Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum
» Climate change sounds like more bullchit
  1. Results 91 to 97 of 97
  2. First
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
post 1680749873 04-13-2023, 05:51 PM
-
#91
  1. PenorBrahNoHomo
  2. R1b
  1. PenorBrahNoHomo
  2. R1b
  3. Join Date: Aug 2011
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 28,218
  6. Rep Power: 130149
Whether anthropogenic climate change is real is unimportant. It's impossible to prove either way, the issue is how it is used by powerful people to drive their own agendas, and always to further leftist goals. Global wealth transfer from north to south. 'Climate refugees' to change the demographics of European countries. More government and corporate control over everyone's life.

Also if it is real then we're all fuked and it can't be solved. 'Net zero' is unachievable while maintaining civilisation, but maybe that's not so bad and we should return to the stone age.
Originally Posted By Banderistan
look at this dumb subhuman fuk who doesn't understand basic chemistry and physics
Anyone with a proper education would know climatology is not real science.
post 1680754593 04-13-2023, 07:23 PM
-
#92
  1. umop3pisdn
  2. Registered Muser
  1. umop3pisdn
  2. Registered Muser
  3. Join Date: Jan 2009
  4. Posts: 15,406
  5. Rep Power: 77939
Originally Posted By Banderistan
How many did you get?
I know why you refuse to answer such a simple questionPathetic
post 1680765133 04-13-2023, 11:15 PM
-
#93
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  1. Paul Kreul
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 33,385
  6. Rep Power: 316746
Originally Posted By dingler
They changed it to climate change because the administration banned feds from using the term global warming. We had to updated all of our regulations and policies to reflect this. I was on a call with the White House staff in 2022 and that was the first time I’d ever heard any political appointee mention anything regarding climate change.
We are up about .55 degrees centigrade in 45 years.
post 1680765393 04-13-2023, 11:28 PM
-
#94
  1. Swept
  1. Swept
  2. Join Date: Jan 2014
  3. Posts: 21,220
  4. Rep Power: 27953
The earth is 4 billions years old, climate will change
Everything I do is biblical
post 1680766043 04-13-2023, 11:58 PM
-
#95
  1. Masterchieffer
  2. The Creampie Guy
  1. Masterchieffer
  2. The Creampie Guy
  3. Join Date: Nov 2007
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 5,024
  6. Rep Power: 22666
Climate change is 100% being weaponizing by the Democrats to disenfranchise their political opponents and increase taxes

I would say the weaponization of climate change presents the biggest threat to prosperity this decade
post 1680792313 04-14-2023, 10:53 AM
-
#96
  1. engj
  2. Registered User
  1. engj
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Nov 2009
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Posts: 18,637
  6. Rep Power: 113090
Originally Posted By x-trainer
The story was about living here over the decades and observing distinctive weather patterns, but i understand your point.

"make saviour claims that we can control the global temperature like a thermostat by controlling carbon. Control of carbon is control of human consumption, there is too much money and power involved in the discussion to trust anyone's motives at face value."

My question, without feeling passionate one way or the other on this topic, is what do we label it if "climate change" is offensive?
give it a label when the place that you live undergoes extreme weather changes or swings over time?
I dont know, I am at a bit of a loss with how things have deteriorated around the topic the last 10 years.

Im not a climate scientist, but I work in an industry that builds enduring infrastructure (roads, dams, ports) with a 100yr design standard, many of them in arctic areas of discontinuous permafrost. I have also spend most of my career digging through the geological remains of the last ice-age, so its always been a point of interest and curiosity to me.

Climate is variable. Selfishly I wish we could openly debate the limitations of our current statistical models now that we have larger data-sets, it would help us build better infrastructure and make better long term plans for development. An ever-changing climate model impacts our design standards which impact the cost of construction and the viability of projects.

But right now the topic is radioactive. Attempting any type of discussion that doesn't predict imminent catastrophe gets you labeled a MAGA alt-right nazi denier. There is so much uninformed hysteria driven by media (for clicks or to shape narrative and manufacture consent) that there are a non-insignificant number of adults who honestly believe the world is ending and nobody cares. I am now trying to develop major projects under a government where the climate warrior politicians have the PPM of atmospheric carbon from their date of birth in their twitter bio while they ratchet up carbon taxes 'because its the right thing to do'. Hollywood is pumping out movies comparing climate variability to an asteroidal impact, there's one out now about a group of young heros who want to blow up oil pipelines. Activism is turning to terrorism.

I don't know how to separate the discussion from political movements grooming green bolsheviks and the retards who just pick a side so they can sling chit at the other one.
------♥♥-----
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
----♥♥-♥♥----
-----♥♥♥-----
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
--♥♥-----♥♥--
post 1680799043 04-14-2023, 12:07 PM
-
#97
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  2. Join Date: Dec 2011
  3. Location: United States
  4. Posts: 34,673
  5. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By engj
I dont know, I am at a bit of a loss with how things have deteriorated around the topic the last 10 years.

Im not a climate scientist, but I work in an industry that builds enduring infrastructure (roads, dams, ports) with a 100yr design standard, many of them in arctic areas of discontinuous permafrost. I have also spend most of my career digging through the geological remains of the last ice-age, so its always been a point of interest and curiosity to me.

Climate is variable.Selfishly I wish we could openly debate the limitations of our current statistical models now that we have larger data-sets, it would help us build better infrastructure and make better long term plans for development. An ever-changing climate model impacts our design standards which impact the cost of construction and the viability of projects.

But right now the topic is radioactive.Attempting any type of discussion that doesn't predict imminent catastrophe gets you labeled a MAGA alt-right nazi denier. There is so much uninformed hysteria driven by media (for clicks or to shape narrative and manufacture consent) that there are a non-insignificant number of adults who honestly believe the world is ending and nobody cares. I am now trying to develop major projects under a government where the climate warrior politicians have the PPM of atmospheric carbon from their date of birth in their twitter bio while they ratchet up carbon taxes 'because its the right thing to do'.Hollywood is pumping out movies comparing climate variability to an asteroidal impact, there's one out now about a group of young heros who want to blow up oil pipelines. Activism is turning to terrorism.

I don't know how to separate the discussion from political movements grooming green bolsheviks and the retards who just pick a side so they can sling chit at the other one.
NOAA Study: Atmosphere Warming At Half The Rate Predicted By Climate Models
In their new paper, Zou and his co-authors rebuilt the STAR series based on a new empirical method for removing time-of-day observation drift and a more stable method of merging satellite records.

Now STAR agrees with the UAH series very closely — in fact it has a slightly smaller warming trend.

The old STAR series had a mid-troposphere warming trend of 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade, but it’s now 0.09 degrees per decade, compared to 0.1 in UAH and 0.14 in RSS.

For the troposphere as a whole, they estimate a warming trend of 0.14 C/decade.

Zou’s team notes that their findings “have strong implications for trends in climate model simulations and other observations” because the atmosphere has warmed at half the average rate predicted by climate models over the same period.

They also note that their findings are “consistent with conclusions in McKitrick and Christy (2020),” namely that climate models have a pervasive global warming bias.

In other research, Christy and mathematician Richard McNider have shown that the satellite warming rate implies the climate system can only be half as sensitive to GHGs as the average model used by the IPCC for projecting future warming.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/no...limate-models/
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts