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