Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jane

  1. https://www.dailywire.com/news/51018/internet-wrecks-obamas-over-15-million-marthas-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro and here is another good one! Make sure you read the comments on the bottom, they are very entertaining....
  2. Ok, so I lied, me bad.... I do have one more thing to post ( friend just sent this) Still no real data, but I bet this could be obtained https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html
  3. Logical fallacy: you are now doing what the people that believe in global warming ( no name calling, sorry) always do in these sort the threads on any sort of forum. You are repeating what you already said and not coming up with any actual data. You are insisting what happened 65 billion years ago is relevant and can be proven, when it isn't. You STILL haven't come up with any actual data for the last 100 years showing warming that correlates with CO2 increase., I would say this conversation is done until you ( or someone) comes up with data. You can blindly believe what people tell you, or you can research for yourself, if something is questionable. One more example of how "science" and the "authorities" make mistakes: smoking used to not be considered bad, they gave cigarettes to those in the military at almost no cost even in the 80s still. The food pyramid as it used to be is now causing obesity and diabetes and they now tell you to eat different. Like I already said, 500 some years ago a majority of authorities believed the earth was flat. They used to do all sorts of horrible things to people a few hundred years ago in the name of science and medicine to cure diseases. The list goes on. You are somewhat deluded if you think NOW , science is perfect and the "authorities" are always correct. You don't need to believe what I say, you seem to have a lot of time to research, post on here and read, maybe you can use this time to find some actual data, as I suggested and find out for yourself. If you do, I would love to see it . That's all. I think I am done here, I said what I wanted to say. Wait one more thing: the ice is NEVER going to all melt, no amount of fuel burning will accomplish that, and even if it did, there would still be plenty of land left. The process would also be very gradual, plenty of time to relocated. It's an unimportant point. The most the ocean might rise, IF there was significant warming would be a few feet over a very long period of time. The Netherlands has land below sea level now, no big deal to them. They used technology ( real science) to keep the water out. It's just another thing to try and scare people with. I have yet to see a condo in Florida sink underwater ( unless there is a hurricane) because the ocean is rising. It's not happening.
  4. Joshpantera: I don't think theories of what happened 65 million years ago are scientific fact. They are just theories, like evolution. It might have been like that, or not. Basing everything on some ice in the arctic doesn't sound very scientific to me. Theory is just that, it is NOT fact, until you can prove it. You will never be able to prove what happened 65 million years ago. Well, maybe some day they will invent some sort of new science, that we can't even imagine yet. But for now, theory is not fact.( It's like evolution and the beginning of life. Until someone can create life out of the molecules, and then breed either 2 species and get a new one, or breed the same and get a new one, evolution is only theory also. Want to have a thread on that? ) My point is this, if there was warming and this warming was caused by increases in CO2 caused by human activity, you should be able to prove it with temperature data ( date, location , temp, and who measured and how) and show a simple trend line that temperature has increased as CO2 caused by humans has increased. It is not rocket science! You should be able to do this for many places on this planet. Human population has exploded in the last roughly 100 years and fuel consumption resulting in CO2 has increased with the increase in population. It should not be that difficult, and it isn't. You can't get this data because there is no warming trend. The church of global warming has been created for political purposes, that's all. Why I picked 100 years? Because in the last roughly 100 years population has increased in a huge way, and CO2 production caused by humans has increased in a huge way. This IS what we are supposed to be measuring right? I know it's not exactly 100 but close enough. We can probably assume that more than 100 years ago, humans were not capable of affecting anything on this planet very much except in their immediate area. There were just not enough people there, plus the technology was limited to burning coal or wood. Now humanity could destroy this planet for real ( by setting off enough nukes) . So I don't really care what the temperature was 65 billion years ago. I only care what it has done in the last roughly 100 years. I would have said 200 but I doubt there is any sort of meaningful data available from 200 years ago for most locations.
  5. Pantheory , sorry I misunderstood your post and didn't really look at the links ( I clicked on a few and couldn't get the open, we have crappy internet) Yes, I do believe there could be global cooling. If there is such as thing as ice ages , you would assume there has to be. Ash from volcanoes can block the sun and cause cooling. I wonder how cold this winter is going to be with all these volcanoes going off this year. Cooling would be worse for humanity than warming. Places like Canada and Northern Europe would no longer be able to grow food because it would be too cold. So many people worry about warming, when it is cooling they really should worry about. I personally believe climate changes because the earth axis sort of wobbles, and the sun puts out different amounts of energy , and the poles shift.
  6. HERE is something that is GOING to affect the weather for sure, at least some areas. Might have cooling on the earth until the ash goes away! And yes, this also obviously increasing CO2.
  7. "I did notice that. So far you case largely seems to be that we can't trust any data sources from anywhere in the world making the entire science rather useless. Correct?" YES, pretty much. I don't think there is ANY reliable and verifiable data on this entire planet that shows A: the temperature is going up any place and B: the temperature is going up because humans put to much CO2 in the atmosphere. And no, I also doubt any reliable data exists for increase of CO2 , but I do believe it is increasing because it should. I don't argue that humanity is causing CO2 to increase. More people, more CO2, it's sort of obvious.
