Bet it doesn't happen. I bet they haven’t even a kernel of understanding of the planet’s climate, and it’s causes and effects. But I know one thing is true for all eternity—nothing justifies chaining Prometheus to a rock so the vultures can rip out his guts until the universe is no more. Which is what the Man-haters seek. Climate change is not about saving the planet, it’s about destroying Prometheus. Ayn Rand: “In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire.—http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ecology-environmental_movement.html
A mini ice age will not happen this century as described in that article. It is rebutted by an article at the Guardian. Scientists have modeled the effects of a grand solar minimum and have found that a reduction in the global mean temperature of 0.3 degrees C. is likely which corresponds to 15 years worth of global warming at the present rate. Is another grand solar minimum imminent? Although it would have a relatively small impact on the climate, it’s still an interesting question to ask whether we’re headed for another quiet solar period. Zharkova thinks so. Her team created a model that tries to predict solar activity, and suggests another solar minimum will occur from 2020 to 2055. However, other solar scientists have criticized the model as being too simple, created based on just 35 years of data, and failing to accurately reproduce past solar activity. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mini-ice-age-myth-is-back-and-its-still-wrong Ilya Usoskin, head of the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station and Vice-Director of the ReSoLVE Center of Excellence in Research, published a critique of Zharkova’s solar model making those points. Most importantly, the model fails in reproducing past known solar activity because Zharkova’s team treats the sun as a simple, predictable system like a pendulum. In reality, the sun has more random and unpredictable (in scientific terms, “stochastic”) behavior
Bet she’s closer to the truth than the global warming doomsayers. What is really astonishingly horrifying is that in Man’s history he has thrived and prospered more during warming cycles than in cooling ones, and we have charlatans demanding we stop it now to save humanity. Damn, for humanity’s sake, how stupid is that?
FYI James Hansen was Al gores science adviser in the movie inconvenient truth..(james hansen once again is skeptical science) He started to promote junk science to congress before any IPCC reports came about in the 1980s
I have more confidence in peer reviewed science than I have in the philosophy of Ayn Rand.. It is interesting how the "Objectivist" philosophy turned into a cult that called themselves the "collective."
More CO2 = bigger plants and Animals we studied that in biology, in the dino periods CO2 was 5 times as it was today.
James Hansen has no relationship with Skeptical Science that I am aware of. What is your evidence for that claim? James Hansen's warning in 1987 has turned out to be mostly right. He was at one time NASA's chief climate scientist.
My appology I sometimes get James hansen and Mr 97% Cook mixed up https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian cognitive scientist John Cook.[1] In addition to publishing articles on current events relating to climate science and climate policy, the site maintains a database of articles analyzing the merit of arguments put forth by those who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.
The battle is not climate change vs global warming vs a new Ice Age. That’s nothing but intellectual chaff to frighten the unthinking into doing the unthinkable—enchaining the creative mind, enslaving men to the purveyors of doom, destroying that independent soul that is the Prometheus fire and condemning human existence to a prehistoric nightmare. The battle is between liberty vs tyranny, i.e., does the individual have the right to use straws, drive cars, fly in jets, eat grilled burgers, make money, create inventions, build bridges, basically, live free? I answer: Damn straight. Ayn Rand: “The dinosaur and its fellow-creatures vanished from this earth long before there were any industrialists or any men . . . . But this did not end life on earth. Contrary to the ecologists, nature does not stand still and does not maintain the kind of “equilibrium” that guarantees the survival of any particular species—least of all the survival of her greatest and most fragile product: man.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ecology-environmental_movement.html
Any peer review science not based on objectivity isn’t science, it’s quackery. It’s interesting that her naysayers resort to name-calling instead refutation and rebuttal. BTW: Physics doesn’t determine philosophy, but your philosophy will determine your understanding of physics—what’s bending that pencil in a water glass? The will of God, the devils evil, social justice, majority rule, or refraction? Refraction you say? There you go, reality, identity, causality—Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Ayn Rand: “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . . . The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/causality.html
And just because some climatologist soothsayer hits one out of a million doesn’t mean his next guess will be right. And that’s all this is, guessing. And science isn’t guessing.
