True or False
 

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

Or maybe it got as powerful as it did because of the CO2 levels?:shrug:

Have you seen the price of butter lately?!

Agenda
 

Or maybe a storm and saddened people shouldn’t be used for a political agenda? In a month we will have record cold temps, how convenient that will be…

Or....maybe it is somewhat less than scientific to apply a single storm to a 100,000-year climate cycle

Well then using that logic, and regarding Major Hurricanes (MH) ... we had 7 in 2020, 4 in 2021, and 2 in 2022 (this year). Looks like CO2 is over-performing. Let's add more CO2.

It's best to follow our leaders who created the EPA Endangerment Finding, which says CO2 is a pollutant and also says ... "Human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events." They are correct -- CO2 is altering extreme weather events. Ever since 2020 the severe weather (major hurricane) trend is down -- thanks to CO2. The same goes for severe tornadoes (EF3 and greater) are also decreasing. Let's all celebrate and make more CO2. Fire up those barbies!

This would be mildly humorous if you had not already made it clear that you are being serious.

Why, repeat WHY, would we follow "leaders" who have a vested interest in promoting human activity as a cause of climate change??????

The EPA "leaders" want to keep their government jobs-----imagine someone in the EPA coming out and publicly stating that human activity has done nothing to change the climate----"Gone in Sixty Seconds" would be a gross underestimate of their longevity.

Imagine a climate scientist putting forth a proposal for a government grant with the premise that he intends to show human activity causing climate change is a myth----can anyone spell a grant of ZERO

Can you imagine a professor of climatology at one our universities (bastions of free speech:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:) teaching their students that anthropogenic climate change is a myth?

And then the truly indoctrinated tout that "90%+ of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change". First of all, that number has been shown to be false and secondly, DOH!!!! no kidding

And those are just the people trying to preserve their salaries. Then we can move on to those that stand to make hundreds of millions for this farce....

These arguments sound exactly like those made against the CDC, Dr. Fauci, concern over COVID, mitigation efforts, vaccine manufacturers, the vaccines, and now the boosters.

I am truly having a hard time figuring out whether I should follow the science, believe those that can dig up articles refuting the science, or do my own research.

Not even remotely the same thing, not even close

First, the pandemic was here, it was real, and people were dying----Climate change "calamity" is 20,000 years away, and only the truly indoctrinated would claim people are dying from it (citing storms and droughts---all short-term weather events, not climate change)

Second, we have a pretty extensive knowledge of viruses and vaccines and know how to mitigate a pandemic. On the other hand, we sit here with about 150 years of climate data out of the last 4 million years of climate change, have no perspective, and can only grasp at straws as to what if anything we can do.

Lastly, as far as doing your "own research":

That's all well and good.
But, what about the price of butter?
Price was never as high as this before CO2 levels started over performing!

Which is exactly what the other deniers would say. And yes, I know, the difference is you are right and they are just a bunch of crazies.

It is possible that I had that in mind when I used the phrase.

Exactly!!!!!

I could have sworn that I learned in school that CO2 was used by plants to create oxygen. Without plants, humans and animals cannot exist. Seems like CO2 is good. If CO2 makes the weather better, then that is an added bonus.

Everyone knows you should not store CO2 near hot sources. They tend blow up. As far as the “true or false”; I plead the fifth. Hmm, i used to believe only crooks plead the fifth.

Of course I'm serious. I'm always serious. Life is too short for tom-foolery. It's amazing how the satanic gas, called CO2, is making life on earth so much better. Even before the EPA declared CO2 a pollutant, CO2 was demonstrating its demonic evil powers -- decreasing tornadoes, hurricanes, and even land-falling hurricanes. Data trends for floods, droughts, and wildfires are all decreasing with increasing CO2. Polar bear population is rising as hunting them is expanding -- but at $50,000 a head. And the Great Barrier Reef corals are at a 36-year high. If CO2 is a pollutant, then let's make more -- much more -- and that way commercial greenhouses won't have to spend extra bucks to pump CO2 into them to help plants grow bigger and faster.

CO2 is used in fire suppression systems for many industrial applications. It's a life-saver in many ways.

Follow the "data" and not the "science." Science is just someone's opinion of the data -- which has seen numerous forms of corruption throughout history. This is why "data" is presented at the Weather Club. Specifically, several examples of Science .vs. Data will be exposed tomorrow (Oct 20), at 1:30 PM at Bridgeport.

That sounds a lot like, "do your own research."

"follow the data" requires understanding the data and drawing conclusions from it., that is what scientists do. Until I have a much better understanding of how the data was collected, I'll have to trust the experts and scientists to interpret it.

You mean it's NOT flatulent cattle??

No ... follow-the-data only requires eyes, common sense, and logic. It's easier than you think. Relinquishing "science" to others is extremely dangerous, unless that scientist has a proven track record -- like Al Gore. He had no climate change track record -- and all his forecasts failed. There are many past examples of millions being killed based on corrupted science, which is often associated with the equally dangerous term Consensus ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1-FxwVkQ60

Didn't someone say "Trust but verify" a while back? :thumbup:

Ditto. And here's a perfect example of the "verification" required when people (so-called scientists and experts) make claims about man-made climate change, and who have NO proven "climate-change" track record ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVh3C73EVLU

If you don't understand where the data came from, how it was collected, and what the limitations of the collection platform are then you cannot properly interpret it. This was easy to see with the COVID denials.