  8. "Somehow I managed to gain some objectivity, which started with an examination of extinction (claims/projections vs actual numbers). I'll leave that for a separate discussion, but it helped me look at climate a bit differently as well. For example, where does sea level rise matter? Well at the coasts, of course. Who cares if the middle of the ocean swells unless it puts your coastline under water. So far tide gauges have shown a steady 2mm annual rise for as long as we've had tide gauges. All the fear about sea levels comes from climate models. *None* of it comes from actual measurements." Sorry quotes not working again Good comments and it shows what sort of hypocrites the church of global warming believers are in many cases. I just read somewhere ( I will look for the link if someone really wants it) that Al Gore just bought some millions of $ ocean front property. Obviously , if he expected the oceans to rise anytime soon, he would not have done that. Never mind the HUGE carbon footprint ( I can't imagine running A/C for something that size) a huge mansion requires. These people are just liars. Even if all the ice on the planet melted, it would not increase the ocean level by much. Remember that stupid movie Waterworld? It's FICTION, not possible in realty. But the sort of idiotic thing people are worried about. Land does go underwater, but usually because erosion removes it from one place, but then deposits it in another. Perfectly normal and why constantly have to dredge and put sand back at certain beaches. Besides I don't think people should be allowed to build right next to the beach anyway. It spoils the beach, and make everyone's insurance go up
  9. Reply to pantheory: Sorry , I am not too busy to look at all those links, but I am pretty sure the links won't contain any actual data. Plus, anyone can put anything online. Climatologists are not legitimate scientists in my opinion anyway. They get paid to find something wrong with the climate. Think about it, of course they are going to say there will be some disaster regarding climate, their income depends on it!! And American universities are just an extension of the government. Besides, all they can do it use someone else's data to produce whatever information they want. I wonder how many of these people that produced the links you sent actually ever took a real class in Air Pollution. I have. You? So no, just because enough people believe a lie, it's still a lie ( or at least disinformation). Um...how many people on this planet believe in God? Enough said.... You want to prove it to me, send me some real data . I keep repeating myself...sorry but it is what it comes down to. This comment is for everyone: we have gone back to selling at the market, I am walking around again ( with a cast still on, but better) and we are expecting some visitors in the next few weeks so I will be really busy and don't have much time to post on here. I am not ignoring anyone, and I have not run out of things to say, just no time. I will try to catch up eventually
  10. Want to say one more things here today, I DO worry about the environment and do think there are way too many people on this planet, and we are doing massive damage to the planet in many ways , and some are very real, like that gigantic fire in the rain forest in Brazil. I am not some flat earth cook that doesn't believe in birth control, clinging to the bible...just pointing that out' Any of you ever been to a country with REAL massive pollution? I have , Mexico and India. I loved India but the pollution was horrible.
  11. This graph is just exactly the kind of thing I was talking about!!! WHERE is the actual data that produced this graph? Think about this, do you REALLY think that in 1880 they were able to calculate earth's temperature correctly within even 1 degree? This graph is nonsense and I bet you will never find the actual data on how they arrived at it ( like I said, locations, dates, temperatures , who did the measuring and what they used to measure with) And I DID years of research on some of this, and so did others. Here is a list of scientists and other professionals that dealt with this in some way ( I am on this list btw) http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php I understand what you are saying, that you can't and won't research this for yourself and you just want to trust "the authorities". But not all "authorities " agree on this. Mostly just the ones that will benefit from it financially or in some other way. But you could do what I suggested, just start small. Find real temp data for a large city and put it in a spreadsheet. It's not that hard, almost everyone has Excel on their computers and it has all the statistical functions in it, and will make a graph for you. This topic is sort of a sore subject for me personally. I hated being in a position where I was expected to produce results that were just not true. It happened all the time. Then the incredible amount of money wasted on stupid things while real environmental issues on this planet are not taken care of ( like currently the rain forest in Brazil is burning down) It bothered me so much that I ended up leaving a professional career of 20 years with a very high paying salary to move to the middle of nowhere and become a farmer. The stress of it all caused me to have panic attacks which are now gone ( been away from this all for a few years now). I personally wished they would fire every single person in a few government agencies and start over with real scientists and people not controlled by politicians. Some of your here live in other countries that don't have a government like the U.S. so you can't relate. You might have governments similar to Europe where "regular" people can get elected , there are more than 2 parties and such, and you have very little corruption. Here not so much. I know this isn't about politics but it is hard to avoid, since politicians pretty much control the flow of data.
  12. bread baked.... Sorry for the many typos in my post, I typed fast, and didn't read it over before posting , I do know how to write proper English if I try... And yes Florduh, the weather does change daily and nobody seems to be able to accurately predict it very often even only a day ahead. I doubt very seriously anyone can predict it 50 years into the future like some so called climate scientists wish to claim
  13. Ok, not a lot of time either, got to get ready for farmers market tomorrow ( baking bread now) , first time back for me since my accident. I hope I can do it. Just a few things, it is very hard to discuss this issue without getting into politics, because that is the motive behind it. But I will try. Do you know what TR 55 is? It's rainfall curves used in engineering that are used to help figure out for example what size drainage pipe you need in what area. Those are based on climate data collected before the 1970s. I started doubting official government data when the data this is based on could not be located. I was working on entering old hardcopy data into a database and calculating statistics on lakes ( in a U.S. State) , and a lot of the data was crap. A lot of the data from various State and local government agencies was handwritten notes in old ledgers going back to the 1930s in some cases. A LOT of it was total crap. Survey benchmarks were off by many feet and some of the elevations were impossible ( because entire cities would have flooded had they been correct, but there was no historical record of that happening). I also added temperature data to go along with it , you should have been able to correlate low lake levels with high temps and low rainfalls. But that didn't happen. The data was such crap, I ended up throwing half of it out. The rest was still questionable, but I had to give the boss something ( they do not want to here no!! I suspect it is like that with most government agencies) . So, we started to take new , accurate measurements, I had a survey crew install new accurate benchmarks over a period of several years and I went out personally many times to measure the levels, temps, dates , locations and compared them with old data. It rarely matched. I kept only data that was remotely reasonable. What I found was that rainfall amounts and temperatures vary widely ( there is a huge range in the data) and there is no definite trend anywhere. So to make things easier, we installed dataloggers ( telemetry) that automatically measured all this and put it in a computer database. Well, the data sucked. Half the time the dataloggers didn't function properly and the data had to be thrown out. I was not impressed considering how many hundreds of thousands of $ in tax money this system cost. What I am saying here is that if you use say 50 years of climate related data in any one location, you will get a wide range. You might have 10 degrees or more change in average temperature from one year to the next in any one location. All it takes is a high year, or a low year, to make your trendline face the other direction. Do you understand what I am saying here? If not, I can explain it further. My point is that all this supposed data various government agencies have is highly questionable, and anyone can make the statistics produce any graph they want. I know I could. If I had a boss that wanted to show warming in some location, I certainly could make that happen ( just by throwing out low temp data as outliers for example) , same the other way around. Old data is even more questionable, since there was no accurate way of measuring anything and keeping track of it. Some guy on another forum where this was discussed sent me data from England going back to 1700 in some little town, and it had no dates, just monthly averages, no info of who collected that data, and the data had temperatures measured to the hundreds of a degree!! Do you see the problem with this? They had no way in hell back then to measure anything to that accuracy! It makes the entire thing questionable. But for kicks, I did put the data into a spreadsheet, and it showed only a tiny minimal warming trend of less than 1 degree over a period of hundreds of years. Very questionable considering temperatures changed for any one month of any year for as much as 30 degrees! I started questioning the TR55 data , and contacted various agencies like the USGS, and NOAA to get the data the rainfall curves are based on. I got nowhere!!! If I can't get this data, who can? I wanted to see if the data made sense but I never even got to the point where I could determine that. (this was about 15 years ago) So, I question ANY perfect little global warming graph from NOAA or any other government agency. I want to see the actual data they based the graphs on. I want to see locations, temperatures, dates and how it was measured and by whom. This data is not available. I have asked many times on various forums for someone to produce this data and they can't. The ones that do , there is always a problem with it ( like it makes no sense, like my lake elevation that were impossible) TR 55 mostly works in engineering design, so nobody really cares. I think the original rainfall amounts were overestimated, so you rarely get more, but when you do, you can just blame it on extreme weather events. So, the burden of proof is on the people that believe the entire planet is warming. Just like the burden of proof is on Christians that God exists . We do not have to prove he does not exist. Do this, if you really want to get into it and have the time. Find some reliable temperature data for a large city ( that should have kept some data) like maybe NYC, or London, or Berlin. Find where that data came from, how it was measured and who recorded it. Then put the data into a simple spreadsheet and calculate some statistics on it, and tell me if there is any real consistent warming. You have to admit, if there is global warming caused by CO2 increase, SOME location SOMEWHERE needs to show consistent and real warming over a long period of time. You need to have at least 100 years worth of data. Good luck and please don't tell me some satellite measured temps at the freakin North Pole! Not acceptable, because too hard to verify, nobody lives there, and , the pole moves. Got to go (Notice we haven't even gotten to the CO2 yet...)
  14. Ok one reply , how about we both state exactly what we believe about climate? Sometimes people get into arguments without even stating what exactly it is they believe first. Here is what I think: I do not believe in man made global warming that is going to cause some catastrophe. I do not believe the U.S. should pay any sort of money to the UN to prevent this catastrophe. I do not think there is any solid proof. I do believe the climate changes for a variety of reasons. I do not believe humanity currently has the capability to do anything about it. Your turn Oh crap, lol, not off to a good start, I didn't read your post!! I just read the forum question. I guess we don't disagree all that much. But I will post you some specifics tomorrow, I am really tired, had a doctor appointment today which was a long trip
  15. Jane

