Arguing with Idiots, Babies and Warming Edition

Timothy Birdnow
 
More arguing with climate hysterics on Facebook.

David Nabhan posted:

The Sun is 98½ % hydrogen and helium, leaving 1% oxygen and ½% carbon. We carbon-based lifeforms, breathing oxygen and living in a hydrocarbon, carbohydrate universe, are the billions years in the making epitome of a Nature more impressive and compelling than even those chaining themselves to doors demanding everyone else "disinvest" in the energy that forged their chains. It delivered them too.

In reply to David, John Wait (not the lead singer of The Babies) says:

So you're saying pollution is natural,? That climate change is not a major concern? Tell that to Louisiana, California, Oregon, New Jersey. New York, Europe, etc

Robert Cain replies:

Yes, I'm saying most of that. The STATES mentioned are all Democratic Party strongholds and Europe has always been fascist controlled. The people in these places have been doing what they're told as long as they've been alive. There is not much thought involved in that.

I helpfully add:

The wildfires and hurricanes and other natural disasters of which Mr. Wait is so terrified have always been there. What is different is that we have far more people living in areas where they should not and we have bad policies pushed by imbiciles. Not thinning forests leads to what Nature does to thin forests. Drought is natural in California. Building in flood plains on the Gulf Coast is guaranteed to get you flooded out. The reality is we have not had a very heavy hurricane season for a long time and only now are re-entering a stronger hurricane phase. But every weather event is used to "prove" we are somehow doomed, when all it proves is there are many gullible people and shit happens. No, "climate change" (the newest phrase for the old global warming) has not proven to be of anything but academic concern. None of the predictions made involving it have come to pass. In fact, we had the "pause" which climate models suggested were impossible. Over twenty years of non-warming is a strange form of global warming, if you ask me. But chicken little would not listen to reason and neither will hysterical people like John Wait.

Oh, and John, what is pollution? You fail to offer a definition. Is it Man-caused emissions into the atmosphere? Which emissions? Our breath? Is it stuff in the water? What stuff? We take natural stuff and make it into other stuff (just like bees or any other natural creature) and the biproducts are stuff that was already there and will return from whence it came. Trees cause pollution too. I would add all photosynthesis-

David Nabhan jumps back in:

John's not going to be swayed; he goes mute when people hold the doomsaying he's been trained to peddle up to the light. His thinking long ago outsourced to the hivemind. If they told him sunlight and baby's breath was pollution, he'd be repeating it instantly. Oh, and baby's breath IS actually demon carbon dioxide, so there you have it.

Mr. Wait replies:

David Nabhanyou claim to have a knowledge of science, but yet you completely ignore all scientific evidence for climate change that has been largely caused by man. For your friend, Pollution is the introduction of harmful materials into the environment. These harmful materials are called pollutants. Pollutants can be natural, such as volcanic ash. They can also be created by human activity, such as trash or runoff produced by factories. Pollutants damage the quality of air, water, and land. This is so typical of you right-wing nuts. If you don't like the facts, ignore them or make something up. Unfortunately, that strategy does not change the facts. CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL. Yes, we've always had natural disasters, only they are now BOTH more severe and more frequent. LOOK IT UP. Virtually all credible scientists AGREE on Climate change. So you are taking the word of crackpots and politically motivated politicians and commentators over the experts. Not a smart choice.

David retorts:

Oh, well, since you used capital letters, just repeating and screaming your end-days point of view, well, gee, I guess that settles it. We were going to all die in 1999, and then in 2009, and then in 2019, and now--man, with those capital letters, I guess the Jim Joneses, and Marshall Applewhites, and Al Gores and Homer Simpsons of the world will have turned out to be right after all. So this time is the Mc Coy? We all die in 2029, even after all those face-falls? Why didn't you just use capital letters before? Better question is with only a few years to go, what in the hell are you doing here?! Shouldn't you be out skydiving, smoking ten cigarettes at a time while guzzling champagne, chasing a dozen women simultaneously and running up as much credit card debt as the law allows? Yes, indeed, the oldest con in the books, one that Nero or Ramses would have rolled his eyes at. The dumb-ass end-of-the-worl
Robert Cain:

The problem is, John, we've already looked it up. The claims you are making about weather patterns and opinions of "scientists" is so far from reality that I am tempted to believe you're punking us.

