I don't get the fuss about climate change. There was an ice age once. that's climate change. Going from sunny to rainy is climate change.
Are patterns altering slightly as a direct result of human activity? Yes.
Are humans single-handedly killing the planet? No. If anything, our actions will make the Earth uninhabitable for humans and will kill ourselves, but the planet will be fine. But I don't think we're in any danger of doing that either.
Were it only so easy to call this a closed matter. The best about it however, is that there is still more to come from all of these; to help further shine light on the legitimately corrupt politicians. The consequence of that will be to vindicate the Trump administration and potentially at last put down the narrative... or rather, set the record straight as is happening now.
I didn't realize you were on Mueller's team. There haven't exactly been huge leaks from Mueller and his team, we don't know exactly what they know and what links they've discovered. Multiple Trump associates have links with Russia which have come to the public eye, it's unclear if Mueller's team has followed these links.
I don't get the fuss about climate change. There was an ice age once. that's climate change. Going from sunny to rainy is climate change.
Are patterns altering slightly as a direct result of human activity? Yes.
Are humans single-handedly killing the planet? No. If anything, our actions will make the Earth uninhabitable for humans and will kill ourselves, but the planet will be fine. But I don't think we're in any danger of doing that either.
It's the animals I really care about, but there's also the 7 billion people in the way.
Billions of species went extinct before humans. Billions will afterwards. I don't really hold the view that humans are the worst thing that ever happened to animalkind. We ARE animalkind.
Billions of species went extinct before humans. Billions will afterwards. I don't really hold the view that humans are the worst thing that ever happened to animalkind. We ARE animalkind.
We're the only species to be the direct cause of a great extinction event, the 5th of the planet earth.
I apologize but in the realm of climate science, even the lauded agency scientists are not immune to pushing fabricated information either, and even historically. No less, we even have accounts going back as "far" as 2012 that it is anything but a "settled science". This is ignoring outright examples of fraud which attempted to see us into disastrous projects like the earlier Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Agreement which, unsurprisingly, are not actually being followed by anyone on time or on track to meet the intent in the future to come. Unless of course you consider cheating your numbers, but that seems to be the trend as it is, so perhaps they really have met the mark on what has become of environmentalism in the past thirty years.
At this point, I strongly doubt their "good will" on the matter and the mission, in that this is no more about being objective or looking to preserve the Earth for all species and the future, but instead is founded on sensationalism and feels-good science, with a distinct lack of understanding or willingness to consider viable, achievable options. By this I mean the same people who rant and rave about how coal and fossil fuels are the breath of Satan are utterly content to ignore more efficient and reliable sources like nuclear power, because it does not "feel good" to have to bury radioactive materials or dilute them through extensive processing. Instead they are willing to brow beat everyone to reduce carbon emissions and hedge them into the often less efficient, less available natural sources, many of which they have an investment in to succeed; odd that last part, in that it almost seems like they have a monetarily vested interest to succeed.
No less, for the preservation of species, climate change is not the largest or most prominent issue here. Human expansion is, by which I mean mostly agricultural and population expansion. There will be many, many things that devastate the varied ecosystems, namely those exotic to us, before climate change does and turning the land into farmland by a bunch of peasant third world farmers is going to be one of those leading causes. As it goes in contrast still, the infamous polar bear example has swung back the other way that there are now too many, the same can be shown with expeditions to the artic that were stopped... by an unusually high concentration of sea ice and expanding glaciation.
No less, we even have accounts going back as "far" as 2012
That's an opinion piece. This man is also a member of the Heartland Institute who has some interesting backers. You should be mindful of whose funding these types of things.
Again, adjustments are not tampering/whatever sensationalist thing you call it. This claim is pretty unreliable. The only evidence is a map taken from the NOAA website on the day NASA/GISS released its global data. It's impossible to cover the entire planet with weather stations, satellite data shows global temperature increases as well. Data is often averaged out to get one number, in this case global average temperature.
Judging by your sources, you veer more towards conspiracy theorist than skeptic. There's nothing wrong with being a skeptic, just try to have reliable data/evidence which backs this skepticism.
I cant be the only one aware of the coincidence that someone called @Heat is the one to educate us on why the earth's temperature is rising.
Also there are many reasons to believe that the 'Left Will Eat Itself' example: Promoting feminism, but not criticizing backwards ass sexist immigrants and muslims when it comes to egalitarianism and human rights.
But youll see many on the 'New Right' who cant seem to agree on 3 major topics
Climate Change
Veganism
Christianity
Look at any popular right wing youtuber like Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Alex Jones and watch how the comments section sperges the fuck out whenever one of these topics gets brought up, the right will eat itself too.
Meno: Is this true about yourself, Socrates, that you don’t even know what virtue is? Is this the report that we are to take home about you?
Socrates: Not only that, you may also say that, to the best of my belief, I have never met anyone else who did know.
Meno: What! Didn’t you meet Gorgias when he was here?
Socrates: Yes.
Meno: And you still didn’t think he knew?
Socrates: I’m a forgetful sort of person, and I can’t say just now what I thought at the time. Probably he did know, and I expect you know what he used to say about it. So remind me what it was, or tell me yourself if you will. No doubt you agree with him.
Meno: Yes, I do.
Socrates: Then let’s leave him out of it, since after all he isn’t here. What do you yourself say virtue is?
I cant be the only one aware of the coincidence that someone called @Heat is the one to educate us on why the earth's temperature is rising.
