New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

There is no climate change

EatTheRich

President
Scientist in the 70's were predicting another ice age.

https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/

Give up kid, you lose at everything
A minority, who were wrong because they had incorrect estimates for certain parameters in their models, projected that the cooling effects of aerosol emissions would overwhelm the warming effects of increased GHG concentrations. A large majority ... about 75% as opposed to the 100% now that more data has come in ... were projecting warming.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
A minority, who were wrong because they had incorrect estimates for certain parameters in their models, projected that the cooling effects of aerosol emissions would overwhelm the warming effects of increased GHG concentrations. A large majority ... about 75% as opposed to the 100% now that more data has come in ... were projecting warming.
Actually there were no climate computer models in the 70's, as computers were trillions of times slower then they are today, which did not allow for intricate BS climate models.

But you keep trying kid


In 1970 and '71, responding to a request for 12 custom chips for a new high-end calculator, and with incredible overkill, a young startup company named Intel built the world's first single-chip general-purpose microprocessor. Then it bought back the rights for $60,000 (~$320,000 today).

The Intel 4004 ran at a clock speed of 740 kHz and contained 2300 transistors (see chip photo). It processed data in 4 bits, but it used 12-bit addresses. The 4004 addressed up to 4096 bytes of program memory (ROM) and 640 bytes of data memory (RAM), as separate entities. It had sixteen 4-bit registers and ran an instruction set containing 46 instructions, each taking either 8 or 16 clock cycles to complete, yielding performance of about 60,000 instructions per second (92,000 peak). This made it roughly equal to the original 1946 ENIAC in the size of a fingernail, at a time when the CPUs of most computers still took several large circuit boards.

The 4004 was a very big deal for the young Intel company, which was only three years old at the time – it was founded in 1968 by Bob Noyce (renowned for his co-invention of the silicon chip in 1959) and Gordon Moore (of Moore's Law fame). Ted Hoff had the original idea of building a single general-purpose processor instead of 12 custom chips, while Federico Faggin was the lead designer of the processor itself. Faggin later went on to found his own chip company, Zilog, which competed with Intel for most of the 1970s, resulting in Intel attempting to "disown" him and deny his crucial role in the birth of the microprocessor.
 
I don't know about you all but I always take the word of a person on an online blog that quotes sources none of us have time to qualify over that of the consensus of experts worldwide on any specific issue. It just isn't right to believe the experts when you can believe a guy on the internet who agrees with me. Isn't that right my droogies?
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
I don't know about you all but I always take the word of a person on an online blog that quotes sources none of us have time to qualify over that of the consensus of experts worldwide on any specific issue. It just isn't right to believe the experts when you can believe a guy on the internet who agrees with me. Isn't that right my droogies?
Define expert, noting that 99.999 percent of Earth time elapsed before the first expert tried to define time.
 

EatTheRich

President
Actually there were no climate computer models in the 70's, as computers were trillions of times slower then they are today, which did not allow for intricate BS climate models.

But you keep trying kid


In 1970 and '71, responding to a request for 12 custom chips for a new high-end calculator, and with incredible overkill, a young startup company named Intel built the world's first single-chip general-purpose microprocessor. Then it bought back the rights for $60,000 (~$320,000 today).

The Intel 4004 ran at a clock speed of 740 kHz and contained 2300 transistors (see chip photo). It processed data in 4 bits, but it used 12-bit addresses. The 4004 addressed up to 4096 bytes of program memory (ROM) and 640 bytes of data memory (RAM), as separate entities. It had sixteen 4-bit registers and ran an instruction set containing 46 instructions, each taking either 8 or 16 clock cycles to complete, yielding performance of about 60,000 instructions per second (92,000 peak). This made it roughly equal to the original 1946 ENIAC in the size of a fingernail, at a time when the CPUs of most computers still took several large circuit boards.

The 4004 was a very big deal for the young Intel company, which was only three years old at the time – it was founded in 1968 by Bob Noyce (renowned for his co-invention of the silicon chip in 1959) and Gordon Moore (of Moore's Law fame). Ted Hoff had the original idea of building a single general-purpose processor instead of 12 custom chips, while Federico Faggin was the lead designer of the processor itself. Faggin later went on to found his own chip company, Zilog, which competed with Intel for most of the 1970s, resulting in Intel attempting to "disown" him and deny his crucial role in the birth of the microprocessor.
The models were simpler and still much better at making predictions than models that ignored AGW. Now they have the ability to make much more detailed and accurate predictions.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
The models were simpler and still much better at making predictions than models that ignored AGW. Now they have the ability to make much more detailed and accurate predictions.
Again kid you make up nonsense as you go, see computer models strictly require computers that did not exist in the 70's as they do today. You do not know this because you were not born yet and did not watch the birth of the modern computer and watch them become what they are now, as I have. A chip then could do maybe 60000 operations per second, now 200,000 trillion operations are possible per second. Also kid in 1970's satellites began keeping data, until sufficient data was collected entering that data into a non existent computer to do comparison modeling would really be totally impossible.

