Global warming. Thread started by Joanro. - Page 5

Watch this gut-wrenching video of turbine killing an California condor( endangered speces) 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lb6VeMaXy8

 

Windmills are killing thousands of birds a day even endangered species:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEersoJLtRw

The government subsidizes the windmills that are killing the birds! Those companies are or may be fined. Taxpayers then will be billed for the fine!

 German Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-ppZhlSYd8

Antarctic (South Pole) has gained an annual average of 7,300 square miles of ice since the late 70s.

Some countries are considering pulling out their bases because they cant get supply ships through the increased ice. This fact has baffled scientist.

the operant word is "fact" :)

Snow that began piling up 10,000 years ago in Antarctica is adding enough ice to offset the increased losses due to thinning glaciers, according to a NASA study.

The latest findings appear to challenge other studies including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2013 report, which found that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015...c-ice-growing-countering-earlier-studies.html
------------------------------------------------

Antarctica ice is growing not shrinking, according to the latest studyfrom NASA. Furthermore, instead of contributing to rising sea levels, the still-very-much-frozen southern continent is actually reducing them by 0.23 mm per year.
The study – by an organization not hitherto noted for playing down environmental scares – will come as a major blow climate alarmists.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...shock-study-antarctica-growing-not-shrinking/

Content from external source

You are going to have to do way better than fox or breibart, I mean come on. BTW, from 2015? You can't do better. The government has subsidized coal that has killed how many humans, lol, nice try though. Not to mention has caused untold amount of pollution. For someone who claims to not be a republican you sure have let your slip show with the links posted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/climate/antarctica-ice-melting-faster.html

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/08/east-antarctic-ice-sheet-melting/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.popsci.com/evidence-climate-change-is-real#page-8

You are right. Philosophically I am not republican. I am interested in scientific truth and not into pissing contest of who can google better L vs R politically motivated articles. Also,  marginalizing and ridiculing each other's sources as you do does not prove anything. "Com on" what? Such marginalizing is   a waste of energy and it is not fair and it is a logical fallacy ( Sophistry). we then could go here back and forth marginalizing and ridiculing each other sources by saying "com on" and we could do it all day long. That is useless. Yes, I could as well marginalize your sources like the notorious leftist fake news purveyor New York Times which are liberal hacks and as far as your NASA link goes that had been debunked by NASA itself in the article quoted by Breitbart which I have posted above. Yes, the same Breitbart which you are marginalizing is actually using NASA data which debunk your NASA article. Thus according to you if you say NAS then that is OK but if Breitbart says NASA then that is not OK? You can not have it both ways.

The articles about shrinking Antartic ice are generally fake to fit narration of global warming of con artist. The way to prove how it is done is simple. Since ice coverage and volume fluctuate all the time all they have to do is to pick a current low period and compare it to past high period and voila presto chango results fit the desired effect to fool scientifically ignorant masses David Copperfield style. The way to do it correctly is to compare averages as I have shown in charts above. And when you compare averages then there is an obvious and clear long-term cooling trend and same way as Antartic ice is on AVERAGE growing. Also short periods do not signify anything. What you need to watch is a long-term trend of actual data involving millions of years and not description of the trend based on politically biased computer modeling.
As far as subsidies go I am against all government subsidies of private industry. All world is running on simple laws of economics. In long term you can not subsidize industry into prosperity. The opposite is true. I am not against solar or H2 or wind or H2O and tide-generated power. But not at expense of government subsidy which is designed to rake profit into con artists like Al Gore. Once engineering discoveries trump the economy of fossil and nuclear power then subsidies will not be necessary. Personally, I am looking forward to that day. But I am not interested into feel-good lies. Subsidies are thwarting the desire for progress and innovations and only attacks con artists who hang on the tits of sucking subsidies with no intentions or desire for scientific and engineering innovations and improvements.
BTW
Another sophistry you have used is to argue that it is OK for windmills solar power generating stations to kill birds and insects because coal does the same. You cannot justify one bad by excusing it by other. Such an argument is a false logic and it is counterproductive.

Explain this - https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/15/hyperalarming-study-shows-massive-insect-loss

 

BTW, I didn't use a search engine to find this stuff so you are wrong yet again. These are articles I have read and saved. But you go ahead and keep projecting what you think you know as it only helps to prove my points on global warming.

You are going to throw the law of averages at me, lol, Take a bell shaped curve of the last 500 years of high temps and show me how many outliers you have? I am betting you will find a significant amount of outliers beyond the average amount in the last 20 years of said outliers and those that are outside the bell recently at further from the center than the average over time.

So, lets take your premise on how the numbers are being manipulated and turn it around, one could also take those averages and show how things aren't or are changing, so it could be used both ways and that is the fallacy of numbers. I don't need to look at those averages to know that in the last 20 years climate is changing to the warmer side, all I need to do is get outside and observe the change.

Very good article debunking your law of average misunderstandings about climate change - https://www.livescience.com/37057-global-warming-effects.html

I did read it but did not have to nor need to read the article from Washington post, to tell you that the loss of insects is caused by the use of insecticides and GMO plants. Some blame microwave emissions/ which confuse insects ability to orient themselves. I can talk specifically about bees. For example, if bees disappear then the plants do not get pollinated and subsequently, other insects dependent on these plants disappear and then insectivorous reptiles disappear and amphibious animals disappear. I have been a beekeeper and I have been and am very concerned about this so I do not need to read some politicly popular agenda oriented article written or concocted to terrify people and sell newspapers. I have my own horrors for that. .
BTW. Rainforest in Puerto Rico is tiny ( I have been there 3 x) so the overlapping influence from overpopulated areas and agricultural areas is tremendous. As far as you mentioning 500 years bell curve even if it would be true the 500 years is like a fracture of 1/1 000 000 of a second in the millions of years where these variations must be observed and correlated. 500 years is nothing NOTHING and t means nothing.T o use short periods of time is a part of the con perpetrated on the masses.
As far as your "very good " article goes. I will say this I do not have time for articles which include IPCC or NOAA's soon as you throw IPCC and NOAA into the mix I stop wasting my time, since a few years ago those organizations were on national news all over the world where they were accused and proved to manipulate scientific data. They are totally discredited political hacks for Global warming cons and it will take a long time if ever anybody will take their data collecting and computer modeling seriously. As a matter of fact "Mountain Lion" described their ways of "scientific" collecting of data. They are the disgrace of the scientific community and it is laughable when they start their article with words: " Despite political controversy about climate change,...." yady yady yada....

As far as your example that the data can be manipulated the other way and prove that there is no MAN MADE global warming would be true if one would not use averages of data as I have demonstrated. However, averaging of true and correctly collected scientific data will prove that we are in a long-term cooling period.

Another interesting article...


New Claims ‘Murky’ Global Warming Statistics Are ‘Guessed At’

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/15/new-claims-murky-global-warming-statistics-are-guessed-at/

NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18



https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/earth-cool-half-degree-says-nasa/2018/05/16/id/860837/