Ranting About "Climate Hoax"

Paul:  Good stuff here. No facts, just 2 dudes blabbering. Though I tend to lean towards history of the worlds.

https://www.facebook.com/TheTrumpRepublicans/videos/469428940068768/

Gene: You want the truth !!!! This guy is the truth !!!!!!

Also check out Micheal savage on KNZZ ... his last 4 shows have been about the facts on the vorstex ice core samples that were taken 2miles into the Antarctic shelf.

Real Data concludes that global warming is a trillion dollar business for the elites.

Oh ... and global warming doesn't exist of course .

Mary: Okay, so you founded the weather channel decades ago. However, the important question should be: Has Mr. Coleman conducted any scientific research in the area of climate change? If so, then please provide your scientific findings. If not, then he's just using his position as founder of the weather channel to promote his "opinion", not based on scientific fact.

Scott: He is a puppet, an old puppet at that....one of the first of many to be put in place. His age does not make him more credible. So I guess we can continue destroying the climate and depleting our resources. Yeah there's nothing man can do to reverse anything....idiots.

Gene: i agree no global warming..just the weather pattern that the earth goes through year to year made by GOD not man...boy GOD is laughing at the liberals who think they have GODs power...man dont make weather

Makes sense to me! It's all about the money. This is why all the crying liberals are against Trump, because, as I have repeatedly said, their gravy train is going to derail. Obama care is making Democrats rich, global warming is making Democrats rich by forcing people to purchase solar and wind power as they watch their stock investments rise. You get the picture. Trump wants to drain the swamp and they are in panic mode.

George: Lol. There is no debate on climate change. It's been changing for millions of years. The debate comes in when it is used as a political platform and spending millions of federal tax dollars around the world. You can debate that all day. This video clip is what it is.

As you pointed out, the founder of the weather channel isn't providing any facts. I would say that he is just throwing out accusations.

Paul: For me the question is whether humans are causing the climate to change in a way that it otherwise wouldn't have.

Of course. Time will tell. Maybe this is the way it's suppose to be? Not like we have history of it happening before. Time will tell all. But we do have a responsibility to be responsible.

Tom: There are many reasons not to offer a rebuttal. It takes way too much time to go through all the lines of evidence. It takes way too much back and forth addressing all the objections that are typically raised. And after all that, people are still just going to believe what they want anyway.

But even so, here in a nutshell is just one line of evidence of how we know climate change is real.

1. carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know this. It's physics. It can be demonstrated in the laboratory

2. We know what the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been in the past. We know this because we've been collecting samples since the 1950s, and we have been analyzing air bubble trapped in various ice sheets going back to at least 650,000 years.

3. We know what ancient temperatures were. We know this through multiple lines of evidence - ice layers, studying the chemistry of ancient sea shells, fossilized tree ring size, and so on.

4. There has a been an increase in global warming every time that there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This matches what we would expect given the basic physics that has been demonstrated in the laboratory (see above)

5. Nowhere in the past have CO2 levels spiked anywhere near as high or anywhere near as fast as they have since the start of the industrial revolution

6. We know that spike is the result of human activity. One way we know this is because carbon that is emitted from burning biomass such as fossil fuels has a unique isotope as compared to other carbons. We know it has a unique isotope because it is demonstrable in the lab. The chemistry is clear.

7. We are seeing a steady increase in average worldwide temperatures as we would expect from higher levels of CO2.

8. We are seeing increased acification of the oceans as predicted from higher CO2 levels

9. We are seeing shrinking glaciers

10. And the evidence goes on and on and on and on.

This is what the overwhelming majority of climate scientist are saying. It also matches my own personal observations. I've been to Glaciers in the Alps, Iceland, Africa, Andes, Himalayas, and around North America. At all of these they talk about how the glaciers have been shrinking for decades. There are photos for comparison.

Still not convinced? Doesn't surprise me. I wont argue.

Paul: And what is wrong with a little cleansing,? Sept 23 it all ends anyway, so go and live! YOLO!

Gene: Human activity on Earth = .00001% of Earth Time ! People who believe Climate Change is due to human activity are the same people I could convince that Dinosaurs died due too many Dino Farts! How did the Ice Age happen??!! Wasn't cruise ships dumping margarita ice overboard. Earth goes through Natural Cycles, just like all life forms and species.

Tom: Your response proves that you don't understand what the climate scientist are saying. Do you really believe that it never occurred to the thousands of scientists studying climate change, and the millions who accept the reality of it, that the climate has changed naturally in the past? It is in fact because of climate scientists that we know what climate was in past.

Gene: The Government only pays scientists who back Global Warming. Billions of dollars...as a "scientist" looking for pay I would do the same thing or defunded. Same thing happened to Ghostbusters

When you dig ice cores in the North and South Poles you are not looking at worldwide data, you are looking at Pole Data that is entirely different from the Equatorial Regions of human civilization. Gas, Microwaves,XRays, etc. have different acceptancies towards Electronic/Earth Grid points of orgin. "Science" needs money just like everyone else, but Dead Wrong on this issue

Tom: I hear this argument a lot. The government will only hire climate scientists that will produce reports claiming global warming is real. Where is the evidence of this? Saying that you would produce false reports to protect your funding is only evidence of what you would do. It says nothing about what scientists who are subject to intense peer review and whose reputations are so important to their careers would do. If government employed scientists were just trying to please their bosses, then you would expect that scientists who worked for the U.S. Government under administrations that were hostile to the idea of human caused climate change, such as George Bush, would have produced reports criticizing the idea of human caused climate change. They didn't do that. They did just the opposite.

And what about the thousands of scientists here in the U.S. and around the globe who are not being paid by the U.S. Government who have studied climate change and have concluded that it is primarily human caused.

And what about scientists who were hired by parties specifically to criticize the idea of climate change, but ended up confirming it. One famous case is that of Richard Muller. He is a physicist (not a climatologist) and was a well known and vocal climate change denier. He was hired by the Koch brothers to study climate change in hopes of poking holes in the science. After studying the data and the science for a couple of years he changed is mind and concluded that not only is global warming happening, it is almost entirely caused by human activity.

Attacking the motivation of experts is a lawyers trick. It's just an attempt to distract attention from the actual evidence.

Gene: Tom, good talk. I appreciate anyone who gives time, thought and true effort into any discussion. I am sure that since The Industrial Revolution mankind has emitted enough CO2 to tilt the scales of Earth's temperature, but this is just a blip. When I look into the future I invision a museum of "human past" and when they look at 1800 - 2100 people will be so confused at how stupid we were. Past civilizations thought they were invincible through technology, yet they were thier own worst enemy. You only learn from mistakes and unfortunately history repeats itself. I agree we need clean nrg, but we are globally economic dependent on fossil fuels. Sadly this is a problem for the future

Tom: likewise Chris. I appreciate your openness. I agree that we're dependent on fossil fuels and I know that there are problems with renewable energy sources. And I still drive my car and maybe that makes me a hypocrite.

I do think that in any question such as climate change you need good data to base your decisions on. It's ok and even desirable to question the methodology of collecting the data and the conclusions drawn from the data, but any discussion without data is just conjecture. I'm disturbed by current efforts to do away with our data collecting ability.

Anyway I appreciate your listening to me.