Your problem as far as I can see is that you believe that everything that exist always did.
You are not even able to think logically or intelligently, or you are the next fool to believe that you can slip me up in the slightest, which is what makes you fun.
 

EatTheRich

President
Again kid you make up nonsense as you go, see computer models strictly require computers that did not exist in the 70's as they do today. You do not know this because you were not born yet and did not watch the birth of the modern computer and watch them become what they are now, as I have. A chip then could do maybe 60000 operations per second, now 200,000 trillion operations are possible per second. Also kid in 1970's satellites began keeping data, until sufficient data was collected entering that data into a non existent computer to do comparison modeling would really be totally impossible.

Your problem as far as I can see is that you believe that everything that exist always did.
You are not even able to think logically or intelligently, or you are the next fool to believe that you can slip me up in the slightest, which is what makes you fun.
Again, you keep inserting the qualifier “computer” to my discussion of models in general. Anyway, here’s a link to a 1975 paper discussing a computer model for GHG-driven warming.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032<0003:TEODTC>2.0.CO;2
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Again, you keep inserting the qualifier “computer” to my discussion of models in general. Anyway, here’s a link to a 1975 paper discussing a computer model for GHG-driven warming.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032<0003:TEODTC>2.0.CO;2
The computer model actually does not really matter since the satellite data did not yet exist for the purposes of entering into the model.

You are a [Unwelcome language removed] clown.

Again computers did not always exist, nor did satellites that collect the data that modern computer models use.

Furthermore in the 70's environmentalist did not give a shit about agw, all they cared about was stopping nuclear power. I was there, you weren't even a sperm yet. Ask Jane Commie Fonda

But you keep trying professor, I might still slip up for the first time ever.

Do you have any idea how many have preceded you?
 
Last edited:

EatTheRich

President
The computer model actually does not really matter since the satellite data did not yet exist for the purposes of entering into the model.

You are a [Unwelcome language removed] clown.

Again computers did not always exist, nor did satellites that collect the data that modern computer models use.

Furthermore in the 70's environmentalist did not give a shit about agw, all they cared about was stopping nuclear power. I was there, you weren't even a sperm yet. Ask Jane Commie Fonda

But you keep trying professor, I might still slip up for the first time ever.

Do you have any idea how many have preceded you?
They used surface temperature data instead. As do some models today. What Jane Fonda wanted is not really relevant because the emerging consensus of the scientific community was not based on politics.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
They used surface temperature data instead. As do some models today. What Jane Fonda wanted is not really relevant because the emerging consensus of the scientific community was not based on politics.
Actually in the 60's and 70's and into the 80's every environmentalist was anti nuke. Just a fact kid. Now the same environmentalist never even mention nuclear power as all a properly working nuke plant emits is steam, and CO2 which they exhale constantly is far more dangerous, obviously. Just ignore the two headed animals in Chernobyl and Fukushima

And as previously said we were entering into an ice age in the 70's per climate clowns. Now actually the idiots are predicting another mini ice age and will say that the temps are only not rising because of the mini ice age.

I fail however to see how any of this matters however since your hero AOC has revealed that the Earth is ending in 12 years
 
Last edited:

EatTheRich

President
Actually in the 60's and 70's and into the 80's every environmentalist was anti nuke. Just a fact kid. Now the same environmentalist never even mention nuclear power as all a properly working nuke plant emits is steam, and CO2 which they exhale constantly is far more dangerous, obviously.

And as previously said we were entering into an ice age in the 70's per climate clowns. Now actually the idiots are predicting another mini ice age and will say that the temps are only not rising because of the mini ice age.

I fail however to see how any of this matters however since your hero AOC has revealed that the Earth is ending in 12 years
In other words, environmentalists like other reasonable people change their minds based on new evidence (which you present in a distorted version). AOC is not my hero, and she did not say that, she accurately reported that scientists give us about 12 years to get GHG emissions under control to avoid locking in warming on a scale far larger and more threatening to civilization than what we’ve experienced so far.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
In other words, environmentalists like other reasonable people change their minds based on new evidence (which you present in a distorted version). AOC is not my hero, and she did not say that, she accurately reported that scientists give us about 12 years to get GHG emissions under control to avoid locking in warming on a scale far larger and more threatening to civilization than what we’ve experienced so far.
Actually since Fukushima, and Chernobyl the original anti nuke protesters were proven right.

