Climate change believe it or not you decide.
 

” If you establish a climate baseline, then you can compare what’s actually happening to the baseline and that might demonstrate that the whole thing is baloney. That would be awkward. It happened after Katrina. Oh, Katrina’s proof positive that Gaia is really ticked off and…and…and…then we had a bunch of years without much hurricane action at all. You might think that this would be evidence that maybe the climate wasn’t in chaos, and that they would be happy to be proven wrong, but no, it doesn’t work that way. Every time the weather fits the narrative, you see, it’s proof that the climate kooks are right, and every time the weather fails to fit the narrative, well, weather’s not climate. At least until the next heat wave or storm; then weather will totally be climate again.
A major issue of climate change is its contradictions. A study on Antarctica show that even though the icebergs are melting at the same time in the interior the snow is growing and its more cold than it ever was. This contradicts the theory of global warming. People attribute this phenomena as being caused by alien cities under the ice sheets of Antarctica which isn't entirely impossible considering that we haven't explored much of the continent. I am making no comment on this and it is for you to decide whether to believe it or not.

Not sure of the point of this post.

I am not capable of deciding if the whole thing is baloney. I doubt anyone here has the expertise to.

"Common sense" is often quoted, but that is seldom accurate when it comes to science.

Personally I will accept the word of hundreds of scientists working in the field for their entire lives, while remembers that it is a THEORY. That means it agrees with models and predictions. IT DOES NOT MEAN it is 100% true or accurate. As we learn more the theory will be modified and improved.

No climatologist I know will say that climate change CAUSED Katrina. None. My understanding it that it is both wrong and foolish to point to any single event and try to prove a correlation or worse a causation. The model predicates increase variability in the climate.

And a little bit of "common sense" - who has the most money at stake in the debate? Climatologists working 2 or 3 jobs to pay the bills while they do their research or a Trillion Dollar Oil Industry.

Nicely stated.


Also do not think that the professional scientific world would get the facts wrong nor the theories. Now CEOs are a different matter especially if it affects their profit margins.

Ok, let's repeat this again:

1) We are currently in an ICE AGE, by definition
2) We have been in this ice age for the last 3-4 million years (there have been many others)
3) Within the current ice age, there are cycle of glaciation and interglacial thaws lasting about 80-100,000 years each
4) Our entire recorded history has taken place in a "garden spot" in the history of climate, starting with the end of the last glacial period about 12,000 years ago, which also probably was the cause of the "great flood" described in almost all cultures
5) No "record high", "record low", "record storms" or shifts in the ice caps over the last 100 years or more has anything to do with CLIMATE, that is the weather
6) These 100,000 year cycles are driven by variations in the tilt of the Earth's axis and it's orbit around the sun
7) Fossil fuels have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it
8) To those "woke" believers in "global warming" crap, consider this: 19,000 years ago New York City was under 2 miles of ice. When Hudson and Verrazzano visited 500 years ago, long before the burning of fossil fuels, there was no ice and the temperature was the same as today. So what model of SUV do you think Fred Flintstone was driving?????

So there's a short synopsis of the SCIENCE, everything else is essentially politically motivated BS. I'm just amazed at the number of people, especially the younger folks that actually believe this garbage.

Very interesting our young folks sure are getting indoctrinated into believing all of man made global warming.

The thing that I know about "studies" is that the result is greatly influenced by whoever benefits from it. Personally I believe that if you are worried about climate change stop cutting down trees. Tree Facts at arborday.org

I would have gone with having the global warming believers stop breathing and putting out CO2, but that's just me:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
Especially since it's just a lot of hot air anyway

Science is NOT dogma. Good science is nothing more than revising theories as more complete and accurate data is obtained.

the thermometer with globally accepted standardized scales is only about 200 years old at best, 150 years more likely. . .

That not a lot of time for any analysis of the earth to extrapolate thousands of years of past history and the future of the earth.. .

Humans changing local weather, absolutely. . .

just sayin'

Underwater volcanoes...

If you placed fewer insults and more attention to detail you might convince more people. All the "political" insults you include (woke) tend to cast doubt on your motivations.

Do you have a degree in climatology? If not, how is it you know how much and what kind of data is required to model it?

I work in AI's. Today, I can take a 30 second sample of your voice recording and do a deep fake that can not be told from the original - and have you say ANYTHING I won't, even words that you have never said. I can then take a 30 second video of you talking and combine that with the audio and make a video of you confessing to anything I want to.

How much and what type/quality of data is a function of the model design. Again, I will leave it up to people that actually work on that science as opposed to random people on the internet.

Exactly. And it has very little to nothing to do with political stuff like whether one is "woke" ahem...

So you are saying any studies that are in anyway paid for by Fossil Fuel companies is subject to question. I can agree with that.

agree
to think mankind affects the weather is plain arrogant

our activity is irrelevant

Based on what? I am asking seriously.

I mean to think that waving a copper wire close to a rock would power an automobile is pure nonsense - right?

