirm this
-
Wes, please kindly confirm this
ha ha ha ha ha ;D
-
Are you a stinking, pedophile defending lefty?
-
https://nltimes.nl/2026/06/25/first-ever-code-red-alert-issued-heat-netherlands-40degc-tomorrow
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/super-el-nino-breaking-into-atmosphere-july-forecasts-summer-fall-shift-united-states-canada-europe-fa/
who would have thought digging up C02 that took millions of years to form in the bedrock and burning it at astronomical rates would cause problems? Venus doesn't have cars and the CO2 levels have the planet burning up, obviously it can't be man made!
There's one major retard right up here ^^^^^
A jizz-filled, kid-molesting, TDS (but foreign) retard. C0kk swallowing phagg0t...
-
thats nice for you
amor fati
-
Are you a stinking, pedophile defending lefty?
He is a far left canadian liberal claiming to be a centrist. ::)
-
He is a far left canadian liberal claiming to be a centrist. ::)
you are secretly in love with me aren't you?
you would spend your friday night with me if you could.
-
Global warming is a product of the government it’s not scientifically proven
-
Global warming is a product of the government it’s not scientifically proven
Just another money grab.
-
To all who think global warming is fake: do you think it's impossible that man can have an effect on earth temperature? For me it sounds possible but at the same time possible there are reasons to exaggerate it.
Regarding this being a left or right issue, there are many so-called extreme right winger anti-democrats who are very environmentalist and nature conservationist, who think globo-homo is responsible for destroying the planet. Some are even vegetarians or vegans.
-
yes 100%,, nobody here knows for sure the one who says he knows is just ignorant because nobody here knows the science of earths athmospere and how pollution from humans affects it and all these intricate highly advanced topics. Know it alls on a bodybuilding forum ofcourse has a clear defined answer for what is what in regards to these topics ::)
but one thing is for sure that media, news, politicians always fear mongers and over exagerate...
Like when I was a kid the teachers told us most coastal cities would be under water by early 2000's. They even made a movie about it with Kevin Costner. Sea levels has not risen what I can tell from visiting the same coast at the sea as when I was 7 years old and that is 30+ years ago.
-
To all who think global warming is fake: do you think it's impossible that man can have an effect on earth temperature?
but one thing is for sure that media, news, politicians always fear mongers and over exagerate...
Absolutely I think man has an effect on the earth. Is it enough to impact temperature, weather, etc? That is a good question. But like MAXX says, the government will use the media to bleed us dry around the world, every single government will use anything they can to take the peoples money and control what they can/cannot do.
-
yes 100%,, nobody here knows for sure the one who says he knows is just ignorant because nobody here knows the science of earths athmospere and how pollution from humans affects it and all these intricate highly advanced topics. Know it alls on a bodybuilding forum ofcourse has a clear defined answer for what is what in regards to these topics ::)
but one thing is for sure that media, news, politicians always fear mongers and over exagerate...
Like when I was a kid the teachers told us most coastal cities would be under water by early 2000's. They even made a movie about it with Kevin Costner. Sea levels has not risen what I can tell from visiting the same coast at the sea as when I was 7 years old and that is 30+ years ago.
ya man its too complex. no way they could study it. einstein figured out space and time were one fabric like a century ago but the climate is way too much.
Sea levels have risen since the late 1800's in case you actually care about reality. Half of that has occurred since the 90s and the pace is increasing.
-
Gayer than bitching about "global warming" on a bodybuilding board. But what did you expect from Oak?
-
Gayer than bitching about "global warming" on a bodybuilding board. But what did you expect from Oak?
necrOAKsis getting exposed in this thread
-
necrOAKsis getting exposed in this thread
The weather is too complex to predict with any accuracy! it could snow tomorrow or be 40 degrees, it's complicated.
I have been around here longer then you have lil guy.
-
necrOAKsis getting exposed in this thread
Negrosis is a CLOWN, Libscum, homo!
-
ya man its too complex. no way they could study it. einstein figured out space and time were one fabric like a century ago but the climate is way too much.
Sea levels have risen since the late 1800's in case you actually care about reality. Half of that has occurred since the 90s and the pace is increasing.
MAXX can correct me if I'm wrong but he was saying some on getbig who haven't even tried to look into the subject have very strong opinions on it. He wasn't necessarily saying its unknowable. I'm thinking it is a fairly complex subject. Which is why I don't have very strong opinions as I'm not inclined to study it. And I think often the most ignorant are the most confident :D
-
Negrosis is a CLOWN, Libscum, homo!
i am not a clown or libscum!
-
MAXX can correct me if I'm wrong but he was saying some on getbig who haven't even tried to look into the subject have very strong opinions on it. He wasn't necessarily saying its unknowable. I'm thinking it is a fairly complex subject. Which is why I don't have very strong opinions as I'm not inclined to study it. And I think often the most ignorant are the most confident :D
I am just trolling around for some fun.
If I am being serious here( i mean the thread title is obvious rage bait ) it's a complex science and highly mathematical which isn't my forte. I cant make sense of most of the calculus and differential equations they use so I have to rely on breakdowns and expert guidance.
-
Negrosis is a CLOWN, Libscum, homo!
Absolutely. Imagine not understanding that the ice has been melting since the last ice age, less ice = less cool = quicker melting. Not really rocket science unless you're some clown RN liberal.
-
Absolutely. Imagine not understanding that the ice has been melting since the last ice age, less ice = less cool = quicker melting. Not really rocket science unless you're some clown RN liberal.
I would nurse you back to health. I hear you are suffering from terminal adiposity with a gynoid fat distribution.
If you are interested in support, pm.
-
Just another money grab.
This, for individuals and governments.
-
Covid-vaccines and Global Warming is what Mussiecrosis is all about
-
Absolutely I think man has an effect on the earth. Is it enough to impact temperature, weather, etc? That is a good question. But like MAXX says, the government will use the media to bleed us dry around the world, every single government will use anything they can to take the peoples money and control what they can/cannot do.
People who claim it's not human activity that is changing the earths climate, but it has natural causes: well, name those causes, and come up with evidence. they can't.
I loathe governments / EU / UN (they usually lie, betray, exagerrate etc) but it really is quite simple:
it took nature hundreds of millions of years to create the layers of oil and coal.
Yet we are burning them up in just a few hundred years.
Easy to deny, make fun of, or try to ignore. But insurance companies can't afford such a "we don't care" mentality:
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/27/europe-heatwave-uk-temperature-el-nino-invest.html
The record temperatures and weather extremes are big news in Germany:
https://www.bild.de/news/inland/hitze-und-wetter-im-live-ticker-heute-bis-zu-38-grad-moeglich-6a3380f47e682fc37fbfebcd
as predicted more extremes, but they are happening earlier than forecast:
https://www.bild.de/news/41-4-grad-schon-wieder-hitzerekord-in-deutschland-6a3fde50291c205ad345b960
Is there a solution?
Yes, even since the 1950s. It's called nuclear power, but the radical left hates it, so they have been blocking nuclear power plants in every Western country for decades.
Luckily it's changing now, and for instance China is building a lot of new ones. Japan is trying to restart existing ones, and in the US lots of new projects are under way. Especially the small modular powerplants seem very promising.
Solar and wind can be practical, but wind and sun will always remain unpredictable and unreliable.
But it's cool ordinary citizens can produce their own power, independent of energy companies and governments thanks to solar panels. But still too expensive and not economical to store that energy in large home batteries
-
As a weather fanatic with three regularly-reporting weather stations, I do have something to say: We do not have the data available to make such a statement (namely that there is human-induced warming.) We've only had weather station data since the 1850s for a handful of stations, and a group of stations that can be considered a network for about 70. The rest of the data has been made up. Cooked.
This is a huge issue because the scientific method works on observation and measurement, not on data scientists calculating the missing data. Observation and measurement is A MUST.
Hence, what we are seeing, weather-wise, is most likely all natural. We are currently exiting an inter-glacial period and a warming was to be expected.
-
As a weather fanatic with three regularly-reporting weather stations, I do have something to say: We do not have the data available to make such a statement (namely that there is human-induced warming.) We've only had weather station data since the 1850s for a handful of stations, and a group of stations that can be considered a network for about 70. The rest of the data has been made up. Cooked.
This is a huge issue because the scientific method works on observation and measurement, not on data scientists calculating the missing data. Observation and measurement is A MUST.
Hence, what we are seeing, weather-wise, is most likely all natural. We are currently exiting an inter-glacial period and a warming was to be expected.
Kind of a crazy position to take. Explain carbon dating then, it's observable and gives us data for millions of years.
Indirect observation is just as good. You don't have to witness a murder to prove someone did it.
-
Kind of a crazy position to take. Explain carbon dating then, it's observable and gives us data for millions of years.
Indirect observation is just as good. You don't have to witness a murder to prove someone did it.
Crazy? What IS crazy is to pretend that counting CO2 specs in some Greenlandic ice core sample and/or tree rings counts as weather data.
Again, I know you guys are not big on science but... the scientific method works on observation and measurement. These are two tenets you CANNOT work around. And no, correlations or extrapolations of proxies ARE NOT weather data. I know you hate it because you need and want cars/buses/homes that run on farts and pussy juice but... please, PLEASE, choose another field. You're desecrating a perfectly good field (meteorology/climatology/paleo-climatology.)
-
Crazy? What IS crazy is to pretend that counting CO2 specs in some Greenlandic ice core sample and/or tree rings counts as weather data.
Again, I know you guys are not big on science but... the scientific method works on observation and measurement. These are two tenets you CANNOT work around. And no, correlations or extrapolations of proxies ARE NOT weather data. I know you hate it because you need and want cars/buses/homes that run on farts and pussy juice but... please, PLEASE, choose another field. You're desecrating a perfectly good field (meteorology/climatology/paleo-climatology.)
The people who study this literally disagree with you. I doubt you understand how the scientific method works if you are suggesting ice core samples are observation and measurement. I am not even sure what you know what the words you are using mean tbh.
Since descartes first founded the method there have been substantial improvements to the methodology. Climate is a hyperobject, you can't observe it directly, you aren't making any sense whatsoever.
Odd that you disagree with almost every expert who studies this for a living using such basic elementary arguments that can be disproven via logical argument. Your argument fails both a priori and a posteriori.
Whats even funnier is that you think that the data since the 1850's is direct observation lolololol a thermometer is indirect evidence, you aren't observing climate directly and the ice cores are exactly the same type of data, purely correlational.
All data is techinically correlational. I realize that in grade 12 it was taught that correlation isn't causation but once you get to the higher levels it will be taught that causation is high level correlation- hence the falsifiability of science. Look at the stats used in studies, the alpha levels that detect "cause" are simply high correlations that make a probabilistic claim (less than 1 percent in good studies, less than 5% in others).
Anything else?
-
The people who study this literally disagree with you. I doubt you understand how the scientific method works if you are suggesting ice core samples are observation and measurement. I am not even sure what you know what the words you are using mean tbh.
Since descartes first founded the method there have been substantial improvements to the methodology. Climate is a hyperobject, you can't observe it directly, you aren't making any sense whatsoever.
Odd that you disagree with almost every expert who studies this for a living using such basic elementary arguments that can be disproven via logical argument. Your argument fails both a priori and a posteriori.
Whats even funnier is that you think that the data since the 1850's is direct observation lolololol a thermometer is indirect evidence, you aren't observing climate directly and the ice cores are exactly the same type of data, purely correlational.
All data is techinically correlational. I realize that in grade 12 it was taught that correlation isn't causation but once you get to the higher levels it will be taught that causation is high level correlation- hence the falsifiability of science. Look at the stats used in studies, the alpha levels that detect "cause" are simply high correlations that make a probabilistic claim (less than 1 percent in good studies, less than 5% in others).
Anything else?
Dude, you're speaking jibbrish, non-sensical innuendo. Since you opened up with "The people who study this literally disagree with you" I presume you're not even talking about yourself, only what you've read and most importantly FEEL very strongly about.
Let me educate you: The climate is essentially an average of the weather. Which means that in order for anyone to be able to make climatic inferences, WE MUST HAVE OBSERVED AND MEASURED the weather data. And to do that, you MUST have a well calibrated and maintained regularly-reporting weather station, not some kid behind a computer running complex regression models. The later IS NOT science, regardless of you FEEL about it.
What's most irritating about this is that we've essentially gone down this road in other fields and it's been shown that they are terribly, TERRIBLY, inaccurate. Take, for example, the 2007 subprime crisis: Data analysts too came up with regression models that showed that bundling up low-grade securities with the AAA-graded stuff greatly decreases the chance of default. It worked until it didn't. And then the science behind regression modeling fucked everyone over and most investors lost their money. Again, this happened because the line between what is data and a correlation of data was crossed and the later was taken as fact when in reality, IT ISN'T. There is NO SUBSTITUTE to weather data collected via a weather station. NONE. ZILCH. NADA.
By the by, Tim Ball, a REAL paleo-climatologist, beat Michael Mann (the father of the now infamous "hockey stick graph") because he asked for the data behind the graph and he chose not to give it to him, so he lost the case. Meaning Mann cooked the data. And that is what spearheaded the climate alarmism bullshit.
-
People who claim it's not human activity that is changing the earths climate, but it has natural causes: well, name those causes, and come up with evidence. they can't.
It's a natural ebb and wane of the earths atmosphere, been going on for billions of years. There have been dozens of extreme heating/cooling events and hundreds (possibly thousands) of smaller events.
As a weather fanatic with three regularly-reporting weather stations, I do have something to say: We do not have the data available to make such a statement (namely that there is human-induced warming.) We've only had weather station data since the 1850s for a handful of stations, and a group of stations that can be considered a network for about 70. The rest of the data has been made up. Cooked.
This is a huge issue because the scientific method works on observation and measurement, not on data scientists calculating the missing data. Observation and measurement is A MUST.
Hence, what we are seeing, weather-wise, is most likely all natural. We are currently exiting an inter-glacial period and a warming was to be expected.
This guy gets it ^^ Exactly what I said earlier in the thread.
-
Dude, you're speaking jibbrish, non-sensical innuendo. Since you opened up with "The people who study this literally disagree with you" I presume you're not even talking about yourself, only what you've read and most importantly FEEL very strongly about.
Let me educate you: The climate is essentially an average of the weather. Which means that in order for anyone to be able to make climatic inferences, WE MUST HAVE OBSERVED AND MEASURED the weather data. And to do that, you MUST have a well calibrated and maintained regularly-reporting weather station, not some kid behind a computer running complex regression models. The later IS NOT science, regardless of you FEEL about it.
What's most irritating about this is that we've essentially gone down this road in other fields and it's been shown that they are terribly, TERRIBLY, inaccurate. Take, for example, the 2007 subprime crisis: Data analysts too came up with regression models that showed that bundling up low-grade securities with the AAA-graded stuff greatly decreases the chance of default. It worked until it didn't. And then the science behind regression modeling fucked everyone over and most investors lost their money. Again, this happened because the line between what is data and a correlation of data was crossed and the later was taken as fact when in reality, IT ISN'T. There is NO SUBSTITUTE to weather data collected via a weather station. NONE. ZILCH. NADA.
