Climate Change? (Bonus: George Carlin Comments) lol


YES … There are some BAD WORDS!

( Couldn’t find a ‘clean’ version)


Carlin was rily rily kewl. I remember when he entered the American consciousness with his Hippy-Dippy Weatherman routine.


Is there a serious and reliable source that confirms whether there is or is not an increase in earth temperature?



It’s like 0.7-0.8 degrees since the 19th century. The course of the 21st century may be double that.

The import thing to remember, is that temperature changes happen on a 20,000 year cycle; it’s supposed to get warmer right now whether or not humans are involved.

The question to ask next is if the rate of change, the rate of the increase is unusual.

And yes, it is unusual. 0.7 in a century is more than double the rate of pre-industrialization.

The next question is then, should we care? That hasn’t really been answered. There are pros and cons to this warming.


This means warming is caused by humans. but the increas is not very high.


…and it’s pure, unadulterated BS. We have NO IDEA what the rate of temperature changes worldwide were prior to industrialization. First off, there were NO reliable methods of MEASUREMENT prior to industrialization. Secondly, examining tree rings only indicates how much RAINFALL there was–not temperatures. Finally, prior to industrialization, there weren’t a bunch of “scientists” examining temperatures all over the world and sharing their findings with others. The plain fact is, we DON’T KNOW much about the climate of the Earth prior to the start of the 20th Century, other than anecdotal information. For Pete’s sake, 500 years ago, everyone KNEW that the Earth was flat.


Yes we do. Measures by ships and people on land don’t have to be completely accurate to show trends; that’s why ice core samples are reliable for showing us the 20,000 year climate cycle over millions of years.

Not the only method, sorry Dave.


The Greeks knew the world was round 1500 years before them.


I am not totally convinced that warming is caused by human - 0.7-0.8 degrees is not so much - and I don’t know if older measurements could be that exact. But there are other indicators like recordings of snowfall, which indicate a human caused warming. Are there other indicators too (more rain, hurricans,… since industrialization)?

I do not often agree with Democrats but in general I think it is totally irresponsible just to insist that global warming is definitely fake news. As long as we do not know we should be alert.


The Greeks also KNEW that Mt. Olympus was the home of their gods–that Zeus turned himself into a swan to seduce some woman and that Hephastus ruled the underworld. They may have believed the world was round, but they did NOT believe that it was shaped like a ball. They thought it was circular…but flat…like the moon which ALWAYS shows a single face to the Earth.
Secondly, ice cores DO NOT tell us what world-wide temperatures were centuries ago. They only tell us what PRECIPITATION occurred in any given era. Surely you’re not saying that the commanders of Roman biremes paid much attention to air temperatures, and even if they did, they had no way to MEASURE it.


And we know God is in his heaven; does theology prevent you from taking measurements, or spotting the curvature of the earth from high elevation?

No? Didn’t think so.

Eratosthenes literally gave us the formula for calculating the Earth’s Circumference:

A shape only has a circumference, if it’s round.

Myth is myth Dave; you are wrong.


CO2 content, Nitrous oxide content, methane content, Radioactivity, the ratio between N
2 (nitrogen) and O2; these things do far more than tell us what the precipitation rate was.

We know how long glacial cycles were, we know the strength of the monsoon seasons, we know summer insolation, we know average mean temperatures of the ocean, etc.

Quit taking shots in the dark Dave. Go look it up if you honestly don’t know what they do with these things.


Do we know mean temperatures of the ocean from pre-industrial times?


No…and that is my whole point. We DON’T KNOW. We can GUESS, and a lot of so-called “scientists” are doing just that. My point to AS is that ice core data tell us NOTHING about the TEMPERATURES that existed centuries ago…period. They may tell us a LOT of things, but NOT temps.


Yes Dave, the Greeks calculated the Circumference of the World, and the chemical traces of core samples allowed us to do more than just track precipitation.

On both fronts, you didn’t know the facts, so for you to set terms on what they can or can’t do means nothing.

You don’t know. You didn’t research this. You spoke out of ignorance, and you are continuing to do so. So quit trying to be an authority, and just do the research.


Whom should we trust?
The problem is that an average person, a non-scientist, really can’t figure out what’s the truth. Some would say there are techniques that reliably reconstruct earth’ temperature hundreds of years ago, some claim the opposite. But how should an average person know whom to trust? I do not have time and money to study metrology.
The only thing I can do is to say: It’s better to take a conservative position and be careful regarding CO2 emissions.

Why do Republicans neglect Global Warming?
Actually I do not understand why Republicans are completely ignoring the issue. Being conservative means to me making conservative – not risky – decisions. Making a conservative decision means “to be on the safe side”. But currently Conservatives are doing literally the opposite.
Furthermore the fundament of Conservativism is TO-CONSERVE. If we do not conserve the environment we live in, what should be worth to be conserved anyway?