The Topline: The United Nations released a new report on climate change Wednesday that presents the most grim view of the effects of global warming yet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the report based on a year of research from more than 100 scientists hailing from 30 countries. International teams of researchers examined the effects greenhouse gases in places including the ocean floor and the tops of mountains — even in these remote places, the effect of climate change is evident, said Ko Barrett, the panel’s vice president. The research results show that global warming is damaging the earth at an unprecedented pace, even compared to previous IPCC projections. Global warming is so far advanced, a tipping point has already been reached, according to the UN, and some severe consequences will be impossible to avoid. Extreme sea level events such as devastating storms and hurricanes that used to happen every 100 years will become an annual occurrence by 2050, whether emissions are reduced or not. According to the UN report, if greenhouse gasses are not curbed significantly — and quickly — the consequences of climate change will only get worse. The earth's oceans have absorbed the heat as temperatures have warmed in previous years, but it won’t be able to for much longer. "For decades, the ocean has been acting like a sponge… but it can't keep up," Barrett said. The consequences for nature and humanity will be sweeping and severe, he said. Rising sea levels from melting glaciers and ice sheets would devastate coastal areas and create climate change refugees out of hundreds of millions of people in the worst-case scenario, the UN said. Half the world’s cities with 10 million-plus populations are located on coasts, totalling to an estimated 2 billion people at risk. Even wealthy cities such as New York and London could be in trouble in a high-emission scenario. Supplies of drinking water and food from fisheries that feed millions of people will take a major hit if climate-changing emissions are not mitigated. Crucial quote: “The science is both chilling and compelling. The impacts on our oceans are on a much larger scale and happening way faster than predicted,” said Taehyun Park, from Greenpeace East Asia. “It will require unprecedented political action to prevent the most severe consequences to our planet.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlie...-stark-warning-on-worlds-oceans/#cc19833384a7 Note that this doesn't come from a TV Show or Fox and Friends. This is real science. What will kill the planet as we know it isn't climate change. It is arrogance and stupidity.
Climate science even with physics cannot tell us what creates cyclical ice ages . Climate change is very complicated for it involves feedback loops that are not sufficiently understood in order for accurate predictions. I do not doubt that higher co2 levels can create a greenhouse effect And there is no doubt that as we get away from fossil fuels that co2 will drop and affect climate . Humanity was blessed with a stable climate for the last 10000 years that allowed for the rise of civilization .With modern high tech civ. being possible due to the energy of fossil fuels. I doubt the hysterics of the doomsday crowd are called for. Over ppm of co2 a gas of life. We need a greener planet to extract co2 . What is worthy of concern is the next ice age . For that will greatly kill us off. What will take us out are impacts from space . That makes a warmer planet of little concern comparatively. So there are far greater threats to humanity.
When? It is beyond the scope of human concerns. Climate change will eliminate critical water supplies in the lifetime of people alive today. The next ice age is many thousands of years off at worst. There may be mini ice ages in the mean time but not an actual ice age. That is true. But it isn't the only threat. Dying of thirst is far worse than dying from a meteor strike. Tell that to the billions people as they are dying from thirst or starvation, or some horrible disease. Climate change could easily lead to a nuclear war.
Tell that to the billions people as they are dying from thirst or starvation, or some horrible disease. Climate change could easily lead to a nuclear war.[/QUOTE] From a greener planet ?
From a greener planet ?[/QUOTE] You are clearly completely unequipped to even discuss this. Read the reports first, then ask lame questions.
You are clearly completely unequipped to even discuss this. Read the reports first, then ask lame questions.[/QUOTE] Seriously, I have been studying this topic for 40 years, try me.
Like I said, read the reports first then ask lame questions. Your questions show you know absolutely nothing about this subject. Read first. Make an effort. Try using your brain. Think. Learn.
Once again I didn't realize 30 countries put satellites into space, please tell us when that happened?
