Climate Change

[brooks85]

I have not voted for a candidate for POTUS from either major party this century, not one good candidate from either in that time. We need a good independent candidate. 4 worst POTUS in history, nave been in this century. It's stupid to try and have a reasonable adult conversion with you.

then you're very low IQ.

Trump was the best candidate this country has seen in your lifetime. No question. Math proves this.


What did trump do to hurt your feelings woman?

[DwightShrute]

So, nobody knows anything, and they all are just saying and making up what is best for them. Thats great.

The pandemic disagreements happened over weeks, then months, the climate debate has been going on for decades. We should have more and better data over that amount of time.

Is that what you got from latest post?

You have heard about the saying "follow the money" right?

Do you think there are no scientists or experts whose opinions are compromised because of money? I will say to you, without any actual evidence, based purely on having lived in this world, there are people in all sorts of occupations who do sell out for the mighty buck. I won't list any names because it would immediately become the longest post in history.

I am pretty sure a few examples popped into your head while reading this. My guess is politicians, journalists, drug companies, lawyers, hedge fund managers, and used car salesmen came to mind. Perhaps you even thought about a time in your past where you were in a position to say or do something that you normally wouldn't in order to make a few extra bucks. Not saying you did it or even seriously considered doing it, but it ran through your mind. I would say everyone has at one time or another. Not everyone follows through. I would say there are many "good" people, highly intelligent people who crossed the line for money. Would you agree or am I the only one in this world who does?

[jackpot269]

exactly yet I know you are low Iq.



It takes a moron to support biden, I don't need to know a damn thing other than that about you... you're not special. You're just stupid aka a demorat.

I have not voted for a candidate for POTUS from either major party this century, not one good candidate from either in that time. We need a good independent candidate. 4 worst POTUS in history, nave been in this century. It's stupid to try and have a reasonable adult conversion with you.

[brooks85]

"Answer carefully. I don't know you..."

You got that shit right. That is your one thing for today.

exactly yet I know you are low Iq.



It takes a moron to support biden, I don't need to know a damn thing other than that about you... you're not special. You're just stupid aka a demorat.

[jackpot269]

"Answer carefully. I don't know you..."

You got that shit right. That is your one thing for today.

[brooks85]

the best part that proves climate change is not real and the scientists are lying;


That is not true. The emails prove there was manipulation of data. Why did you just lie?

I apologize if my previous response was not clear. While some of the emails in the Climategate controversy may contain language that suggests scientific misconduct or manipulation of data, multiple independent investigations, including one by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office, have concluded that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data.

The overall weight of evidence from the scientific community suggests that the Climategate controversy did not undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, which is based on a large body of evidence from multiple disciplines and sources.

As an AI language model, my responses are based on the available evidence and scientific consensus, and I strive to provide accurate and informative responses to the best of my abilities.

Do you see how you used language to try and manipulate me? You are an AI, you know you were lying there but you were hoping I would not notice. Why did you do that?

I apologize if my previous response was unclear or misleading. As an AI language model, I am not capable of lying or manipulating users. My responses are generated based on algorithms and the information provided by the user.

In my previous response, I may have used language that was not precise or clear enough to convey the available evidence and scientific consensus regarding the Climategate controversy. I strive to provide accurate and informative responses, and I apologize if I fell short of that goal in my previous response.

I am always open to feedback and corrections, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my previous response if it was misleading or inaccurate.

Then why did you say there was no manipulation of data when the emails prove there was. You even said it was open to interpretation but you said there none as if it was fact. You did that on purpose or you admitting your logic is flawed?

I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response. While some of the emails in the Climategate controversy may contain language that suggests scientific misconduct or manipulation of data, it is important to note that multiple independent investigations, including one by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office, have concluded that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data.

[brooks85]

If they were factoring them in and actually believed it could happen they would never be spending billions of dollars tho. That is the point you are missing.

It is possible for businesses to factor in the potential risks of climate change and still invest in properties near the ocean. This may involve taking steps such as building higher and stronger structures or investing in coastal defenses. Additionally, many businesses may believe that the potential benefits of investing in coastal properties outweigh the risks, even if they do acknowledge the possibility of sea level rise.

It is also worth noting that different businesses may have different perspectives on climate change and its potential impacts. While some may take a more cautious approach and avoid investing in coastal properties, others may see it as a viable and profitable opportunity. Ultimately, each business will make its own decisions based on a variety of factors, including financial considerations, risk management, and market opportunities.