By the by, Tim Ball, a REAL paleo-climatologist, beat Michael Mann (the father of the now infamous "hockey stick graph") because he asked for the data behind the graph and he chose not to give it to him, so he lost the case. Meaning Mann cooked the data. And that is what spearheaded the climate alarmism bullshit.
You're trying to use common sense with a liberal, you're in for a rough ride.
-
Dude, you're speaking jibbrish, non-sensical innuendo. Since you opened up with "The people who study this literally disagree with you" I presume you're not even talking about yourself, only what you've read and most importantly FEEL very strongly about.
Let me educate you: The climate is essentially an average of the weather. Which means that in order for anyone to be able to make climatic inferences, WE MUST HAVE OBSERVED AND MEASURED the weather data. And to do that, you MUST have a well calibrated and maintained regularly-reporting weather station, not some kid behind a computer running complex regression models. The later IS NOT science, regardless of you FEEL about it.
What's most irritating about this is that we've essentially gone down this road in other fields and it's been shown that they are terribly, TERRIBLY, inaccurate. Take, for example, the 2007 subprime crisis: Data analysts too came up with regression models that showed that bundling up low-grade securities with the AAA-graded stuff greatly decreases the chance of default. It worked until it didn't. And then the science behind regression modeling fucked everyone over and most investors lost their money. Again, this happened because the line between what is data and a correlation of data was crossed and the later was taken as fact when in reality, IT ISN'T. There is NO SUBSTITUTE to weather data collected via a weather station. NONE. ZILCH. NADA.
By the by, Tim Ball, a REAL paleo-climatologist, beat Michael Mann (the father of the now infamous "hockey stick graph") because he asked for the data behind the graph and he chose not to give it to him, so he lost the case. Meaning Mann cooked the data. And that is what spearheaded the climate alarmism bullshit.
oh we have a conspiracy theorist on board. You addressed literally zero of my arguments.
Cores, trees, ocean temps, solar radiation etc are all observable data, you can't be in person to observe the climate, you are making zero sense.
Using a contrarian when literally 99% of the climate scientists agree that climate change is anthropogenic is silly. No other science works like this.
My simple argument about carbon dating disproves your whole idea. You also can't observe physics in the way you are suggest, which is legitimately the most "hard" science.
You also can't collect weather data at every point so it's always correlational. Not to mention weather is a non-linear phenomenon as outlined in chaos theory. You can't extrapolate it ever, 1 to 1, it can't be done because of initial conditions causing perturbations which cannot be accounted for in advance. At best you can look at attractor basins.
The subprime thing is also a silly argument. You are acting as if there wasn't extraneous variables which could not be accounted for in the models, economics is a human creation as such it involves things that are qualitative which are extremely difficult to capture. The market is far harder to predict then the weather for example.
You clearly have an agenda, I don't, I listen to what the people with the most knowledge say, as should you. You also don't seem to be involved in the sciences by the jargon you are using.
You a financial guy?
-
You're trying to use common sense with a liberal, you're in for a rough ride.
Ya use common sense with something that requires non-linear differential equations!
You are a simple guy aren't you? do you think common sense is what they use in science? lol.
-
for the hockey stick graph silly folks in the back
&t=8s
low and behold there has been more and more data which not only confirms it but extends it. Who would think digging up a greenhouse gas and putting it into the atmosphere at breakneck speeds would cause problems. Seems like common sense.
Germany just had another record day as well. Nice super el nino going on.
-
Wait, Necrosis is scumbag bed pan changer ChOak? It all makes sense now.
Brain fried from Covid lies.
-
Are you saying we are causing it or just speeding up the process? This world is going to shake us off one way or another, like a dog does fleas. We aren’t that important.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to be more environmentally friendly and not clog up the air with a bunch of smoke.
-
Why not focus on China and India if you actually believe it and care? He doesn’t, he just wants to slurp.
-
Are you saying we are causing it or just speeding up the process? This world is going to shake us off one way or another, like a dog does fleas. We aren’t that important.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to be more environmentally friendly and not clog up the air with a bunch of smoke.
We are causing it.
the earth naturally cycles of course but we have caused a change in co2 that has never been seen this rapidly. Ecosystems could adapt but its too rapid which is the problem. Co2 has be higher before but it was a gradual process, the homeostatic mechanisms cannot cope.
-
Are you saying we are causing it or just speeding up the process? This world is going to shake us off one way or another, like a dog does fleas. We aren’t that important.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to be more environmentally friendly and not clog up the air with a bunch of smoke.
We're not the cause and as far as speeding it up, that's debatable. History and "science" has shown the earth goes through heating/cooling cycles. It's a natural course that will repeat long after earth has shaken the fleas off. Unless of course you're a brainwashed liberal that thinks you're smarter than everyone. ::)
Are you not running diesel equipment? You switching to electric trucks? :D
-
Coolcations are getting more popular in Europe:
https://en.ilsole24ore.com/art/climate-crisis-pushes-northern-european-travellers-AIYWOI3?refresh_ce=1
(https://i2.res.24o.it/images2010/S24/Documenti/2026/01/26/Immagini/Ritagli/DMOIZH9X-kxHI-U24421766614TKu-1440x752@IlSole24Ore-Web.jpg?r=810x425)
-
As a weather fanatic with three regularly-reporting weather stations, I do have something to say: We do not have the data available to make such a statement (namely that there is human-induced warming.) We've only had weather station data since the 1850s for a handful of stations, and a group of stations that can be considered a network for about 70. The rest of the data has been made up. Cooked.
This is a huge issue because the scientific method works on observation and measurement, not on data scientists calculating the missing data. Observation and measurement is A MUST.
Hence, what we are seeing, weather-wise, is most likely all natural. We are currently exiting an inter-glacial period and a warming was to be expected.
There are now 8.3 billion people on our planet. Who all burn fossil fuels every day. Directly or indirectly.
Can you tell me how many people were alive during such a previous inter-glacial period?
Yesterday June temperature records again in Germany:
(http://www.bild.de/ig/0ec49390-54ca-41e5-bd34-c9779d81e077/mobile/mobile)
(I know they manipulated the vertical axis, as media often do. But still, the general line is clearly up. And it's up substantially, and in a short time)
-
We're not the cause and as far as speeding it up, that's debatable. History and "science" has shown the earth goes through heating/cooling cycles. It's a natural course that will repeat long after earth has shaken the fleas off. Unless of course you're a brainwashed liberal that thinks you're smarter than everyone. ::)
Are you not running diesel equipment? You switching to electric trucks? :D
Electric ain’t even an option at this point. Shit, the hybrids are trash. With the DPF and the Def we run, we’re cleaner than your average car.
-
Can you tell me how many people were alive during such a previous inter-glacial period?
Around 3 million people. And the earth was warming up then. Who's fault was that?
-
Around 3 million people. And the earth was warming up then. Who's fault was that?
You seem to not understand that no one is saying that the earth doesn't cool and heat periodically. The suns distance, output of the sun, volcanic activity etc all contribute. These are things humans have no impact on.
However, global warming is because of the burning of fossil fuels which is causing a rapid heating of the earth. The earth will be fine, we likely won't and it will start with food shortages. If the AMOC breaks down which according to satellite tracking it is starting to we are going to see some really wild shit.
The industrial revolution has increased heating drastically and no previous records have shown such a sharp increase.
-
Its really a shame some people in the thread won't be around for the next ice age. Id love to see them panic and come up with ways to try and heat up the earth.
-
Is it true that Europeans by and large don’t have air conditioning? We’re seeing a lot of FIFA visitor posts praising AC as if it’s something strange.
-
Two great documentaries for Necrosis to watch. And no, they were not produced by Right-wingers:
-
Its really a shame some people in the thread won't be around for the next ice age. Id love to see them panic and come up with ways to try and heat up the earth.
Only Wes will find out if one ice age is any different from the next.
-
Only Wes will find out if one ice age is any different from the next.
;D
-
Only Wes will find out if one ice age is any different from the next.
Possibly Hankins also if the theory he is a defrosted Neanderthal is correct.
-
Climate change has been around as long as the planet has. Im pretty sure Mother Nature can outpoint anything us mere mortals can do with out our help. Historical studies since well before industrialisation demonstrate plenty of extinction and climate change events that basically defeat the argument that modern industrialisation is a greater threat than nature itself. Makes sense where you can to protect the environment, and I'm not saying industrialisation isn't a negative influence, just that its no where near the threat that Nature has always and will always present.
-
Is it true that Europeans by and large don’t have air conditioning? We’re seeing a lot of FIFA visitor posts praising AC as if it’s something strange.
In Northern Europe it wasn't necessary, it wasn't that warm, and usually only for a few days in a row. Now because the European climate is heating up very quickly more and more families have them. Here in The Netherlands often ones that can both cool and heat the house. For offices and such climate control is normal
In Southern Europe people used to build traditional cool houses: thick walls, small windows and shutters for the windows. Painted white to reflect the sunlight, like this one in southern Portugal:
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/typical-small-white-yellow-house-travel-portugal-algarve-cute-jambs-door-windows-whitewashed-wall-chimney-well-112050835.jpg)
-
Necrosis,
Anything special planned for the summer now that you graduated from 8th grade?
-
Necrosis,
Anything special planned for the summer now that you graduated from 8th grade?
probs play on the trampoline and build a fort
-
oh we have a conspiracy theorist on board. You addressed literally zero of my arguments.
That's because I'm not arguing or debating you, I am educating you how things are. You know... The real world.
Cores, trees, ocean temps, solar radiation etc are all observable data, you can't be in person to observe the climate, you are making zero sense.
Again, for the third time, proxy data IS NOT weather OR climatic data. It's only proxy data. If you can't understand this basic fact then maybe you should just shut the f-ck up.
Using a contrarian when literally 99% of the climate scientists agree that climate change is anthropogenic is silly. No other science works like this.
OMG you haven't a single original thought... it's all regurgitations from the climate alarmism looney-tunes. More education: There is no consensus or agreement in science. Science is based on observation, measurement and independent scrutiny. By the way the 99% of climate scientists you just mentioned is a made up #. It's like me saying that "95% of all the prostitutes around the world say I'm the best in the sac." Go and prove me wrong.
By the way, that line came from Naomi Oreskes in 2004 and it was found to be a complete fabrication. Not only that, Oreskes was thrown out as an expert on the history of climate science in the Mann v. Simberg/Steyn case by the court back in 2021. The reason? "her methodology—described as subjective "reading and thinking"—lacked peer-reviewed standards, replicability, and a known success rate." THIS is the "scientist" you're quoting. Quite a feat.
My simple argument about carbon dating disproves your whole idea. You also can't observe physics in the way you are suggest, which is legitimately the most "hard" science.
Again, carbon dating shit doesn't mean shit. Saying that you can tell what the average Mongolian male's average caloric intake is from the amount of solidified turd (proxy) found in his septic tank is stupid. Anyone posing such an argument MUST have their driver license removed for stupid.
Say, have you ever gotten an estimated bill from your energy company? Was it ever even close? Well, the calculation is basically based on the same calculations and regression models that climate alarmist dumbasses use.
You also can't collect weather data at every point so it's always correlational.
No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! Again, another stupid argument. More jibber jabber. You cannot correlate climatic data from stations in other climatic areas. CAN. NOT.
Not to mention weather is a non-linear phenomenon as outlined in chaos theory. You can't extrapolate it ever, 1 to 1, it can't be done because of initial conditions causing perturbations which cannot be accounted for in advance. At best you can look at attractor basins.
Non sensical jibber-jabber. You're literally not saying anything dude. Nothing. It may sound smart to you but you're communicating ZERO.
The subprime thing is also a silly argument. You are acting as if there wasn't extraneous variables which could not be accounted for in the models, economics is a human creation as such it involves things that are qualitative which are extremely difficult to capture. The market is far harder to predict then the weather for example.
It's not a silly argument precisely because it shows that mixing different data sets and types, smoothing out if you will, always, ALWAYS ends up failing big time.
You clearly have an agenda, I don't, I listen to what the people with the most knowledge say, as should you. You also don't seem to be involved in the sciences by the jargon you are using.
I have an agenda????? From the guy that has no original thought and is incapable of speaking intelligently about something so important? Ninja pleaze.
-
Slapper and Necrosis are the same person. Their exchanges read like a schizophrenic patient’s diary entry.
-
That's because I'm not arguing or debating you, I am educating you how things are. You know... The real world.
Again, for the third time, proxy data IS NOT weather OR climatic data. It's only proxy data. If you can't understand this basic fact then maybe you should just shut the f-ck up.
OMG you haven't a single original thought... it's all regurgitations from the climate alarmism looney-tunes. More education: There is no consensus or agreement in science. Science is based on observation, measurement and independent scrutiny. By the way the 99% of climate scientists you just mentioned is a made up #. It's like me saying that "95% of all the prostitutes around the world say I'm the best in the sac." Go and prove me wrong.
By the way, that line came from Naomi Oreskes in 2004 and it was found to be a complete fabrication. Not only that, Oreskes was thrown out as an expert on the history of climate science in the Mann v. Simberg/Steyn case by the court back in 2021. The reason? "her methodology—described as subjective "reading and thinking"—lacked peer-reviewed standards, replicability, and a known success rate." THIS is the "scientist" you're quoting. Quite a feat.
Again, carbon dating shit doesn't mean shit. Saying that you can tell what the average Mongolian male's average caloric intake is from the amount of solidified turd (proxy) found in his septic tank is stupid. Anyone posing such an argument MUST have their driver license removed for stupid.
Say, have you ever gotten an estimated bill from your energy company? Was it ever even close? Well, the calculation is basically based on the same calculations and regression models that climate alarmist dumbasses use.
No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! Again, another stupid argument. More jibber jabber. You cannot correlate climatic data from stations in other climatic areas. CAN. NOT.
Non sensical jibber-jabber. You're literally not saying anything dude. Nothing. It may sound smart to you but you're communicating ZERO.
It's not a silly argument precisely because it shows that mixing different data sets and types, smoothing out if you will, always, ALWAYS ends up failing big time.
I have an agenda????? From the guy that has no original thought and is incapable of speaking intelligently about something so important? Ninja pleaze.
I appreciate your level headed, common sense approach to this response. Unfortunately the individual you responded to has a huge ego and sense of self worth, he will never concede and will eventually tell you how right he is because he is smarter than you. Don't get dragged down to his level. ;)
-
It's been this hot, or close to it, in France before. Also, it gets hot in the Summer.
-
It's been this hot, or close to it, in France before. Also, it gets hot in the Summer.
