toldailytopic:Girl with mental illnesses is now the face of the Global Warming hoax

genuineoriginal

New member
Astrophysicist GOES OFF on Greta Thunberg and Climate Alarmists

Beginning at 3:46
"Basically, what's happening in this new Greenhouse Effect that they created, that they invented, it's basically a scheme where heat recycles itself. And they have this scheme where the heat in the atmosphere is recycling itself so much that the atmosphere provides twice the heat than the sun does. They actually have this in their peer reviewed literature and meteorology journals. They actually show diagrams of the air providing twice the heat to the Earth than the sun does."​

If the models are based on the air providing twice the heat to the Earth than the sun does, then there is no question that the models will predict runaway Global Warming instead of anything that matches reality.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
You are now claiming that the technology used for measuring wind speed in 1933 and 1934 (both years had 2 category 5 hurricanes) is the same technology used to measure wind speed in our current decade?

Buoy data is available from 1970 on. I'd be open to your evidence that the buoys used then or now are inaccurate. What do you have?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Astrophysicist GOES OFF on Greta Thunberg and Climate Alarmists

I suppose you have your accountant do your dental work, too? Guess why it's so hard to find someone who actually knows what he's talking about, willing to take a denier position.

Denier fairy tale:
"Basically, what's happening in this new Greenhouse Effect that they created, that they invented, it's basically a scheme where heat recycles itself. And they have this scheme where the heat in the atmosphere is recycling itself so much that the atmosphere provides twice the heat than the sun does. They actually have this in their peer reviewed literature and meteorology journals. They actually show diagrams of the air providing twice the heat to the Earth than the sun does."

If the models are based on the air providing twice the heat to the Earth than the sun does, then there is no question that the models will predict runaway Global Warming instead of anything that matches reality.

No climatologist I know of thinks air provides more heat than the Sun. The fact that your space physicist was unwilling to cite anything from the literature to support his story, pretty much settles that issue. The question is "how does increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere retain heat from the sun?"

I'd like to see the article from a climatology journal that predicts runaway global warming. If he's really an astrophysicist, he should know what "runaway global warming" actually is. And I don't think he does. Hint: it doesn't mean the world gets a few degrees warmer, and ecological disasters ensue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

Your guy's fairy tale, notwithstanding. Since he was reluctant to provide any evidence, you think you can provide something from a climatology journal?

A quick survey turned up nothing at all about the atmosphere providing thermal energy, and certainly no climatologist predicting that we'll have "runaway global warming."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Speaking of not providing evidence, the Darwinists don't even want to do a little maths. :think:

The Darwinists think that six category 5 storms in four years is an unexpected result. Let's see them show that with a percentage. :up:

Here, I'll even get them started: The probability of one in one year is 0.44.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
the Obama's are buying waterfront property for 14 million

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/uploads/research/Unnatural-Coastal-Floods-2016.pdf

the Obama's are clearly not worried about rising sea levels

I wouldn't be that worried about Martha's Vinyard for decades:

It's not one of the more vulnerable points. By 2050, it's expected (at current rates) to have about a 1.5 ft. rise. Apparently, the house isn't close enough to the shore to be threatened at all in 30 years. For lot of reasons,the rise won't be the same everywhere.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/uploads/research/Unnatural-Coastal-Floods-2016.pdf



I wouldn't be that worried about Martha's Vinyard for decades:

It's not one of the more vulnerable points. By 2050, it's expected (at current rates) to have about a 1.5 ft. rise. Apparently, the house isn't close enough to the shore to be threatened at all in 30 years. For lot of reasons,the rise won't be the same everywhere.
0.442 will give you the probability of 2 in 2.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
You are now claiming that the technology used for measuring wind speed in 1933 and 1934 (both years had 2 category 5 hurricanes) is the same technology used to measure wind speed in our current decade?
Buoy data is available from 1970 on. I'd be open to your evidence that the buoys used then or now are inaccurate. What do you have?
Since you think that 1970 is earlier than 1933 and 1934, your opinions about the accuracy of the technology used to measure wind speed in the 1930s are completely invalid.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned

Since you think that 1970 is earlier than 1933 and 1934, your opinions about the accuracy of the technology used to measure wind speed in the 1930s are completely invalid.

That's not the weirdest misconception you've expressed here, but it's close. I'm just pointing out that for almost 50 years, the data has been coming from the same instruments.