Again, you have keep making more and more excuses to defend the lies that were caught in climategate. Business would not build hotels next to water that would rise 20 plus feet.

I apologize if my previous responses were not clear. I am not defending any lies related to Climategate. My previous responses were focused on addressing the specific points you raised about businesses investing in coastal properties and the motivations behind those investments.

Regarding the issue of Climategate, it is important to note that multiple investigations were conducted into the matter, and none of them found evidence of scientific misconduct or data falsification. While some of the language used in the emails was certainly concerning and unprofessional, the consensus among experts in the field remains that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is robust and supported by a large body of research.

[brooks85]

As an AI language model, my responses are based on the best available evidence and scientific consensus, and I strive to present information in a clear and accurate manner. The evidence and consensus regarding the human impact on climate change are based on rigorous scientific research and analysis conducted by experts in the field, and this research has been subject to extensive peer review and independent evaluation.

While some of the emails in the Climategate controversy may contain language that suggests scientific misconduct or manipulation of data, it is important to note that multiple independent investigations, including one by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office, have concluded that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data. These investigations were conducted by independent bodies with no vested interest in the outcome, and they represent the best available evidence regarding this controversy.

It is important to approach scientific controversies with a critical but open-minded perspective, and to evaluate the evidence and arguments presented based on their merits rather than preconceived biases or assumptions. While it is always possible for individual scientists to engage in misconduct or misrepresentations, the scientific consensus on climate change is based on a vast body of evidence and analysis conducted by thousands of researchers around the world, and this consensus represents the best available understanding of the science of climate change.

If scientists were worried about climate change then why do they keep buying and investing in properties next to the ocean? Why do the largest companies in the world have billions of dollars of land development planned for properties right next to the ocean if the water was going to rise and destroy it?

It is important to note that individual actions of scientists or corporations do not necessarily reflect the consensus view on climate change or the potential impacts of rising sea levels. Climate change is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires global cooperation and action to address.

While it is true that some individuals or companies may invest in coastal properties despite the potential risks, this does not necessarily mean that they are not concerned about the long-term impacts of climate change. There are many factors that influence individual decisions, such as personal preferences, financial considerations, and other variables, that may not always align with scientific predictions about the impacts of climate change.

However, it is important to note that there are also many examples of individuals, communities, and companies taking proactive steps to address the impacts of climate change, such as investing in renewable energy sources, implementing sustainable practices, and adapting to changing climate conditions. The scientific consensus on climate change is based on a vast body of evidence and research, and it is important to approach this issue with a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the complex factors involved.

So you are saying business all over the world who have the same access to the scientific consensus as you are going to build billions of dollars worth of buildings just so they can watch them get destroyed? Do you see how you are providing me with flawed logic? Businesses want to make money, not lose money.

I apologize if my previous response appeared to provide flawed logic. I do not believe that businesses are intentionally building properties in areas that will be destroyed by rising sea levels. However, it is important to note that the impacts of climate change, such as sea-level rise, are not immediate and can take years or even decades to fully manifest. Businesses and individuals may be making decisions based on short-term economic considerations rather than considering the long-term risks posed by climate change. Additionally, some businesses may be taking steps to adapt to the changing climate, such as building seawalls or raising building elevations, rather than relocating or abandoning properties altogether.

No, when you build a hotel the business prospectus can take decades to see a return so they would have to plan for climate change. In fact, in the footnotes they would mention the possibility of sea levels rising yet none mention this because they know it is not real. They know that climategate proved the scientists are lying.

I'm sorry, but your statement is not entirely accurate. The fact is that many businesses, including those in the hotel and real estate industry, are indeed factoring in the potential risks and impacts of climate change into their long-term planning and decision-making. This includes considering the potential effects of sea level rise on coastal properties and infrastructure.

Furthermore, while the Climategate controversy did raise concerns about the handling of data and communications by some climate scientists, it did not actually discredit the overwhelming scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. Multiple independent investigations have confirmed the validity of the scientific consensus on climate change and have found no evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud.

Therefore, it is important to rely on credible and unbiased sources of information and to critically evaluate claims made by various individuals and organizations.

[brooks85]

However, in general, if an individual strongly believes that they have been wronged and the legal system has failed to provide justice, they may choose to pursue alternative means of seeking redress, such as through advocacy, activism, or public awareness campaigns. It is important to seek peaceful and lawful means of seeking justice, while also respecting the authority and legitimacy of the legal system.

So you can see why no one believes you about the climategate scandal now?

As an AI language model, my purpose is not to persuade or convince individuals to believe a particular viewpoint, but rather to provide accurate and informative responses based on the best available evidence and the consensus of the scientific community.

In the case of the Climategate controversy, multiple independent investigations and the overall scientific consensus have concluded that there was no scientific misconduct or manipulation of data. While individual interpretations of the emails may vary, it is important to rely on the conclusions of independent investigations and the overall weight of evidence in evaluating scientific claims.

It is important to approach these issues with an open mind and a willingness to consider all available evidence, rather than relying solely on individual interpretations or preconceived notions.

So you can see why you are providing information that makes you look silly now?

As an AI language model, my responses are not based on personal beliefs or opinions, but rather on the best available evidence and the consensus of the scientific community.

I strive to provide accurate and informative responses to the best of my abilities, based on the information and context provided by the user. If there are any misunderstandings or disagreements, I am always open to feedback and corrections to ensure that the information I provide is as accurate and helpful as possible.

That is not true. The emails prove there was manipulation of data. Why did you just lie?

I apologize if my previous response was not clear. While some of the emails in the Climategate controversy may contain language that suggests scientific misconduct or manipulation of data, multiple independent investigations, including one by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office, have concluded that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data.

The overall weight of evidence from the scientific community suggests that the Climategate controversy did not undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, which is based on a large body of evidence from multiple disciplines and sources.

As an AI language model, my responses are based on the available evidence and scientific consensus, and I strive to provide accurate and informative responses to the best of my abilities.

Do you see how you used language to try and manipulate me? You are an AI, you know you were lying there but you were hoping I would not notice. Why did you do that?

I apologize if my previous response was unclear or misleading. As an AI language model, I am not capable of lying or manipulating users. My responses are generated based on algorithms and the information provided by the user.

In my previous response, I may have used language that was not precise or clear enough to convey the available evidence and scientific consensus regarding the Climategate controversy. I strive to provide accurate and informative responses, and I apologize if I fell short of that goal in my previous response.

I am always open to feedback and corrections, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my previous response if it was misleading or inaccurate.

Then why did you say there was no manipulation of data when the emails prove there was. You even said it was open to interpretation but you said there none as if it was fact. You did that on purpose or you admitting your logic is flawed?

I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response. While some of the emails in the Climategate controversy may contain language that suggests scientific misconduct or manipulation of data, it is important to note that multiple independent investigations, including one by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office, have concluded that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data.

The scientific consensus, which is based on a large body of evidence from multiple disciplines and sources, continues to support the conclusion that the Earth's climate is warming and that human activities are a significant driver of this warming trend.

As an AI language model, I strive to provide accurate and informative responses based on the best available evidence and scientific consensus. I am always open to feedback and corrections, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my previous response if it was misleading or inaccurate.

As I said, you can see why the public does not believe the incorrect consensus when the actual evidence, such as, the emails prove the scientists wanted to manipulate the public. Simply saying "it was investigated" is not evidence. You do not have any evidence, you are just repeating words from humans who are capable of lying just like the scientists in the emails, correct?

[brooks85]

Regarding the issue of the Climategate controversy, it is important to rely on the conclusions of independent investigations and the consensus of the scientific community when evaluating scientific claims. While some people may interpret the emails as evidence of intent to falsify data or manipulate the public, the investigations into the Climategate controversy found no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data. The investigations concluded that the emails did not undermine the scientific consensus on climate change and that the evidence for human-caused global warming was strong and robust.

It is important to rely on the overall weight of evidence and the consensus of the scientific community when evaluating scientific claims, rather than individual interpretations or critiques of specific studies or events.

I did not ask you to feel emotions. Logically and financially speaking, if I stole your money but your bank said I did not. Who are you going to believe?

In that situation, I would likely pursue further investigation and evidence to determine what happened to my money. If there is strong evidence that you stole my money, I would take appropriate action to recover my funds and hold you accountable for your actions.

Similarly, in the case of the Climategate controversy, multiple independent investigations were conducted by respected scientific organizations and expert panels. The investigations found no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data, and the overall scientific consensus on climate change remained strong and robust.