Now a full blown retard has entered the thread 😂
-
I appreciate your level headed, common sense approach to this response. Unfortunately the individual you responded to has a huge ego and sense of self worth, he will never concede and will eventually tell you how right he is because he is smarter than you. Don't get dragged down to his level. ;)
He (she?) also claimed to be a medical professional but just changed bedpans back during Covid. Not sure if that broke the brain or whether it happened earlier with TDS after the 2016 election/
-
The audacity for someone to call others morons because they have a “theory.”
Good click bait, but also a good way to look stupid by going out on a limb for some assumption.
A truly idiotic and leftist brain-dead way to conduct oneself.
If we have been in a natural warming phase, we could still switch back to a cooling phase.
Whether or not man-made changes could be strong enough to override that is an assumption.
No one knows that answer and only a moron would pretend they know.
-
Necrosis,
Anything special planned for the summer now that you graduated from 8th grade?
Hahahaha 😂
-
“Global warming” is as real as Barack Obama’s birth certificate
-
Say it again for the people in the back.
Earth = 4.5 BILLION years old
Humans recording temperature on earth = 150 years
But I'm sure paying a "climate change" tax will "fix" the problem Al Gore made up. ::)
Maybe in the USA, but temperatures have been recorded in Holland since 1706. In England since 1659
True, not standardized and not as accurate as now, but still valuable data.
Is Al Gore a hypocrite? Yes. But does he have a point? Also yes. He is one of those "do as I say not do as I do" elitist assholes. And he exagerrated the "hockey stick" graph, same as the UN exagerrated their predictions. I think they did that on purpose, as a wake up call for the general audience.
Unfortunately in broad terms, they are correct. The climate is changing, we are the main cause, and the predictions of more extreme weather and higher temperatures have come true. And alas faster than expected.
People with very limited responsibilities can shrug their shoulders or deny facts, but the smart money is paying attention:
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/29/ai-data-centers-heatwave-climate-risk-weather.html
Photo of Winterberg, in Germany close to the Dutch border. They have to use some kind of chemical artificial snow because of the higher temperatures:
(https://media.skiinformatie.nl/smush-webp/2024/03/Scherm%C2%ADafbeelding-2024-03-08-om-12.47.11-1024x513.jpg.webp)
-
That's because I'm not arguing or debating you, I am educating you how things are. You know... The real world.
Again, for the third time, proxy data IS NOT weather OR climatic data. It's only proxy data. If you can't understand this basic fact then maybe you should just shut the f-ck up.
OMG you haven't a single original thought... it's all regurgitations from the climate alarmism looney-tunes. More education: There is no consensus or agreement in science. Science is based on observation, measurement and independent scrutiny. By the way the 99% of climate scientists you just mentioned is a made up #. It's like me saying that "95% of all the prostitutes around the world say I'm the best in the sac." Go and prove me wrong.
By the way, that line came from Naomi Oreskes in 2004 and it was found to be a complete fabrication. Not only that, Oreskes was thrown out as an expert on the history of climate science in the Mann v. Simberg/Steyn case by the court back in 2021. The reason? "her methodology—described as subjective "reading and thinking"—lacked peer-reviewed standards, replicability, and a known success rate." THIS is the "scientist" you're quoting. Quite a feat.
Again, carbon dating shit doesn't mean shit. Saying that you can tell what the average Mongolian male's average caloric intake is from the amount of solidified turd (proxy) found in his septic tank is stupid. Anyone posing such an argument MUST have their driver license removed for stupid.
Say, have you ever gotten an estimated bill from your energy company? Was it ever even close? Well, the calculation is basically based on the same calculations and regression models that climate alarmist dumbasses use.
No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! Again, another stupid argument. More jibber jabber. You cannot correlate climatic data from stations in other climatic areas. CAN. NOT.
Non sensical jibber-jabber. You're literally not saying anything dude. Nothing. It may sound smart to you but you're communicating ZERO.
It's not a silly argument precisely because it shows that mixing different data sets and types, smoothing out if you will, always, ALWAYS ends up failing big time.
I have an agenda????? From the guy that has no original thought and is incapable of speaking intelligently about something so important? Ninja pleaze.
I dont think you understood half of what I said because your reponses to some of those quotes are agreeing with me yet you are saying it's wrong. Very weird.
You just keep saying I am saying nothing but in reality you simply can't engage in a meaningful way because you aren't well read on the topic.
-
The audacity for someone to call others morons because they have a “theory.”
Good click bait, but also a good way to look stupid by going out on a limb for some assumption.
A truly idiotic and leftist brain-dead way to conduct oneself.
If we have been in a natural warming phase, we could still switch back to a cooling phase.
Whether or not man-made changes could be strong enough to override that is an assumption.
No one knows that answer and only a moron would pretend they know.
HAHA a theory is a collection of facts you clown, like the theory of gravity. Go jump off a building to test the theory out. No one knows about gravity of course, how could they???
Imagine being so arrogant that you have literally zero understanding of something yet you handwave away experts who have spent their lives studying the topic. MAGA!
-
He (she?) also claimed to be a medical professional but just changed bedpans back during Covid. Not sure if that broke the brain or whether it happened earlier with TDS after the 2016 election/
LOL. The he/she is funny
-
“Global warming” is as real as Barack Obama’s birth certificate
Is this fact or speculation and rumor? Stupid question, you only deal with facts.
-
HAHA a theory is a collection of facts you clown, like the theory of gravity. Go jump off a building to test the theory out. No one knows about gravity of course, how could they???
Imagine being so arrogant that you have literally zero understanding of something yet you handwave away experts who have spent their lives studying the topic. MAGA!
And I’m the moron, lol.
You are an assumption machine.
I see how you got caught up into believing dirty politicians to begin with.
Thread backfires are quite entertaining though.
-
And I’m the moron, lol.
You are an assumption machine.
I see how you got caught up into believing dirty politicians to begin with.
Thread backfires are quite entertaining though.
TDS is a recognized mental illness even in Canada
-
Maybe in the USA, but temperatures have been recorded in Holland since 1706. In England since 1659
True, not standardized and not as accurate as now, but still valuable data.
Is Al Gore a hypocrite? Yes. But does he have a point? Also yes. He is one of those "do as I say not do as I do" elitist assholes. And he exagerrated the "hockey stick" graph, same as the UN exagerrated their predictions. I think they did that on purpose, as a wake up call for the general audience.
Unfortunately in broad terms, they are correct. The climate is changing, we are the main cause, and the predictions of more extreme weather and higher temperatures have come true. And alas faster than expected.
People with very limited responsibilities can shrug their shoulders or deny facts, but the smart money is paying attention:
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/29/ai-data-centers-heatwave-climate-risk-weather.html
Photo of Winterberg, in Germany close to the Dutch border. They have to use some kind of chemical artificial snow because of the higher temperatures:
(https://media.skiinformatie.nl/smush-webp/2024/03/Scherm%C2%ADafbeelding-2024-03-08-om-12.47.11-1024x513.jpg.webp)
Basing a future model on inaccurate information is no good. We've been using snow makers in SoCal for decades, nothing new there.
-
And I’m the moron, lol.
You are an assumption machine.
I see how you got caught up into believing dirty politicians to begin with.
Thread backfires are quite entertaining though.
Politicians aren't climatologists. I realize in your lil maga mind everything is politicians but universities aren't groups of politicians.
I made zero assumptions. Do you even know what an assumption is? it appears you do not, in fact.
Quite the backfire. We have the morons coming out in droves to say things like "the climate has always changed", "its a money grab" etc.. you have countries that hate each other both saying the same thing.
-
Hahaha
Hot Air! Socialist Paris Deputy Mayor Blames U.S. For French Heat Wave
Hot Air! Socialist Paris Deputy Mayor Blames U.S. For French Heat Wave
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2026/06/30/socialist-paris-deputy-mayor-blames-u-s-for-french-heat-wave/
-
Hahaha
Hot Air! Socialist Paris Deputy Mayor Blames U.S. For French Heat Wave
Hot Air! Socialist Paris Deputy Mayor Blames U.S. For French Heat Wave
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2026/06/30/socialist-paris-deputy-mayor-blames-u-s-for-french-heat-wave/
What do you think they are suggesting there? should be interesting
-
We should accept the opinions of the scientific community.
What does Dr. Jill say about Global Warming?
(https://i.abcnewsfe.com/a/32c55c1e-35d5-4f69-b300-9328632440bc/USA-INVESTMENT-MILKEN_1779923910503_hpMain.jpg)
-
The theory is your interpretation of why the warming has happened, not if it has warmed.
I explain the rest in my post.
Certified thread fail..
-
:D
-
:D
Dumbasses. ::)
-
Living woke looks uncomfortable but they are living through what they ultimately voted for.
-
Say it again for the people in the back.
Earth = 4.5 BILLION years old
Humans recording temperature on earth = 150 years
But I'm sure paying a "climate change" tax will "fix" the problem Al Gore made up. ::)
Yep 150yrs or so of temp recording out of billions of years.
They don't explain the ice ages & what caused them or what caused the earth to heat up
And unfreeze the earth. Could it possibly be cycles of the sun & earth moving closer &
Further away.
Plus there have been great floods record through history.
If the folks on the planet at them times had paid higher taxes they could've likely avoided
All of those things happening.
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
No doubt man in many ways has had some effect on the planet, only sure as hell when nature's had
Enough of humans it will get rid of us. Taxes or no taxes.
-
Yep 150yrs or so of temp recording out of billions of years.
They don't explain the ice ages & what caused them or what caused the earth to heat up
And unfreeze the earth. Could it possibly be cycles of the sun & earth moving closer &
Further away.
Plus there have been great floods record through history.
If the folks on the planet at them times had paid higher taxes they could've likely avoided
All of those things happening.
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
No doubt man in many ways has had some effect on the planet, only sure as hell when nature's had
Enough of humans it will get rid of us. Taxes or no taxes.
I wonder if any of the climate change folks would like to put up the stats from 5,000 years ago in any 150 year span so we can compare with our current 150 year records. Or maybe just some stats for 300 years ago, the previous 150 years compared to the last 150 years.
Anyone?
-
Sounds like the skeptics aren't completely ruling out that it's a real phenomenon. I guess one way to look at it is that we won't be around to see everything turn to shit if it turns out to be true, so who cares. A religious person might be thinking in another way, not sure. Even a non-religious person might think it unethical to possibly destroy the planet for our progeny. Many would also agree that cutting down all forests for profit is unethical even if it doesn't immediately kill us.
-
Necrosis hows that fort coming?
-
Sounds like the skeptics aren't completely ruling out that it's a real phenomenon. I guess one way to look at it is that we won't be around to see everything turn to shit if it turns out to be true, so who cares. A religious person might be thinking in another way, not sure. Even a non-religious person might think it unethical to possibly destroy the planet for our progeny. Many would also agree that cutting down all forests for profit is unethical even if it doesn't immediately kill us.
Who says it's not a real phenomenon?
-
Let's be very clear about the weather station network. We DO NOT have 150 years of weather station data, that is a myth. What we have are sporadic records for a HANDFUL of weather stations that were initially installed in semi-rural environments and are now in the center of cities. And by a handful I mean 10-15 at most. Meaning they are most definitely NOT representative of anything (aside than showing urban heating.)
We've only had a real network dedicated solely to recording the weather at a "global" scale (and I used quotes because this network does not cover even 50-60% of the Earth's surface) for about 50-60 years. Since we use the standard 30-year averages, you can just imagine why on earth would they sound the alarm right after the second set of averages, knowing full well that a 30-year sample of weather variables doesn't prove anything (it is KNOWN that the weather, and therefore climate, fluctuates in much longer time spans.) SOME ONE, SOME WHERE must have had ulterior motives when setting up the network.
-
All, and I mean ALL, of the following predictions were backed up by scientific work. The scientists were paraded in many TV shows and were able to explain their work. BUT! Their predictions were insanely wrong. Anyone ever heard any of these scientists apologize for their mistakes?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FxaosXgWAAER9uW.jpg)
-
Sounds like the skeptics aren't completely ruling out that it's a real phenomenon. I guess one way to look at it is that we won't be around to see everything turn to shit if it turns out to be true, so who cares. A religious person might be thinking in another way, not sure. Even a non-religious person might think it unethical to possibly destroy the planet for our progeny. Many would also agree that cutting down all forests for profit is unethical even if it doesn't immediately kill us.
Thats kind of a selfish boomer take to have "I won't be around so what do I care"
well your bloodline will be, your kids, grandkids and so forth, or if you dont have your brother/sisters kids and their kids etc. I believe in the Hitlarian take that your blood/relatives is the most important, next to that is your peoples/ethnic kind.
Anyways I think some of the things humans do will obviously have an effect on climate. The boomer-right/right- cons will always have a polar opposite take on what the left/liberals says and always says there is no such thing as human effect on the enviroment and climate ::) ... because it's just what they do, both sides are equally stupid in that sense tbh.
With that said, I think a lot of the MSM, especially in europe/EU is left/liberal and they quite often have an agenda. My take is that they use the "climate change" issue/thing as a tool to justify mass immigration from shit hole countries in the middle east/Africa. Like now we will have "climate refugees" ::) like that is the end goal of the climate change propaganda by media, and not actually what is happening with the enviroment/climate.
-
I remember way back when that GLOBAL COOLING was going to kill us all. Magazine covers all over the place, TV interviews, scientific papers (fraudulent like todays garbage) and all manner of DOOMSDAY proclamations.
The big fix was detonating nuclear bombs in volcanos. Yeah, really.
Same retard stuff back then as the retard stuff now spouted by gay retards like Royalty, Necrosis and the like.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Also, global warming is so 3 decades ago, the climate fags dropped it once we found out that the Earth really isn't warming. Now it's climate change because you can throw anything you want under that umbrella term. Still makes you a gay tard, though.
-
Real or not.......not a damn thing we can do about it that my dumb ass knows about..........GEEZUS!!
-
End this thread.
These 3 accounts are the same person arguing amongst themselves. The person behind these accounts will keep finding reasons to bump the thread every day (in the same manner that mphgrove, tacobender, and AbrahamG bump the Mark Dugdale thread)
-
The theory is your interpretation of why the warming has happened, not if it has warmed.
I explain the rest in my post.
Certified thread fail..
Nice try on the backtrack. FAIL!! LOL.
-
End this thread.
These 3 accounts are the same person arguing amongst themselves. The person behind these accounts will keep finding reasons to bump the thread every day (in the same manner that mphgrove, tacobender, and AbrahamG bump the Mark Dugdale thread)
Incredibly retarded take.
Read how I write and compare it lol.
-
Let's be very clear about the weather station network. We DO NOT have 150 years of weather station data, that is a myth. What we have are sporadic records for a HANDFUL of weather stations that were initially installed in semi-rural environments and are now in the center of cities. And by a handful I mean 10-15 at most. Meaning they are most definitely NOT representative of anything (aside than showing urban heating.)
