Skip to content
  • Sea level rise has remained steady for the last 800 years since England started keeping records. It’s cooler now than it was back then, by the way.

    There is no data supporting AGW (except the stuff they just make up out of nothing). Every AGW model is bunk – whatever data you feed it, it always shows warming. There has been no warming for the last 20 years.

  • It’s funny how “scientists” measure the earth’s temperature to a hundredth of a degree, using thermometers that are only accurate to ±1 degree. That’s not how measurement science works.

    It’s also peculiar how they keep altering the temperature records, always making the past cooler and the present warmer than reality. It’s almost as if they had an agenda, and were altering the data to fit…

    • jim

      Scientists would never do that, reddit told me scientists are all benevolent hero’s who would sacrifice their lives for human knowledge!

    • TrueWOPR

      Remember, 1970s Lenard Neemoy told us that Global Cooling is a real phenomenon and by 1998 we’ll be in another ice age.

  • Albionic American

    Speaking of climate change, who appointed that creepy Scandinavian girl (a kind of Swedish Wednesday Addams) as the official poster child to scold us about our climate sins?

    • I expect an action figure that solved the problem, not a sympathy figure that empathize the problem.

    • JkvsCosby Memes Jtt

      Stop eating meat and use less water. Me change climate because im a young entitled white girl

      • don quixotes fetid corpse

        ((eats more meat and stocks up on water bottles for when the boogaloo breaks out))

    • Brandon

      Something tells me traveling halfway around the world just to say “duh, I printed out the UN report you already have” is awfully inefficient.

      I think she just feels guilty about farts because she’s been fingered as the gas culprit one too many times at school.

      If I came from a s***y country and had s***y parents I’d feel pretty mad too.

    • Divosa Uplanovytch

      The rulling class is doing a play for these Young adult novels where some teenage strunkly Mary Sue defeat the old’s people dominant elite.

    • Thomas Barajas

      (((They))) are trying pass the problems they made onto us. Exxon has known exactly what was going to happen since the 70’s but instead of doing somthing about it, which would hurt next quarter’s profits, they let it happen. What better way to keep us from realisibg who is truly at fault than by getting some whiny kid to screech at us about a problem corperate elites and boomers made a lifetime ago. Now we have to pay the price while they ride thier golden parachutes into the sunset.

      • Shay Vicemerski

        free market. stop bitching.

        • TRVTH

          The “free market” is (((their))) creation also.

        • Dustin Chiasson

          Whole point of the free market is for customers to keep it in check.

  • TCC

    If you fill a glass with ice water, and all the ice melts, the water will overflow from the glass and flood over everything you have.

    • Holyphonic

      Lol no it doesn’t. The volume of water the ice yields is the same as the ice itself displaced. You can actually do this experiment yourself and realize that there will be no overflow. The ice-caps were supposed to have melted years ago according to “science” and its predictions. They were wrong, just like they’ve been wrong for 40+ years.

      You’ll notice that aliens are now starting to pop up in the news constantly and the US Military is talking about them. Strange how, as the climate change hoax is no longer duping enough people, the other suggestion for world government is raising its head.

      “We have to come together to stop X existential threat that’s bigger than all of us!”

      • TCC

        I know. lol
        I was joking.

        • Holyphonic

          In current year, it’s impossible to be sure.

          • TCC

            I drink plenty of ice water, but I’ve yet to accrue flood damages as a result.

          • Logshaman

            Yes, but the ice caps are still big, keep that in mind.

            If global warming were to have actually been that bad according to scientists, what would end up happening is that Florida would actually be underwater.

            I still support the theory, but I think we need to look over the math and get our heads out of our asses

      • John Smith

        That doesn’t change the fact that 2016 and this year are tied for the hottest years recorded.

      • billaros1000

        You know there’s ice that’s on land, right? If icebergs floating melt, nothing really changes, but if ice that’s on land melts, that’s different

      • Dustin Chiasson

        Climate change slowed because we started doing things about it. That only proves the theory.

        • epic gamer man 123 gmaer boy 2

          says who?

          • Dustin Chiasson

            Says simple logic. If we’d have continued the trends from back then, the predictions may’ve happened, but we observably did. That proves changing our lifestyle changed the trend.

          • TRVTH

            “We must continue to sacrifice each family’s first-born child in order to keep away the plague of dancing pink elephants that only the shaman can see!”

          • Dustin Chiasson

            97% of scientific research doesn’t confirm the existence of dancing elephants.

          • TRVTH

            There’s nothing scientific about “White people sinned against Gaia by refusing to live in caves and watch two thirds of their children die of cholera before the age of two and now we’re all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED.”

            A hypothesis is by definition testable and falsifiable. Nothing “climatology” has yet produced meets this standard.