Also there are many reasons to believe that the 'Left Will Eat Itself' example: Promoting feminism, but not criticizing backwards ass sexist immigrants and muslims when it comes to egalitarianism and human rights.
But youll see many on the 'New Right' who cant seem to agree on 3 major topics
Climate Change
Veganism
Christianity
Look at any popular right wing youtuber like Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Alex Jones and watch how the comments section sperges the fuck out whenever one of these topics gets brought up, the right will eat itself too.
No amount of skepticism will seem healthy to ideologues who hold their mythology as the one truth. It will inevitably be portrayed as conspiracy because to question "fact", arbitrarily chosen facts rather, flies in the face of what has been indoctrinated into people. I am not surprised you call any opposing source at all, a spread of which I chose for a reason, "unreliable".
First and foremost, when dealing with scientific data anyone remotely familiar with it will tell you to always use real data and leave nothing to modelling, especially when you are venturing into the unknown. The more points you have of accuracy, the greater and more accurate your results will be; when you start "adjusting" everything, especially with a motive in mind, your process should be called into question. Forgive me, but I have zero trust for these agencies who were constantly being pushed toward representing climate change by the previous administrations because it fit their ideology.
Second, Snopes, really? You are going to call my material into question, then refer to Snopes? I do hope you are aware of what is going on over there with them. The so called "fact checkers" are being fact checked themselves and interestingly enough, it almost seems as if they have a motive themselves. But I digress, two can play at that game, but Snopes is a whole new level of incrediblity. I will not even bite on that one being remotely accurate; might as well cite PolitiFact too while you are at it.
As for the Heartland institute being funded, my point is summarized as, "Yes, and?" I am not claiming to trust them, but anyone who remembers Climategate remembers that the data was not matching what was being reported. This is not some great secret. What matters more to me in that reference is your reaction which is summed as "Opinion pieces do not matter if I do not like them."
I, of course, am obligated to admit I chose it on purpose to demonstrate that, but that is only a component of the point. The real driving point of that article is to show what lengths people will go - to include the theft of private documents - to prove climate change is "real". More or less, that outright discredited their argument to me that in order to "win", they sent an activist to commit a crime and ultimately found nothing about Heartland of interest; the same event transpired as a big nothing with Donald Trump's tax returns as of late.
The argument of "those people have no climate expertise" falls on deaf ears with me for several reasons, not the least of which was their agency being hijacked to perform that mission above all others - recently reversed by President Trump - and that if they, who are deeply involved in the workings and data gathering of that industry by proxy, have no right to an opinion about their stake in it, who has any right at all? If you want to apply that logic, please do - I would love to tell those who do not own firearms their opinion about them is moot or the keyboard warriors that screech at military action to step off the matter until they join an armed service.
To the point again, yes, I read the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr. NASA Administrator NASA Headquarters Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
That is how you operate an agency, by stating "Please do not put out unproven, unverified, challenged data as absolute truth. It isn't. We need to be impartial about this because we are an authority on the matter and people thus regard us as the end all whenever we say something. We are concerned because of the activist position you have taken over our agency."
If you want to keep talking data sets and fraudulent application of them, let me phrase it this way. Do you legitimately trust anyone who has that many holes in their data that they fill them in and adjust the numbers to what they think it should be? Personally, I call that very bad science. If you are so uncertain in your data and haven't the resources or area to be legitimately accurate, as in monitoring more of the entire planet effectively and cross referencing each point to other available sets, even incomplete, should you really be making claims at all? The honest answer to that is "No, go continue to evaluate and expand." rather than "Panic! The entire Earth is heating up because humans! This has never happened before! Coastal cities are all going to drown! The ice caps are gone!"
They way I view this issue is that it is bad science. It is feels good childishness that has not the gall to commit to its duty in the field, one that can take countless years, and would rather react reflexively or worse, preemptively at the cost of everyone else. Again, see my prior opinions on solutions as to how to legitimately mitigate climate concerns. Mankind is a component, but not the component.
"Perhaps more intriguing, the most explosive charge in the Steele document was the claim that Trump hired prostitutes to defile a bed slept in by former President Obama. The important factor to consider is that Trump did not engage with the prostitutes himself, but instead allegedly sought to denigrate Obama. If there is anything consistent in what we have learned about President Trump, it seems that his policies are almost exclusively about overturning and eradicating anything related to President Obama’s tenure. In this sense, he is akin to the ancient Pharaohs, Byzantine and Roman Emperors like Caligula, who sought to obliterate the existence of their predecessors, even destroying and defacing their images. Is it inconceivable that he would get some satisfaction from a private shaming of the former President?"
THAT, friend, is the standard of accuracy used in your article. I shouldn't have to say more.
A Republican initiated the report, why would both democrats and republicans pay for a fake dossier? We also knew this back in January, this isn't news.
This new thing called "the primaries." Plus, dunno if you noticed this, but McCain isn't exactly a big fan of the don.
Well obviously I ignore THAT! News to me. What's it got to do with Russia? Excuse me. What does that reportedly possibly allegedly have to do with Russia? Because if -- as it's been reported all over -- the FBI raid on Manafort was a product of insider politicking at the bureau, that's bad news for the NYAG. "Fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is gonna throw all that shit out. Which would be a shame -- if the dude is actually criminal, we should obviously do something about it.
I didn't realize you were on Mueller's team. There haven't exactly been huge leaks from Mueller and his team, we don't know exactly what they know and what links they've discovered. Multiple Trump associates have links with Russia which have come to the public eye, it's unclear if Mueller's team has followed these links.
Sooooooooooooo nothing. We've been presented with precisely nothing.
