The Environment

Archy1221 said:
Sure.  Will it change the data?  
Click to expand...


The data appears to have been vetted by Nature magazine, Cornell University, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, although some entity titled Brighter Side of News is the only one treating this as breaking news.

So I'm good with the data. Also hope it's true. Like I said, good news.

Do you think the data warrants further study of climate change?

Are we good trusting climate scientists again? 

Of all the things to post about, why do you think an Election Denier and J6 apologist chose this story? And what inspired you to share it? 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Brighter Side of News is the only one treating this as breaking news.
Click to expand...
Why? 
 

Guy Chamberlin said:
Do you think the data warrants further study of climate change?
Click to expand...
When the outcomes are based on models using best guesswork at the time data shouldn’t  it always be challenged and studied???  Vs “settled science” 

Guy Chamberlin said:
Are we good trusting climate scientists again? 
Click to expand...
I don’t know.  Looks like they were over 30% wrong last time if this holds up. 
 

Guy Chamberlin said:
Of all the things to post about, why do you think an Election Denier and J6 apologist chose this story?
Click to expand...
Who knows?  DM and ask him. 
 

Guy Chamberlin said:
And what inspired you to share it? 
Click to expand...
So we can all learn and grow 

 
Archy1221 said:
Why? 
 

When the outcomes are based on models using best guesswork at the time data shouldn’t  it always be challenged and studied???  Vs “settled science” 

I don’t know.  Looks like they were over 30% wrong last time if this holds up. 
 

Who knows?  DM and ask him. 

So we can all learn and grow 
Click to expand...


Here's my take: 

Pursuing their ongoing understanding of climate change, scientists noticed that given the increase in global CO2, plants are capturing a larger percentage of carbon than they used to. Although this simultaneously confirms the historic increase in global carbon, the unexpected offset is welcome news. These same scientists continue their studies because they, more than anyone, realize science is never fully "settled."  So naturally it should be challenged and studied, although the guy you voted for at least twice is withdrawing grants and funding for research that merely references climate change. 

Here's your take:

See? The Earth is fixing itself. So stop being alarmists and listen to me and the election denying J6 apologist who feeds me my headlines. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/u-s-stops-tracking-costs-of-extreme-weather-disasters-fueled-by-climate-change#:~:text=The National Oceanic and Atmospheric,government resources on climate change.


Easy to claim there's no problem if you can't see it.
Click to expand...
The rising COST of natural disasters is because there are more people inhabiting places where hurricanes hit and when a tornado hits a city for example.  And the cost to replace is much more than it was 20,30,40 years ago.   It’s basic math.  

 
Archy1221 said:
The rising COST of natural disasters is because there are more people inhabiting places where hurricanes hit and when a tornado hits a city for example.  And the cost to replace is much more than it was 20,30,40 years ago.   It’s basic math.  
Click to expand...


That's very true. But why on Earth would that be your defense for denying climate research and data? 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
The fascism is concerning, but it's the parade of stupidity that makes me sad. 

Apparently unbridled stupidity is how you get revenge on the elites. JFC.  
Click to expand...
Me too.  The amount of respect for people that are close to me that I've lost over Trump and his "ideas" is what frustrates me the most.  They desperately try to defend things that I KNOW they are not okay with.  It's depressing watching them sell their own principles for this clown.  They think we are mad at them when in reality I'm just sad/embarrassed for them because they look so pathetic.  

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
That's very true. But why on Earth would that be your defense for denying climate research and data? 
Click to expand...
Apparently we are seeing some of the climate research and data accepted by 97% of scientists was wrong because their computer models were wrong.   Imagine that….garbage data in equals garbage data out.   

 
Back
Top