I reply:

John Wait the haha button does not do you justice; that rant was a belly-laugh!

You and your knock-kneed associates find "CLIMATE CHANGE" behind every shrub and under every blade of grass, and anything outside of the norm is deemed CLIMATE CHANGE and thou hast spoken. You have absolutely no idea about natural climate variability. You have no clue about the fact we are coming out of the Little Ice Age and of course it has warmed a degree. You seem at a loss to understand that weather is weather.

I ask you to explain the pause. I dare you. You can't. You will probably try to deny it even happened, but it did and that destroys your entire juvenile theory.

I would like you to explain how four odd molecules of carbon in every ten thousand molecules of air can trap so much extra heat we're all going to die. Kindly explain how that happens. This is not a chemical reaction; it's essentially carbon dioxide blocking IR from returning to space - all four molecules of ten thousand of air!

Get a grip.

Kindly explain why Mars - with an atmosphere that is 95% carbon dioxide and in the liquid water belt - is so cold most of its atmosphere is frozen out. IF carbon dioxide were so powerful a greenhouse gas Mars would be much warmer with a much denser atmosphere.

Kindly explain how it is POLLUTION when plants love carbon dioxide and in fact NASA has shown the planet is greening - more plant life .https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0530earthgreen.html

Kindly explain how that is somehow poisoning the Earth. Harvests are up through much of the world from all that deadly pollution!

Explain how that comports with your doomsday scenario.

Explain how it is that Antarctica has more ice than a few years ago. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20new%20analysis%20of%20satellite%20data%2C,of%20ice%20per%20year%20between%202003%20and%202008.
I thought ice was melting at the poles from extra heat.

Where is the hot spot in the tropical troposphere?

Where is the "missing heat"? It is not being found in the deep oceans as predicted.

You have a theory with a lot of holes in it but yet you and the other political animals cloaking as scientists are insisting this is "settled science".

And don't give me that horsepoo about the "concensus". There never was any. This was determined by sleight of hand by Naomi Oreskes and John Cook who played some games with how they did this. Oreskes noted an absence of the words "refute climate change" as proof everyone agreed, while Cook sent out a questionaire asking if there was climate change (well duh! It's ALWAYS changing!) and if Man had something to do with it (Duh again! Every time we build a dam or even a blacktop parking lot we subtly change the climate.)

Wikipedia used to have a huge list of scientists who disagree with the Chicken Little theory, but yanked it. Why? Because we can't have a reasoned debate lest people such as yourself start to question the claim.

Oh hell; here it is. https://electroverse.net/the-list-scientists-who-publicly-disagree-with-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/

Electroverse kindly republished it on their website.

I fear most everything you have said is false, including but and and and the.

Oh, and I HAVE looked it up; we are not having more frequent nor more severe weather events. You need to stop watching MSNBC. See https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/despite-what-youve-heard-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-more-extreme/

There are not more or worse hurricanes.https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/no-global-warming-isnt-causing-worse-hurricanes/ Here https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table4.htm is a table of major hurricanes throughout the last century. As you can see there is no discernible pattern to strength or frquency. Here https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/Table2.htm is another table showing deadliness. Here is the source. https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/deadly/index.html

There are not greater wildfires. In fact they were worse. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/wildfires-were-much-worse-in-the-past/ You cannot make this claim in any accurate way.

You listen to the mainstream media and their panic porn and think yourself educated. You have never bothered to look into the opposing viewpoint. You are like the French vintners who were absolutely convinced of their own superiority until lowly California beat their pants off in a blind wine tasting. If you do nothing but listen to those with whom you want to agree you will accept whatever they say and play the fool for it.

Oh, and John Waite, are you the lead singer of the Babies? You certainly reason like one...

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:19 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1674 words, total size 11 kb.