I don't know which side of this debate is correct but it is not convincing to hear someone with no proven climate change track record telling me they are right and the other experts are wrong. Confirmation bias and emphatic assertion do not make convincing arguments.

20,000 years ago NY City was under 2 miles of ice. The climate changed and now we are ice free----no fossil fuels involved. That's all the "climate change track record" anyone needs. These "experts" that try to extrapolate 150 years of data into 4 million years of climate have a "track record"----wrong most of the time. Remember the impending ice age of the 70's, or the complete melting of the ice caps by 2010?????

20,000 years away? Just may be sooner than that, IF some of us don't quit shouting that science is a conspiracy to steal our money.
150 years of climate data? The data is in core samples of earth and ice. It is in the rocks and evidence is there. That is how we know what the earth climate was in past ages. But you deny or forgot millions of years of earth history and the sciences that solve the mysteries of the past. Instead you brand all those scientists as idiots, liars and conspirators in a money grab scam?
And the little gravestone? That is an insult to all the men and women who ever did research to try and find cures for human illnesses or answers to scientific questions.

"The data is in core samples of earth and ice. It is in the rocks and evidence is there."
------subject to a wide range of interpretation

"Instead you brand all those scientists as idiots, liars and conspirators in a money grab scam"
----I never posted that----only that they are wrong, misguided, or have an agenda---such as keeping their job

"That is an insult to all the men and women who ever did research to try and find cures for human illnesses or answers to scientific questions."
-----no, that insult was directed to those, who at the height of the pandemic ignored a wide variety of experts and instead fancied themselves as having a medical degree (from the University of Google)

Nice try, but I won't allow you to twist my words

I will, however, concede that those catastrophic global warming changes might come sooner---like 19,800 years

Differ
 

If you don’t agree with my opinion or my choice of scientist’s causes of Global Climate change, you are wrong. S/

You just made an assumption. In science that is dangerous. For starters, NONE of the UN climate change models are have verified. They all run way too hot for the past 30+ years. Anyone can see that from the plotted data. Second, none of the "climate models" can even be trusted, because NONE have ever replicated past climate changes -- e.g., no track record -- that are just toys because you can play with them. Third, and this is also easy to see ... for those who still believe in man-made global warming, just Google this ... "How much as man-made CO2 altered earth's temperature last year." Let me know when find the answer (keep in mind "man-made" CO2).

On second thought, not worth the effort

Are you suggesting that scientists would volunteer to do these studies if they were not getting paid? And do you think that they would stretch out this research if they were not getting paid? Do you believe ALL scientists and their results? You said you believe the information that scientists have provided about the climate changes in the "millions of years" of history, but when someone says that most of that time, humans weren't around, and there was climate change you still feel that mankind has caused climate change? Why is it that so many folks seem to think that man caused pollution is synonymous with man caused climate change?
I guess you can say that I changed the climate from cold winters by moving South to Florida where the winters are warm. That changed the climate for me. But, even though some on here argue that man is responsible for climate change, they have yet to prove that man has contributed to changing the climate. Just stating absolutely that man really has changed the changes or weather cycles, does not prove it. Yes, I believe that scientists that get paid to do research into a subject with the goal of proving a preconceived outcome, are wasting (stealing) taxpayer money, if they are not being honest/honorable about the results. An arson investigator can prove that a man caused a fire, therefore fire was caused by man. However, there can be a forest fire that was caused by lightning also. That investigator cannot say that all fires are caused by man. He cannot say that since man CAN cause fire, a forest fire was caused by man. Not a very good example, but you cannot say that man exists therefore man caused climate change.

It is very worth it, as these issues (like climate change) reflect what Eisenhower warned us about many years ago -- how government increasingly controls "the science" -- and today everyone is "expected" to follow -- or be cancelled ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V71-kXuQhTo Einstein said, "Genius abhors consensus, because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."

Higher global temperatures (Sun activity) causes increased atmospheric CO2 and H2O that act like a blanket to decrease global low/high pressure deltas and thus fewer hurricanes/tornados. This is 5th grade stuff.

Who would ever believe in the cdc or fauci or gore? Which hoax did you believe in during the last 50 years? The hole in the ozone layer that was going to destroy us? Global cooling? Global warming? According to some politicians we only have 4 years left before earth is destroyed..

Nailed It!

https://www.usameme.com/leonardo-dic...ailed-it-meme/

Voyage to the bottom of the sea
 

why doesn't greenpeace sail over to china, the worlds greatest polluter ,and harass their infrastructure which is polluting the atmosphere
or hire somali pirates to assist them

You could go to the TV Weather Club meeting this afternoon and find out.

Or just maybe GOD’s in charge as always! Man cannot control GOD’s will…….. Not Political!!

Follow the data? As has been shown many, many times, data is easily manipulated. You want to get to ground zero? Follow the money.

I think the climate change might be CO2 between the ears?
 

I think the climate change might be CO2 between the ears? Climate had noithing to do with the price of butter, just an excuse.