I watched Nova's "Decoding the Weather Machine" only to find out it is based on a lie. It is the same lie Al Gore promoted in his propaganda film "The Inconvenient Truth".
Nova pointed out the correlation between co2 and temperatures in the ice core samples but omitted the fact that co2 lagged behind temperatures. Then they asserted that this was proof that co2 "drives" global warming. That is an outright lie!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/
Usually when I point out to alarmists that Al Gore lied about that, they distance themselves from him and point out he is a lobbyist and not a scientist.
What is Nova's excuse? Why did Nova omit such an important scientific fact and lie about cause and effect?
The irony is that Nova has a short film clip on their website saying how a climate change conspiracy is impossible. Since Nova is repeating a known myth and lies about it it is not only possible, but evident. The only other explanation is blatant incompetence and ignorance. Will anybody hold Nova accountable for lying?
Originally posted by @metal-brainBack to your old agenda I see.
I watched Nova's "Decoding the Weather Machine" only to find out it is based on a lie. It is the same lie Al Gore promoted in his propaganda film "The Inconvenient Truth".
Nova pointed out the correlation between co2 and temperatures in the ice core samples but omitted the fact that co2 lagged behind temperatures. Then they asserted that this was proo ...[text shortened]... explanation is blatant incompetence and ignorance. Will anybody hold Nova accountable for lying?
Originally posted by @wolfe63If they cared about the truth they would admit temps lead co2. Instead they have to mislead people into thinking the reverse is true. All to pass a carbon tax and centrally control populations. CO2 is NOT the driver. Temperatures drive CO2 in the ice core samples. It is a fact.
I never believe a lie about a lie...or the lying liars who tell them.
The truth hurts. A polluting corporate shill would know that.
https://principia-scientific.org/drop-sunspot-activity-warning-global-cooling/
Originally posted by @metal-brainSounds like you are the science denier. You deny adding CO2 to an atmosphere will allow IR to heat up the air more than without CO2?
Just pointing out that Nova is a science denier. CO2 lags behind temps in the core samples. Nova is supposed to be a science program, not a hide the science program.
That experiment has been done countless times and there is no denying that fact Jack.
Since you and your mentor buddy are saying CO2 rises after temp rises, then prove it, do a lab experiment showing that effect. Put your money where your mouth is. Don't just render opinions here, get off your ass and do the actual science yourself if you want people to believe you.
21 Apr 18
Originally posted by @wolfe63Here's a thought experiment for those inclined.
I never believe a lie about a lie...or the lying liars who tell them.
The truth hurts. A polluting corporate shill would know that.
1. Do banks lie?
2. Would they lie knowing their actions will lead to catastrophic decisions, which would be impossible to recover from--- as in, wipe them out completely?
3. Do banks believe in a climate change that is anything more threatening than a cyclic adjustment which occurs naturally?
4. Or, conversely, do banks believe climate change is going to wreak havoc on the world, and are therefore positioning themselves accordingly with the businesses they underwrite?
Since it's said that money makes the world go 'round, how are the banks playing this guessing game: are they backing out of those areas which are thought to be in the gravest danger, i.e., London, southern portion of the Northern Hemisphere, etc., etc..
21 Apr 18
Originally posted by @freakykbhLondon is not even remotely at the greatest risk from climate change.
Here's a thought experiment for those inclined.
1. Do banks lie?
2. Would they lie knowing their actions will lead to catastrophic decisions, which would be impossible to recover from--- as in, wipe them out completely?
3. Do banks believe in a climate change that is anything more threatening than a cyclic adjustment which occurs naturally?
4. Or, c ...[text shortened]... be in the gravest danger, i.e., London, southern portion of the Northern Hemisphere, etc., etc..
21 Apr 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWould London be in any danger, were the current climate change disaster scenarios to transpire?
London is not even remotely at the greatest risk from climate change.
Miami, FL?
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @freakykbhMost of the world is at least at some risk in certain aspects.
Would London be in any danger, were the current climate change disaster scenarios to transpire?
Miami, FL?
