Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Neither. They are all nutters. Climate change on Earth is a cyclic phenomenon. There have been periods of cold, warm, cold, and warm that have been going on for millennia. The powers that be use or don't use, this information to build a false narrative.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/education/climate-primer/natural-climate-cycles

 

LOL - nice attempt at misleading the public!! Maybe you should be interested in the truth, instead.

The USDA divides this topic into several categories.

The one YOU cite is the one about natural climate cycles.

You know about natural climate cycles, because climatological scientists the world over have told you so!

What you IGNORE is that the USDA also has a segment on current climate change.


Let's be clear:

>>> the USDA supports the entire world of climatologists who point out that the reason for the current rapid warming is human activity.

OK?

 

I love how they opened this.

But sadly, they jump right off the rails and go into things that are entirely speculation and not actually proven in science.

Yes, we can see hot and cold cycles in many ways in the past through things like ice cores, tree rings, ocean silt deposits, and the like. But most of those give only the bare minimum of "true data", and much of what is based around them is pure speculation. Is the data contained global or local? That is a huge one, and one that most tend to completely ignore. One area of the planet may see drenching monsoons and flooding, while another sees record droughts.

Hence, why I tend to look at cycles of thousands and tens of thousands of years at a minimum.

 

Did you notice that was presented by a US government agency?

The same government that you provide the most crude link, then scream it must be right because it is the government.

Please, try to be consistent. This screaming over and over just because you do not like what something says does you no favors. So tell me, do we believe what the government says, or not? Is there anything in the article that is incorrect? You do not even discuss the article itself, just attack it.

Even more funny as you scream they "ignore the USDA", as it was in fact posted by the USDA.

 

WOW!!! Read my post before being so DESPERATELY WRONG about what I say!

I believe the USDA is right about natural climate cycles. I've said the same thing many times, as it isn't just the USDA that says this about natural climate cycles.

The problem comes when YOU (and the OP) ignore that the USDA has an ADJACENT page on current climate change.

In that page, they describe how the rapid heating of Earth right now is due to human activity.

It is YOU who totally denies the USDA on climate change, not me!

 

Actually, all I ever see from you is hopelessly knee-jerk posts that have no actual content other than "you are wrong, I am right!"

Meanwhile, you miss what most of us actually say or the evidence we present.

What you say is so horribly predictable, that one barely needs to read anything you say.

No, I and everybody that agrees with me are right!

Here is a random link to prove I am right!

https://ding.net/bonsaikitten/

 

Ad hom!! Who would have guessed - lol.

Look, you got faked out by the OP.

You may look more carefully next time.

 

Actually, I did not. You are lost in constantly trying to scream your beliefs and not discussing the actual science and precedent.

 

In post #1679 you admitted that you thought that I misconstrued the USDA, and that the USDA disagrees with me.

But, THAT was you getting faked out by the OP post that was designed to fake you out.

Don't worry. It happens.

 

Far from being misleading. Your paradigm is based on misleading information? Maybe you should do as your what your name states. That way you'll be better educated.

Just need one. Don't need all the garbage you line your mind with.

Partly, and your point is?

And you base your assumptions and critical thinking on... stooges paid to give false facts, weird climate models and the fear created by MSM. Pretty close am I?

 

You OP was DESIGNED to to co opt the USDA as supporting your personal climate BS.

And, you should be ashamed. In what way is that different from lying?

 

~ I believe the same is being done with Covid-19 "catastrophe " ...

 

Most definitely.

 

WHAT?

The thread title is what I quoted, I gave my opinion and reference. Is the snowflake inside you melting because of climate change, because your paradigm is being challenged?

 

You blatantly misrepresented the USDA, claiming that they support your personal nonsense.

That is not in doubt.

 

~ The network "news" does it all the time — presenting opinions as "facts".

( some folks take themselves too seriously )

 

I'll say it again... WHAT?
How can it be a MISREPRESENTATION, when it clearly states at the top of the site's page, "An official website of the United States government".
Of course, I'll use the information as it backs my claim. In what parallel universe does it work differently?

 

What does 2 + 2 equal? So, you have an opinion on what is, you find supporting material and you put it all together and you get a solid case. The opposition's paradigm = crushed.

 

What was with that? Lost without words.

 

That's not an excuse for misrepresenting the USDA or any other entity.

If all you can do is listen to Fox, or whatever, you deserve to be wrong.

 

It's a misrepresentation, because YOU implied that this has to do with the climate change we're experiencing today.

And, it is obviously NOT their clearly stated position on climate change.

You're still confused if you think that site supports you claims.

 

It does. We are in a part of a warm cycle. Eventually, many generations from now it will cool again. This is due to our Sun's cycle. Picture it like it would be breathing. It inhales (expands) and gets warmer. Because we become literally closer to the Sun. Then, when the Sun exhales (deflates) it shrinks a little smaller than its original size. So, in effect, the Earth is slightly further from the Sun as the 'Goldy Locks' zone has shifted. These cycles last approximately 11 years, and decrease or increase the intensity depending on what part of the cycle it's in.

So then, if I have an opinion that is in alignment with an official website that pretty much explains the same thing, it's not a misrepresentation of my opinion and or source, it is a problem for you to deal with. Most arguments on this forum ask that you "back" your claim and that is what I have done. It's not my problem or fault if I have a memory that can emulate that of which I use to cite.

 

Yes, with a pinch of burning fossil fuels.

So, the US government is retarded and incompetent, don't answer that, yes, they are. However, the Forestry Dept. would want to know a thing or two
about the climate/weather to assist in the management don't you think?

I am far from confused.
Have you read the information on the site? It is relevant to my argument, opinion & claim.

 

The misrepresentation is that you presented USDA as not accepting anthropogenic climate change.

But, in fact they do support that explanation.

If you are going to cite a source, you need to be honest in representing that source.

 

What is dishonest about it all? If I had not provided a link in my statement, you'd of asked for proof to back my claim. I would have given the same site to back my claim. The only difference is the timing and number of posts.

I or it never misrepresented jack. Both the site and I substantiated what was being explained. There was or is no specific detail outlining the importance of including anthropogenic subject matter in the thread title, more so an opinion of who are the nutters.

Something that has been burning my brain about all this climate change nuttery is, that people such as Gates and other climate 'gurus' bang on about carbon dioxide. What is carbon dioxide? It is the odourless, colourless gas that oxygen-breathing creatures exhale. The plants & trees, and vegetation inhales that carbon dioxide and converts it back into oxygen. No? So what does a combustion motor exhale/expel? Carbon dioxide? Yes, what doesn't get mentioned much, if at all is that combustion engines also emit carbon monoxide. A toxic gas that is a pollutant that causes smog among many other issues to health and the environment. So what is the big deal with freaking out over "carbon dioxide"? Plants absorb it and create oxygen for us. The problem is deforestation, destroying jungles/rainforests and habitats. These and plankton are the lungs of the Earth. Destroy them, then carbon dioxide does become a problem then.