Professors Challenge The Canard of Anthropogenic Climate Change

Online Persona

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2022
716
1,802
1
They’ve never “manipulated their environment to eradicate perceived problems”, they’ve plundered it, clown. Its oil and coal barons who are lining their pockets with multiple mansions and private jets, not climate scientists.
You‘re a useful fool.
Don't think so pal. I was a physics program laboratory director at one of the most prestigious universities in the country before retiring in my early 40s. I guarantee your background did not include a position that put you in regular contact with climate "scientists".

Further, do a little research on invasive species. Many were intentionally introduced to eradicate a problem but ultimately almost every instance made things much worse. As much as humans have advanced in science, we are not God and playing God with our environment almost always creates worse problems.

Lastly, coal and oil aren't paying your climate summit barons flying in private jets from their mansions to see what snake oil they may be able to sell you on next.

If you disagree with me, let's go in great detail on the science. I dare you.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,166
8,407
1
Don't think so pal. I was a physics program laboratory director at one of the most prestigious universities in the country before retiring in my early 40s. I guarantee your background did not include a position that put you in regular contact with climate "scientists".

Further, do a little research on invasive species. Many were intentionally introduced to eradicate a problem but ultimately almost every instance made things much worse. As much as humans have advanced in science, we are not God and playing God with our environment almost always creates worse problems.

Lastly, coal and oil aren't paying your climate summit barons flying in private jets from their mansions to see what snake oil they may be able to sell you on next.

If you disagree with me, let's go in great detail on the science. I dare you.
Maypole - idiot. Typical liberal arts assclown.

He will try to make the implication that because you aren't a "certified climate scientist" (whatever that is), you are no more knowledgeable than he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,467
616
1
Maypole - idiot. Typical liberal arts assclown.

He will try to make the implication that because you aren't a "certified climate scientist" (whatever that is), you are no more knowledgeable than he is.
Dead wrong. I have a BS in Physics from PSU. Though no expertise in climate science, I trust the scientific experts in the field who have devoted their lives to researching the subject rather than a bunch of self proclaimed experts on a nazi message board.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: psuted

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,166
8,407
1
Dead wrong. I have a BS in Physics from PSU. Though no expertise in climate science, I trust the scientific experts in the field who have devoted their lives to researching the subject rather than a bunch of self proclaimed experts on a nazi message board.
No, you don’t have a degree in physics from PSU
 

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,467
616
1
Don't think so pal. I was a physics program laboratory director at one of the most prestigious universities in the country before retiring in my early 40s. I guarantee your background did not include a position that put you in regular contact with climate "scientists".

Further, do a little research on invasive species. Many were intentionally introduced to eradicate a problem but ultimately almost every instance made things much worse. As much as humans have advanced in science, we are not God and playing God with our environment almost always creates worse problems.

Lastly, coal and oil aren't paying your climate summit barons flying in private jets from their mansions to see what snake oil they may be able to sell you on next.

If you disagree with me, let's go in great detail on the science. I dare you.
I am well aware of the invasive species issue, but I see little analogy to the issue of warming. At most, limiting CO2 would have secondary health benefits in other ways such as a reduction in pollution in general.
I don’t know whether the climate scientists are right or wrong or how bad warming really is, but I don’t want to bet the planet on it. Given the money at stake, the idea that oil companies are more objective than the scientists on the matter is ridiculous. Shell was aware of gw in 1986 and Exxon as early as 1977. We went through this crap on the subject of smoking when all you fellow travelers said it was not a public health problem.
 

Online Persona

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2022
716
1,802
1
I am well aware of the invasive species issue, but I see little analogy to the issue of warming. At most, limiting CO2 would have secondary health benefits in other ways such as a reduction in pollution in general.
I don’t know whether the climate scientists are right or wrong or how bad warming really is, but I don’t want to bet the planet on it. Given the money at stake, the idea that oil companies are more objective than the scientists on the matter is ridiculous. Shell was aware of gw in 1986 and Exxon as early as 1977. We went through this crap on the subject of smoking when all you fellow travelers said it was not a public health problem.
We are currently experiencing a recession, record inflation, stock market collapse, and tens of millions of Americans being driven into poverty this year alone because oil and gas have been demonized to the extent that the current democrat administration said they would be eliminated without infrastructure, technology or production capacity being anywhere near sufficient to force EVs on everyone.

Yes, humans are intervening
destructively on climate change agendas based on bad "science" and ridiculous repeated doomsday claims that only a fool would continue to believe after decades those predictions passing without issue. And atmospheric CO2 is not correlated with earth temps over sufficient data ranges. The earth's temps have always oscillated between two semi-stable equilibria temps, one much higher and one somewhat lower than we are experiencing. It always will until man designs a virus, weapon, or other effort to manipulate our environment that ends our existence.
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,694
23,197
1
Dead wrong. I have a BS in Physics from PSU. Though no expertise in climate science, I trust the scientific experts in the field who have devoted their lives to researching the subject rather than a bunch of self proclaimed experts on a nazi message board.

I don’t know about a BS in Physics, but it’s clear you have a BS in BS. You sound like a NAZI more and more every day.
 

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
31,354
37,393
1
Shell was aware of global warming in 1986 and Exxon as early as 1977.
That's interesting as "the science" in 1977 said the planet was on the verge of a new ice age. They were about to sprinkle coal dust on the antarctic for crying out loud!

