2 edits
@metal-brain saidThe author of this article (which is from twelve years ago) is Larry Bell, a climate change denier. Clicking on his name shows he has several opinion pieces attacking climate change warnings. He also has another article attacking gun control laws and one opinion piece attacking Obama. In other words, he's a typical biased right-winger.
@wildgrass
From the link below:
"Fossil records reveal that atmospheric CO2 levels around 600 million years ago were about 7,000 parts per million, compared with 379 ppm in 2005. Then approximately 480 million years ago those levels gradually dropped to 4,000 ppm over about 100 million years, while average temperatures remained at a steady 72 degrees. They then jumped ...[text shortened]... s funded the global warming movement.
That is a fact. Big oil is behind the climate change agenda.
He also doesn't seem to have written anything on Forbes in almost ten years. Maybe they realized he's a whack job?
Here's a Forbes article from just last year:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/madelinehalpert/2022/09/27/global-warming-will-fuel-more-frequent-severe-and-longer-lasting-droughts-study-finds/?sh=108c09081ed4
Global Warming Will Fuel More Frequent, Severe And Longer-Lasting Droughts, Study Finds
@vivify said"Global Warming Will Fuel More Frequent, Severe And Longer-Lasting Droughts, Study Finds"
The author of this article (which is from twelve years ago) is Larry Bell, a climate change denier. Clicking on his name shows he has several opinion pieces attacking climate change warnings. He also has another article attacking gun control laws and one opinion piece attacking Obama. In other words, he's a typical biased right-winger.
He also doesn't seem to have writte ...[text shortened]... d4
Global Warming Will Fuel More Frequent, Severe And Longer-Lasting Droughts, Study Finds
That is complete and utter hogwash. A warmer climate results in increased rainfall worldwide. That could possibly increase flooding, but not droughts. Only a complete and utter ignoramus would claim the opposite.
One of the few things you got right was increased flooding. Saying GW will result in both flooding and droughts is the most stupid assertion I have ever heard. More rainfall worldwide does not result in more droughts. Common sense.
@metal-brain saidYou are sooooo stupid.
"Global Warming Will Fuel More Frequent, Severe And Longer-Lasting Droughts, Study Finds"
That is complete and utter hogwash. A warmer climate results in increased rainfall worldwide. That could possibly increase flooding, but not droughts. Only a complete and utter ignoramus would claim the opposite.
One of the few things you got right was increased flooding. Sayin ...[text shortened]... assertion I have ever heard. More rainfall worldwide does not result in more droughts. Common sense.
@vivify saidPower, control and regulation is what goobermints, goobermint buratcracies and quasi goobermint buratcracies have to gain. Follow the money. Unlike the fossil fuel money which must be earnt, follow the money taken by force, threats of force and fraud (goobermint money)
Who's payroll? Who is paying the the vast majority of the world's scientists to all agree on the severity of climate change?
More importantly: why? What does anyone get out of paying all these scientists if it's not true? It makes sense why the fossil fuel industry would use their money to cover up global warming: to protect their profits. But what does anyone get by pushing man-made global warming if it's not true?
On the one hand you'd like to dismiss people like Lomborg with his hundreds of verified resources (on that, do you still deny the numbers i.e. climate related deaths are down by over 90% in the last hundred years?) but on the other hand you put up news articles by known biased reporters from known biased agencies and then claim 'science'.
The Bangladesh flood that you use as proof, was at once the worst flood in 50 years (i.e. there was one as bad or worse 50 years ago) and the result of catastrophic global warming. All the reporter had to do was not slip up and mention there'd been an as bad or worse flood 50 years ago and we'd all have been scared out of our wits and trying to survive the winter without heating. How many other times did reporters neglect to mention there had been worse floods in the past. The recent floods in NZ is a prime example of how the media tried to scare everyone with the supposed approaching 'point of no return', but it's hard to hide past floods, and easy to fool people unaware of history, with short memories and that want to be self-righteous worry wart finger waggers such as yourself.
@metal-brain saidhttps://www.fox23.com/news/how-saturation-affects-rain-s-ability-to-soak-into-the-ground/article_776913e8-5baf-55c5-b055-4c24d0320ccd.html
Saying GW will result in both flooding and droughts is the most stupid assertion I have ever heard.
How saturation affects rain’s ability to soak into the ground
After a drought, it’s much better for the soil to get a slow and steady rainfall than a heavy amount of rain in a short amount of time.
When the soil is too dry, it cannot absorb water in a quick amount of time, which can lead to flooding.
@metal-brain saidhttps://www.usgs.gov/science/science-explorer/climate/droughts-and-climate-change
That is complete and utter hogwash. A warmer climate results in increased rainfall worldwide. That could possibly increase flooding, but not droughts.
Climate change exacerbates droughts by making them more frequent, longer, and more severe.