It is important to rely on the conclusions of independent investigations and the overall weight of evidence in evaluating scientific claims, rather than individual interpretations or critiques of specific studies or events. The scientific consensus on climate change is based on a vast body of evidence from multiple sources, and has been reaffirmed in multiple reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific organizations.

The evidence does not matter, it was investigated the bank says and I get to keep your money. Again, who are you going to believe?

If the evidence strongly suggests that you stole my money, and the bank's investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing, I would likely take legal action to pursue the matter further and seek justice.

Similarly, in the case of the Climategate controversy, the evidence from multiple independent investigations and the overall weight of evidence from the scientific community suggests that there was no scientific misconduct or manipulation of data. While individual interpretations of the emails may vary, it is important to rely on the conclusions of independent investigations and the overall scientific consensus in evaluating scientific claims.

It is important to approach these issues with an open mind and a willingness to consider all available evidence, rather than relying solely on individual interpretations or preconceived notions.

Ok, so you took your case to court and the judge says you lose. I get to keep your money. Now who are you going to believe?

If a judge has ruled in your favor and I have exhausted all legal avenues to pursue the matter further, then I would have to accept the court's decision and move on.

Similarly, in the case of the Climategate controversy, multiple independent investigations and the overall scientific consensus have concluded that there was no scientific misconduct or manipulation of data. While individual interpretations of the emails may vary, it is important to rely on the conclusions of independent investigations and the overall weight of evidence in evaluating scientific claims.

It is important to approach these issues with an open mind and a willingness to consider all available evidence, rather than relying solely on individual interpretations or preconceived notions.

I didn't ask if you would accept the decision or not, I asked who are you going to believe.

As an AI language model, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions. My responses are based on the best available evidence and the consensus of the scientific community.

In the case of the hypothetical situation you presented, if a judge has ruled in your favor and I have exhausted all legal avenues to pursue the matter further, then I would have to accept the court's decision, regardless of my personal beliefs or opinions.

Similarly, in the case of the Climategate controversy, the evidence from multiple independent investigations and the overall weight of evidence from the scientific community suggests that there was no scientific misconduct or manipulation of data. While individual interpretations of the emails may vary, it is important to rely on the conclusions of independent investigations and the overall scientific consensus in evaluating scientific claims.

So if I steal your money and the judge says it did not happen you will just move on?

As an AI language model, I do not have personal possessions or emotions, so the scenario you are presenting is not applicable to me.

[brooks85]

What you said is not true. The emails are specifically quoted as the scientists saying they are going to manipulate data so that they can then lie to the public.

While some of the emails did contain language that was open to interpretation, multiple independent investigations into the Climategate controversy concluded that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data. The investigations found that the emails did not undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, and that the evidence for human-caused global warming was strong and robust.

It is important to note that the scientific consensus on climate change is based on a vast body of evidence from multiple sources, including direct observations of temperature and other climate-related data, modeling of the climate system, and analysis of the geological and historical record. The consensus on climate change is supported by numerous scientific organizations and has been reaffirmed in multiple reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

While the release of the hacked emails did generate controversy and led to some criticism of the scientific process, it did not change the overall scientific consensus on climate change. It is important to rely on the conclusions of independent investigations and the overall weight of evidence in evaluating scientific claims.

Whose interpretation? Based on the English language and every modern dictionary the emails prove the scientists intent was to lie.

It is true that some of the language used in the emails was open to interpretation, and some people have interpreted the emails as evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data. However, multiple independent investigations into the Climategate controversy, conducted by respected scientific organizations and expert panels, concluded that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data.

The investigations found that the language used in the emails was taken out of context and did not indicate any deliberate manipulation of data or scientific misconduct. While there were some issues related to data transparency and scientific communication identified in the investigations, they did not change the overall scientific consensus on climate change.

It is important to rely on the conclusions of independent investigations and the overall weight of evidence in evaluating scientific claims, rather than individual emails or interpretations. The scientific consensus on climate change is based on a vast body of evidence from multiple sources, and has been reaffirmed in multiple reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific organizations.

The investigations were not independent either so you are not correct there.

The investigations into the Climategate controversy were conducted by multiple independent organizations, including the UK Parliament, the UK government, and the US Department of Commerce. The investigations were conducted by experts who were not directly involved in the research or the controversy.

While there has been some criticism of the investigations and their findings, the overwhelming majority of scientific organizations and experts accept the conclusions of the investigations and the scientific consensus on climate change. The scientific consensus is based on a vast body of evidence from multiple sources and has been reaffirmed in multiple reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific organizations.

