Global Warming Agenda

Watch
HigherMinion
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/da.../16/id/607672/

"Casey says the evidence is clear that the earth is rapidly growing colder because of diminished solar activity.

He says trends indicate we could be headed for colder temperatures similar to those seen in the late 1700s and early 1800s when the sun went into a "solar minimum" — a phenomenon with significantly reduced solar activity, including solar flares and sunspots."

So, when are the Left going to give up their man-made global warming agenda? Oh, sorry, "climate change". These green levies are harming everyone in the West, whilst making a minority of land owners rich and spawning a new faux green industry supported by taxes.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
I'm not a huge fan of screaming, intolerant environmentalists who in quite a few cases are your former extreme left wingers who lost their cause when the Soviet Union broke up, but I'll be interested to see how this on pans out.
0
reply
JaneHJ
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
You need to consider other aspects, such as the increased CO2 emission output; it's increasing at an alarming rate, much faster than the 2 degree Celsius allowance created. There is also huge amounts of methane being released into the atmosphere from cattle, which are being farmed on a much larger scale to keep up with demand. These gases are absorbing the solar energy and trapping it on earth, meaning there is an OVERALL increase of global temperature. The decreasing solar input is just a fluctuation on a huge time scale.
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by JaneHJ)
You need to consider other aspects, such as the increased CO2 emission output; it's increasing at an alarming rate, much faster than the 2 degree Celsius allowance created. There is also huge amounts of methane being released into the atmosphere from cattle, which are being farmed on a much larger scale to keep up with demand. These gases are absorbing the solar energy and trapping it on earth, meaning there is an OVERALL increase of global temperature. The decreasing solar input is just a fluctuation on a huge time scale.
Did you read the article?

I don't think you read the article.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
Maybe you should take 10 minutes to do some research into this John Casey guy and his 'Space and Science Research Corp' so you can get to grips with how preposterous this is.

Put simply, John Casey has zero qualifications in any form of climate science. He has a BA in physics and an MA in management. The SSRC website is a complete joke that doesn't list a single one of the 'experts' that supposedly work for it - presumably because they don't exist. Even other climate sceptics refuse to have anything to do with him. Casey is not a scientist, he is a con artist.
3
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Maybe you should take 10 minutes to do some research into this John Casey guy and his 'Space and Science Research Corp' so you can get to grips with how preposterous this is.

Put simply, John Casey has zero qualifications in any form of climate science. He has a BA in physics and an MA in management. The SSRC website is a complete joke that doesn't list a single one of the 'experts' that supposedly work for it - presumably because they don't exist. Even other climate sceptics refuse to have anything to do with him. Casey is not a scientist, he is a con artist.
"Any scientist suggesting otherwise is castigated as a heretic, though there are other prominent scientists who support Casey.

Noted Russian astrophysicist Habibullo I. Abdussamatov has argued that a new mini-ice age has begun, though Casey doesn't go that far.

He does agree with Abdussamatov that the real driver of global climate is solar activity, namely sunspots. These correspond to shifts in global temperature with a greater than 90 percent accuracy, he says."

Okay, sure. So I guess you're one who ascribes to the notion that man is more powerful than the sun?
0
reply
JaneHJ
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by HigherMinion)
Did you read the article?

I don't think you read the article.
I have read the article- the amount of bias in the article is ridiculous. Casey has minimal (if any) credible evidence for his claims. He has focused on the US with a cold winter, which again is a fluctuation, but hasn't mentioned any other countries in detail, where they are experiencing higher temperatures annually, in every month.
1
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by HigherMinion)
"Any scientist suggesting otherwise is castigated as a heretic, though there are other prominent scientists who support Casey.

Noted Russian astrophysicist Habibullo I. Abdussamatov has argued that a new mini-ice age has begun, though Casey doesn't go that far.

He does agree with Abdussamatov that the real driver of global climate is solar activity, namely sunspots. These correspond to shifts in global temperature with a greater than 90 percent accuracy, he says."

Okay, sure. So I guess you're one who ascribes to the notion that man is more powerful than the sun?
The idea that solar activity is contributing to climate change has been researched and comprehensively debunked many times over. Casey is a hoaxer with zero scientific credibility. If you look into it you'll find that even his fellow climate-sceptics refuse to have anything to do with him.
1
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
The idea that solar activity is contributing to climate change has been researched and comprehensively debunked many times over. Casey is a hoaxer with zero scientific credibility. If you look into it you'll find that even his fellow climate-sceptics refuse to have anything to do with him.
Mind posting some sources to the debunking of this?
0
reply
Gjaykay
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
Just gonna leave this here.
3
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Gjaykay)
Just gonna leave this here.
>Implying science=consensus.