We've only had a real network dedicated solely to recording the weather at a "global" scale (and I used quotes because this network does not cover even 50-60% of the Earth's surface) for about 50-60 years. Since we use the standard 30-year averages, you can just imagine why on earth would they sound the alarm right after the second set of averages, knowing full well that a 30-year sample of weather variables doesn't prove anything (it is KNOWN that the weather, and therefore climate, fluctuates in much longer time spans.) SOME ONE, SOME WHERE must have had ulterior motives when setting up the network.
I base the 150 years off of what science likes to claim as accurate measurements. Even with that, it's a microcosm of time in the long history of this ball we're floating on.
-
Yep 150yrs or so of temp recording out of billions of years.
They don't explain the ice ages & what caused them or what caused the earth to heat up
And unfreeze the earth. Could it possibly be cycles of the sun & earth moving closer &
Further away.
Plus there have been great floods record through history.
If the folks on the planet at them times had paid higher taxes they could've likely avoided
All of those things happening.
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
No doubt man in many ways has had some effect on the planet, only sure as hell when nature's had
Enough of humans it will get rid of us. Taxes or no taxes.
How do you know there was an ice age? how do you know the earth goes through cycles? what data are you using?
-
As fake as Joe Biden's "Presidency"
-
As fake as Joe Biden's "Presidency"
LOL ;D
-
How do you know there was an ice age? how do you know the earth goes through cycles? what data are you using?
carbon dating and deep core arctic ice samples
-
Sounds like the skeptics aren't completely ruling out that it's a real phenomenon. I guess one way to look at it is that we won't be around to see everything turn to shit if it turns out to be true, so who cares. A religious person might be thinking in another way, not sure. Even a non-religious person might think it unethical to possibly destroy the planet for our progeny. Many would also agree that cutting down all forests for profit is unethical even if it doesn't immediately kill us.
It also depends where you live. In many parts of Europe climate change has become very noticeable, and in the past 25 years things changed very quickly. I grew up ice skating nearly every winter in the 1990s.
Now many parts of The Netherlands only have three seasons. Just a few regions in the East and North get a handful of ice skating days per year, if they are very lucky.
This alas has become a thing of the past:
(https://thumbor.pijper.io/z2Tve0J_jYTE81rA4D7x15Vfmzc=/728x410/center/middle/filters:format(webp):max_bytes(200000)/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.pijper.io%2F2025%2F11%2FwufV9ATADLF7qM1763977013.jpg)
(https://merk.anwb.nl/transform/a2cce070-875e-4da0-8dd1-27129bfef337/schaatsen-natuurijs-molen-jpg?io=height%3A946%2Ctransform%3Afill%2Cwidth%3A1676)
(https://www.travelvalley.nl/wp-content/uploads/headers/nederland-schaatsen-natuurijs.jpg)
-
carbon dating and deep core arctic ice samples
I am pointing out the retardation of the deniers. These guys claim to know about ice ages and other periods of heating but we only have 150 years data? how could they possible know that? I am pointing out the idiocy. They are certain about ice ages that defeats the logic they are using to suggest the warming is not man made but cannot see the logical fallacy.
-
Who says it's not a real phenomenon?
I mean that humans are causing a rapid and basically irreversibly change in climate. Lots of posters deny it outright on one hand but sometimes sort of let it slip that there could be at least some man made changes. But fuck the libturds.
Since I just saw something on X where Musk decried the left, I wondered what this genius "right winger" thought about climate change. AI says he thinks it's real, and we can do something about it, although it's not as rapid as some make it out to be. Of course he has a conflict of interest.
Thats kind of a selfish boomer take to have "I won't be around so what do I care"
well your bloodline will be, your kids, grandkids and so forth, or if you dont have your brother/sisters kids and their kids etc. I believe in the Hitlarian take that your blood/relatives is the most important, next to that is your peoples/ethnic kind.
Anyways I think some of the things humans do will obviously have an effect on climate. The boomer-right/right- cons will always have a polar opposite take on what the left/liberals says and always says there is no such thing as human effect on the enviroment and climate ::) ... because it's just what they do, both sides are equally stupid in that sense tbh.
With that said, I think a lot of the MSM, especially in europe/EU is left/liberal and they quite often have an agenda. My take is that they use the "climate change" issue/thing as a tool to justify mass immigration from shit hole countries in the middle east/Africa. Like now we will have "climate refugees" ::) like that is the end goal of the climate change propaganda by media, and not actually what is happening with the enviroment/climate.
Agree with all that.
I am pointing out the retardation of the deniers. These guys claim to know about ice ages and other periods of heating but we only have 150 years data? how could they possible know that? I am pointing out the idiocy. They are certain about ice ages that defeats the logic they are using to suggest the warming is not man made but cannot see the logical fallacy.
Valid point I think.
-
I mean that humans are causing a rapid and basically irreversibly change in climate.
That's the debate. Are we really? Since we've really only been studying the climate with accuracy since around 1880 and even that hasn't been worldwide.
Valid point I think.
It's not though. That's like saying today is a cool day and tomorrow will be cooler so we're coming into an ice age!! The smaller the sample size, 150 years vs 10,000 years for example, your predictions become more inaccurate. You can't say what the temperature will be in December based off the temperature of March.
-
It's only a debate among non-trained folks.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/debunking-eight-common-myths-about-climate-change
How do you know we had an ice age? we have only been tracking temperature for a few hundred years? There is no way we could possibly know there was an ice age. What evidence are you using?
-
That's the debate. Are we really? Since we've really only been studying the climate with accuracy since around 1880 and even that hasn't been worldwide.
It's not though. That's like saying today is a cool day and tomorrow will be cooler so we're coming into an ice age!! The smaller the sample size, 150 years vs 10,000 years for example, your predictions become more inaccurate. You can't say what the temperature will be in December based off the temperature of March.
These same assholes said wear a mask, stay 6 feet apart, and shut down schools. Science has nothing to do with it. If it did they'd be bitching about China and India.
-
These same assholes said wear a mask, stay 6 feet apart, and shut down schools. Science has nothing to do with it. If it did they'd be bitching about China and India.
Yep, the science these people follow is based off money, first and foremost, then creating a panic for them to control.
-
This OP seems to be one of the dumbest people on the planet... Congrats...
-
Still can't answer how you know we had an ice age I see.
The science for every country around the world is about money. Big green energy beat the oil and gas giants! same with the lib cabal, couldn't win the election but they control everything.
Maga's can't use logic and deny facts. It's actually quite interesting.
-
That's the debate. Are we really? Since we've really only been studying the climate with accuracy since around 1880 and even that hasn't been worldwide.
It's not though. That's like saying today is a cool day and tomorrow will be cooler so we're coming into an ice age!! The smaller the sample size, 150 years vs 10,000 years for example, your predictions become more inaccurate. You can't say what the temperature will be in December based off the temperature of March.
Retarded response as per usual.
How do you know we had an ice age? How would you use 10k year old data? what kind of data is that?
-
Retarded response as per usual.
How do you know we had an ice age? How would you use 10k year old data? what kind of data is that?
The evidence for past ice ages doesn’t come from a single source—it’s built from many independent lines of evidence that all point to the same conclusion.
Here are the strongest pieces of evidence:
1. Glacial landforms
Huge glaciers leave distinctive marks that rivers or floods don’t. Scientists find:
* U-shaped valleys carved by ice.
* Scratches and grooves (glacial striations) on solid bedrock showing the direction the ice moved.
* Moraines—ridges of rock and debris pushed by glaciers.
* Massive boulders (glacial erratics) transported hundreds of miles from where their rock type originated.
These features are found across places like Canada, the northern United States, northern Europe, and parts of Asia.
2. Ice cores
Scientists drill miles down into the ice sheets in Greenland Ice Sheet and Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Each year’s snowfall forms a new layer, much like tree rings. These cores preserve:
* Ancient air bubbles containing the actual atmosphere from thousands of years ago.
* Temperature clues from oxygen isotopes.
* Dust, volcanic ash, and pollen.
Some Antarctic ice cores extend back over 800,000 years and record repeated glacial and warmer periods.
3. Ocean sediments
The ocean floor contains layer upon layer of sediments with tiny fossilized marine organisms. The chemistry of their shells changes depending on ocean temperature and the amount of ice on Earth.
These records show repeated cycles of colder and warmer climates.
4. Fossils
Scientists find:
* Cold-adapted plants and animals in regions that are now much warmer.
* Pollen preserved in lake sediments showing forests disappeared and tundra expanded during colder periods.
5. Sea level changes
During the last major ice age, so much water was locked up in glaciers that sea level was about 120 meters (roughly 390 feet) lower than today.
This exposed land bridges such as Bering Land Bridge, allowing animals and humans to migrate between Asia and North America.
6. Radiometric dating
Scientists use several independent dating methods—including Radiocarbon dating (for younger materials), uranium-series dating, and other isotope systems—to determine when rocks, sediments, and glacial deposits formed. Different methods generally agree with one another.
Could all this be explained another way?
Individual pieces of evidence might have alternative explanations. For example, a single valley could be misinterpreted. But the combination of evidence is what makes the case compelling:
* Ice cores record cold climates.
* Ocean sediments independently show the same timing.
* Glacial landforms match where ice sheets are expected.
* Fossils and pollen indicate the same environmental changes.
* Sea-level records fit the amount of water stored in ice.
Because these independent records agree, scientists have high confidence that Earth experienced multiple ice ages over millions of years, with the most recent major glacial period peaking about 20,000 years ago and ending roughly 11,700 years ago.
Here are some of the primary scientific sources that document the evidence for past ice ages. I’ve focused on government agencies and research organizations rather than secondary summaries.
Ice cores
* NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information – Ice Core Data
* Explains how ice cores preserve annual layers, trapped air bubbles, oxygen isotopes, dust, and volcanic ash to reconstruct past climates.
* NASA Earth Observatory – Paleoclimatology: The Ice Core Record
* Describes how ice cores provide records of temperature, atmospheric composition, precipitation, and volcanic activity.
Geological evidence
* U.S. Geological Survey – Paleoclimate Research
* Explains that scientists reconstruct past climates using geological evidence preserved in sediments, rocks, ice sheets, tree rings, corals, and other natural archives.
* U.S. Geological Survey – Glaciers and Sea Level During the Last Glacial Maximum
* Documents that about 20,000 years ago glaciers covered roughly 25% of Earth’s land area and global sea level was more than 400 feet lower than today.
Multiple independent climate records
* NOAA – Paleoclimatology Overview
* Summarizes the different “proxy” records scientists use, including ice cores, ocean sediments, lake sediments, corals, cave formations, and tree rings.
* USGS – Paleoclimate Archives
* Discusses how ice cores, sediments, and other archives preserve evidence of long-term climate changes extending back hundreds of thousands of years.
One reason the evidence is considered especially strong is that these independent methods agree with one another. Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, glacial landforms, fossil pollen, and sea-level reconstructions all point to the same sequence of repeated glacial and interglacial periods, even though each type of evidence is collected and analyzed independently.
-
The evidence for past ice ages doesn’t come from a single source—it’s built from many independent lines of evidence that all point to the same conclusion.
Here are the strongest pieces of evidence:
1. Glacial landforms
Huge glaciers leave distinctive marks that rivers or floods don’t. Scientists find:
* U-shaped valleys carved by ice.
* Scratches and grooves (glacial striations) on solid bedrock showing the direction the ice moved.
* Moraines—ridges of rock and debris pushed by glaciers.
* Massive boulders (glacial erratics) transported hundreds of miles from where their rock type originated.
These features are found across places like Canada, the northern United States, northern Europe, and parts of Asia.
2. Ice cores
Scientists drill miles down into the ice sheets in Greenland Ice Sheet and Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Each year’s snowfall forms a new layer, much like tree rings. These cores preserve:
* Ancient air bubbles containing the actual atmosphere from thousands of years ago.
* Temperature clues from oxygen isotopes.
* Dust, volcanic ash, and pollen.
Some Antarctic ice cores extend back over 800,000 years and record repeated glacial and warmer periods.
3. Ocean sediments
The ocean floor contains layer upon layer of sediments with tiny fossilized marine organisms. The chemistry of their shells changes depending on ocean temperature and the amount of ice on Earth.
These records show repeated cycles of colder and warmer climates.
4. Fossils
Scientists find:
* Cold-adapted plants and animals in regions that are now much warmer.
* Pollen preserved in lake sediments showing forests disappeared and tundra expanded during colder periods.
5. Sea level changes
During the last major ice age, so much water was locked up in glaciers that sea level was about 120 meters (roughly 390 feet) lower than today.
This exposed land bridges such as Bering Land Bridge, allowing animals and humans to migrate between Asia and North America.
6. Radiometric dating
Scientists use several independent dating methods—including Radiocarbon dating (for younger materials), uranium-series dating, and other isotope systems—to determine when rocks, sediments, and glacial deposits formed. Different methods generally agree with one another.
Could all this be explained another way?
Individual pieces of evidence might have alternative explanations. For example, a single valley could be misinterpreted. But the combination of evidence is what makes the case compelling:
* Ice cores record cold climates.
* Ocean sediments independently show the same timing.
* Glacial landforms match where ice sheets are expected.
* Fossils and pollen indicate the same environmental changes.
* Sea-level records fit the amount of water stored in ice.
Because these independent records agree, scientists have high confidence that Earth experienced multiple ice ages over millions of years, with the most recent major glacial period peaking about 20,000 years ago and ending roughly 11,700 years ago.
Here are some of the primary scientific sources that document the evidence for past ice ages. I’ve focused on government agencies and research organizations rather than secondary summaries.
Ice cores
* NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information – Ice Core Data
* Explains how ice cores preserve annual layers, trapped air bubbles, oxygen isotopes, dust, and volcanic ash to reconstruct past climates.
* NASA Earth Observatory – Paleoclimatology: The Ice Core Record
* Describes how ice cores provide records of temperature, atmospheric composition, precipitation, and volcanic activity.
Geological evidence
* U.S. Geological Survey – Paleoclimate Research
* Explains that scientists reconstruct past climates using geological evidence preserved in sediments, rocks, ice sheets, tree rings, corals, and other natural archives.
* U.S. Geological Survey – Glaciers and Sea Level During the Last Glacial Maximum
* Documents that about 20,000 years ago glaciers covered roughly 25% of Earth’s land area and global sea level was more than 400 feet lower than today.
Multiple independent climate records
* NOAA – Paleoclimatology Overview
* Summarizes the different “proxy” records scientists use, including ice cores, ocean sediments, lake sediments, corals, cave formations, and tree rings.
* USGS – Paleoclimate Archives
* Discusses how ice cores, sediments, and other archives preserve evidence of long-term climate changes extending back hundreds of thousands of years.
One reason the evidence is considered especially strong is that these independent methods agree with one another. Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, glacial landforms, fossil pollen, and sea-level reconstructions all point to the same sequence of repeated glacial and interglacial periods, even though each type of evidence is collected and analyzed independently.