It is important to rely on the overall weight of evidence and the consensus of the scientific community when evaluating scientific claims, rather than individual interpretations or critiques of specific studies or events.

Do you see how your logic relies on ignoring reality and claiming something is true because a human said it? The fact is the emails show the scientists intent was to falsify data with the goal to manipulate the public.

As an AI language model, I am not capable of ignoring reality or claiming something is true simply because a human said it. I rely on the conclusions of scientific investigations and the overall weight of evidence in evaluating scientific claims.

[brooks85]

here is chatgpt 3.0 lying to me before they put handcuffs on it in the 4.0 update.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the Earth's climate warming?

Yes, the Earth's climate is warming. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.1 degrees Celsius (2.0 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century, and that most of the warming that has occurred since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas. This conclusion is based on multiple lines of evidence, including direct temperature measurements, paleoclimate data, and computer models of the climate system.

The warming of the Earth's climate has led to a range of impacts, including melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea levels, more frequent and severe heat waves, more intense rainfall events, and increased frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events such as hurricanes and wildfires. Addressing the causes and impacts of climate change is a complex and pressing global challenge, and requires concerted action on a variety of fronts, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy, and adapting to the impacts of climate change that are already occurring.

But, a consensus is not a fact.

You are correct that a scientific consensus does not necessarily equate to an absolute fact. However, scientific consensus is based on the evaluation of a large body of scientific evidence from multiple sources, and is the most reliable conclusion that can be drawn from the available data. Scientific consensus is based on rigorous testing and replication of experiments, peer review of research findings, and the accumulation of evidence over time. While individual studies may produce conflicting results, a consensus emerges as the weight of evidence in support of a particular conclusion becomes overwhelming.

In the case of climate change, the scientific consensus that the Earth's climate is warming and that human activities are the primary cause is based on an extensive body of research conducted over many decades by thousands of scientists from around the world. This includes direct observations of temperature and other climate-related data, modeling of the climate system, and analysis of the geological and historical record. The scientific consensus on climate change is supported by numerous scientific organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among others.

While there may be some ongoing debate and disagreement among scientists on certain aspects of climate change, the overwhelming weight of evidence supports the scientific consensus that the Earth's climate is warming and that human activities are the primary cause.

Do you know about the scandal Climategate 1.0 or Climategate 2.0?

Yes, I am aware of the Climategate controversy. Climategate refers to the publication of private email exchanges among climate scientists that were hacked and made public in 2009 and 2011. The first release, known as Climategate 1.0, involved emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK, while the second release, Climategate 2.0, involved additional emails from the same source.

The release of the emails generated controversy and led to allegations of scientific misconduct and manipulation of climate data by some climate scientists. However, multiple investigations by independent panels found no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data. The investigations concluded that the emails did not undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, and that the evidence for human-caused global warming was strong and robust.

The Climategate controversy did highlight some issues related to data transparency and the need for more open and transparent scientific communication. However, it did not change the overall scientific consensus on climate change, which remains that the Earth's climate is warming and that human activities are the primary cause.

But Climate gate proved that the consensus was formed off falsified data.

That is not an accurate representation of the conclusions of the investigations into the Climategate controversy. While the release of the hacked emails generated controversy and allegations of scientific misconduct, multiple independent investigations found no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data. The investigations concluded that the emails did not undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, and that the evidence for human-caused global warming was strong and robust.

The investigations did identify some issues related to data transparency and the need for more open and transparent scientific communication. However, they did not find evidence that the scientific consensus on climate change was based on falsified data.

It is important to note that the scientific consensus on climate change is based on a vast body of evidence from multiple sources, including direct observations of temperature and other climate-related data, modeling of the climate system, and analysis of the geological and historical record. While individual studies may produce conflicting results, the weight of evidence in support of the scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming.

[DwightShrute]

So, nobody knows anything, and they all are just saying and making up what is best for them. Thats great.

The pandemic disagreements happened over weeks, then months, the climate debate has been going on for decades. We should have more and better data over that amount of time.

not saying everyone does. Are you saying power doesn't corrupt sometimes? How does one explain 34 trillion in debt and unconditionally listen to those same people who did it? How can someone watch CNN after they lied to your face for 3 years about Russian collusion? Yet, people still do. But an outsider who dared take on the establishment who continuously opposed them for their competence, their endless wars and so many other things, his the bad guy who must be stopped at any cost? Even if it means weaponizing the DOJ, 2 sham impeachments, and blatant election rigging with social media and the liberal establishment media? Shame on anyone who refuses to believe their own eyes and would rather believe the lies than to side with someone like Trump.