Even if there is just a 10% chance that global warming is caused by humankind, we have to be vigilant. Or would you carelessly enter a plane that has a “only” 10% chance to crash?

Just screaming: FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS! regarding things one do not want to hear is a very ignorant, irresponsible and virtuous attitude - And an infantile and too simple way to get rid of uncomfortable opposite standpoints.


Or .01 percent or 1 percent. We really don’t know. Your 10 percent chance is just a number, just like the numbers I typed – and most of us are perfectly content with .01 percent risks most of the time. We don’t really know what the upshot might be. But we do know that the alleged solution is to increase the cost of living drastically, granting more power to politicians and bureaucrats.

What real threat does warming pose? It applies whether humans cause it, contribute to it or are completely innocent of it. But we don’t know the threat. We’re not seeing the increase in hurricane activity some have predicted. The models are all over the place, and what’s going on today doesn’t match them anyway. Still, if sea level rises and flooding becomes more common, maybe we should look at a federal government that helped make insuring flood-prone property easier in the 1960s and blame public policy for the complications. Yeah, that’s the same government full of bureaucrats with the same solutions.

What are conservatives “conserving”? A silly question to be sure, but perhaps they’re conserving their own liberty in the face of uncertain danger, where public policy is just as risky or more risky than the problem itself, which is still not very clear.


If there were a 10 percent chance that North Korea would attack the United States 2018:
Would you say it would be justified to try to do something against it?

And wouldn’t you say, that this 10% are just a number too?


Lol. Like what? Attack immediately? Threaten?

In this context for sure. But what if it was a measurable 10 percent?

We’re not talking about any measured risk here in this thread though, and that’s the answer to your question about conservatives. They don’t see the risk at the 10 percent figure that you just threw out there, and I don’t either.

Even if we could quantify the risk at 10 percent, what are we at risk for? Having to make good on subsidized flood insurance?


Nonsense. You have NO IDEA how much research I have done on this issue. You just throw out ignorant accusations to see what sticks. The Greeks calculated the circumference of a round DISK…not a globe…and even if it WAS a globe (which it wasn’t) they would have been orders of magnitude WRONG because they had no way of knowing about the entire Western Hemisphere, what lies below Africa or above Russia.

You pretend to be well-educated, but almost everything you post here comes straight out of Wikipedia or Google and we ALL know just how reliable either of those “sources” is. Global warming is a hoax…just like “global cooling” was in the 1970’s and the “destruction of the ozone layer” was in the 90’s, “cyclamates cause bladder cancer” in the 80’s, “acid rain is killing off fresh water fish” or “DDT causes thin eggshells in Eagles and Peregrine Falcons,” or “eating nitrites in ham or bacon will take 20 years off of everyone’s lives,” or a vegan diet will not cause bone loss without supplemental vitamins and minerals. All of that stuff is BS designed to CONTROL how we live our lives. The bonus for their purveyors is that obeying their “warnings” also disrupts the economy,


Really? Because you just made a huge blunder:

Eratosthenes’ experiment wouldn’t have worked, unless he thought the world was a sphere.
Eratosthenes didn’t just theorize that the world was round, he tested it.

He was trying to find out why a shadow at high noon in the North of Egypt (in Alexandria), wouldn’t appear in a town in the South (Syrene) at the same time.

Thus, the world could not be a flat plane. The surface had to be round.

No, he was pretty accurate. That’s part to why Eratosthenes is such an impressive figure.

He knew the sun cast a 7.2 degree shadow at high noon in Alexandria, he then had someone measure out the distance between the two cities, then he used the quotient of 7.2 degrees over 360 degrees to find out how much that distance could constitute the whole circumference of the earth.

That quotient was 1/50. Alexandria was 800 km from Syrene, so, 800*50= 40,000km.

He of course didn’t use km, what he used was a measurement called stadia. Experts say he was only about 1% off.

Mathematics Dave. Powerful stuff if you know what you’re doing, and Eratosthenes clearly did.

I’m an Engineer (in training)… I honestly had to learn this story while taking Trigonometry. What surprises me, is that you never learned this yourself, and then pretended to know what you’re talking about.

You just willfully dug your own grave, when just watching the video I posted would have told you who Eratosthenes was, and what he did.

Never underestimate the Greeks Dave, that was your first mistake. Your second was continuing the pretense.


Nonsense…again, AS. Eratosthenese had no way of knowing that the Earth was a sphere. He had nothing to compare the Earth to except the moon. He thought the Earth’s surface was a domed DISC…not a sphere. Remember that in his day, everyone KNEW that the Earth was the center of the universe.