Hahahah I see you fell for the trap. Poor guy.
Ok, so the same data that they are using to show that the climate has never heated up this fast, occurring exactly around the industrial revolution.
I agree, case closed.
-
Hahahah I see you fell for the trap. Poor guy.
Ok, so the same data that they are using to show that the climate has never heated up this fast, occurring exactly around the industrial revolution.
I agree, case closed.
You wanted proof, I provided proof. The only thing left to do is ask a fucking Dinosaur.
-
You wanted proof, I provided proof. The only left to do is ask a fucking Dinosaur.
I was being facetious dude. Of course that's the evidence, it's also the very same evidence we use to prove the thing you deny is happening. So think about what you are saying. You are saying the evidence for an ice age is sound... then that very same evidence is garbage when it proves something you don't politically agree with. You want it both ways.
All of that very same evidence shows anthropogenic induced climate change.
-
Imagine claiming to be the smartest nurse in Canada and not being able to pinpoint when science goes from knowledge to profit. ::)
-
I would consider myself libertarian definitely not Republican so not in a “box” - but why is it that almost 100% or leftist men are limp wristed pussies? What kind of twat wrongs his hands worries that MAN is destroying the earth?? Same kind that doesn’t hunt - and WOULD never - are afraid of guns (fckn pussy for any male to not be able to handle a firearm). That’s the reason liberal women are so fckn angry all the time. They never get fckd by a MAN!! Now is when some fag replies about how tough he is - or how ignorant an argument I made etc
-
I would consider myself libertarian definitely not Republican so not in a “box” - but why is it that almost 100% or leftist men are limp wristed pussies? What kind of twat wrongs his hands worries that MAN is destroying the earth?? Same kind that doesn’t hunt - and WOULD never - are afraid of guns (fckn pussy for any male to not be able to handle a firearm). That’s the reason liberal women are so fckn angry all the time. They never get fckd by a MAN!! Now is when some fag replies about how tough he is - or how ignorant an argument I made etc
Because we live on earth?
Only beta's talk about MEN.
I would buckle you and challenge you do a duel!!
-
I would consider myself libertarian definitely not Republican so not in a “box” - but why is it that almost 100% or leftist men are limp wristed pussies? What kind of twat wrongs his hands worries that MAN is destroying the earth?? Same kind that doesn’t hunt - and WOULD never - are afraid of guns (fckn pussy for any male to not be able to handle a firearm). That’s the reason liberal women are so fckn angry all the time. They never get fckd by a MAN!! Now is when some fag replies about how tough he is - or how ignorant an argument I made etc
They all suffer from Lesbian Bed Death whether male or female.
-
Imagine claiming to be the smartest nurse in Canada and not being able to pinpoint when science goes from knowledge to profit. ::)
And the whole reason he's changing bedpans is a piss fetish. The more disgustingly necrotic the kidneys the better he likes the piss.
-
And the whole reason he's changing bedpans is a piss fetish. The more disgustingly necrotic the kidneys the better he likes the piss.
Urine for a real treat!
-
That's the debate. Are we really? Since we've really only been studying the climate with accuracy since around 1880 and even that hasn't been worldwide.
It's not though. That's like saying today is a cool day and tomorrow will be cooler so we're coming into an ice age!! The smaller the sample size, 150 years vs 10,000 years for example, your predictions become more inaccurate. You can't say what the temperature will be in December based off the temperature of March.
For me personally I come back to my idea that oftentimes I lean towards expert consensus when I personally haven't or can't or won't study it in depth myself. I would argue most of us depend on and trust "experts" on many things. At the same time I'm very aware of political bias and am distrustful of experts and supposed consensus (it might not actually be the consensus) too oftentimes. I have mentioned the genetics and race debate where I think politics influence messaging.
I also know many cherry pick on what "science" they choose to believe, so that's why I think it was a valid point. Especially non-scientist yahoos post about "science" in for example some article headline when it suits them and discard the same scientists when they disapprove. To be clear I'm not a scientist but I think I can sometimes tell when someone is especially stupid and shouldn't be offering "scientific" opinions really.
Again, I'm sort of undecided on what exactly to believe wrt man made global warming but have a suspicion there could be something to it. The stakes could be high so can we afford to dismiss it offhand?
-
For me personally I come back to my idea that oftentimes I lean towards expert consensus when I personally haven't or can't or won't study it in depth myself. I would argue most of us depend on and trust "experts" on many things. At the same time I'm very aware of political bias and am distrustful of experts and supposed consensus (it might not actually be the consensus) too oftentimes. I have mentioned the genetics and race debate where I think politics influence messaging.
I also know many cherry pick on what "science" they choose to believe, so that's why I think it was a valid point. Especially non-scientists yahoos post about "science" in for example some article headline when it suits them and discard the same scientists when they disapprove.
Again, I'm sort of undecided on what exactly to believe wrt man made global warming but have a suspicion there could be something to it. The stakes could be high so can we afford to dismiss it offhand?
It's absolutely not a question at all, it's demonstrable and the predictions are coming faster then anticipated.
I think most people get their science from the news which is not what science is at all. Clickbait titles and headlines have always existed. The problem we now face is a long anabasis where those causing this issue should feel the concern of damocles sword but have figured out that the consequences will not meet them.
Where climate is a hyperobject it's easy for folks to miss it.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTj3ryCl_PJOtctkAO5zdnrfHHZVMfP4XY0vKqRPolzr2q5i0_yYyyB_Uo&s=10)
lets look at the planet last 500k years rather than the blink of an eye last 200
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTj3ryCl_PJOtctkAO5zdnrfHHZVMfP4XY0vKqRPolzr2q5i0_yYyyB_Uo&s=10)
lets look at the planet last 500k years rather than the blink of an eye last 200
That would destroy Negrosis' argument.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTj3ryCl_PJOtctkAO5zdnrfHHZVMfP4XY0vKqRPolzr2q5i0_yYyyB_Uo&s=10)
lets look at the planet last 500k years rather than the blink of an eye last 200
They do and did. The surge is unprecedented
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTj3ryCl_PJOtctkAO5zdnrfHHZVMfP4XY0vKqRPolzr2q5i0_yYyyB_Uo&s=10)
lets look at the planet last 500k years rather than the blink of an eye last 200
Unprecedented surge in the last 150 years of our multi-billion year history!!!!! ::)
-
MAXX can correct me if I'm wrong but he was saying some on getbig who haven't even tried to look into the subject have very strong opinions on it. He wasn't necessarily saying its unknowable. I'm thinking it is a fairly complex subject. Which is why I don't have very strong opinions as I'm not inclined to study it. And I think often the most ignorant are the most confident :D
Dunning-Kruger effect:
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge or competence in a specific domain greatly overestimate their own skills. This false confidence happens because they lack the self-awareness and expertise needed to recognize their own mistakes, creating a cycle where poor performers remain blissfully unaware of their incompetence.
Wikipedia
+1
How It Works
The effect is rooted in a fundamental deficit in metacognition—the ability to step back and evaluate one’s own thoughts and performance. People with minimal experience in a subject suffer a "double curse": not only do they make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the mental tools required to realize they are wrong.
Psychology Today
Interestingly, the Dunning-Kruger effect also applies to the opposite end of the spectrum. Highly skilled or expert individuals often underestimate their relative abilities. Because they are deeply aware of how vast and complex a subject is, they assume that tasks which are easy for them must also be easy for everyone else.
Wikipedia
+1
-
That would destroy Negrosis' argument.
How could that be accurate? we have only been keeping weather data for 150 years of course!
also, that chart is nonsense. Where did you get it? lol
-
Typical "believe the science" type of person, dismiss any information that doesn't align with his beliefs. ::)
On a side note, the firework shows tonight are going to be amazing!
-
never has a dumber comment been made then to attribute science with belief.
This is MAGA!
-
never has a dumber comment been made then to attribute science with belief.
This is MAGA!
Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, etc would disagree you piss sniffing masked retard. Shut your hole on the 4th of July out of respect for the strong American men that gave you what little freedom you still have in Canada.
-
Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, etc would disagree you piss sniffing masked retard. Shut your hole on the 4th of July out of respect for the strong American men that gave you what little freedom you still have in Canada.
X2 The ego on that autistic retard is out of control.
-
Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, etc would disagree you piss sniffing masked retard. Shut your hole on the 4th of July out of respect for the strong American men that gave you what little freedom you still have in Canada.
It was common sense the sun went around the moon! common sense is prior to reason and is the basis of MAGA apparently, read some Leibniz.
Science as a method is to discern truth and facts unmoored from beliefs. Copernicus is a great example, the belief was the sun goes around the earth, he proved with math that this belief was wrong.
-
Real or not.......not a damn thing we can do about it that my dumb ass knows about..........GEEZUS!!
Well....you can't change the effects of the massive fossil fuel burning in the past 250 years, and the destruction of the lungs of the world: all rainforests.
But smart people think ahead and take a changing climate into account when buying a house, holiday home, and when booking vacations.
With ever higher temperatures, prolonged heatwaves, more droughts, more extreme rainfall, etc buying such a (holiday) home with a thatched roof is not a smart move imo:
(https://cloud.funda.nl/valentina_media/230/153/001.jpg?options=width=2160)
Same for all houses in forrested areas / surrounded by trees, huge risk, like this one:
(https://cloud.funda.nl/valentina_media/231/488/403.jpg?options=width=2160)
People who work in tourism absolutely pay attention to a changing climate. Will their customers keep arriving if snow is becoming more rare in winter season?
Heatwaves and forest fires can drive away the guests of campings, people with campers, and those who want to rent a house or chalet with their families
Banks will probably refuse to lend money to people who want to invest in high risk tourism areas.
Farmers all over Europe absolutely pay attention to the changing climate. The livelyhood of their family depends on it.
-
X2 The ego on that autistic retard is out of control.
Your id is out of control son.
Read a book
-
Your new name is Dr. Thread Fail.
-
Your new name is Dr. Thread Fail.
Nurse Thread Fail. ;)
Science as a profitable business cannot be trusted to tell the truth contradicting the funding.
-
science is all we have to go on, that's how we figure things out. Your computer, the building you work in, the ventilation of your house, the forecast.... all science.
You are essentially saying anything that creates profits cannot be trusted. Sounding like a communist, comrade. you a commie?
-
The government controls the climate creating cancer
-
Nurse Thread Fail. ;)
Science as a profitable business cannot be trusted to tell the truth contradicting the funding.
This - those who fund the science get the answers that they want - Fact.
-
This - those who fund the science get the answers that they want - Fact.
A basic tenet of science is reproducibility, if you make up the answers you can't redo the study as the results would be different. It's such a stupid argument. The stuff is also peer reviewed independently by peers.
Oil and gas are far richer than renewables, why the fuck would the science show what it shows if who is funding it gets to pick the outcome?
-
A basic tenet of science is reproducibility, if you make up the answers you can't redo the study as the results would be different. It's such a stupid argument. The stuff is also peer reviewed independently by peers.
Oil and gas are far richer than renewables, why the fuck would the science show what it shows if who is funding it gets to pick the outcome?
Dear Pronoun Boy
Negrosis
Contrary to what you think / believe you don't know everything
& you are Not always correct. Think on.
-
Dear Pronoun Boy
Negrosis
Contrary to what you think / believe you don't know everything
& you are Not always correct. Think on.
Commie crybaby and libturd pahogg0t Necrosis of the arsehole... A true cokk commander...
-
Dear Pronoun Boy
Negrosis
Contrary to what you think / believe you don't know everything
& you are Not always correct. Think on.
You think 99% of the people who spend their lives doing this stuff are wrong? I am just going based on their opinion and evidence.
-
Commie crybaby and libturd pahogg0t Necrosis of the arsehole... A true cokk commander...
weak, thoughtless.
You stink of ennui and torpor
-
You think 99% of the people who spend their lives doing this stuff are wrong? I am just going based on their opinion and evidence.
Pronoun Boy
Negrosis
No I didn't say that - do not try twisting my words .
It you who is very often wrong & misguided/ mistaken - You do not know as much as you
Think you do & it is very frequently pointed out on here by quite a few other poster's.
-
Pronoun Boy
Negrosis
No I didn't say that - do not try twisting my words .
It you who is very often wrong & misguided/ mistaken - You do not know as much as you
Think you do & it is very frequently pointed out on here by quite a few other poster's.
Ya by stupid people, way to go.
I am saying what 99% of the experts are saying, ipso facto you are claiming they are wrong. Who is the know it all?
You are the apogee of the dunning kruger and the nadir of the maga's
-
Someone is so brainwashed he can't follow the money trail. ALGAE!!!!
-
Necrosis,
You need to fix your health system so your fellow Canucks can survive the coming Climate Change Apocalypse.
What an awful place to live!
Canadian health care continues to perform poorly compared to other countries.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/canadian-health-care-continues-perform-poorly-compared-other-countries?__cf_chl_f_tk=nMmDM3ttsHK43PfItCCQepX3zFGdjZ_S1TM63Y3jUCg-1783293656-1.0.1.1-8upXC5EzTZzEDqfhOVEqjzp6dWcIrlCBOlqgIIZ6Dec
We know the health system is collapsing. Every day, there are more signs of distress...
https://www.cma.ca/latest-stories/canadas-health-care-crisis-what-we-need-now
Canada wait times for surgery make patients suffer...
https://m.economictimes.com/guy-waits-and-deadly-delays/articleshow/121817689.cms
-
Necrosis,
You need to fix your health system so your fellow Canucks can survive the coming Climate Change Apocalypse.
What an awful place to live!
Canadian health care continues to perform poorly compared to other countries.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/canadian-health-care-continues-perform-poorly-compared-other-countries?__cf_chl_f_tk=nMmDM3ttsHK43PfItCCQepX3zFGdjZ_S1TM63Y3jUCg-1783293656-1.0.1.1-8upXC5EzTZzEDqfhOVEqjzp6dWcIrlCBOlqgIIZ6Dec
We know the health system is collapsing. Every day, there are more signs of distress...
https://www.cma.ca/latest-stories/canadas-health-care-crisis-what-we-need-now
Canada wait times for surgery make patients suffer...
https://m.economictimes.com/guy-waits-and-deadly-delays/articleshow/121817689.cms
Maybe if he focused on changing bedpans and tending to patients instead of posting BS on getbig, he could help improve the system instead of dragging it down.
-
Maybe if he focused on changing bedpans and tending to patients instead of posting BS on getbig, he could help improve the system instead of dragging it down.
C’mon man, he can only drink so much.
-
Ya by stupid people, way to go.
I am saying what 99% of the experts are saying, ipso facto you are claiming they are wrong. Who is the know it all?
You are the apogee of the dunning kruger and the nadir of the maga's
Pronoun Boy
Negrosis
Just shut up & Fuck off you utterly pathetic Twat.