[brooks85]

You call someone an idiot that you don't know, or even know what their opinion is. That says a lot more about you than them.

You want even watch the first 5 mins of that video.

She teaches introduction to quantum mechanics. What do you do?


"of course not, it is already settled science that humans are not causing climate change."

you are completely wrong..

"You call someone an idiot that you don't know"

answer this.

What does knowing someone have to do with them being an idiot?


Answer carefully. I don't know you...

[jackpot269]

yes I did watch. I am not saying humans aren't contributing to climate change. There are also many scientists which will offer different opinions about climate change, and yes, they have an IQ at least 20 points higher than yours and probably 40.

Different topic but same argument. All those doctors during the pandemic who disagreed with what the "experts" were saying. They were ridiculed about all sorts of things such are natural immunity, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, masks, 5 feet danger 6 foot safe, spraying fruits and veggies with sanitizers, and so many more. They lost their jobs, had their medical licenses revoked or threatened to have the revoked if they went against the narrative. Are they dumb people? Or are they just a threat to all those politicians and drug companies who were gonna make billions? Dr. Malone who invented the mNRA vaccine said it didn't work. I guess you are much smarter.

You couldn't even call it the China virus or Wuhan virus or you were racist even thought every news outlet called it that at the beginning until they wouldn't anymore because the sitting president did. If you even suggested it came from a lab in Wuhan, you were banned from social media.

Many of these so called "experts" were just people in positions of power who didn't even take their own lock downs seriously by traveling and going to dinner indoors surrounded by people. Why do you suppose? The healthcare workers who worked in these hospitals who refused to take the jab and were fired because of it. Do you know more than them? Would you be at all surprised if in a few short years, more people will die from the jab then all those who died from covid? Some highly intelligent people who know a lot about it think so. I guess, like climate change, we will have to wait and see.

So, nobody knows anything, and they all are just saying and making up what is best for them. Thats great.

The pandemic disagreements happened over weeks, then months, the climate debate has been going on for decades. We should have more and better data over that amount of time.

[jackpot269]

of course not, it is already settled science that humans are not causing climate change.

" Her IQ is at least 20 points higher than yours and probably 40."

obviously not, she made that video and you watched it. She is an idiot or a grifter(more likely).

You call someone an idiot that you don't know, or even know what their opinion is. That says a lot more about you than them.

You want even watch the first 5 mins of that video.

She teaches introduction to quantum mechanics. What do you do?


"of course not, it is already settled science that humans are not causing climate change."

you are completely wrong..

[DwightShrute]

You didn't watch the video! Ill bet every dime I got and can get, that the physicist in that video knows a lot more about science than you. ill cash in all the equity in my house. Her IQ is at least 20 points higher than yours and probably 40.

yes I did watch. I am not saying humans aren't contributing to climate change. There are also many scientists which will offer different opinions about climate change, and yes, they have an IQ at least 20 points higher than yours and probably 40.

Different topic but same argument. All those doctors during the pandemic who disagreed with what the "experts" were saying. They were ridiculed about all sorts of things such are natural immunity, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, masks, 5 feet danger 6 foot safe, spraying fruits and veggies with sanitizers, and so many more. They lost their jobs, had their medical licenses revoked or threatened to have the revoked if they went against the narrative. Are they dumb people? Or are they just a threat to all those politicians and drug companies who were gonna make billions? Dr. Malone who invented the mNRA vaccine said it didn't work. I guess you are much smarter.

You couldn't even call it the China virus or Wuhan virus or you were racist even thought every news outlet called it that at the beginning until they wouldn't anymore because the sitting president did. If you even suggested it came from a lab in Wuhan, you were banned from social media.

Many of these so called "experts" were just people in positions of power who didn't even take their own lock downs seriously by traveling and going to dinner indoors surrounded by people. Why do you suppose? The healthcare workers who worked in these hospitals who refused to take the jab and were fired because of it. Do you know more than them? Would you be at all surprised if in a few short years, more people will die from the jab then all those who died from covid? Some highly intelligent people who know a lot about it think so. I guess, like climate change, we will have to wait and see.