1 edit
@vivify said“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve. This is true even of the pious brethren who carry the gospel to foreign parts.”
Who's payroll? Who is paying the the vast majority of the world's scientists to all agree on the severity of climate change?
More importantly: why? What does anyone get out of paying all these scientists if it's not true? It makes sense why the fossil fuel industry would use their money to cover up global warming: to protect their profits. But what does anyone get by pushing man-made global warming if it's not true?
― The Great H.L. Mencken, Minority Report
In Menckens day it would have been the religious fanatics trying to save humanity by forcing their ideals on others, in these times it the greenie religious fanatics trying to force their ideals on others, 3 years ago it was the wuflu fanatics with their mandates, travel restrictions, social distancing, mask wearing, forced clotshots, business closures, vax passports etc etc.
Always some new crisis that requires immediate action, immediate compliance, and immediate subservience.
It wasn't that long ago it was the impending man made ice age.
@vivify saidQuote " More importantly: why? " Answer-Control.
Who's payroll? Who is paying the the vast majority of the world's scientists to all agree on the severity of climate change?
More importantly: why? What does anyone get out of paying all these scientists if it's not true? It makes sense why the fossil fuel industry would use their money to cover up global warming: to protect their profits. But what does anyone get by pushing man-made global warming if it's not true?
You lot go on and on and on about historical injustices, probably by those that want to "control " you, yet, you have no concept that these same peoples or their ilk, still exist, today. they will never go away, ever.
And control is easier to get when you can make people believe that they "need" you. They scream, we will protect you as long as you do what you are told, you will be alright. But for that to work there must be something that you need protection from, ok, keeping up. Now, what if there is no present nor current dangers, what would they need to protect you from, and why would you need to cede control over to them. So they make things up, or start a war, etc, etc, etc, there will always be those sucked in. Simples, yes
@vivify saidStop with the misleading "climate change" terminology, EVERYONE believes in climate change, its been happening, like, forever. Please refer to what you are really meaning, anthropogenic climate change.
https://www.usgs.gov/science/science-explorer/climate/droughts-and-climate-changeClimate change exacerbates droughts by making them more frequent, longer, and more severe.
Of course " Climate change exacerbates droughts by making them more frequent " if that was indeed true.
@vivify saidRidiculous. Warmer air holds more humidity and that leads to drought? LOL!
https://www.usgs.gov/science/science-explorer/climate/droughts-and-climate-changeClimate change exacerbates droughts by making them more frequent, longer, and more severe.
You are being lied to. Over 70% of the planet is covered with water yet they want you to believe it will not evaporate more in a warmer climate? Tell us all where all of that humidity in the air is ending up.
You really will believe what you are told no matter how stupid it is. Thank you for confirming your horrible critical thinking skills. I suppose you believe government never lies too. Right?
Do you know the difference between scientists and climate scientists yet? Are you still going to continue to use scientists and climate scientists interchangeably as if there is no difference?
@wajoma saidIf you replace the word goobermints with corporations you’d sound almost sane. But no a right wing pro corporate whore is never gonna tell the truth.
Power, control and regulation is what goobermints, goobermint buratcracies and quasi goobermint buratcracies have to gain. Follow the money. Unlike the fossil fuel money which must be earnt, follow the money taken by force, threats of force and fraud (goobermint money)
On the one hand you'd like to dismiss people like Lomborg with his hundreds of verified resources (on tha ...[text shortened]... , with short memories and that want to be self-righteous worry wart finger waggers such as yourself.
@kevcvs57 saidPlease post a reputable definition of 'right wing' then explain how anything I've posted could be considered 'right wing'.
If you replace the word goobermints with corporations you’d sound almost sane. But no a right wing pro corporate whore is never gonna tell the truth.
@jimmac saidNote how you're not able to answer "who" allegedly benefits if man-made climate change isn't true.
Quote " More importantly: why? " Answer-Control.
You lot go on and on and on about historical injustices, probably by those that want to "control " you, yet, you have no concept that these same peoples or their ilk, still exist, today. they will never go away, ever.
And control is easier to get when you can make people believe that they "need" you. They scream, we will pro ...[text shortened]... ey make things up, or start a war, etc, etc, etc, there will always be those sucked in. Simples, yes
Control? By promoting electric vehicles whose fuel is far more affordable than rising gas prices?
Look at the difference in our arguments. I can point to specific people like corporate heads and politicians, who deny man-made climate change as well as their motivation which is profits. For example: Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat, voted against Biden's climate change initiatives. He also makes millions through coal-mining investments.
Right-wingers like yourself have only vague accusations of "control". How exactly does man-made climate change "control" anyone?
I expect your response to this will be more unspecific rhetoric with no sources to back up what you say. Correct? It would be refreshing if could prove otherwise. You likely won't be able to because your beliefs are not rooted in fact; they come from right-wing think tanks.