The areas at greatest risk are small low-lying islands, areas in developing countries prone to flooding (e.g. Bangladesh) and areas prone to increasing droughts. Although the U.S. has a relatively inefficient government, there are in principle adequate resources to build flood defences, making this risk relatively minor.
Originally posted by @sonhouseNo, you are the science denier. You are an apologist for omitting important science like Al Gore. Now Nova is doing the same thing and that omission tactic followed by the statement "co2 drives global warming" is a lie. That statement was made in context of the analysis of ice core samples. It is unquestionably a lie.
Sounds like you are the science denier. You deny adding CO2 to an atmosphere will allow IR to heat up the air more than without CO2?
That experiment has been done countless times and there is no denying that fact Jack.
Since you and your mentor buddy are saying CO2 rises after temp rises, then prove it, do a lab experiment showing that effect. Put y ...[text shortened]... ons here, get off your ass and do the actual science yourself if you want people to believe you.
Are you denying Nova lied?
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraAreas prone to flooding have always had that problem in recent history. Nova just waits for high tides and hurricanes to do their filming. The Atolls are still there. Nova is using scare tactics that are deplorable. It is a propaganda piece.
Most of the world is at least at some risk in certain aspects.
The areas at greatest risk are small low-lying islands, areas in developing countries prone to flooding (e.g. Bangladesh) and areas prone to increasing droughts. Although the U.S. has a relatively inefficient government, there are in principle adequate resources to build flood defences, making this risk relatively minor.
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraSo get back to the topic.
Most of the world is at least at some risk in certain aspects.
The areas at greatest risk are small low-lying islands, areas in developing countries prone to flooding (e.g. Bangladesh) and areas prone to increasing droughts. Although the U.S. has a relatively inefficient government, there are in principle adequate resources to build flood defences, making this risk relatively minor.
Are any of the world's highest-priced real estate areas in danger, assuming climate change is as radical as insisted by those who claim it is--- despite a complete lack of anything concrete?
Would London be in any danger?
Would Miami, FL, be in any danger?
If those geographical areas are considered a risk, why are banks still underwriting loans?
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @freakykbhI would say the short- to medium term risk to London and Miami is modest, so I would not expect any/all investment in those areas to come to a halt. I'm certainly not an expert on this topic, though, so you'd have to ask bankers for their reasons.
So get back to the topic.
Are any of the world's highest-priced real estate areas in danger, assuming climate change is as radical as insisted by those who claim it is--- despite a complete lack of anything concrete?
Would London be in any danger?
Would Miami, FL, be in any danger?
[b]If those geographical areas are considered a risk, why are banks still underwriting loans?[/b]
Can you cite a peer-reviewed study claiming that the short- to medium term risk to London and/or Miami due to climate change is severe?
22 Apr 18
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraSo we get to the end of your efforts relatively quickly, don't you think?
I would say the short- to medium term risk to London and Miami is modest, so I would not expect any/all investment in those areas to come to a halt. I'm certainly not an expert on this topic, though, so you'd have to ask bankers for their reasons.
Can you cite a peer-reviewed study claiming that the short- to medium term risk to London and/or Miami due to climate change is severe?
Apparently determining the extent of the claimed catastrophic projections by the climate change worriers didn't rise to the level of importance to you, and you seem content having such information (faulty as it is) shrouded in a mysterious haze.
There are now plenty of people who are not as keen on remaining in the dark or abiding by nebulous threats; serious people want to have as much information as possible regarding the actual assessment of potential harm in order to solidify and implement a proper response to the same.
Not to offer unsolicited advice, but it certainly wouldn't hurt the situation for you to be more fully informed of the suggested threat by those espousing a cataclysmic upheaval to our ecological system.
Your prognosis fails to inspire any confidence, as it seems to be more attached to wishful/hopeful thinking than much of anything else.
If the bankers aren't providing their thinking, we can only go by their actions.
Their actions indicate there is literally nothing to worry about, other than the typical random natural disaster.
If they thought otherwise, NO ONE could get a loan for ANY property or venture planned in any of the allegedly threatened geographical areas, were these climate change worriers correct.
Two such areas which leap immediately to mind in the minimum damage envisioned by climate change worriers: London, UK, and Miami, FL.