As is any study that is done by the EV industry. You work in AI and I worked in IT so I know how easy it is to manipulate data. As far as social media is concerned it is simply a matter of who can manipulate it best.

I am not sure what social media as to do with anything. I hope you don't look to social media for any background on anything.

As far as EVs go, I guess every auto manufacturer in the world disagrees with you, since they are all betting their futures on EV now.

I don’t but I know many do. I know a woman who told me she gets all her news from Utube because those people research everything.

That is exactly my point about EVs. No one is going to discuss the pitfalls. You can’t believe any study unless you know who funded it.

I’ve decided, I believe, but then again I don’t believe TBL.

Well, I guess we will just have to disagree on EVs. I have seen almost countless information about pro's and con's. All the sources I follow talk about the difficult time we face, and how much it is going to cost to convert. Which is reflected in all my posts. It is going to be hard, slow and expensive. That is no secret. It would one easier, and faster (still expensive) if one party hadn't dragged politics into it.

I am sure:
1. Climate changes.
2. Human activities contribute to that change.
I am not so sure how much human activities contribute to climate change. However, I am inclined to think not very much. Nevertheless, the climate change phenomena seems to be generating a lot of profitable activities.

I produce more methane than CO2.

Human activities have definitely changed local climates
Look at the amount of green pasture land here has been changed to concrete and asphalt, which are heat sinks, and green grass is not, and think of the large cities, such as Bangalore, which 50 years ago was all green natural land, Bangalore's average annual temperature has increased 10 degrees.

how have humans changed the earth's temperature is with steel/concrete/asphalt heat sinks for solar radiation. . . but we can't change that at all. .

good luck

I can’t believe you guys took the bait from this OP.

Sure we did - LOL!

We can go around this tree forever!

If the "woke" people consider being called "woke" an insult, well, I guess that speaks for itself.

I think he is saying that any studies that are funded by government grants (which are most of them) are driven by a political agenda, especially "woke" far left white house staffers

To start with, based on the 8 scientific facts I already posted

1) absolutely correct

2) almost nil

Would you rather we discuss covid vaccines or dog poop?

This is one of those Threads that I flick thru. I have a pet peeve of 1500 word posts. As if I would spend time pursing thru the yada. The experts come out to their keyboards and spew.

I know, just don’t read. I don’t. Rather read about dog poop and fallen fronds.

For those who who believe that climate change is not real, please read the following review article.
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience

As a scientist who has published many articles over the years, I have never seen this type of agreement on any topic of discussion in peer reviewed articles. While there will always be some who will publish what they think others want, the vast majority of scientists have the integrity to publish their data and the their analysis of that data.

I think those who have no expertise in the field, who make statements of ‘fact’, who publish in non peer reviewed places and who won’t provide their sources are doing all of us a great disservice.

:pray:

I think you are kidding yourself. I, too have published papers in respected journals but never on a politically controversial subject. Have your publications been controversial???? Was your research funded by government grants, or were you free to write what you wanted?

Since you know the process, answer this-----who gets the funding after their proposal to the appropriate government agency???

1) The guy who plans a research study with the goal of proving that fossil fuels have done absolutely nothing to change our climate, and asks for $250,000

2) The guy who proposes a study with the goal of showing that fossil fuels are causing an imminent climate change that will devastate our world and do so much sooner than expected, in fact, in our lifetimes, and asks for 50 million.

Be honest, we all know the answer to that one

So much for 99% agreement----the number is a joke in and of itself----get 10 of us together in a room and you'll get 10 different opinions. Then there's the question of just who is telling us this 99% agreement
Go look at the "consensus" among recently retired climatologists and those that are not getting US gov't funding---you get a completely different story.
Second to last, look at the accuracy of the Euro vs. the US weather prediction models for the last 20 years---I think you'll find the Euro model to be far, far more accurate. Why? Because for that time period the American model has incorporated CO2 emissions and global warming into its model. So, as a scientist, what does it tell you when a model with a pretty decent track record changes to add garbage into its prediction and then starts to fail? Again, be honest
And lastly---I'll repeat my question: Since half the country is no longer under 2 miles of ice as it was 20,000 years ago, since the climate has warmed, what kind of SUV did Fred Flintstone drive? And was Bedrock using nuclear power instead of burning fossil fuels? Put in perspective, that's why "global warming" is a joke and a political fraud that we get to pay for

“People will generally only accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe.” Andy Rooney Never more true than on TOTV.

Thank you for your post. And sadly, I expect it won't change any minds.

Weather and Climate are two related but different subjects. So, looking at whether to prove or disprove climate change is not valid.

And if you are right, then 90% of the scientists in the world are wrong, liars, or political flunkies. Yeah, I don't think so.

Hopefully not. I'd hate to see anyone move from the correct scenario to a completely wrong position.

1. Review of sceptical papers
In supplementary table 1 we present the full list of all 31 sceptical papers we found in our dataset. An in-depth evaluation of their merits is outside the scope of this paper, and could be an interesting area for further work.

So this paper put no effort into looking into the counter data that exist just summarily dismissing it. Hmmmm.