How many times do you have to be proven wrong / Humiliated by so many on Getbig.
My Parrot Kizmo is more clued up than you are.
-
Someone is so brainwashed he can't follow the money trail. ALGAE!!!!
Pronoun Boy has swallowed a dictionary & thinks he's really clever using all these new words
He's found.
Seriously he's one very pathetic Twat.
-
Pronoun Boy has swallowed a dictionary & thinks he's really clever using all these new words
He's found.
Seriously he's one very pathetic Twat.
apoplectic meltdown!
-
Dr. Necrosis,
Report to your failing homeland of Canada for your TDS brain X-ray scheduled in 8 months due to lack of radiologists.
-
Necrosis,
You need to fix your health system so your fellow Canucks can survive the coming Climate Change Apocalypse.
What an awful place to live!
Canadian health care continues to perform poorly compared to other countries.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/canadian-health-care-continues-perform-poorly-compared-other-countries?__cf_chl_f_tk=nMmDM3ttsHK43PfItCCQepX3zFGdjZ_S1TM63Y3jUCg-1783293656-1.0.1.1-8upXC5EzTZzEDqfhOVEqjzp6dWcIrlCBOlqgIIZ6Dec
We know the health system is collapsing. Every day, there are more signs of distress...
https://www.cma.ca/latest-stories/canadas-health-care-crisis-what-we-need-now
Canada wait times for surgery make patients suffer...
https://m.economictimes.com/guy-waits-and-deadly-delays/articles/121817689.cms
An American criticizing another country’s healthcare is quite rich ;D
-
An American criticizing another country’s healthcare is quite rich ;D
The U.S. has the best healthcare in the world which is why people travel here for procedures.
It is not the cheapest so bring your wallet.
-
The U.S. has the best healthcare in the world which is why people travel here for procedures.
It is not the cheapest so bring your wallet.
While the U.S. leads in certain high-tech treatments and cancer survival for privileged populations, we have lower life expectancies, higher maternal and infant mortality rates, and higher preventable illness mortality rates than peer countries—all while paying much, much more per capita.
The fact that the wealthy are able to take advantage of our boutique health services doesn’t make the US healthcare system the best in the world. Far from it, in fact.
-
While the U.S. leads in certain high-tech treatments and cancer survival for privileged populations, we have lower life expectancies, higher maternal and infant mortality rates, and higher preventable illness mortality rates than peer countries—all while paying much, much more per capita.
The fact that the wealthy are able to take advantage of our boutique health services doesn’t make the US healthcare system the best in the world. Far from it, in fact.
No, it is the best.
It is not "free healthcare" like the UK, Canada, or some Euro countries.
Canada for example has wait times so long you will probably die before getting crucial care. They also have very few MRI and state of the art radiological facilities.
The UK "free system" and Canada are also suffering from severe lack of doctors.
If you have good health insurance the U.S. is the best.
With insurance you can access the top hospitals and doctors in the U.S.
-
While the U.S. leads in certain high-tech treatments and cancer survival for privileged populations, we have lower life expectancies, higher maternal and infant mortality rates, and higher preventable illness mortality rates than peer countries—all while paying much, much more per capita.
The fact that the wealthy are able to take advantage of our boutique health services doesn’t make the US healthcare system the best in the world. Far from it, in fact.
I believe IroNats statement was the US has the best healthcare, not healthcare system.
-
No, it is the best.
It is not "free healthcare" like the UK, Canada, or some Euro countries.
Canada for example has wait times so long you will probably die before getting crucial care. They also have very few MRI and state of the art radiological facilities.
The UK "free system" and Canada are also suffering from severe lack of doctors.
If you have good health insurance the U.S. is the best.
With insurance you can access the top hospitals and doctors in the U.S.
Canada and the UK had great systems that were ruined by immigration. Poor trash from shithole countries flood to countries with a large social safety net for the freebies and ruin a country.
-
Canada and the UK had great systems that were ruined by immigration. Poor trash from shithole countries flood to countries with a large social safety net for the freebies and ruin a country.
It's happened right in front of our faces and we've been told we were racist and 'phobic for not wanting to support the downfall of our own nations.
-
I dont think the world is hot enough.
-
Canada and the UK had great systems that were ruined by immigration. Poor trash from shithole countries flood to countries with a large social safety net for the freebies and ruin a country.
Their systems are doomed to fail because the incentives are wrong.
The doctors are not paid enough so they leave or quit.
The incentives determine the outcomes.
-
An American criticizing another country’s healthcare is quite rich ;D
I live next door to folks who Canadian citizens until recently, and they would back up Ironat's comments and then some.
Yes, we need all kinds of reform, because our system doesn't do enough preventative care, the cost structure is ludicrous, etc.......but Canada's is horrid from the experiences they have given me. Now they say the quality in the major cities is good, but outside of that, it's like the nursing homes necrosis works in.
-
Their systems are doomed to fail because the incentives are wrong.
The doctors are not paid enough so they leave or quit.
The incentives determine the outcomes.
But the systems worked for decades before the immigration problem. Those doctors didn't get paid as much but they didn't have any debt after college either.
-
While the U.S. leads in certain high-tech treatments and cancer survival for privileged populations, we have lower life expectancies, higher maternal and infant mortality rates, and higher preventable illness mortality rates than peer countries—all while paying much, much more per capita.
The fact that the wealthy are able to take advantage of our boutique health services doesn’t make the US healthcare system the best in the world. Far from it, in fact.
Please leave the USA and go live with your your butt buddy Neurotic. Meanwhile one of the million people who came to visit the USA for the World Cup and fell in love with this country will gladly take your place, lol.
-
Please leave the USA and go live with your your butt buddy Neurotic. Meanwhile one of the million people who came to visit the USA for the World Cup and fell in love with this country will gladly take your place, lol.
Gotta make sure to have travel insurance if visiting the US, otherwise you might incur a million dollar debt or be denied care outright for some relatively minor thing.
-
Gotta make sure to have travel insurance if visiting the US, otherwise you might incur a million dollar debt or be denied care outright for some relatively minor thing.
That goes for Americans traveling overseas away from their own country's medical insurance system.
-
Gotta make sure to have travel insurance if visiting the US, otherwise you might incur a million dollar debt or be denied care outright for some relatively minor thing.
They won't deny care in the ER. A minor thing might be cost prohibitive in the ER though.
-
It's hot AF lately, I recently had heat stroke, it's not fun!
-
Gotta make sure to have travel insurance if visiting the US, otherwise you might incur a million dollar debt or be denied care outright for some relatively minor thing.
Is the relatively minor thing that costs a million dollars to treat in the room with us now?
-
Called up my orthopedic practice yesterday to get a cortisone shot in my knee.
Hadn't seen them in 7 years.
Got an appointment right away for this morning at 8AM.
Xrayed my knee to check condition and got the shot.
IN ONE DAY!
If I lived in Canada of the UK I'd probably have to wait 6 months to get an appointment.
But it would be "free healthcare".
My health insurance costs over $30k a year (employer pays 2/3 of it).
Not "free".
-
It's hot AF lately, I recently had heat stroke, it's not fun!
Brutal but true.
-
"Climate change" is a Marxist hoax.
-
Farmers are at great risk of the changing climate (And anti white farmer government policies..). For people interested, this is one of the best Channels on YT about the reality of trying to run a farm in a Western European country:
Harry Metcalfe is more known for his excellent main YT Channel: Harry's Garage. But his 2nd YT Channel about his Cotswolds farm, close to Jeremy Clarkson's Diddly Squat farm, offers the same high quality content imo.
-
"Climate change" is a Marxist hoax.
That's the thing, the climate changes all the time.
I WOULD be worried if the climate didn't change.
-
Guys, let's get one thing straight: We are dealing with climate alarmists who have and are following an agenda. Michael E. Mann, the one that created the first "hockey stick" graph, has a legal fund in the tens of millions. Now, what college professor, earning a college professor salary, has a college fund worth 20+ million AND WHY? Well, because when they all started the climate alarmism BS, they knew they were going to be asked for the data by other scientists and, knowing they cooked the numbers ("hide the decline," or hiding the Medieval Warming Period) they would most likely be asked for the data in their regression models, even by court demand, so they decided to silence all detractors via the court system.
I invite anyone, ANY ONE, to check out who started it all. It's a close-knit core group of "scientists." It's all the same group, all the time, doing the same work.
Check out the Mann vs. Tim Ball case. Or the Steyn vs. Mann case, where even the presiding judge threw out ALL (but one) of Mann's "expert witness" for lack of integrity, especially Oreskes: "The judge allowed her to testify strictly about the general peer-review process and how scientific consensus is built. However, she was strictly forbidden from discussing Mann’s specific research, his methodology, or whether his data was manipulated, as the judge ruled any such comments from her would be entirely speculative."
-
I live next door to folks who Canadian citizens until recently, and they would back up Ironat's comments and then some.
Yes, we need all kinds of reform, because our system doesn't do enough preventative care, the cost structure is ludicrous, etc.......but Canada's is horrid from the experiences they have given me. Now they say the quality in the major cities is good, but outside of that, it's like the nursing homes necrosis works in.
And in Canada, if you don't like the 9 month wait list for a critical scan etc etc then you can just go to a government operated suicide clinic to kill yourself.
What a country.
-
I deny climate change hysteria.
(https://c.tenor.com/YXlsepwrnzwAAAAM/i-may-look-like-a-moron-but-im-an-idiot.gif)
-
Why are the temperatures reported on my iphone weather app always a couple of degrees cooler than those being reported on MSM TV or news websites for the exact same areas?
-
Why are the temperatures reported on my iphone weather app always a couple of degrees cooler than those being reported on MSM TV or news websites for the exact same areas?
Try comparing those numbers to the mercury thermometer. Wonder what those differences are?
-
Why are the temperatures reported on my iphone weather app always a couple of degrees cooler than those being reported on MSM TV or news websites for the exact same areas?
Good point.
-
No such thing as global warming caused by humans. Climate change is a cyclical event. We didn't cause it and there's nothing we can do about it. The phaggots on the left use it to accomplish their wicked goals.
-
Try comparing those numbers to the mercury thermometer. Wonder what those differences are?
I have. The mercury is even cooler!
-
No such thing as global warming caused by humans. Climate change is a cyclical event. We didn't cause it and there's nothing we can do about it. The phaggots on the left use it to accomplish their wicked goals.
Wigglet! We agree my melanated amigo!
I have. The mercury is even cooler!
:o
-
No such thing as global warming caused by humans. Climate change is a cyclical event. We didn't cause it and there's nothing we can do about it. The phaggots on the left use it to accomplish their wicked goals.
LOL ^^^
The crybaby demturds and their lunatic buffoonery... Hilarious and brainless.
-
Article published on March 1st 1912 in the Popular Mechanics magazine:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/191203_Furnaces_of_the_world_-_Popular_Mechanics_-_Global_warming.jpg?_=20230217180536)
Several smart people in 1912 already predicted human caused climate change. Not to mention the gigantic air pollution caused by burning coal
-
Article published on March 1st 1912 in the Popular Mechanics magazine:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/191203_Furnaces_of_the_world_-_Popular_Mechanics_-_Global_warming.jpg?_=20230217180536)
Several smart people in 1912 already predicted human caused climate change. Not to mention the gigantic air pollution caused by burning coal
Were those the relatives of the super smart people with the most update technology that said the earth was going into an ice age in the 1970's?
-
carbon dioxide is good for plants.. its about 0.04% of the earths atmosphere, if it gets to 0.02 plants will start dying.
Great lets keep striving to lower it.
-
carbon dioxide is good for plants.. its about 0.04% of the earths atmosphere, if it gets to 0.02 plants will start dying.
Great lets keep striving to lower it.
its the speed of change. Co2 has been higher than this in the past. It caused the megafauna.
-
This young lady’s answer sounds like a typical explanation given by Necrosis
-
This young lady’s answer sounds like a typical explanation given by Necrosis
this is a huge fail and you should be temporarily banned to think about what you did.
-
This young lady’s answer sounds like a typical explanation given by Necrosis
Ha Ha Ha that's funny ;D
-
This young lady’s answer sounds like a typical explanation given by Necrosis
Negrosis in a nutshell.
-
Global fear mongering and taxation.
-
Global fear mongering and taxation.
Nope!
-
This young lady’s answer sounds like a typical explanation given by Necrosis
:D How the fuck did he not bust out laughing?
-
Dude starts global warming thread in the middle of summer ;D
-
I'm more concerned about mass migration, offshoring of lucrative jobs, manufacturing moving to China, the rise of artificial intelligence and many other things that are a direct threat to our survival and prosperity. Fuck global warming.
-
This young lady’s answer sounds like a typical explanation given by Necrosis
This is quite close to what a politician would answer.
-
its the speed of change. Co2 has been higher than this in the past. It caused the megafauna.
so co2 created large animals?
I fail to see that being a problem...
-
its the speed of change. Co2 has been higher than this in the past. It caused the megafauna.
That's another myth, that they have been able to calculate the speed of change and extrapolated it/compared it to the speed of change in the past.
As I've said before: THEY DO NOT HAVE THE FLIPPING DATA! They do not know what the rate of chance past the 150 year limit because they don't have the data. All they have is CO2 specs from glacier samples and/or tree ring counts from trees, and that is not weather/climate data.
-
so co2 created large animals?
I fail to see that being a problem...
it's the speed of change that's the problem. Not the overall amount per se.
ecosystems cannot cope with a rapid change which is artificial. We now have the largest el nino on record forming- a super el nino,, one that is multiple standard deviations away from anything we have ever seen. Let's enjoy the chaos this next year brings and watch the records soar next summer when the heat is unbearable.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloedemrovsky/2026/08/25/what-super-el-nio-means-for-business-supply-chains-and-the-economy/
-
That's another myth, that they have been able to calculate the speed of change and extrapolated it/compared it to the speed of change in the past.
As I've said before: THEY DO NOT HAVE THE FLIPPING DATA! They do not know what the rate of chance past the 150 year limit because they don't have the data. All they have is CO2 specs from glacier samples and/or tree ring counts from trees, and that is not weather/climate data.
it absolutely is. You can say it louder but it won't make it true. Where is this speed of change data? I already debunked your previous claims with actual papers. I wonder, do the current tree rings line up with our weather data? if so that would be pretty interesting wouldn't it????
-
it's the speed of change that's the problem. Not the overall amount per se.
ecosystems cannot cope with a rapid change which is artificial. We now have the largest el nino on record forming- a super el nino,, one that is multiple standard deviations away from anything we have ever seen. Let's enjoy the chaos this next year brings and watch the records soar next summer when the heat is unbearable.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloedemrovsky/2026/08/25/what-super-el-nio-means-for-business-supply-chains-and-the-economy/
it isnt artificial, its nature adapting to the planet
and then the wind changes and its freezing and pissing down again
The temp at the equator and ice caps is pretty much static, the bits in the middle are changeable.. its doesnt matter
-
it isnt artificial, its nature adapting to the planet
and then the wind changes and its freezing and pissing down again
The temp at the equator and ice caps is pretty much static, the bits in the middle are changeable.. its doesnt matter
the planet is nature. I am not sure what you are saying.
