The description in the link is for extreme microwave transmission.
Anyone with any knowledge of RF would recognize the HAARP array as VHF band antennas. They are incapable of transmitting in the microwave band.
The article is a bunch of mish-mash BS along with unrelated facts to give credibility.
The definitional answer is that an increase in average surface temperature due to increased greenhouse gases will not distribute itself evenly. In fact some places are be colder/experiencing greater temperature extrema due to shifting weather patterns. It's a change in terminology that is harder to write off, especially with the baggage that "global warming" enjoys.
Here's an equal question: would the causes and effects of anthropogenic climate change be any different with or without Al Gore? How many ways can we rebrand denialism?
PS what you're doing is called whataboutism: an avoidance technique to dance around a major point without actually addressing it. A logical fallacy known as an appeal to hypocrisy.
Why is that an issue? Humans know how to calculate average.
They changed the term because it wasn't warming as they predicted. So what do they do in order to keep the new tax scheme going? Change the catchword to something that cannot be debunked, "climate change", since it always has been changing and always will, and there you have it.
"Here's an equal question:", oh, that famous whataboutism.
I found it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
For anyone else confused: this is what FUD looks like. And if it smells like methane filled cow chips, you know why.
1. I answered your leading question in a way that you didn't want so you provide a definition that avoids this inconvenience. Of course the climate changes from natural causes; you're intentionally ignoring the anthropogenic part that so readily changes the scope of the problem. And not fooling anyone but yourself.
2. Would anthropogenic climate change be any different under a different name and/or without Al Gore? You avoided answering the question. I don't have any issues with rebranding.
That's interesting. Who / which group has been fear mongering about rising temperature will bring death and destruction in dozen or so years, we can't wait till it happens because by then it will be too late, those who doubt the reports about rising CO2 and global warming are deniers...etc.?
I'll tell you who it wasn't, me.
You didn't answer. You danced around 1 question (no major point or leading question) I asked.
My question was why they rebranded. Once you answer mine, I'll answer yours. First thing first.
The interesting thing about some of these off the wall discussions in the lounge, is that you get to see how rational, or irrational, some contributors are on non audio issues, which helps you to understand their audio comments better. Fascinating.
But what about the ones who never, or very rarely, post in the lounge? Are they just not much fun at parties?
Really ? Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet or Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
They changed the name:
1. because we went from a rather naive model of simple global warming to a more complex model, which takes into account how the ongoing process is disrupting weather patterns, with extremely varied effects.
2. because many people are too dumb to understand how a nice cold winter in their backyard isn't a sufficient counterargument.
More complex model, you mean the prediction by computer program? You know that's been debunked by the actual weather last 17 years. IOW, it failed the time test. Not only that, you can't trust NASA for accuracy anymore. They have been influenced by politicians now.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
It's important that people keep believing, else the oxygen-free copper market will collapse.
But yes, I think (okay, I hypothesize) unscientific beliefs in one area do correlate with unscientific beliefs in other areas. I saw this in Susan Blackmore's book "In Search Of The Light/The Adventures Of A Parapsychologist." She had people do questionnaires (on an Apple ][, pre-internet era), and found those who had a better understanding of statistics had less belief in parapsychological and psychic phenomena.
This thread is about the deception/manipulation/lies etc that has, & is still being, spread through certain media etc, that CO2 is bad for earth & life & therefore needs to be controlled & reduced.
*
It seems not many people have bothered to actually read All of the main page on Welcome & then download the PDF's Etc etc.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant at ALL. Far from it ! Without CO2 we & Every living thing would die. In fact there would Never have been Any life on earth !
Real pollution is another matter entirely. But for eg, coal generators of electricity can be fitted with scrubber filters which remove it. So then it is NOT a problem.
Carbon removal etc & CO2 is BIG business for some people, as there is LOTS of money to made from it. Our tax money that could be used Much better elsewhere !
*
Have a look & these for even more info.
《中国科学》杂志社 Naming and shaming the rentaquote scientists.pdf Lots more on there too.
Lots more on the Life Giving CO2 etc Science and Public Policy | The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science.
*
It seems not many people have bothered to actually read All of the main page on Welcome & then download the PDF's Etc etc.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant at ALL. Far from it ! Without CO2 we & Every living thing would die. In fact there would Never have been Any life on earth !
Real pollution is another matter entirely. But for eg, coal generators of electricity can be fitted with scrubber filters which remove it. So then it is NOT a problem.
Carbon removal etc & CO2 is BIG business for some people, as there is LOTS of money to made from it. Our tax money that could be used Much better elsewhere !
*
Have a look & these for even more info.
《中国科学》杂志社 Naming and shaming the rentaquote scientists.pdf Lots more on there too.
Lots more on the Life Giving CO2 etc Science and Public Policy | The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science.
The problem with your little graph is that it only covers the USA, not the whole planet.
Globally the 10 hottest years have all occurred since 2003.
Plants need CO2. They grow better when there is more CO2 in the air. Where is the support group made up of vegetarians & vegans? 🙁
Short video on CO2 and earth temperature.
In reply to no one, I'm not particularly passionate about the subject but I am a college educated geologist by trade, ergo at least some understanding/appreciation of 'rates', the inputs, the results. More over, I'm of an abstract view with a mind not warped by geo-time (which can warp a thinking, most average ppl can't comprehend, short of a good LSD trip).
That said, human evolution being what it is, there is really no way (IMO) to physically affect/alter current data within any ability to even theoretically satisfy the desire for advantageous/good/happy/mirth-creating data.
We made our bed. The inertia is that modern human culture cannot be altered beneficially by incremental policies. The geo-political technological/cultural landscape far exceeds any level of incremental change toward any ideal. It's not said to instill any doom and gloom, it's just that, in spite of all our 'connectivity', the geographical distance is too great to surmount any cooperative desire to live similarly (carbon clean). It's the reality of human evolution during "our" time on this physical body. Even at a singular level, humans are psychologically messy. One-world geopolitical mantras attempt to address this, but again.. humans are messy. Like any animal.
It's just not likely that we can alter our culture and revert to pre-evolution, pre-industrial footprints. Humans may become extinct of this body. Actually it's likely. Really, it's a given. That's where peoples brains start getting warped.
That said, human evolution being what it is, there is really no way (IMO) to physically affect/alter current data within any ability to even theoretically satisfy the desire for advantageous/good/happy/mirth-creating data.
We made our bed. The inertia is that modern human culture cannot be altered beneficially by incremental policies. The geo-political technological/cultural landscape far exceeds any level of incremental change toward any ideal. It's not said to instill any doom and gloom, it's just that, in spite of all our 'connectivity', the geographical distance is too great to surmount any cooperative desire to live similarly (carbon clean). It's the reality of human evolution during "our" time on this physical body. Even at a singular level, humans are psychologically messy. One-world geopolitical mantras attempt to address this, but again.. humans are messy. Like any animal.
It's just not likely that we can alter our culture and revert to pre-evolution, pre-industrial footprints. Humans may become extinct of this body. Actually it's likely. Really, it's a given. That's where peoples brains start getting warped.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.