As for AOC she did say that moron, and it was recorded, another example of your disillusion from reality

https://www.onenewspage.com/video/20190122/11294641/AOC-apos-The-world-is-going-to.htm

The fun thing about you is that you never tire of being stupid

And you are easier to bait than a bluefish
 
Last edited:

reason10

Governor
Scientists 40-50 years ago made accurate claims about how the climate would change between them and now. In particular, they predicted a huge disruption of the dynamic equilibrium that had been in place for thousands of years, and predicted with great accuracy what the new emerging equilibrium would look like.

And they were wrong.


2. “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000” does not say the same thing as “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by the year 2000 if the global warming trend is not reversed.”

Now you're trying to spin it, instead of admitting you've lost that argument. There are similar idiotic statements from idiotic hacks playing scientist who put the drown-Florida predictions around 2017, 2025, even 2035. Bottom line, they are All based on ZERO field research, a lot of flawed computer models and large checks from the account of George Soros.

We're in the greatest economy of all time. There is no logical reason to destroy this just because some politicians hate losing an argument.
 

reason10

Governor
]a. Of course they don’t. People who accept the IPCC’s position summarizing the current position of top scientists do dominate every scientific body in the world.

A handful of computer geeks cashing Soros checks, and you automatically think these bozos dominate ANYTHING other than happy hour at the local geek bars? The IPCC can't agree on lunch, much less global cooling...wait, it's global warming....wait, it's climate change....wait, AW HELL, WE'RE JUST PISSED THAT TRUMP WON. These bozos do not represent science, fact, or anything even remotely based on reality.

b. No, it doesn’t, which is why those who base their positions on evidence (the scientists) disagree with you. The evidence is elementary and includes the fact that average global temperatures today are about a full degree warmer than 50 years ago.

This is the reason why I say these idiots are not scientists.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#7b5199b93de0

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/earth-cool-half-degree-nasa/2018/05/16/id/860837/
The average global temperature dropped by more than half a degree Celsius from February 2016 to February 2018, according to recent NASA data.

According to RealClear Markets, the average temperature around the world fell 0.56 degrees Celsius during that time period, the biggest dip in temperatures since a decrease of 0.47 degrees Celsius from 1982-1984.

c. The fact that people who accept the consensus of the evidence-based community are found across the political spectrum and in every country, while those who accept your conspiracy theory are all found on the American/British/Australian right, suggests that it is you who are talking politics and not science. The fact that I keep pointing to data and you keep ranting about Soros does the same.

Here's your problem: You think science is an election, and if Soros pays enough hacks off and they all vote on the same thing, it is automatically true. You think science is a democracy. A bunch of single minded computer geeks who have done ZERO field research are all voting for (a) warming and then when that doesn't happen (b) climate change, and suddenly all their OPINIONS are fact.

Galileo had the same problem with peer reviewed idiocy when he faced persecution by disagreeing with the scientists of his day that the universe allegedly revolved around the Earth.

It wouldn't be so bad if all your idiots were just talking, but they actually want to implement policy that will ass fuckk our economy and put it in the Stone Age, all based on Soros's paychecks.

Besides that, the largest carbon releaser and polluter in the world is CHINA. If there was ANY truth to the idiotic idea of humans warming the earth (which the science on that has been proven WRONG over and over again) we would be fukkked, because NOBODY will tell China what to do.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
]a. Of course they don’t. People who accept the IPCC’s position summarizing the current position of top scientists do dominate every scientific body in the world.

A handful of computer geeks cashing Soros checks, and you automatically think these bozos dominate ANYTHING other than happy hour at the local geek bars? The IPCC can't agree on lunch, much less global cooling...wait, it's global warming....wait, it's climate change....wait, AW HELL, WE'RE JUST PISSED THAT TRUMP WON. These bozos do not represent science, fact, or anything even remotely based on reality.

b. No, it doesn’t, which is why those who base their positions on evidence (the scientists) disagree with you. The evidence is elementary and includes the fact that average global temperatures today are about a full degree warmer than 50 years ago.

This is the reason why I say these idiots are not scientists.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#7b5199b93de0



https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/earth-cool-half-degree-nasa/2018/05/16/id/860837/



c. The fact that people who accept the consensus of the evidence-based community are found across the political spectrum and in every country, while those who accept your conspiracy theory are all found on the American/British/Australian right, suggests that it is you who are talking politics and not science. The fact that I keep pointing to data and you keep ranting about Soros does the same.