It's artificial because we are digging up carbon that was buried over millions of years and adding it to the atmosphere in an unnatural fashion.
It matters a lot. More energy in the atmosphere, more heat, more heat, more storms, bigger storms, more drought etc etc..
-
the planet is nature. I am not sure what you are saying.
It's artificial because we are digging up carbon that was buried over millions of years and adding it to the atmosphere in an unnatural fashion.
It matters a lot. More energy in the atmosphere, more heat, more heat, more storms, bigger storms, more drought etc etc..
so what?
What do you thinks going to be the end result if we dont stop digging shit up?
Oh and how much will it reverse what we have done if we stop
Are you saying it wont get worse on its own and its just humans that are causing it, it has nothing to do with the earth being a cyclic planet?
-
That's another myth, that they have been able to calculate the speed of change and extrapolated it/compared it to the speed of change in the past.
As I've said before: THEY DO NOT HAVE THE FLIPPING DATA! They do not know what the rate of chance past the 150 year limit because they don't have the data. All they have is CO2 specs from glacier samples and/or tree ring counts from trees, and that is not weather/climate data.
Right? They have the tiniest blip of information from the history of this planet and they assume they can predict the future. There's always some sucker that repeats the msm talking points from the rooftop, getbig has it's own Greta Thurnburg in the canadian cna with a ged.
-
Meanwhile global warming believers out in public…..
-
Meanwhile global warmer believers out in public…..
The cuck defeated husband/father
The daughter with obvious debilitating mental illness derived from leftism/commie indoctrination, wearing a mask and some other troglodyte stomping around.
That commie diseases daughter also was up in front of the UN screaming at the public about needing to be forced to wear masks at all times for safety.
A perfect encapsulation of leftism. All right there.
-
The cuck defeated husband/father
The daughter with obvious debilitating mental illness derived from leftism/commie indoctrination, wearing a mask and some other troglodyte stomping around.
That commie diseases daughter also was up in front of the UN screaming at the public about needing to be forced to wear masks at all times for safety.
A perfect encapsulation of leftism. All right there.
isnt the troglodyte Jennifer Garner?
-
isnt the troglodyte Jennifer Garner?
That's her daughter Serafina.
What a f*cked up family.
-
so what?
What do you thinks going to be the end result if we dont stop digging shit up?
Oh and how much will it reverse what we have done if we stop
Are you saying it wont get worse on its own and its just humans that are causing it, it has nothing to do with the earth being a cyclic planet?
we need to either develop tech to offset the emissions or scrub co2 or move to renewables at a faster pace. The consequences of continuing are drought, severe storms, more fires, acidfication of the oceans, sea level rise , mass extinction of animals and ecosystems etc..
Even if we stopped we are still in for a brutal future ahead. It's already to far gone by most estimates.
-
The cuck defeated husband/father
The daughter with obvious debilitating mental illness derived from leftism/commie indoctrination, wearing a mask and some other troglodyte stomping around.
That commie diseases daughter also was up in front of the UN screaming at the public about needing to be forced to wear masks at all times for safety.
A perfect encapsulation of leftism. All right there.
The guy could be a chad as well, tall, in shape to a point, rich as fuck, successful, famous, good looking (no homo).
-
That's her daughter Serafina.
What a f*cked up family.
It’s Fin now. Get it right you bigot!
-
I know nothing about this stuff and I just float around making stupid comments, but from that description above I couldn't help thinking of this quote:
"Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies!
Rivers and seas boiling!
40 years of darkness!
Earthquakes, volcanoes!
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice!
Cats and dogs living together
Mass hysteria!"
;D
-
I know nothing about this stuff and I just float around making stupid comments, but from that description above I couldn't help thinking of this quote:
"Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies!
Rivers and seas boiling!
40 years of darkness!
Earthquakes, volcanoes!
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice!
Cats and dogs living together
Mass hysteria!"
;D
Everything was fine with our system until the power grid was shut off by dickless here.
They caused an explosion!
Is this true?
Yes it's true. This man has no dick
-
End of discussion
-
End of discussion
what a moronic simpleton post
you know we also have a thing called the Ozone layer and other factors like the gulf stream and things like that also affecting the climate.
-
what a moronic simpleton post
you know we also have a thing called the Ozone layer and other factors like the gulf stream and things like that also affecting the climate.
:D
-
we need to either develop tech to offset the emissions or scrub co2 or move to renewables at a faster pace. The consequences of continuing are drought, severe storms, more fires, acidfication of the oceans, sea level rise , mass extinction of animals and ecosystems etc..
Even if we stopped we are still in for a brutal future ahead. It's already to far gone by most estimates.
so C02 is now 0.04% of the earths atmosphere, how low should we make it , bearing in mind plants need it to exist?
-
I know nothing about this stuff and I just float around making stupid comments, but from that description above I couldn't help thinking of this quote:
"Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies!
Rivers and seas boiling!
40 years of darkness!
Earthquakes, volcanoes!
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice!
Cats and dogs living together
Mass hysteria!"
;D
In short the guy’s thread failed because he makes assumptions about things he knows jack-shit about.
Speaking about temperature alone is foolish as it can go up or down slightly for multiple reasons.
He created a whole thread based on an assumption that the temperature rising has definitive value. Because others don’t agree with his distorted opinion shaped by propaganda he calls others morons.
I’m honestly thankful of people with less intelligence than me. I’d have to work a regular 9-5 job if my competitors were smarter and I wouldn’t get my stock trades picked up unless there were bozos like this who can’t think for themselves.
-
the poles and equator have been roughly the same for thousands of years give and take a few degrees. the areas inbetween have always fluctuated...its nothing new
-
In short the guy’s thread failed because he makes assumptions about things he knows jack-shit about.
Speaking about temperature alone is foolish as it can go up or down slightly for multiple reasons.
He created a whole thread based on an assumption that the temperature rising has definitive value. Because others don’t agree with his distorted opinion shaped by propaganda he calls others morons.
I’m honestly thankful of people with less intelligence than me. I’d have to work a regular 9-5 job if my competitors were smarter and I wouldn’t get my stock trades picked up unless there were bozos like this who can’t think for themselves.
You should read some of his other opinions, it's like a day watching cnn. :D
-
so C02 is now 0.04% of the earths atmosphere, how low should we make it , bearing in mind plants need it to exist?
0.1% would cause serious health concerns in humans. The amount isn't the issue, it's the speed of change like I said. If we could reduce down to pre-industrial revolution levels it would make a huge difference.
Super el nino should wake a few people up this coming year. It's a few standard deviations beyond anything we have ever recorded. That's pretty fucking insane.
-
End of discussion
Hey I seen you made a post that indicates you may have CTE or a child has taken over your account.
Did you know, facts are fun by the way, that mercury is the closest planet to the sun? did you know that venus is significantly farther away from the sun?
Did you also know that venus is hotter than mercury? by about 30-60 degrees celsius by most measures. It would appear the sun doesn't work on mercury like venus despite being closer. Let's solve this mystery together! why would venus be hotter than mercury despite being farther away? that doesn't make any sense- science must be LYING!!!
I wonder if there is a phenomenon causing venus to be hotter? let me check.... yup, looks like there is runaway greenhouse gases trapping heat in the atmosphere. That's insane! venus is hotter because of the greenhouse effect.
What's heating up the earth? those lying scientists are saying the greenhouse effect from released stored CO2.... that can't be, the sun determines climate!
You are so ignorant you just proved the opposite of your post with one comment and picture, kinda brilliant tbh.
-
In short the guy’s thread failed because he makes assumptions about things he knows jack-shit about.
Speaking about temperature alone is foolish as it can go up or down slightly for multiple reasons.
He created a whole thread based on an assumption that the temperature rising has definitive value. Because others don’t agree with his distorted opinion shaped by propaganda he calls others morons.
I’m honestly thankful of people with less intelligence than me. I’d have to work a regular 9-5 job if my competitors were smarter and I wouldn’t get my stock trades picked up unless there were bozos like this who can’t think for themselves.
Calm down dummy it's not that serious.
Temperature can go up and downs, like bodyweight so you can't track the variables that cause it... it's a mystery.... it go up it go down... who knows why.
Your use of definitive value is also retarded and doesn't apply to temperature LOL. You are definitely not all that bright. You have tried to sound smart but unfortunately have failed badly.
Temperature is a scalar quantity, temperature change is a vector quantity. We know the rate of change in the past as well as temperatures. Read a book once and a while.
-
the poles and equator have been roughly the same for thousands of years give and take a few degrees. the areas inbetween have always fluctuated...its nothing new
How do you know they have always fluctuated?
-
You should read some of his other opinions, it's like a day watching cnn. :D
You belong in the coach pile tbh
I would still save you and I appreciate you writing a novella about me but you need to show some humility when you address me please.
-
How do you know they have always fluctuated?
carbon dating
-
carbon dating
Ok so that same reasoning shows us that the temperature has never risen this fast. Do you concur? There is also a very neat carbon metric which proves it's humans, do you know what that is?
-
End of discussion
End of thinking, in your case.
-
0.1% would cause serious health concerns in humans. The amount isn't the issue, it's the speed of change like I said. If we could reduce down to pre-industrial revolution levels it would make a huge difference.
Super el nino should wake a few people up this coming year. It's a few standard deviations beyond anything we have ever recorded. That's pretty fucking insane.
nope, it would benefit humans you silly kunt
No, an atmospheric
C02 concentration of 0.1% (1,000 ppm) does not pose a direct toxicological risk or physical threat to human life. In occupational health and indoor air quality standards, 1,000 ppm is widely utilized as an acceptable benchmark for well-ventilated indoor spaces [1]. For example, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) recommends keeping indoor CO2
levels below 1,000 ppm primarily as a surrogate metric to ensure adequate outdoor air ventilation and to prevent the buildup of indoor pollutants, body odors, and stuffiness. While some sensitive individuals or prolonged exposure in confined settings at 1,000 ppm might experience mild drowsiness, slight cognitive dulling, or perceived stuffiness, these effects are reversible and far below harmful physiological thresholds so
-
nope, it would benefit humans you silly kunt
No, an atmospheric
C02 concentration of 0.1% (1,000 ppm) does not pose a direct toxicological risk or physical threat to human life. In occupational health and indoor air quality standards, 1,000 ppm is widely utilized as an acceptable benchmark for well-ventilated indoor spaces [1]. For example, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) recommends keeping indoor CO2
levels below 1,000 ppm primarily as a surrogate metric to ensure adequate outdoor air ventilation and to prevent the buildup of indoor pollutants, body odors, and stuffiness. While some sensitive individuals or prolonged exposure in confined settings at 1,000 ppm might experience mild drowsiness, slight cognitive dulling, or perceived stuffiness, these effects are reversible and far below harmful physiological thresholds so
Not atmospheric CO2, there would be zero reversing it and it would change blood gases, cause respiratory problems in many people, cause cognitive problems etc. Comparing it to indoor levels is silly. We are talking constant 0.1%
The important distinction: 1,000 ppm indoors vs. outdoors
If the entire atmosphere were 1,000 ppm, people would continuously breathe air at that concentration. That's different from an indoor room reaching 1,000 ppm.
"An indoor concentration of 1,000 ppm often indicates poor ventilation, and therefore other pollutants can be accumulating too. Consequently, studies associating "1,000 ppm CO₂" with health or cognitive effects don't necessarily demonstrate that CO₂ itself is responsible."
I won't be responding to AI if you are planning on allowing a computer to think for you. The comparison isn't about what I was saying and AI is wrong a shit ton of the time.
https://learn.kaiterra.com/en/air-academy/is-carbon-dioxide-harmful-to-people
"Because carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant, it mostly affects your brain. At moderate CO2 levels, around 1000 ppm, there are observable effects on your thinking. These same levels also reduce concentration and focus, as well as create discomfort from breathing stuffy air. Overall, moderate levels of CO2, which are very common in office meeting rooms, schools, and even your home, won’t let your body function optimally."
Again, this is a side argument. Where its a pretty potent vasodialator things like migraines, other headaches, breathing issues (especially in those with COPD, asthma etc), cognitive deficits etc would be widespread. There would be zero reversing it if it's what our atmosphere was so these problems would compound and persist, contrary to your AI generated screed.
-
End of thinking, in your case.
His post actually disproves what he is saying because venus is the hottest planet. It's retarded beyond belief and why the title of this thread is highly accurate.
-
Not atmospheric CO2, there would be zero reversing it and it would change blood gases, cause respiratory problems in many people, cause cognitive problems etc. Comparing it to indoor levels is silly. We are talking constant 0.1%
The important distinction: 1,000 ppm indoors vs. outdoors
If the entire atmosphere were 1,000 ppm, people would continuously breathe air at that concentration. That's different from an indoor room reaching 1,000 ppm.
"An indoor concentration of 1,000 ppm often indicates poor ventilation, and therefore other pollutants can be accumulating too. Consequently, studies associating "1,000 ppm CO₂" with health or cognitive effects don't necessarily demonstrate that CO₂ itself is responsible."
I won't be responding to AI if you are planning on allowing a computer to think for you. The comparison isn't about what I was saying and AI is wrong a shit ton of the time.
https://learn.kaiterra.com/en/air-academy/is-carbon-dioxide-harmful-to-people
"Because carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant, it mostly affects your brain. At moderate CO2 levels, around 1000 ppm, there are observable effects on your thinking. These same levels also reduce concentration and focus, as well as create discomfort from breathing stuffy air. Overall, moderate levels of CO2, which are very common in office meeting rooms, schools, and even your home, won’t let your body function optimally."
Again, this is a side argument. Where its a pretty potent vasodialator things like migraines, other headaches, breathing issues (especially in those with COPD, asthma etc), cognitive deficits etc would be widespread. There would be zero reversing it if it's what our atmosphere was so these problems would compound and persist, contrary to your AI generated screed.
Go argue with scientists , you are arguing against yourself...
AI scours all data and comes up with facts.
You think the air conditioning people are wrong in creating a CO2 level of 0.1 parts per million?
why woiuld they do that and give people migraines you silly kunt
-
As carbon dioxide concentrations climb into percentages rather than parts per million, the gas shifts from being a cognitive stressor to an acute physical hazard:
At 10,000 ppm (1%): People can experience noticeable increases in heart rate and mild respiratory discomfort [2].
At 30,000 to 40,000 ppm (3–4%): Exposure becomes dangerous, triggering severe shortness of breath, dizziness, elevated blood pressure, and severe headaches, requiring immediate evacuation [2].