Thank goodness we didn't listen to the fear-mongering scientists back then and have learned to "trust but verify" their theories today. I'm sure you've seen Bill Gates' proposal to flood the atmosphere with reflective particles to shield the planet from the sun's deadly rays, right? What could possibly go wrong??
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,694
23,197
1
I knew you would say that because you are an ignorant arrogant bullshitting Nazi, but it’s true.

Now tell the truth maypole and stop lying. Your credibility is very questionable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,869
10,303
1
We've lived in periods of 3 orders of magnitude higher atmospheric CO2 and temperatures over the earth's living history mostly have oscillated between 2 semi-stable equilibria temps during those times.

We are currently closer to the lower of those equilibria temps and very rich humans want to convince other humans to send them money because temps have risen very slightly off that lower equilibria temp when viewing only a small range of available data. This despite all previous predictions by those very rich humans seeking our money not coming true.

Our earth system is much more complex than the over-simplistic models the climate "scientists" engineer to give them their desired results. I've seen about a dozen of these models presented at colloquia. Some ignore inputs and feedbacks that others include. Many ignore the greatest source of energy to our earth system (the sun). Many have negative guesstimates for their feedback constants while others have positive for the exact same feedbacks. They all engineer their models to find rising temps in the prescribed range which may potentially secure government funding of their "research".

Then we are to trust these very rich people pimping the models with disastrous predictions that come due with no mention as they were laughably incorrect. Don't mention the proven false claims, make new ones, and the sheep will continue to be herded.

What are they doing with the money they received peddling this beyond their multiple mansions and private jets? How does that help change our earth's temperatures? If by chance, they actually attempted to alter our earth's system to lower temps what are the actual consequences of those attempts? Humans often introduce invasive species to certain environments to eliminate a problem while creating new ones. Then introduce another to eradicate the invasive species they brought in the first place creating yet other unforeseen problems. And we want these humans to attempt to control our earth systems thermostat on a large scale? No thank you.

Excellent. I think "climate change" might best be understood as Wokeist religious doctrine rather than science.

I recall from the past a number of spooky theories predicting the end of human life on earth due to imaginary environmental threats proclaimed by people with furrowed brows and fancy credentials. Each time the theories and the people proved full of shit. In fact, come to think of it, weren't we warned years ago that New York City would be underwater by now as Greenland melts and sea levels rise?

It's also instructive that they have to keep repackaging their grand theory. For a long time, it was "global warming," but that flew in the face of people's experience of the weather. So it became "climate change", an amorphous concept into which any and every meteorological anomaly could be promptly shoehorned.

Even if it had any scientific merit at all, the vast majority of the world has no intention of sacrificing their societies and economies on the altar of a mythical Green Revolution engineered by privileged hypocrites in the West. Therefore, the nutty Dem-Media schemes would not achieve the ends for which they were supposedly designed but rather succeed only in inflicting pain on the citizenry of America.

At the end of the day, if we're right that the climate disciples are full of shit, then we can save our nation by opposing them. And if we're wrong, we'll get to listen to their shrieks and tantrums as they fry on the sidewalk like ants under a magnifying glass or are slowly submerged in their coastal resort homes. I mean, really, it's a win-win situation.
 

olelion

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2001
5,395
2,769
1
Tarpon Springs Fl
Dead wrong. I have a BS in Physics from PSU. Though no expertise in climate science, I trust the scientific experts in the field who have devoted their lives to researching the subject rather than a bunch of self proclaimed experts on a nazi message board.
Show me where I can find scientific observation of the climate models. This is the problem. The scientific method has been abandoned in this alleged study of climate.
 

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
31,354
37,393
1
Chi: It’s 100 degrees in London right now. Just checked on the Weather Channel. It was over 100 degrees yesterday, according to numerous news reports. What are you smoking?!
Anecdotal. Ask any "climate scientist" and they will throw that right out the window and direct you to 30-year trends as the only data points of relevance.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
26,380
42,709
1
Anyone that blatantly trusts in any research or writing needs their head examined. The very first thing Dr. Cruz taught me about doing research and reading any research was simply this, who's paying for it and what's their agenda. As a Mexican, his first assignment after his PhD was research and writing for the Natiinal Park Service. Needless to say, he was forced to write what the government wanted. But hey, trust the science, said no one ever that believes in the scientific method.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
26,380
42,709
1
A brief reminder to all the party sycophants that demand people believe the government and do what they say, or else. This is the same government, through the use of Agent Orange, that have caused millions of deaths and birth defects while blatantly lying about it. The same government that lied about its affects on our own fking troops. It took decades for them to finally admit to what it did, 2015. So yeah, spare me the trust bullsh&t because that's what it is, bullsh&t.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
5,166
8,407
1
How can anyone take this seriously.

All smart people know there are regions of the USA that have cooled over the past few decades.

What moron believes that we are not fatter in those areas also?

Note: Obviously, the very mild warming trend that the USA has experienced is not disproved by the fact that some regions have cooled.
 

Ski

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
9,571
11,339
1
Actually not all white men. Just republicans.
White, male Democrats identify as women due to low testosterone levels (clinically proven). That makes "all white men" technically correct in the age of wokeness.