That really proves nothing. Scientists are corruptible. Think about it like this:

The majority of funding that goes in to climate science now by governments all over the West is huge. We've seen before what happens when scientists get the "wrong" results. It was demonstrated by a pair of researchers who were employed by the WHO and Cancer Research to verify that second-smoke causes cancer. As the researchers approached their conclusion, they realised it was not true. They were subsequently fired and their funding was pulled.

So, in this career-driven world, and spending many years studying to become a scientist: would you risk it?
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by HigherMinion)
Mind posting some sources to the debunking of this?
Here is an article examining Casey and his organisation and here is an article that cites some of the studies that disprove the sun's impact on climate change.
0
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
Maybe you should take 10 minutes to do some research into this John Casey guy and his 'Space and Science Research Corp' so you can get to grips with how preposterous this is.

Put simply, John Casey has zero qualifications in any form of climate science. He has a BA in physics and an MA in management. The SSRC website is a complete joke that doesn't list a single one of the 'experts' that supposedly work for it - presumably because they don't exist. Even other climate sceptics refuse to have anything to do with him. Casey is not a scientist, he is a con artist.
To support his theory, doesn't Casey quote scientist Dr Sorokhtin in one of his books?
0
reply
Gjaykay
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by HigherMinion)
>Implying science=consensus.

That really proves nothing. Scientists are corruptible. Think about it like this:

The majority of funding that goes in to climate science now by governments all over the West is huge. We've seen before what happens when scientists get the "wrong" results. It was demonstrated by a pair of researchers who were employed by the WHO and Cancer Research to verify that second-smoke causes cancer. As the researchers approached their conclusion, they realized it was not true. They were subsequently fired and their funding was pulled.

So, in this career-driven world, and spending many years studying to become a scientist: would you risk it?
Yeah that does happen and you do have airtight logic. If this wasn't the OVERWHELMING scientific communities opinion.When 97% of scientist agree on something - people smarted than me, and presumably you - that they have been studying to a high level, it just foolishness to disagree with them. Or even Insanity, bordering on ******ation. Humanity is killing the world through pollution. Pollution is a poison, CO2 kills living cells, the world is made up of living cells, therefore pollution is poisoning the world. Humanity created pollution, so - follow me on this - Humanity is responsible for killing the world. Not the Sun, not Aliens, not animals. (excluding Cows who produce Methane, but in fairness I'm trying to wipe them out one hamburger at a time.) It's really not that hard to work out.
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Gjaykay)
Humanity is responsible for killing the world. Not the Sun, not Aliens, not animals. (excluding Cows who produce Methane, but in fairness I'm trying to wipe them out one hamburger at a time.)
Ah, I see now! We should destroy all our buildings, go back to mud huts and limit the human population by removing medicines! It all makes sense.

One burger at a time... Some of us are taking more than our fair share of the load:

Image

P.S. it only took a few dissenters through history to change the status quo in scientific theory. Whenever there WAS change it was one versus the many.
Attached files
0
reply
Gjaykay
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by HigherMinion)
Ah, I see now! We should destroy all our buildings, go back to mud huts and limit the human population by removing medicines! It all makes sense.

One burger at a time... Some of us are taking more than our fair share of the load:


P.S. it only took a few dissenters through history to change the status quo in scientific theory. Whenever there WAS change it was one versus the many.
We're not talking about the Earth being round or the Sun being a God requiring virgin sacrifices or leeches can cure everything. Humanity and science are smarter, they know what they're talking about, with real measurable results and equipment.

Where did I say anything about moving back to mud huts or any of that stupid crap you said rather than actually address anything? *gasp* I didn't? I said humanity is killing the world, I have no solution to it, just merely an observation.

Love how you brushed off my CO2 is a poison argument in favour of a fat joke, which I had previous made. Care to say otherwise? Humanity didn't create CO2? CO2 actually heals the sick and makes babies perhaps?
0
reply
HigherMinion
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Gjaykay)
We're not talking about the Earth being round or the Sun being a God requiring virgin sacrifices or leeches can cure everything. Humanity and science are smarter, they know what they're talking about, with real measurable results and equipment.

Where did I say anything about moving back to mud huts or any of that stupid crap you said rather than actually address anything? *gasp* I didn't? I said humanity is killing the world, I have no solution to it, just merely an observation.

