- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is the Climate Scam almost over?
Posted on 6/17/26 at 11:52 am to ThuperThumpin
Posted on 6/17/26 at 11:52 am to ThuperThumpin
quote:
Climates change .whether through man made influence or not and we should prepare for them. If we could've anticipated the Little Ice Age moving away from wheat-dependent systems toward hardier, colder-weather crops such as rye, oats, barley, and eventually the potato, which thrives in cool, wet environments might have saved a lot of lives.
Like I said it wont be the apocalypse. Human civilization isnt going to collapse but some adjustments may be needed to be made. Its unfortunate this has become so politicized.
I basically agree with this.
0
Posted on 6/17/26 at 12:04 pm to UtahCajun
At about 1950 levels, ~ 250 ppm. That was a natural level for Earth's atmosphere, and before climate change and climate-related environmental havoc started to kick in.
The CO2 levels today are nearly double what they were 75 years ago. The technology doesn't exist yet to systematically remove atmospheric CO2; but just not to add any further CO2 could be logged in as "success" at this point in time.
The CO2 levels today are nearly double what they were 75 years ago. The technology doesn't exist yet to systematically remove atmospheric CO2; but just not to add any further CO2 could be logged in as "success" at this point in time.
Posted on 6/17/26 at 12:09 pm to tarzana
quote:
At about 1950 levels, ~ 250 ppm. That was a natural level for Earth's atmosphere
No. No it isn't natural limits. Not even close. Plants evolved in an atmosphere of over 1500 ppm. That is why levels above 1500 ppm is optimal. You said 250 ppm. That is 50 ppm above total die off. Are you friggin crazy?
quote:
The CO2 levels today are nearly double what they were 75 years ago. The technology doesn't exist yet to systematically remove atmospheric CO2; but just not to add any further CO2 could be logged in as "success" at this point in time
This makes it sound like you actually do want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That is ELE type stuff. James Bond fought people with ideas like that. Why on Earth would anyone ever think of something like that?
Posted on 6/17/26 at 12:42 pm to Trevaylin
quote:The images were intended as illustrative of a well-know and recurrent problem.
but your comparison photos, one has mountains in background, one does not, the mounts for thermometers before 1950 were on a train station wall the box for 1950 is to modern , the current thermometer needs a digital box and transceiver to be representative. etc.
A few years ago several comparative images were available depicting vastly different measuring environments. It seems, being a source of embarrassment, most of those old comparators have since been scrubbed.
I had a couple particularly in mind which I've cited in the past. I couldn't find them. So it was easier to just shop a representative image demonstrating the problem.
I searched again since the photoshop bothered you, and found one of the comparative image sets I'd been looking for originally
Old UA/Tucson site:
New UA/Tucson site:
Posted on 6/17/26 at 12:47 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:
Like I said it wont be the apocalypse. Human civilization isnt going to collapse but some adjustments may be needed to be made. Its unfortunate this has become so politicized.
Nice copy and paste. There is one problem.... crop yields are trending higher.
And the vitamin content, im sure bioengineering has nothing to do with it. Nope. Not at all.
Posted on 6/17/26 at 12:59 pm to Hobie101
quote:
You guys are also mostly conservative. So wouldn’t options to O&G be better for a free market economy?
Only one true option out there and apparently people are afraid of nuclear energy.
If there were other viable alternatives O&G companies would be all over it. There isn't any at this moment, but our energy providers are experimenting with new ideas every day.
Posted on 6/17/26 at 1:08 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
and apparently people are afraid of nuclear energy.
I saw a recent video on what happened at Chernobyl. All of the machines worked fine. The accident was 100% human error by those inside the plant.
Posted on 6/17/26 at 1:29 pm to Hobie101
quote:
Meanwhile, red Texas produces more wind energy than any other state, and is expanding wind and solar rapidly.
A really good chunk of that is private power generation to run O&G sites so that taxpayers do not have to pay to connect these to the grid.