Here's your problem: You think science is an election, and if Soros pays enough hacks off and they all vote on the same thing, it is automatically true. You think science is a democracy. A bunch of single minded computer geeks who have done
Does anyone actually listen to the IPCC anymore? I mean since the climate pause when CO2 skyrocketed proving that CO2 is not causing warming?
 

EatTheRich

President
Actually since Fukushima, and Chernobyl the original anti nuke protesters were proven right.

As for AOC she did say that moron, and it was recorded, another example of your disillusion from reality

https://www.onenewspage.com/video/20190122/11294641/AOC-apos-The-world-is-going-to.htm

The fun thing about you is that you never tire of being stupid

And you are easier to bait than a bluefish
She did not say the Earth was ending as you reported. She used a metaphor.

And, no, the nuke protesters were not proven right. Even without global warming, nuclear has been far less harmful than fossil fuels. And an accident on Chernobyl’s scale is unlikely to ever happen again.
 

EatTheRich

President
Scientists 40-50 years ago made accurate claims about how the climate would change between them and now. In particular, they predicted a huge disruption of the dynamic equilibrium that had been in place for thousands of years, and predicted with great accuracy what the new emerging equilibrium would look like.

And they were wrong.


2. “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000” does not say the same thing as “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by the year 2000 if the global warming trend is not reversed.”

Now you're trying to spin it, instead of admitting you've lost that argument. There are similar idiotic statements from idiotic hacks playing scientist who put the drown-Florida predictions around 2017, 2025, even 2035. Bottom line, they are All based on ZERO field research, a lot of flawed computer models and large checks from the account of George Soros.

We're in the greatest economy of all time. There is no logical reason to destroy this just because some politicians hate losing an argument.
No, they weren’t wrong at all. Far from it. No, we aren’t in the greatest economy of all time. Far from it. No, your misrepresenting what the scientists and journalists reporting on them and fabricating checks from your favorite Jewish bogeyman said does not make them wrong.
 

EatTheRich

President
]a. Of course they don’t. People who accept the IPCC’s position summarizing the current position of top scientists do dominate every scientific body in the world.

A handful of computer geeks cashing Soros checks, and you automatically think these bozos dominate ANYTHING other than happy hour at the local geek bars? The IPCC can't agree on lunch, much less global cooling...wait, it's global warming....wait, it's climate change....wait, AW HELL, WE'RE JUST PISSED THAT TRUMP WON. These bozos do not represent science, fact, or anything even remotely based on reality.

b. No, it doesn’t, which is why those who base their positions on evidence (the scientists) disagree with you. The evidence is elementary and includes the fact that average global temperatures today are about a full degree warmer than 50 years ago.

This is the reason why I say these idiots are not scientists.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#7b5199b93de0



https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/earth-cool-half-degree-nasa/2018/05/16/id/860837/



c. The fact that people who accept the consensus of the evidence-based community are found across the political spectrum and in every country, while those who accept your conspiracy theory are all found on the American/British/Australian right, suggests that it is you who are talking politics and not science. The fact that I keep pointing to data and you keep ranting about Soros does the same.

Here's your problem: You think science is an election, and if Soros pays enough hacks off and they all vote on the same thing, it is automatically true. You think science is a democracy. A bunch of single minded computer geeks who have done ZERO field research are all voting for (a) warming and then when that doesn't happen (b) climate change, and suddenly all their OPINIONS are fact.

Galileo had the same problem with peer reviewed idiocy when he faced persecution by disagreeing with the scientists of his day that the universe allegedly revolved around the Earth.

It wouldn't be so bad if all your idiots were just talking, but they actually want to implement policy that will ass fuckk our economy and put it in the Stone Age, all based on Soros's paychecks.

Besides that, the largest carbon releaser and polluter in the world is CHINA. If there was ANY truth to the idiotic idea of humans warming the earth (which the science on that has been proven WRONG over and over again) we would be fukkked, because NOBODY will tell China what to do.
1. The Earth is not cooling over any statistically significant period of time.
2. The Heartland Institute folks are literally paid shills.
3. Galileo based his opposition to a faith-based consensus on evidence. You are basing your opposition to an evidence-based consensus on unsupported assertions and conspiracy theories.
4. The IPCC summarizes the top research in the leading peer-reviewed journals. Their firm position that human activity is causing warming reflects the firm position of the best scientists.
5. Literally every major scientific body in the world agrees. Soros doesn’t have enough money to buy off all those people who devoted their lives to science.
 
Top