Love how you brushed off my CO2 is a poison argument in favour of a fat joke, which I had previous made. Care to say otherwise? Humanity didn't create CO2? CO2 actually heals the sick and makes babies perhaps?
So, regardless of the evidence that science has been fallible time and time again throughout history, you're actually going to say "they're scientists, they must be right if they believe it!"? I'm sure you've thought this through.

Hyperbole. What climate alarmists want to do is reverse the industrial revolution. However, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Nuclear energy would be a suitable replacement for fossil fuels, but the Left won't allow that either. They need a way to exert their control.

"Did humans create Co2?" No. God did, silly.
Also, plants need Co2 for photosynthesis. More co2->more plants-> more food. Co2 is only a trace gas; 0,03% of the atmosphere.
0
reply
Gjaykay
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by HigherMinion)
So, regardless of the evidence that science has been fallible time and time again throughout history, you're actually going to say "they're scientists, they must be right if they believe it!"? I'm sure you've thought this through.

Hyperbole. What climate alarmists want to do is reverse the industrial revolution. However, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Nuclear energy would be a suitable replacement for fossil fuels, but the Left won't allow that either. They need a way to exert their control.

"Did humans create Co2?" No. God did, silly.
Also, plants need Co2 for photosynthesis. More co2->more plants-> more food. Co2 is only a trace gas; 0,03% of the atmosphere.
Actually I completely forgot about photosynthesis, that's on me, pretty embarrassing >< But there is a difference between having a tiny amount in the atmosphere and the fact that some places have more cars than people poisoning the environment. Factories bellowing smoke damaging the air. You can't ignore the Industrial Revolution and all the subsequent technological advances we've made has been at the expense of the Earth. Dumping toxic waste, destroying the O-zone layer. These are real actual things that are happening whether we bury our heads in the sand or not.


"The Left" heh, climate change isn't (or shouldn't be, ****ing Americans) a political issue where everyone gets an opinion. It's a fact, rising water levels, rising global temperature, are as much of a fact as the temperature of water boiling or (as John Oliver said) if Owls are real.

Last year they had a survey at Muna Loa, Hawaii, indicate a CO2 level of 400 parts per million. The last time the CO2 levels were that high, oceans were 80 feet high. In basic terms that means a person has already been born that will die from catastrophic failure of the planet. That's unbelievable.

Honestly, it's people like you preaching that the apocalypse ISN'T coming that is making the whole thing worse. Instead people actually working on a damn solution, we're having a debate on whether or not it is actually happening. It is. There was a report last year, maybe 2013 by EPA that said we can ONLY release 565 Gigatons of CO2 without the effects being calamitous, but we've already released is 2795 gigatons. Seriously, denying we're ****ing up the world is just a totally ******ed opinion, up there with the lunacy of vaccinations causing Autism, and mass ******ation spewing from the US media on other things of that ilk.
1
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by HigherMinion)
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/da.../16/id/607672/

"Casey says the evidence is clear that the earth is rapidly growing colder because of diminished solar activity.

He says trends indicate we could be headed for colder temperatures similar to those seen in the late 1700s and early 1800s when the sun went into a "solar minimum" — a phenomenon with significantly reduced solar activity, including solar flares and sunspots."

So, when are the Left going to give up their man-made global warming agenda? Oh, sorry, "climate change". These green levies are harming everyone in the West, whilst making a minority of land owners rich and spawning a new faux green industry supported by taxes.
Perhaps believe it when we measure it, Its December 19th and its 12°C in London.

Hardly a Dickensian Christmas, let alone one from the 'mini ice age'.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by HigherMinion)
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/da.../16/id/607672/

"Casey says the evidence is clear that the earth is rapidly growing colder because of diminished solar activity.

He says trends indicate we could be headed for colder temperatures similar to those seen in the late 1700s and early 1800s when the sun went into a "solar minimum" — a phenomenon with significantly reduced solar activity, including solar flares and sunspots."
I'd like to know what trends he is talking about. The current trend is that the planet is, on average, warming. I'd like to see what evidence he has to back up the claim that the Earth is rapidly getting colder.

He does agree with Abdussamatov that the real driver of global climate is solar activity, namely sunspots.

I doubt that. For the last 40 years fluctuations in sun spot activity have been quite consistent. During that time the temperature of the Earth has been rising.

Sources:
- Temperature: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
- Sun Spots: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0081648
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (172)
14.68%
I'm not sure (54)
4.61%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (344)
29.35%
I have already dropped out (35)
2.99%
I'm not a current university student (567)
48.38%

Watched Threads

View All