    The gullible

    tomorrow, it's getting past my bedtime here, I have recovered enough to milk the goats in the morning so I have to get up, but ok, if you want to discuss this, we can. Promise it won';t turn into ugly personal attacks and name calling?
  16. Jane

    The gullible

    I got kicked off an atheist forum the very first day I joined for not agreeing with them on some issues like that. That's why I said that. It is not logical to believe something that you cannot prove. That's all. The whole concept of faith always bothered me as a Christian. It's amazing how self deluded I must have been at one point. If you were not there and saw it for yourself , nor can you repeat some experiment that comes out the same way ( like verifying gravity on earth for example) , and all you have is someone else's word for it that it is true , it is not necessarily true. They could lie to you, they could be mistaken. Make sense now? He gave the example of the earth being flat. I KNOW for a fact the earth is not flat. A simple proof would be surveying works and it take curvature of the earth into account. Plus you can sort of see it flying from one side of the planet to the other. There is no edge. Plus nobody gains anything from the earth being round. So why lie about it? Many countries have satellites in orbit also. They work. There are many ways to prove the earth is not flat is my point. BUT, at one point in time hundreds of years ago, almost everyone believed the earth was flat and they took this as a fact. To them, it was true. Even if they couldn't prove it. Because they did not have proof that it was round. Nothing is a fact until proven. That's all.
  17. Jane

    The gullible

    I think the Church of Global Warming is completely unreasonable to believe , sorry...and I am saying this as someone that had a job very directly related to climate and weather , and the almighty EPA Maybe I should just send you a link to a forum this type of stuff gets discussed all the time, so I don't have to repost everything. Or maybe I will just stick to religion here and not make enemies ? I think maybe I will just stick to religion here. There are some interesting people here and I would like to stay. In my experience, people react badly when their most sacred believes are attacked. You should understand that. Christians most of the time do not appreciate if you point out the mistakes in the Bible, or that God is an asshole. Same goes for other issues people "feel" strongly about. None of this has anything to do with science btw. Science works like this: you have a hypothesis , you do experiments, you have control groups, and then you find out if your hypothesis is correct or not. It does not work by repeating a lie often enough until people believe it for ulterior motives.
  18. Jane