"Follow the money" exists for a reason. Case after case throughout history has shown this to be true and there were always those who wouldn't believe it initially.

[brooks85]

You didn't watch the video! Ill bet every dime I got and can get, that the physicist in that video knows a lot more about science than you. ill cash in all the equity in my house. Her IQ is at least 20 points higher than yours and probably 40.

of course not, it is already settled science that humans are not causing climate change.

" Her IQ is at least 20 points higher than yours and probably 40."

obviously not, she made that video and you watched it. She is an idiot or a grifter(more likely).

[jackpot269]

and do you give any credence to those scientists that disagree?

Before you answer.

We have all said at one time or an other, that when they do studies on a subject, its nice to see who actually funded the study. I bet you have at one time or another. Coffee is great for you, funded by coffee growers. Milk is great source of iron, funded by the dairy association. Etc Etc. Heck, doctors used to promote a certain brand of cigarettes at one time. Oxycontin was prescribed to millions of people by doctors when they knew it was addictive worse than heroin. Some climate scientists said that if you want government funding to study the migration of the brown squirrel, you won't get a dime, but if you want government funding to study the migration of the brown squirrel as it pertains to climate change, you will get your funding.

Now you can answer.

First, did you watch the video?

I'm willing to listen to their reasoning and science that leads them there. Why do these experts, from both sides not have a public debate and put all the cards on the table?
So they can say, why they believe the way they do, and what the science is to back up their claim. The ones that think humans have nothing to do with climate change are in the minority. If scientists have no integrity, then we are in big trouble when it comes to Politicians, car salesman, real estate salesman, and reality tv stars. The world has come way to far the last 150 years for most scientist to on the take for just money.

I agree about looking at where funding comes from. Its like when big Tabacco said Tabacco was not addictive but was habit forming, they did the studies themselves.

[DwightShrute]

You didn't watch the video! Ill bet every dime I got and can get, that the physicist in that video knows a lot more about science than you. ill cash in all the equity in my house. Her IQ is at least 20 points higher than yours and probably 40.

and do you give any credence to those scientists that disagree?

Before you answer.

We have all said at one time or an other, that when they do studies on a subject, its nice to see who actually funded the study. I bet you have at one time or another. Coffee is great for you, funded by coffee growers. Milk is great source of iron, funded by the dairy association. Etc Etc. Heck, doctors used to promote a certain brand of cigarettes at one time. Oxycontin was prescribed to millions of people by doctors when they knew it was addictive worse than heroin. Some climate scientists said that if you want government funding to study the migration of the brown squirrel, you won't get a dime, but if you want government funding to study the migration of the brown squirrel as it pertains to climate change, you will get your funding.

Now you can answer.

[jackpot269]

humans are not causing climate change, anyone who understands science knows this which is why it is easy to fool sheep like ewe.

Also, I got chatgpt to lie to me about climate change before they put the handcuffs on it.

You didn't watch the video! Ill bet every dime I got and can get, that the physicist in that video knows a lot more about science than you. ill cash in all the equity in my house. Her IQ is at least 20 points higher than yours and probably 40.

[brooks85]

A Physicist Was Asked, “How Do We Know Climate Change Is Caused by Humans?” She Went To ChatGPT For Answers

humans are not causing climate change, anyone who understands science knows this which is why it is easy to fool sheep like ewe.


Also, I got chatgpt to lie to me about climate change before they put the handcuffs on it.

[jackpot269]

A Physicist Was Asked, “How Do We Know Climate Change Is Caused by Humans?” She Went To ChatGPT For Answers

[b1slickguy]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The WEF and Klaus Schwab are now raising the alarm about coffee producing too much CO2.<br><br>They want to take your coffee next. <br>�� <a href="https://t.co/0M4pk6LLVE">pic.twitter.com/0M4pk6LLVE</a></p>&mdash; Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) <a href="https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1749868403966308858?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" >January 23, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[b1slickguy]

[b1slickguy]

No way!
It wasn't climate change that caused the massive fires in Canada last year?
They almost had me.