            It’s 100% politics, 0% science, brought to you by the usual suspects from the (((Frankfurt School))), all intended to terrify the hoi polloi into giving up liberty and turning over their lives to Top Men who Know Better and will Make the Right Choices.

            Here are a couple of quotes from the late (((Stephen Schneider))), who created the “global warming” meme in the first place.

            “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989, pp. 45–48

            “I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming.” From his article “Misleading Math about the Earth: Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist,” Scientific American, January 2002.

            Every word from these people is a lie, including “a,” “an,” and “the.” “I found a neat trick to hide the decline.”

          • Dustin Chiasson

            I don’t know whether you’re intentionally strawmanning or just don’t know anything about the science at all. By its nature, science contains uncertainties, but a core part of science is admitting uncertainties, not pretending to know what you don’t. We currently have a good understanding of how different chemicals react with each other in the atmosphere, and how heat is conducted differently by different chemicals. None of this Mother Gaia stuff you’re making up. It doesn’t take wizardry and voodoo to understand that if people all over the world pump toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, it has an effect on the world. Actions have consequences.

            And this “living in caves” stuff is complete hypocracy, considering denyers are the ones that want us to stick with coal power instead of developing cleaner and more sustainable ways of producing energy, therefore halting scientific progress.

            Are the “top men” you’re referring to the oil barons that pay scientists to synthesize “disproof” of climate change so they can keep selling oil and coal? The politicians who are also paid by coal companies to do nothing about climate change? Or the conservationist groups with shoestring budgets?

          • TRVTH

            Where’s the falsifiable proposition? Where’s the hypothesis?

            If it rains more, that’s because of “global warming.” If it rains less, that’s because of “global warming.” If it gets warmer, that’s because of “global warming.” If it gets colder, that’s “global warming” too. More hurricanes? “Global warming.” Fewer? Also “global warming.” If no possible combination of circumstances can disprove the claim, it’s not a testable proposition. If it’s not a testable proposition, it’s not a hypothesis. If it’s not a hypothesis, it’s opinion–meaningless noise.

            This is the scientific method. We observe the universe. We create a model and subject it to empirical test, in order to determine whether the test disproves it. If the experiment disproves the model, we discard it. If not, we retain the model pending empirical disproof, Either way we have learned something new about the universe that we did not know before. With this new knowledge, we go back to the first step, and observe the universe some more. This is what the scientific method IS. It used to be taught to ten-year-olds in the public schools.

            “Global warming” is not testable because no possible experimental result can falsify the claim. This means one of two things:

            1. the people pushing the idea–which fits so neatly with Leftist dogma that it appears to have been created to advance it–don’t understand the scientific method

            2. the people pushing the idea think that YOU don’t understand the scientific method

            Either way, these are politicians playing at science. If they don’t know, they’re incompetent. If they do, they’re liars and manipulators. Now consider that almost all “climate scientists” are Communists, who wish to tear down civilization and destroy the economy in order to bring about the revolution, and you will understand why all their proposals involve punishing working-class white people in white nations, raising their taxes and transferring their wealth to others.

            What caused the last Ice Age to end, by the way? Did the Neanderthals drive their automobiles too much, twelve thousand years ago, and cause “global warming” with automobile exhaust?

            The late Dr. Jerry Pournelle, science fiction author and retired NASA engineer, said:

            “in the late 1960’s, I found it difficult to come up with the average skin temperature of an astronaut in a full pressure suit to a one degree F accuracy. I used dime sized thin copper disks with thermocouples soldered to them; we taped them to the astronaut’s skin. We chose back of hand, mid back, mid abdomen, and other such places so that we would have some comparability: the point of the tests was to measure the ventilation systems in the suit. We could measure the air flow of the controlled temperature air we used for ventilation, and the input temperature of that air, so that got another thermocouple from the harness. One of the thermocouples in the 12 thermocouple set went into a carafe of melting ice; the ice had been frozen from distilled water. That gave us a reference temperature accurate to 0.1° F. The thermocouple machine printed what it could see at one minute intervals; when we consolidated the data we sampled those one-minute readings since we didn’t have the data entry capability to use them all for average…”

            Earth’s atmosphere, if we indulge the useful fiction that it only goes up 200 kilometers and stops there, is 100 billion cubic kilometers. The spacesuit’s volume was one fifth of a cubic meter. The Earth’s atmosphere is is 5 * 10^20 times the size of that spacesuit. That’s a five followed by twenty zeroes.

            If someone says that he knows the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere down to one tenth of a degree Celsius, and furthermore claims not merely to know this for the present day but also for centuries and even millennia in the past, and furthermore claims to be able to predict it for centuries into the future, that’s pretty impressive and I’m very curious about how the measurements were taken and how the predictive model works. The “climate scientists” get awfully quiet when you ask them those questions, though, and some of them even invoke baroque and bizarre conspiracy theories, accusing you of “shilling” for “Big Oil.” (“‘Shut up,’ he explained.”)

