photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/29694894_10156265825022264_15392498

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/29694894_10156265825022264_1539249835742330880_o_10156265825012264.jpg 40 NEW PAPERS IN 2018 SAY GLOBAL WARMING DOESN’T EXIST.

FROM

NOTRICKS ZONE- CLIMATE NEWS FROM GERMANY IN ENGLISH.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/#sthash.J5s6KM7i.2ywZNTZ9.dpbsRob McMullanI accept that i’m not qualified at all to comment on global warming, but I’m confident in how full of shit people, especially leftists, can be.. so i’m not at all surprised.

What is your opinion so far on global warming and the science?Apr 04, 2018 10:29pmEric Thomasyikes be careful they are citing Brietbart in this article – also a closer look at the two graphs and you realize that one of them is just a graph for europe while the other one is just surface temps. I’d take this with a grain of salt.Apr 04, 2018 10:47pmCurt Doolittlei know the people in that movement and they’re not good peopleApr 04, 2018 11:09pmCurt Doolittledetails added to op.Apr 04, 2018 11:13pmEric ThomasI’m always on the look out for new science (especially science that shows us evidence that global warming is exaggerated) https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htmApr 04, 2018 11:21pmTrè GreystokeYournewswire is fake news lmaoApr 04, 2018 11:32pmEric Thomasyikes 43 articles on Snopes debunked….cmon @[741197263:2048:Curt Doolittle]Apr 04, 2018 11:38pmEric Thomashttps://www.snopes.com/tag/yournewswire-com/Apr 04, 2018 11:38pmMichael AndradeMost modern academics are bad hombres.Apr 04, 2018 11:51pmMike RoseYikes citing snopes as researchApr 04, 2018 11:57pmMike RoseSnopes is garbage. Try harder.Apr 04, 2018 11:57pmEric ThomasMike Rose Snopes has always been reputable. Try hardest.Apr 04, 2018 11:58pmCurt Doolittleum. go to the papers not the gossip columnApr 05, 2018 12:02amCurt Doolittlego to the papersApr 05, 2018 12:03amEly HarmanLol.Apr 05, 2018 12:06amEly HarmanInteresting. Not surprised. What about the precautionary principle? What about Elon Musk’s view that running an experiment like “how much carbon can we pump into the atmosphere before it becomes a problem” is inherently reckless and irresponsible?Apr 05, 2018 12:07amPhilip ChristopherElon Musk is, like the vast majority of innovators, inherently reckless. Irresponsible is arguable. No one celebrates the guy who stayed home.Apr 05, 2018 12:25amEly HarmanA strong precautionary principle is basically an admonition against doing anything. So obviously, I don’t accept it in that form. But Taleb advocates a form of it as well based on assymetrical risk/reward which I think is tenable.Apr 05, 2018 12:42amGreg Hamilton@[100001322449172:2048:Eric Thomas] hahaha.Apr 05, 2018 12:49amChris JonesPascals wagerApr 05, 2018 12:57amChristian WarwickYournewswire isn’t fake news per se. They do post stuff that’s controversial and does sometimes hold info that does not eventually turn out to be true. But alot of their content is good.Apr 05, 2018 1:49amMichael PettenuzzoSnopes 😂Apr 05, 2018 3:16amThomas BeesleySnopes stopped being reputable when they threw their hat into the political arena and revealed their bias.Apr 05, 2018 3:29amCurt DoolittleWATCH THIS….. (Changed op)Apr 05, 2018 8:19amCurt DoolittleSO, NOW I DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE ANALYSIS.

How does that affect the argument?

And … um… you thought you were smart by criticizing the distributor rather than the manufacturer???????

Same reason pseudoscience exists…. presumptions.Apr 05, 2018 8:23amTrè Greystokehttp://yournewswire.com/adolf-hitler-black/Apr 05, 2018 8:24amTrent Fowler”Pascals wager”

That’s both nonsensical and way *too* precautionary.

“Not surprised. What about the precautionary principle? What about Elon Musk’s view that running an experiment like “how much carbon can we pump into the atmosphere before it becomes a problem” is inherently reckless and irresponsible?”

I say that if you can afford the capital investments to build SpaceX and Tesla then go for it. Plenty of precautionary strategies are cause-agnostic — it’s good to be an interplanetary species whether you believe in AGW or not, because even if carbon emissions aren’t driving heat increases we could still perish in a bad singularity or in a nuclear exchange.

This is the same logic I give for taking ‘prepping’ seriously. A lot of preppers believe patently silly things (e.g. “Obama is the antichrist”), but regardless of what you think will bring civilization down you’re going to need water, so stock up on that.Apr 05, 2018 9:42amChristian WarwickHitler was a brother. It’s clear as day. Or dark as night.Apr 05, 2018 10:14amChristian SeriousEven if that’s true the destruction of common property by government subsidized multinational corporations that eventually damage the private properties of people who never make as much money in a lifetime as some of these thugs make a year is wrong

The overall goal to cut back on pollution is still a fight worth having. While I still disagree with the idea of market interference from government it is time to cut back on pollutionApr 05, 2018 11:27pmMatthew Gillwhat about the precautionary principle regarding all the pollutants and radiation humans emit? co2 is one of the few that is non-toxic and beneficial to living things (plants). i’m more concerned about tesla’s batteries than co2, and more about the other pollutants released by drilling for and burning oil and coal. humanity as it currently operates is reckless and irresponsible, but co2 is a red herring imo, and a “easy fix” pseudo-solution that doesn’t deal with real problems like deforestation, monocultures, and sickening populations due to deliberately distributed toxins.Apr 05, 2018 11:59pmMicah Pezdirtz3 publications convinced me global warming is a false alarm.

The first one informed me that the margin of error in the study’s temperature measurements was basically the same as the purported increase in temperature they claimed had taken place over some decades (0.5°C) So they basically revealed no change and painted it as significant change. Lies.

The second publication demonstrated the historical levels of CO2 in the atmosphere fluctuate periodically and relatively predictably, with a maximum 8 times higher than at current at several points in the past several hundred thousand years. (With no corresponding mass extinctions to my knowledge)

The third publication investigated the sources of CO2 generation and sequestration and indicated a significant (30%) source of non human generated CO2, as well as general lack of understanding where it goes. Speculated on the acceleration of plant growth as a feedback loop.

Bonus publication: posited the falsehood of greenhouse gas as a theory bringing attention to the flaws of the original experiment. The atmosphere is not a box of gas with a fixed volume (which rises in temperature and pressure) but is allowed to expand and cool, normalizing pressure, constrained only by gravity.Apr 07, 2018 3:17pm40 NEW PAPERS IN 2018 SAY GLOBAL WARMING DOESN’T EXIST.

FROM

NOTRICKS ZONE- CLIMATE NEWS FROM GERMANY IN ENGLISH.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/#sthash.J5s6KM7i.2ywZNTZ9.dpbs