    The gullible

    I realize you don't live in the U.S , but , despite being no longer a Christian, it hasn't made me start trusting our government. Hell no! And I am not fond of illegals and refugees. I don't like diversity, but then again the Japanese don't either, and they are not Christians. Just wanted to point that out. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with one's religion. As far as some of the things you mention, prove them. You can't. So , it is up to faith to believe them just like a religion and a god. You are not gullible if you don't believe something that nobody can prove to you, you are only gullible if you believe something that nobody can prove . I think this is your logical fallacy here Oh, I am open to discuss climate change, but it's probably not a topic to be discussed here? Before I became a farmer, I was a engineer, have a degree in environmental engineering and still have my license...so I am not an idiot uh oh....is this the start of the countdown when Jane gets kicked off this forum......
  19. I am still wanting to know what's happened to the unicorn, did it get left off the ark?
  20. We got this brochure in the mail one time some years ago, it was a seminar on the Apocalypse TEOTWAWKI type thing. So it sounded interesting and we went. They were Seven Day Adventists. The people there were very nice, and also vegetarians, which I can appreciate even if I fail to be one. There were a lot of very educated people there ( like doctors, they ran one of the local hospital at that time actually) . And then the other shoe dropped....these people are really out there. They were very much into adding up Bible verses and numbers and coming up with exact date when Jesus was coming back ( that date is long past, he didn't show) . Then there was the Saturday thing, which I thought they kind of had a point. It is after all one of the Commandments. But overall , they had some really strange ideas. This is yet another thing that always bothered me one person's Christianity is not equal to the next person's. According to several denominations only THEIR's is going to get to heaven and the rest of the Christians go to hell. That would mean one probably 1% or so of humans would actually get to heaven. That's not very efficient of God, if he wants a lot of people to go there I would say.
  21. I always wondered what exactly we were going to do in heaven, and asked pastors and other Christians about details. I never got any, or I got contradictory stuff. Some think we keep our old bodies ( hey, if I am in heaven, and everything is perfect, I want perfect teeth and look like a super model!!) , some think we are going to have perfect bodies, but nobody is clear about it when I asked if there was going to be wastewater treatments plants in heaven and if I was going to have to work there and build them for all those billions dead Christians...there is talk in the bible about banquets, implying food, if we eat, we will have to use the potty, and where is all that sewage going to be treated? When I asked those kinds of questions I got dirty looks at best or the typical "its a mystery" answer, or " this is not something to worry about" . What about sex, are we still having sex in heaven?" Only with our spouses? Will all my dogs be there? Then, where exactly is heaven located? It's not up in the atmosphere somewhere, so a different dimension? The whole heaven concept was never specific enough for me, or rational enough. It bothered me even while I was a Christian
  22. I always wondered about that myself, why DO Christians want to hang on to live so much? They are usually the ones that refuse to pull the plug on some relative that has turned into a vegetable in a coma. I could never understand why anyone would do that. I personally refuse to hang on to life at all cost. I don't really want to get really old and decrepit. I don't want to end up like my mother or grandmother And yes, if I had to pick a god to stand in front of, I would also pick a Hindu god, probably Ganesha , the elephant one
  23. THAT!! Would be what I would most likely say....or at least that's what I am thinking now. In reality I would probably have a heart attack if I wasn't already dead I would add "why let innocent animals suffer and die, and why did you create psychopath that go around killing people and what did Job's family ever do to you , and and and...my list would be very long interesting answers here
  24. Since you are not a Christian and no longer believe in heaven or hell, what do you think will happen to you after your death? Are you afraid of it? Did you used to believe you would go to heaven? Or hell? Just curious. I am thinking there will be just nothing, like before you existed. But I have to admit I am afraid of the process of getting there. Probably everyone is? I also feel guilty if I died now, and left my family behind. I hope they would cope. One more question, what would you say to God (s) ( any) if you died and stood in front of him/her/it/them and it turned out you were wrong about not believing there is one?
  25. Derek, Nightwish is one of my all time favorite bands. Saw them in concert in Orlando , awesome! I believe Floer is finally a good replacement for Tarja I also love Evanescense and some older rock like anything Led Zeppelin
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.