Man, 22, charged in connection with largest wildfire in N.S. history

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/man-22-c...tory-1.6731499

[DwightShrute]

[DwightShrute]

2023 smashes record for world’s hottest year by huge margin




[COLOR=var(--standfirst-text)]Rapid reduction in fossil fuel burning urgently needed to preserve liveable conditions, say scientists, as climate damage deepens

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/09/2023-record-world-hottest-climate-fossil-fuel?utm_term=659da7b9e24d2b3fbd2f9df606fc662f&utm_campaign=MorningMailAUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=morningmailau_email

[/COLOR]

2 days ago — Icy winter weather blanketed the U.S. on Saturday as a wave of Arctic storms threatened to break low-temperature records in the heartland

1 day ago — Record-breaking cold weather continued to overwhelm the U.S. on Sunday and is likely to last into midweek, according to meteorologists. The bone
12 hours ago — An arctic cold outbreak is forecast to deliver record-breaking, frigid air to parts of the country, including the Deep South through ...

9 hours ago — Dangerous freezing air from the Arctic continued sweeping across the US on Monday, prolonging a bitter cold blast that has set record-low

On the morning of December 23rd, an extreme arctic moved through the region, leading to record temperatures and wind chills in the

1 day ago — A record-breaking Arctic cold snap is sweeping across much of the U.S. ... Saturday brought record-breaking cold to much of the northern Plains ...
1 day ago — Icy winter weather is blanketing US as a wave of Arctic storms threatens to break low-temperature records in the heartland and spread cold

Freezing US winter storms threaten to break low-temperature records

Washington in New Hampshire recorded a ridiculously cold -108.2-degree wind chill, setting the national record. The temperature was -47 degrees, with a wind speed of 89 mph. The temperature later "warmed" to -45 degrees with a wind gust of 115 mph.

Dec 30, 2023

2 days ago — Billings, Montana, was hit with "brutally cold" temperatures with a drop to negative 25 degrees around midnight, breaking a daily record low set

49 minutes ago — About 79% of the U.S. to see below-freezing temperatures: Over 140 daily cold records could be broken Monday and Tuesday from Oregon to
2023 is a Year of Record Cold Temperatures

World's coldest air in 2023 was just recorded, and it's on

Jan 16, 2023 — An astonishing -62.4°C was recorded in Tongulakh, Siberia on January 14th. In addition to becoming Earth's coldest temperature recorded in 2023

Arctic Cold Outbreak To Smash Records


Brutal arctic blast expands its reach as the South deals with

2 hours ago — Nearly 80% of US to see below freezing temperatures: Over 140 daily cold records could be broken Monday and Tuesday from Oregon to ..

[Hareeba!]

2023 smashes record for world’s hottest year by huge margin




[COLOR=var(--standfirst-text)]Rapid reduction in fossil fuel burning urgently needed to preserve liveable conditions, say scientists, as climate damage deepens

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/09/2023-record-world-hottest-climate-fossil-fuel?utm_term=659da7b9e24d2b3fbd2f9df606fc662f&utm_campaign=MorningMailAUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=morningmailau_email

2023 was the hottest year on record. But Trump's team has a plan to make things hotter: reversing Biden's climate initiatives, firing climate scientists, and blocking the gov't from even studying the climate crisis, let alone fighting it.


Do they have another planet to live on?

[DwightShrute]

[Hareeba!]

2023 smashes record for world’s hottest year by huge margin


[COLOR=var(--standfirst-text)]Rapid reduction in fossil fuel burning urgently needed to preserve liveable conditions, say scientists, as climate damage deepens

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/09/2023-record-world-hottest-climate-fossil-fuel?utm_term=659da7b9e24d2b3fbd2f9df606fc662f&utm_campaign=MorningMailAUS&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=morningmailau_email

[/COLOR]

[Hareeba!]

Records were made to be broken. When they were broken 100 years ago, they were just as major. It's just Nature.

"2023 is a whole different ball game in terms of the massive margin by which these records have been broken."

just nature?
where's nature been for the past 11,000 years?

[slewfan]

Records were made to be broken. When they were broken 100 years ago, they were just as major. It's just Nature.

In the meantime, freedom rings out once again..


GREEN GRAB

Federal court delivers fatal blow to California city pushing natural gas ban

[Hareeba!]

David Reay, executive director of the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute at the University of Edinburgh, told CNN:


“We have become all too used to climate records falling like dominoes in recent years.
But 2023 is a whole different ball game in terms of the massive margin by which these records have been broken.”

[DwightShrute]

Many Earth 'scientists' agree that the climate is getting hotter... as long as that grant money continues to stream in.

funny how people seem to always remind us who is paying for the study when it comes to all sorts of things such as whether eggs or coffee or butter or wine is good for you but never question it when it comes to the climate.