Posted on 6/17/26 at 1:34 pm to Hobie101
quote:
193 countries signed the Paris agreement.
A fraction of Republicans are the only people on the planet that deny climate change.
But yea, yall are right and everyone else is wrong
Wrong. People who question climate science are just as numerous as those who do not.
Our government signed on. Does this mean we all agreed? Apparently not, but apparently tUS conservatives are the only place dissenters are found.
Do you use faulty logic in every statement you make?
This post was edited on 6/17/26 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 6/17/26 at 1:43 pm to Hobie101
quote:Actually you got that EXACTLY wrong.
A fraction of Republicans are the only people on the planet that deny climate change.
People capable of independent thought understand two things:
(1) We are in an Ice Age
(2) An Ice Age entails Climate Change
Warmists deny those things, in particular they deny natural Climate Change, and instead claim that weather change (under the moniker "Climate Change") is man-made.
Posted on 6/17/26 at 2:44 pm to UtahCajun
The world functioned very well for thousands of years with a stable atmospheric CO2 level of around 250 ppm. There were no "die-offs" of plants or animals, unlike today when saguaro cactuses in Arizona are literally melting, and burrowing rattlesnakes are cooking to death in shelters that should protect them from the relentless sun. Also, coral reeves in tropical seas worldwide are bleaching at an unprecedented rate, and are not being replenished. This is proving to be an ecologic disaster on several levels.
Atmospheric CO2 levels escalating, thanks to human activity, is warming the planet on a feedback loop. This whole climate denial frenzy from the right literally churns my stomach.
Atmospheric CO2 levels escalating, thanks to human activity, is warming the planet on a feedback loop. This whole climate denial frenzy from the right literally churns my stomach.
This post was edited on 6/17/26 at 3:02 pm
Posted on 6/17/26 at 5:35 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Only one true option out there and apparently people are afraid of nuclear energy
Why is nuclear the only option ?
I better sell my solar stocks that have skyrocketed recently before everyone realizes it doesn’t provide energy.
Posted on 6/17/26 at 5:50 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Warmists deny those things, in particular they deny natural Climate Change, and instead claim that weather change (under the moniker "Climate Change") is man-made.
I don’t think anyone is denying natural climate changes. And no one can predict the future. Somehow, people who study climate change have convinced 193 countries that, with the data at hand, man made climate change is occurring.
Houston had three 500 year floods between 2015 and 2017.
I’ve noticed myself that there are more summer nights that don’t dip below 80deg than when I was younger.
Not odd to anyone else?
Posted on 6/17/26 at 5:57 pm to Hobie101
You said ... "A fraction of Republicans are the only people on the planet that deny climate change"
Then you said .... "I don’t think anyone is denying natural climate changes"
Let's repeat that sequence, because it's ... well .... it looks really bad.
You said ... "A fraction of Republicans are the only people on the planet that deny climate change"
Then you said .... "I don’t think anyone is denying natural climate changes"
So perhaps you should clear up your own contradictions in this thread?
Then you said .... "I don’t think anyone is denying natural climate changes"
Let's repeat that sequence, because it's ... well .... it looks really bad.
You said ... "A fraction of Republicans are the only people on the planet that deny climate change"
Then you said .... "I don’t think anyone is denying natural climate changes"
So perhaps you should clear up your own contradictions in this thread?
Posted on 6/17/26 at 6:16 pm to Hobie101
quote:... and three more in the previous century.
Houston had three 500 year floods between 2015 and 2017.
Odd, isn't it?
i.e., Honestly, you have no clue as to what "a 500-yr flood" means.
Additionally, you seem to think """"""Climate Change"""""" had something to do with Harvey standing still over Houston for a couple of days?
Posted on 6/17/26 at 8:37 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
So perhaps you should clear up your own contradictions in this thread?
What exactly are you out to accomplish here.
You know what I meant.
“A fraction of Republicans are the only people on the planet that deny man-made climate change"
FIFY
Page 9 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News