            Likewise, all of this “global warming” that they claim to have measured is claimed to have arisen by the mechanism of human activity adding to the carbon dioxide levels of the air. We are told that it absorbs infrared radiation. But so does water vapor, in the same frequency bands, and vastly more efficiently, by at least two orders of magnitude. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere are measured in parts per million, water vapor in percentage points. So there are appropriate scientific terms for this kind of claim. One of them is “preposterous.”

            They can’t tell you whether it will rain two weeks from now, but they claim to know what the Earth’s temperature will be three hundred years from now. And the government can’t stop the coronavirus pandemic, but if I pay more taxes, they will be able to control the weather. These are bold claims, with nothing to back them up, merely the latest in a series of increasingly hysterical predictions of imminent DOOOOOOOOOOOM going back generations, which always turn out to be false. “Climate scientists” told us that the Earth’s ice caps would melt by 2010. The ice caps are still there, and the “climate scientists” still have their tenured positions. It’s Orwellian. WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA.

            “Climate scientists” in the US get billion-dollar grants from the US government to publicize their lies and propaganda, incidentally, and seek to censor those who point out that this particular Emperor wears no clothes. But don’t worry. They’re top men. They know best, and all the stupid peasants should give up their rights and obey.

          • Dustin Chiasson

            Observation of the immediate weather is not an experiment. We’ve done controlled experiments to see whether an increase of an atmosphere’s CO2 content increases the overall temperature. This is proven through controlled experiments. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=308

            What falsifies it is if the chemical content of the gas in such an experiment has no effect on its heat retention.

            You know what’s NOT a controlled experiment? Going outside and saying, “Darn, it’s cold today, the entire earth’s climate can’t be getting warmer on average.”

            As for the last ice age, it ended over the course of millions of years. The climate has changed more than the last 50 years than it had over the previous millenium.

            You are also very much inflating the claims. Nobody is claiming to be able to control or predict the weather to any degree of precision. Nobody can predict the weather as well as you say, nor control it. They are simply predicting how our actions affect the overall climate. There’s a difference between climate and weather. Look it up. and we have, in fact, changed the climate in Vietnam by seeding rain clouds and extending their monsoon season during the Vietnam War. Genghis Khan caused a global cooling via his genocides and mass murders.

            The identity of scientists as “communists” only proves that they’re NOT government shills, as you also claimed. Literally the whole point of communism is to reduce the amount of power that one group of people has against another, so changing scientific results to suit a government agenda would completely throw a wrench in that plan.

            The government does NOT benefit at all from climate change, anyway. It benefits from having it be proven false so they can continue kissing up to oil and gas companies, but unfortunately only 3% of scientists are willing to be bought out, and then they ADMIT TO BEING PAID OFF BY OIL COMPANIES AFTER PUBLISHING.

            And I like how you’re quoting Orwell, when he was a self-proclaimed socialist who was satirizing corporatism and fascism with his works, and you claim to hate socialists. Just like how you claim socialists want to hurt the working class, when that’s the exact opposite goal of socialism as stated in their founding literature. And where did “white” come from? Most scientists are white. Shows all the double think you go through.

          • Dustin Chiasson
          • TRVTH

            From the source you cited:

            “As a matter of fact, the ‘AGW-hypothesis’ is not a hypothesis in the Popperian sense.”

            He ADMITS it.

          • Dustin Chiasson

            Did you also get to the part where he explains that it’s a theory supported by multiple falsifiable hypotheses that haven’t been disproven, or do you only read things that you like?

          • TRVTH

            If it’s not falsifiable, it’s not testable. If it’s not testable, what you’re doing isn’t science.

            This is, way, way, way, way older than Karl Popper, by the way. Subjecting your proposition to empirical test goes all the way back to Aristotle.

          • Dustin Chiasson

            And if you’re actually willing to read the whole passage I linked you instead of looking for a quote to take out of context, it explains why the theory’s hypotheses are indeed falsifiable and testable. You’re just in denial at this point. And btw, the concept of philosophy is older than Aristotle. Aristotle learned from Socrates, the first political philosopher, who based his studies on earlier philosphers. Philosophy relies on axioms and deductive reasoning, though. Deductive reasoning is useless without a reliable way of receiving reliable information from inductive reasoning, since you have to start reasoning from somewhere. The Scientific Method formalizes that. By forming and testing several hypotheses, you can use inductive reasoning to form a theory, and use deductive reasoning from that theory to make predictions, which them become testable hypotheses in themselves.

            Or you could just shout down whatever cold, hard evidence contradicts your preconceived notions, whichever you prefer.

