Propaganda and lies from PBS' Nova

Originally posted by @uzless
so what is the driver?


Hint....you're supposed to say "Milankovitch cycles"

I once created a thread here on the science forum called "Milankovitch cycles". I think the "Precession of the Earth's Axis" has an influence on climate change, but I find it hard to believe the earth's orbit can change enough to make much of a difference. There was one more that I can't remember off hand, but I recall that I was skeptical of it.

I think changes in solar activity is a big factor that alarmists don't want to acknowledge because it would expose the claim of co2 being the big bad bogeyman as bunk science. I think the lies are part of an agenda to tax fossil fuels. It is the only thing that explains the systematic lies about co2.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
So it is your assessment that the dangers of climate change are vastly overstated?

And by that I don't mean by the clickbait folks, but by those who are intending to influence or are the decision makers who have been (and are currently) making serious alterations across a multitude of policies and protocols, all related to a particular view of the environment.
If it's not as serious as they're making it sound, what is all the noise about?

No, if anything it is understated by the decision makers. I watched a congressman talk about climate change on the floor of the House with a snowball in his hand as "proof" that climate change was a hoax. What?

Ironically, that same congressman would probably not hesitate to burn through some $400 billion in taxpayer dollars on mitigation strategies (e.g. military force) to combat the real but very rare and uncertain threat of terrorism, but a dollar for climate change mitigation is a bridge too far. Ridiculous.

Climate change is a real threat. The scientific data is real, and modeling always presents a range of scenarios to predict future events. Serious policymakers understand this, and their actions tend to reflect it. Given the uncertainty built into predicting the future, this can be difficult to balance. Obviously, news articles that play up rare probability of catastrophe, like the ones that fear monger on multitudes of national defense threats, are counterproductive. But data showing sea level rise, CO2 rise, temperature rise, coral deaths, etc. are real data and should be taken seriously.

I do have an issue with some aspects of the so-called green energy push. I don't think it's wise for example, to raze mountain-tops of trees in order to install windmills. That seems short sighted and frankly dumb from an environmental standpoint. Some of the negative impacts of green energy are being ignored.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
No, if anything it is understated by the decision makers. I watched a congressman talk about climate change on the floor of the House with a snowball in his hand as "proof" that climate change was a hoax. What?

Ironically, that same congressman would probably not hesitate to burn through some $400 billion in taxpayer dollars on mitigation strategies (e ...[text shortened]... rom an environmental standpoint. Some of the negative impacts of green energy are being ignored.

The climate change threat is real?
Then why do alarmists have to lie to convince people of that? You do acknowledge that Nova lied, right?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
The climate change threat is real?
Then why do alarmists have to lie to convince people of that? You do acknowledge that Nova lied, right?

You mean this alarmist theatrics? YouTube

Originally posted by @metal-brain
The climate change threat is real?
Then why do alarmists have to lie to convince people of that? You do acknowledge that Nova lied, right?

You mean this? YouTube

Originally posted by @wildgrass
No, if anything it is understated by the decision makers. I watched a congressman talk about climate change on the floor of the House with a snowball in his hand as "proof" that climate change was a hoax. What?

Ironically, that same congressman would probably not hesitate to burn through some $400 billion in taxpayer dollars on mitigation strategies (e ...[text shortened]... rom an environmental standpoint. Some of the negative impacts of green energy are being ignored.

If the danger is understated, the point is even more emphatic: banks--- which have a fiduciary responsibility to underwrite only profitable ventures--- are even more at odds with the predictions.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
If the danger is understated, the point is even more emphatic: banks--- which have a fiduciary responsibility to underwrite only profitable ventures--- are even more at odds with the predictions.

Why do you think banks would care about climate change? It doesn't exactly operate on their time scales. Most loans have 30 year terms max, and most bankers are too old to survive 2100, and most of these deals have insurance to deal with disastrous outcomes. Maybe you're thinking of property insurance? Since when do banks have such long-range outlooks?

I remember there was some story a few years back about a billionaire banker who bought up a TON of acreage on the Hudson Bay to give to his grand kids. He was literally banking on the prediction it would be prime real estate in a warming world.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I once created a thread here on the science forum called "Milankovitch cycles". I think the "Precession of the Earth's Axis" has an influence on climate change, but I find it hard to believe the earth's orbit can change enough to make much of a difference. .

Then why is the temperature on Mars rising? No increase in greenhouse gas there but the Mars is definitely getting hotter. Researchers all say it is due to Milankovitch cycles.

https://www.space.com/33001-mars-ice-age-ending-now.html

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Why do you think banks would care about climate change? It doesn't exactly operate on their time scales. Most loans have 30 year terms max, and most bankers are too old to survive 2100, and most of these deals have insurance to deal with disastrous outcomes. Maybe you're thinking of property insurance? Since when do banks have such long-range outlooks?
...[text shortened]... ds. He was literally banking on the prediction it would be prime real estate in a warming world.

You're not doing the math right.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
You're not doing the math right.

I'm not doing math at all. Should I be?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I'm not doing math at all. Should I be?

Because the predictions are based on calculations which, regardless of veracity, are only possible with mathematics?
Why ask such a time-wasting question?

There's not a scheduled appointment for the end game, sponsored by climate change results of which I am aware.
Extrapolation of this type has never yielded anything but eventual ridicule, but even the most strident among the worriers have the common sense to understand the gradual nature of decline, if decline there be.

Well before 2100, significant and irreversible damage would have been incurred in many areas of the planet... areas upon which business is taking place.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
You mean this alarmist theatrics? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8

Don't change the subject. Acknowledge Nova lied. Is it hard for you to do that? It pains you to admit the obvious doesn't it?

You should be outraged that Nova makes you all look like liars. Maybe the oil corporations hijacked Nova to discredit alarmists with pathetic lies to make alarmists look stupid before they can get anything accomplished. If so it works. You look really stupid for condoning liars. You can't even admit the obvious. Pathetic!

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Because the predictions are based on calculations which, regardless of veracity, are only possible with mathematics?
Why ask such a time-wasting question?

There's not a scheduled appointment for the end game, sponsored by climate change results of which I am aware.
Extrapolation of this type has never yielded anything but eventual ridicule, but even ...[text shortened]... uld have been incurred in many areas of the planet... areas upon which business is taking place.

Isn't it a moot point since you figure all this faldarah about climate change is false, no such thing and ESPECIALLY no human caused climate change.

His point was banks only deal with relatively short term things, 30 year loans and so forth and so a loan taken out today is done well before 2050, a time projected to be past the point of no return but still a recognizable shoreline and such.

If said bank was in say, New Orleans, and in time it is proven that city will be underwater in 2100, they will just move the assets inland, loans continued, if something is permanently flooded, that is for the insurance companies to deal with not the banks making the loans.

Banks could care less about 2100 since that time frame is way out of their area of business.

The only long term loans are in Japan where they pay millions for a shack and have in fact 100 year loans where the grandkids are also in debt whether they want to or not.
Even there, I doubt any banker feeds in relevant climate change data in there calculus of the loan. They go, can the recipient of the loan continue to pay the 2000 dollars a month till the end of the loan. That's their calculus.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Isn't it a moot point since you figure all this faldarah about climate change is false, no such thing and ESPECIALLY no human caused climate change.

His point was banks only deal with relatively short term things, 30 year loans and so forth and so a loan taken out today is done well before 2050, a time projected to be past the point of no return but sti ...[text shortened]... e loan continue to pay the 2000 dollars a month till the end of the loan. That's their calculus.

Swing (kinda) and a miss.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Swing (kinda) and a miss.

So refresh your POV for my weak mind.