As to the wind speeds measured before 1970, I'd be open to whatever evidence you have that the methods then were significantly less accurate than today. "Significantly" would be "enough to change a category 4 hurricane into a category 5 hurricane."

Let's see what you've got. Prediction: nothing.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/uploads/research/Unnatural-Coastal-Floods-2016.pdf



I wouldn't be that worried about Martha's Vinyard for decades:

It's not one of the more vulnerable points. By 2050, it's expected (at current rates) to have about a 1.5 ft. rise. Apparently, the house isn't close enough to the shore to be threatened at all in 30 years. For lot of reasons,the rise won't be the same everywhere.
Obama's place is at sea level and they're not worried because they know
that climate change rhetoric is all about scaring little girls
like the old lies of an impending ice age ,over population & global warming .

Obama's place on google link 41°21'38.4"N 70°32'47.5"W elevation sea level 0ft link
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Obama's place is at sea level

You've been snockered on that. Even a rabidly anti-Obama hack, who was an early birther, admits otherwise...

Do you think these 'folks', as Obama liked to say, believe this?

WhatsMyElevation lists the elevation of their home as being 3 feet above sea level. Others place it at 10 feet.

Either way, either the Obamas made a very stupid investment, or they don't believe in the nonsense that they bankrupted this country for.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/...-3-10-feet-above-sea-level-daniel-greenfield/

What's wrong with that? The dimwit never actually looked up projections for the area. By 2050, 1.5 feet. So not an issue in Obama's lifetime. :chuckle:

One is a sucker only as long as one uncritically believes without checking. When someone tell you something you really, really want to be true, that's when you're most vulnerable. And it's when you need to most carefully do some checking.

Could save a lot of future embarrassment.
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
You've been snockered on that. Even a rabidly anti-Obama hack, who was an early birther, admits otherwise...

Do you think these 'folks', as Obama liked to say, believe this?

WhatsMyElevation lists the elevation of their home as being 3 feet above sea level. Others place it at 10 feet.

Either way, either the Obamas made a very stupid investment, or they don't believe in the nonsense that they bankrupted this country for.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/...-3-10-feet-above-sea-level-daniel-greenfield/

What's wrong with that? The dimwit never actually looked up projections for the area. By 2050, 1.5 feet. So not an issue in Obama's lifetime. :chuckle:

One is a sucker only as long as one uncritically believes without checking. When someone tell you something you really, really want to be true, that's when you're most vulnerable. And it's when you need to most carefully do some checking.

Could save a lot of future embarrassment.

so obama the champion of climate change rhetoric lives like he is not worried about it .:chuckle:
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Why are the Global Warming Hoaxers putting a girl with mental illness in front of cameras?
She is suffering from anxiety, depression, and Asperger syndrome.


How dare they steal her dreams and childhood with their empty words.

I agree with Andrew Bolt when he says, "I have such contempt for all the adults that made this girl cry with their global warming lies."

I almost feel sad this needs to be said, but Asperger's is not a mental illness. Would you call Downs Syndrome a mental illness?
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
(Barbarian notes that even in the worst scenario, Obama's property is not going to be affected by sea level rises in his lifetime)


so obama the champion of climate change

You guys got tired of Algore? (Barbarian checks) George W. Bush has said what Obama said about climate change.


lives like he is not worried about it

Having property above the projected rise line probably is a factor in that, um? :chuckle:
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
I almost feel sad this needs to be said, but Asperger's is not a mental illness. Would you call Downs Syndrome a mental illness?

In fact, people with Asperger's are often more intelligent than average, and other than being socially inept (unless they make a determined effort to learn the skill). Most of the people who disparaged the girl as "mentally ill" realize this; they just wanted a way to get at her personally.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
I almost feel sad this needs to be said, but Asperger's is not a mental illness.
Tell that to NIMH.

Autism Spectrum Disorder

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), a guide created by the American Psychiatric Association used to diagnose mental disorders, people with ASD have:

  • Difficulty with communication and interaction with other people
  • Restricted interests and repetitive behaviors
  • Symptoms that hurt the person’s ability to function properly in school, work, and other areas of life

Using the DSM-5, for example, people who were previously diagnosed as having Asperger’s syndrome would now be diagnosed as having autism spectrum disorder.

 
Top