Above 70,000 to 100,000 ppm (7–10%): Higher concentrations lead to unconsciousness, convulsions, and eventually death due to a combination of carbon dioxide toxicity (hypercapnia) and the physical displacement of breathable oxygen (asphyxiation).
it would have to get into whole percentages before it had any major adverse effects you silly twat
-
Go argue with scientists , you are arguing against yourself...
AI scours all data and comes up with facts.
You think the air conditioning people are wrong in creating a CO2 level of 0.1 parts per million?
why woiuld they do that and give people migraines you silly kunt
AI comes up with bullshit a ton and if you check the references you would see that.
They aren't wrong but you are. I also just used AI to dispute your AI. I then posted a link showing you are wrong and that you moved the goalposts to indoor air quality when we are talking about the atmosphere LMAO. Your link also says the negatives (which prove there are) are reversible, by you know, going outside where its far lower.
The ideal level to not impact thinking and energy levels is 600-800ppms, 1000-1200ppms causes noticeable alterations and indicates ventilation is not working correctly.
https://learn.kaiterra.com/en/air-academy/is-carbon-dioxide-harmful-to-people
if it was always 1000ppms there would be consequences.
You didn't answer my carbon dating post. Thought you could get a win here did ya?
Not today son, not ever.
-
As carbon dioxide concentrations climb into percentages rather than parts per million, the gas shifts from being a cognitive stressor to an acute physical hazard:
At 10,000 ppm (1%): People can experience noticeable increases in heart rate and mild respiratory discomfort [2].
At 30,000 to 40,000 ppm (3–4%): Exposure becomes dangerous, triggering severe shortness of breath, dizziness, elevated blood pressure, and severe headaches, requiring immediate evacuation [2].
Above 70,000 to 100,000 ppm (7–10%): Higher concentrations lead to unconsciousness, convulsions, and eventually death due to a combination of carbon dioxide toxicity (hypercapnia) and the physical displacement of breathable oxygen (asphyxiation).
it would have to get into whole percentages before it had any major adverse effects you silly twat
Link the references so I can make you look silly. Number 2 please.
-
Link the references so I can make you look silly. Number 2 please.
Lindsey, Rebecca. Climate change: atmospheric carbon dioxide. (Web, NOAA Climate.gov, 2024) NOAA Climate.gov↩
CO2Meter. Our carbon dioxide (CO2) levels chart shows the increasing danger of elevated levels of CO2 in enclosed spaces. (Web, CO2Meter Blog) CO2Meter↩
Satish, U., et al. Is CO2 an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance. (Academic Journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012) PMC Article↩
(https://i.ibb.co/W9qsPKm/Screenshot-2026-08-29-at-21-10-21.png)
-
From your link, again this is indoor so its temporary. It's like saying low intensity exercise is healthy for an hour, but constant low intensity exercise all day long is not. Your links are about indoor air quality- aka temporary. Even then, the links support my contention even if they aren't accurate for atmospheric levels
"Results: Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06–0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased.
There were notable and substantial impacts on cognition after only 2.5 hours exposure
I mean your links also clearly state it's human made lol the first link has zero to do with our discussion here.
"Based on the annual analysis from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Lab, global average atmospheric carbon dioxide was 422.8 parts per million (“ppm,” for short) in 2024, a new record high. The increase during 2024 was 3.75 ppm—the largest one-year increase on record. At Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (graph above), where the modern carbon dioxide record began in 1958, the annual average carbon dioxide in 2024 was 424.61 ppm, also a new record."
"By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history. In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was roughly 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher.
If global energy demand continues to grow rapidly and we meet it mostly with fossil fuels, human emissions of carbon dioxide could reach 75 billion tons per year or more by the end of the century. Atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts could be 800 ppm or higher—conditions not seen on Earth for close to 50 million years."
So in an effort to prove a peripheral point you linked studies that prove your position is wrong, on both fronts lol.
-
From your link, again this is indoor so its temporary. It's like saying low intensity exercise is healthy for an hour, but constant low intensity exercise all day long is not. Your links are about indoor air quality- aka temporary. Even then, the links support my contention even if they aren't accurate for atmospheric levels
"Results: Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06–0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased.
There were notable and substantial impacts on cognition after only 2.5 hours exposure
I mean your links also clearly state it's human made lol the first link has zero to do with our discussion here.
"Based on the annual analysis from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Lab, global average atmospheric carbon dioxide was 422.8 parts per million (“ppm,” for short) in 2024, a new record high. The increase during 2024 was 3.75 ppm—the largest one-year increase on record. At Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (graph above), where the modern carbon dioxide record began in 1958, the annual average carbon dioxide in 2024 was 424.61 ppm, also a new record."
"By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history. In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was roughly 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher.
If global energy demand continues to grow rapidly and we meet it mostly with fossil fuels, human emissions of carbon dioxide could reach 75 billion tons per year or more by the end of the century. Atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts could be 800 ppm or higher—conditions not seen on Earth for close to 50 million years."
So in an effort to prove a peripheral point you linked studies that prove your position is wrong, on both fronts lol.
nope, the graph shows indoor and outdoor
You just cant help being disingenuous in your arguments
Im done discussing something with someone who tells lies.
-
nope, the graph shows indoor and outdoor
You just cant help being disingenuous in your arguments
Im done discussing something with someone who tells lies.
LOL meltdown and fail.
I didn't say the graph didnt state indoor or outdoor, your fucking post was about indoor quality at 1000ppm, of course outdoor won't have a comparison at that level because it's not at that level you fucking moron, hence my point. The link I am referencing is the references I asked you to get which I quoted in my post. It can't be that hard to keep up you silly kunt.
I don't know why I even try on here LOL. You got illuminati thinking the US is the world economy, chaos not understanding how studies work, dos equis being a creationist zealot, coach posting pictures of the sun like a toddler.
-
Lol?
Heres a fucking Lol for you
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=82918&src=youtube
2013 continued the warming trend according to the idiots at Nasa.
More liberal bullshite, Nasa didn't watch the weather network apparently, because it's snowing outside right now.
https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=515262.0
-
I don’t think that Necrosis will be posting anymore 😂
-
nope, the graph shows indoor and outdoor
You just cant help being disingenuous in your arguments
Im done discussing something with someone who tells lies.
This is why I continuously mock and belittle him. He's incapable of recognizing when he's proven wrong and will constantly change the goal posts with slight verbiage in order to appear smart. It must work on his D&D gaming sites, he keeps trying it here.
-
Lol?
Heres a fucking Lol for youhttps://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=515262.0
So you are also retarded loololololololololol
That thread proves how stupid the average getbigger is lol.
-
This is why I continuously mock and belittle him. He's incapable of recognizing when he's proven wrong and will constantly change the goal posts with slight verbiage in order to appear smart. It must work on his D&D gaming sites, he keeps trying it here.
You have and never will win an argument against me. You are simply not on my level fatso.
I was referring to atmospheric co2, he went on about office buildings, who changed the goalposts?
Dum dum.
-
I don’t think that Necrosis will be posting anymore 😂
You actually deserved the aware of the dumbest poster LOL.
My troll is so good that you guys are still falling for it over a decade later LOLOLOLOL.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. ;D ;D ;D
-
You actually deserved the aware of the dumbest poster LOL.
My troll is so good that you guys are still falling for it over a decade later LOLOLOLOL.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. ;D ;D ;D
-
I used the famous coach line "its snowing outside that proves global warming is a lie" lol.
you had people agreeing with it. Sad state of affairs.
This joswift guy has been absolutely embarrassed here. The chefs kiss is thinking he uncovered a smoking gun (clathrate gun maybe? lol) only to look like a moron.
-
Lol?
Heres a fucking Lol for youhttps://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=515262.0
From that thread LOLOL
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 12531
Re: More Evidence Global warming is a lies
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2014, 03:15:24 PM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: JBGRAY on January 24, 2014, 03:01:01 PM
Man-made climate change IS real, however, the actual temperature changes man contributes is likely at an insignificant rate compared to natural cyclical weather changes. Regardless, even a minute temperature change can cause dramatic changes in the ecosystem.
I would be much more concerned with deforestation, desertification, poisoning of fresh water supplies, fracking, overfishing, soil erosion and animal extinction....all things that man has an irrefutable link to....than whether our CO2 carbon emissions is producing a .1 atmospheric temperature increase.
You are making it hard to stay in character with stupid posts like this.
Someone with brains
AbrahamG
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21314
Necrosis is numero uno. Free Matt C.
Re: More Evidence Global warming is a lies
« Reply #32 on: January 24, 2014, 03:39:15 PM »
Quote
Necrosis rules. 2 pages and nary a soul realizes the owning he is administering.
HAHAHAHA
Knooger
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5788
Re: More Evidence Global warming is a lies
« Reply #33 on: January 24, 2014, 03:39:37 PM »
Quote
Quote from: Necrosis on January 24, 2014, 01:58:52 PM
How do we not know how not to never cause global warming?
What?
That's a classic question that no one dare not know to answer.
-
▫️
-
▫️
You need a new one, it's played out now.
Try another cluster b disorder. Like splitting in BPD
-
You need a new one, it's played out now.
Try another cluster b disorder. Like splitting in BPD
-
You actually deserved the aware of the dumbest poster LOL.
My troll is so good that you guys are still falling for it over a decade later LOLOLOLOL.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. ;D ;D ;D
not anymore you dumb fuck... trolling is when you get people posting with little or no effort on your part.
You have expended way more time and energy on this nonsense than the people responding.
Now you need a new angle, everyone knows you dont even believe your own bullshit now.
Enjoy obscurity
You could try pushing the benefits of covid vaccines if you get desperate for attention.
-
not anymore you dumb fuck... trolling is when you get people posting with little or no effort on your part.
You have expended way more time and energy on this nonsense than the people responding.
Now you need a new angle, everyone knows you dont even believe your own bullshit now.
Enjoy obscurity
You could try pushing the benefits of covid vaccines if you get desperate for attention.
you have embarrassed yourself. You couldn't even stick to not responding to me like you said, you lack all credibility and integrity. You couldn't even tell the thread was a troll thread and fell for a decade old troll of which I put in zero effort to make happen. You literally did all the work for me LOL.
If I were you I would delete my account in shame.
More classics
Ropo
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2895
Re: More Evidence Global warming is a lies
« Reply #44 on: January 25, 2014, 01:16:08 AM »
Quote
Quote from: Necrosis on January 23, 2014, 09:21:08 AM
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=82918&src=youtube
2013 continued the warming trend according to the idiots at Nasa.
More liberal bullshite, Nasa didn't watch the weather network apparently, because it's snowing outside right now.
So you are saying that NASA, which have been studying climate by decades, are idiots, and ass hats like you making conclusions just by looking out from your window, are smart? You can say they are wrong just by looking out to your window? Stupid really is wrong word to describe you, you have to be insane.
He is describing you LOL
Van_Bilderass
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19641
"Don't Try"
Re: More Evidence Global warming is a lies
« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2014, 02:36:04 AM »
Quote
Quote from: Ropo on January 25, 2014, 01:16:08 AM
So you are saying that NASA, which have been studying climate by decades, are idiots, and ass hats like you making conclusions just by looking out from your window, are smart? You can say they are wrong just by looking out to your window? Stupid really is wrong word to describe you, you have to be insane.
You're the retard. Read the thread.
Van is describing you.
I rest my case. If you come at the king you better not miss. Lock the thread, he won't recover.
-
As retarded as anyone is here, it is amazing how the "over three posts is a meltdown" rule is pretty scrupulously honored
-
not anymore you dumb fuck... trolling is when you get people posting with little or no effort on your part.
You have expended way more time and energy on this nonsense than the people responding.
Now you need a new angle, everyone knows you dont even believe your own bullshit now.
Enjoy obscurity
You could try pushing the benefits of covid vaccines if you get desperate for attention.
We have one bottom dweller that calls himself "King"....I think we found his Queen Necrosis. :D
-
We have one bottom dweller that calls himself "King"....I think we found his Queen Necrosis. :D
now hes been found out hes just pretending he was trolling all along
Guy has been non stop posting the same retarded shit for years
Fuck him...hes toast
-
I have been mocking morons that deny global warming for over a decade, this is correct.
I noticed you haven't responded to my carbon dating questions, likely because you know how much of a moron you would look like if you continue down that road.
You are now trauma bonding with the fatso. This is a pattern with the tiny tits I crush. You will need group therapy soon.
-
(http://www.davidfoldvari.co.uk/images/deadfly-t.gif)
-
Flawless victory
Necrosis bring the art of troll again....
-
now hes been found out hes just pretending he was trolling all along
Guy has been non stop posting the same retarded shit for years
Fuck him...hes toast
He's doing a lot of backpeddling and excuse making now. Spends over a decade contradicting himself just to claim troll? Horrible. Not as bad as someone faking his own death or sucking a dick for internet clout, but it's pretty close.
-
RETARDS!!! :D :D :D
I see retard chaos tried to get serious with me and got embarrassed again falling for a troll thread from a decade ago. LOL
Stick to just making snide comments, directly engaging me is bad for your health.
You have to admit this is a pretty funny backfire. Only an idiot would dig up a thread that's clearly a troll (look at the title of the thread ffs lololol) and get fooled by it again. Royalty helped the troll, credit to whatever that is.
I will sleep well tonight :o :o :o :o :D :D :D :D
-
He's doing a lot of backpeddling and excuse making now. Spends over a decade contradicting himself just to claim troll? Horrible. Not as bad as someone faking his own death or sucking a dick for internet clout, but it's pretty close.
Agreed, then again he might just end up living in his car sucking dick after this anyway.
Theres no coming back from this kind of owning...
-
You still trying to convince yourself you owned someone? LOL
I am starting to feel bad for you like I do coach and illuminati. At least they are confirmed mentally handicapped and can't help it.
You tangled with the apex predator and you got manhandled. Take your licks like a man
Trolling is autochthonous for me, it's my urgrund, your mind is diaphanous to me in all respects. My teleology is pain for tiny tits, you are my desideratum in this instance, the sine qua non.
Please carry on. Could you perhaps share your thoughts on carbon so we can have a good laugh? I think this avenue is exhausted of all the lol's
-
You still trying to convince yourself you owned someone? LOL
I am starting to feel bad for you like I do coach and illuminati. At least they are confirmed mentally handicapped and can't help it.
You tangled with the apex predator and you got manhandled. Take your licks like a man
Trolling is autochthonous for me, it's my urgrund, your mind is diaphanous to me in all respects. My teleology is pain for tiny tits, you are my desideratum in this instance, the sine qua non.
Please carry on. Could you perhaps share your thoughts on carbon so we can have a good laugh? I think this avenue is exhausted of all the lol's
;)
-
;)
Imagine the amount of time he spends on google? ;D
-
Imagine the amount of time he spends on google? ;D
I dont think hes twigged yet
-
My mind is google.
This battle is over. Another foe vanquished.till tomorrow, boys.