          • TRVTH

            So you just admitted he openly admits he lied. It’s all lies, all made up. Thank you for your admission.

            But your attempts to move the goalposts and change the subject are very amusing. This is what Leftists always do when proven wrong, I’ve noticed. You gonna call me “racist” next?

          • Dustin Chiasson

            You just put words in my though that I didn’t say. I never admitted that, he never admitted that. Where are you even getting this from? I just explained to you a scientific concept you refuse to grasp, yet you insult my scientific knowledge. You use a theory to derive testable hypotheses, then if the hypotheses aren’t disproven, the theory isn’t disproven. A theory is not a testable hypothesis in itself, but a source of them. You’re the one moving the goalposts. You’re the one looking to use whatever I say against me, but since I didn’t give you any ammunition you’re just making up stuff. You have no sources, no good arguments, and no real knowledge of science, so that’s all you have left.

          • TRVTH

            You admitted it. Just as he admitted he was using the word “hypothesis” but assigning to it a special meaning, one not found in dictionaries. It’s easy to argue a point if you get to make everything up as you go along.

            It’s not surprising. Did you not read those quotes from the late (((Stephen Schneider))), creator of the “global warming” meme? He admitted was all a con, all a shuck and jive to terrify the public into giving up control over their lives and advance Marxist causes.

            If any of these people gave a good goddamn about the environment, we’d be seeing them make serious efforts to ban hormone-based birth control pills. The artificial hormones pass unchanged through the user’s body, then to the sewers, then to the groundwater, and have built up in such concentrations that they are having measurable effects on living things:

            https://www.newsweek.com/female-frogs-estrogen-hermaphrodites-suburban-waste-369553

            But no. That wouldn’t advance The Movement. Instead they want Western Civilization to go back to the caves, right now, and spend the rest of eternity hunting rats by candlelight. Once the economy and government collapse they think they’ll get that revolution they’ve been telling us they want since the 1920s.

          • Dustin Chiasson

            What do you mean? What I said is literally the meaning of hypothesis. You just can’t comprehend the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. I didn’t admit anything.

            “The study also turned up traces of other estrogenic chemicals called estrones, which are excreted by humans and other animals under normal circumstances. But they didn’t find any trace of synthetic estrogens like those contained in birth control pills.”

            Your own source proved you wrong, and that’s the only source you’ve had besides “the govment wants to steal my tv” type of shenaniganry. You’re clearly not even trying anymore.

            As for what I said about hypotheses and theories, here’s a source: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/waymaker-psychology/chapter/reading-the-scientific-process-replace-content/

          • TRVTH

            A hypothesis is a testable proposition.

            If it’s not testable–like “global warming”–it’s not a hypothesis, and it’s not science. It’s just more Cultural Bolshevism from the Usual Suspects. I don’t know why you’re so emotionally invested. (((Stephen Schneider))) admitted it was all lies in 1989. Haven’t you read the Climategate emails? Secret data, secret computer models, “I found a neat way to hide the decline.” All lies, to manipulate the proles.

          • Dustin Chiasson

            Jules Verne admitted that a submarine boat was impossible, only a few decades before it was actually invented.

            If you even read what I linked, you’d read that the theory of man-made climate change is made up of numerous testable propositions, none of which have been disproven despite countless tests.

          • Dustin Chiasson

            The real question is, why are you so attached? Nobody’s trying to take your gas-guzzling 1960’s Chevy you drove to the levy away by force.

          • TRVTH

            I object to lies. I object to politics masquerading as science. Do you even know what the Null Hypothesis is?

          • Dustin Chiasson

            See, I have the same motivation. That’s why I looked up all of the things you’ve said, hoping to get some idea of where you’re coming from. The Null Hypothesis refers to statistical anomalies being due to sampling errors.

            What confuses me, is if your motivation is as stated, why you are so adverse to reading what I linked, which clearly explains why the hypotheses supporting man-made climate change are testable, and have been tested in controlled experiments.

          • Dustin Chiasson

            You’re the one claiming that somehow, dumping hundreds of gallons of chemicals into the atmosphere is not affecting on the global climate, but estrogen in birth control pills somehow is?

    • Mister Twister

      10/10

    • urmum ske

      you’re forgetting about all of the ice that’s on land though

    • FrJanos

      What if you fill a cup with ice water, and then put a large amount of extra ice on top of the ice water?

      • TCC

        Depends how much more ice we’re talking about.
        Real talk, ice contracts, not expands, when it melts. The liberal idea that we’re going to turn into Waterworld is pure bullshit.

        • Dustin Chiasson

          Ice also floats, and the part of the ice on top of the water, or on land, doesn’t displace any.

  • 97% of all scientific research says climate change exists, and yet you belive the news sources funded by fossil fuel companies. Do you even think?

Primary Sidebar