Welcome to Thunderdome

At least we're all going to die with healthy lungs.

Because this isn't the MSM, we present both sides of a story. Here's the upcoming documentary by noted climatologist, Leonardo DiCaprio (Kidding!), in its entirety:



Now they classify this as a documentary, but here's Leo during the film:

“Climate change is the most fundamental threat facing our planet,” says DiCaprio. “We must work together as a collective voice to demand major action now. Our very survival depends on it. This documentary translates the symptoms and solutions of climate change before information is distorted, as it often is, by those with a financial interest in fossil fuel production.”

He had me until the end. While I have zero doubt there are people profiting on polluting, it's also quite obvious that a conclusion was reached, and then this film was made. That hurts the credibility of the film badly. Also, I doubt they cover those folks making money off of global warming.

And no, I'm not saying climate change doesn't exist. Of course it exists. We should make a documentary explaining that there's a whole other group of people who believe in climate change, but disagree over our impact upon it. A group who is concerned about all the bad science being done it the name of "man made global warming".

I remember in the late 90's or early 2000's they were observing the polar ice caps on Mars melting. Occurred to me then that it appeared more likely it wasn't a "global" warming problem so much as a solar system warming issue.

I remember in the late 90's or early 2000's they were observing the polar ice caps on Mars melting. Occurred to me then that it appeared more likely it wasn't a "global" warming problem so much as a solar system warming issue.

That's more a "Mars has no atmosphere" problem. Well, a thin-ass atmosphere.

That just started manifesting in 1999. Sweet timing.

GORDON wrote:That just started manifesting in 1999. Sweet timing.

Exactly. It's not like Mars had a robust and thick atmosphere for millions of years that suddenly disappeared as things appeared to be warming up here.

Vince wrote:I remember in the late 90's or early 2000's they were observing the polar ice caps on Mars melting. Occurred to me then that it appeared more likely it wasn't a "global" warming problem so much as a solar system warming issue.

No, it's called seasons

I remember the news Vince was talking about, and at the time it was a pretty big deal because at the time scientists couldn't explain the warming. It's funny the answer was so ludicrously obvious that they never thought of it at the time.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

Here's an update on that scientist who proposed that absurd, science-shown-wrong theory, so you can both clear it from your heads

In early 2012, Abdussamatov predicted the onset of a new "mini-ice age" commencing 2014 and becoming most severe around 2055.[16] His prediction gained traction in the press after the harsh 2013/2014 winter, despite that winter was only harsh in eastern North America.[17] Ib 2012 Abdussamatov quantified declining trend Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and predicts further bicentennial based declining TSI.[18]

With rags like national geographic and MIT and NASA talking about it, one can understand how the weak minded can be led astray.

http://news.mit.edu/2002/pluto
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem ... ility.html

Thanks for shutting us down. I would hate to think the issue isn't simple and settled.

I would hate to think the issue isn't simple and settled.

Simple? No.

Yeah but "seasons."

GORDON wrote:Yeah but "seasons."

A word we made up because the mathematics of huge planets flying through space is nontrivial.

GORDON wrote:With rags like national geographic and MIT and NASA talking about it, one can understand how the weak minded can be led astray.

http://news.mit.edu/2002/pluto
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem ... ility.html

Thanks for shutting us down. I would hate to think the issue isn't simple and settled.

Exactly 0 of those articles support you, in fact they just say you're wrong. Are you Malcolm now?

Well... what do you think I was saying? Because all three articles suggest that humans don't need to be burning hydrocarbons in order for a planet's climate to change, not even taking into account very long orbits and seasons.

Hell, one even suggested interstellar dust frequencies.

TheCatt wrote:

GORDON wrote:With rags like national geographic and MIT and NASA talking about it, one can understand how the weak minded can be led astray.

http://news.mit.edu/2002/pluto
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem ... ility.html

Thanks for shutting us down. I would hate to think the issue isn't simple and settled.

Exactly 0 of those articles support you, in fact they just say you're wrong. Are you Malcolm now?

He wishes.

GORDON wrote:Well... what do you think I was saying? Because all three articles suggest that humans don't need to be burning hydrocarbons in order for a planet's climate to change, not even taking into account very long orbits and seasons.

Hell, one even suggested interstellar dust frequencies.

Well, right, let's stick with science from 2002. But the whole thing about Mars being due to solar radiance, and therefore, all of Earth's as well, is bullshit.

Never said that. I said I remembered the time frame Vince was talking about, when they determined other planets had changing climates as well, at the time unexplained, at the same time Al Gore was saying "the science is settled."

I don't know why it is a surprise why I loath these people. I don't know why everyone doesn't loath the liars and hucksters. It would be one thing to simply be wrong, but they make their decisions and try shut down the conversation. It's beyond incompetence, it's evil.