There is no conspiracy about admitting Global Warming. Now there is one about denying it. Snake oil sales people and their ilk seem to be the driving force. People making money off if it.

There is no debate about global warming. The Earth has been warming for the last 23,000 years, as it has done 44 previous times in the last 4 1/2 million years. The debate is whether or not human activity has anything to do with it. Given the time frame, and considering we have only burned fossil fuels for the last 200 years, the obvious conclusion is NO. My question is (will be), when the Earth cools again, as it has done 44 times prior in the same 4 1/2 million years, will that also be the fault of human activity?

In addition, there need not be any "conspiracy" to hide the truth that anthropomorphic climate change is a myth. People and organizations will simply say and do what is in their own self-interest, which in this case is to go along with the current political climate agenda, even though they know it is a lie.

NASA corrupts temperature data just like NOAA does ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWBZhd5Yc2g

There have been clouds in the skies since the earth began. The debate is whether or not human activity has anything to do with it. Given the time frame and considering we have only burned fossil fuels for the last 200 year, the obvious conclusion is the human activity DOES NOT contribute to the smog in California.

The debate is not whether the earth is warming (well, except for sounding who only accepts it occasionally and even then argues that it is cooling), the debate is whether human activities are accelerating the warming. "the truth that anthropomorphic climate change is a myth" is an opinion shared by some and not a fact. The fact is that some large percentage of published science shows human activity *DOES* contribute to warming. Another fact is climate change deniers have concocted some elaborate conspiracy theories to dismiss the published science rather than producing papers that dispute it.

No, the obvious conclusion is that analogy sucks. What does smog---fog and low lying clouds contaminated by smoke/air pollution--- have to do with naturally occurring pure water vapor that forms clouds? And what does any of that have to do with global warming?

The equivalent analogy would have been : (IF) Smog has come and gone 45 times in the past 4 1/2 million years, then clearly it has nothing to do with human activity.

Smoke/air pollution increasing the density of the naturally occurring clouds and CO2 and other greenhouse gases contributing to an atmospheric shield that may be increasing the rate of naturally occurring warming. Yeah, nothing similar there.

Again, except for sounding, the debate is not about the fact of warming. The debate is about human activities causing an increase in the rate of warming. The argument for seems to be based on science and data while the argument against seems to be based on denial and conspiracy.

I don't know which is more correct, I only know which is more convincing.

Ditto. If climate alarmism was true, then we would not be in a 7-year cooling trend, and there would be no need for Gore to on childish rant ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pReLPjXgBs

I don't know either, nobody does and that has been my point all along. We simply don't have enough data over a long enough period of time to draw any conclusions. Some posters want to extrapolate the last 120 years, some 30 years, some 7 years and the worst outlier is extrapolating one single hurricane. But even at 120 years all we are talking about is WEATHER, not CLIMATE.

Is human activity responsible for the last 23,000 years of global warming---obviously not, only a fool would think so.
Is current human activity increasing the rate of warming? MAYBE, but again the data hasn't been collected for long enough. The worst is that our scientists know this is inadequate data but since they must either "publish or perish, they publish. What do they publish? What the powers that be want to hear. I would not want to be a climatologist who applies for a federal grant to fund his study on the premise that human activity does not affect global warming at all. Two words describe that endeavor-----APPLICATION DENIED. Nor would I want to be on the faculty of a major university applying for tenure but be a so-called "climate change denier"---again, APPLICATION DENIED. On the other hand, if you propose a grant for a study showing that humans have altered the planet's temperature so drastically that the sky is falling (or perhaps on fire like Irwin Allen's movie of "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea"), then they will hand you money hand over fist and laud you as the greatest climate scientist that ever lived. Can anyone spell B-I-A-S???????

Backed up with data or simply theory?

As I mentioned a while ago, it is interesting (to me at least) how similar that argument is to those made by the COVID deniers and vaccine deniers. If you wanted money from the government then you had to be pro-vaccine and all studies/reports/data/proof of alternative treatments (Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin) were censored so it is no wonder that only studies in support of the mRNA vaccines were published. Yes, I know, that is because the experts in the field understand virology and epidemiology and the science should be left to them. I suspect the degreed climatologists might feel the same way.

not going to take a side, but following your view what do you propose be done?

How would One know what to think then?:shocked: I guess one could always watch the View.

Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM).
Member: CO2 Coalition.
Lt Col, USAF Retired, Advanced Weather Officer.
Creator of the RAOB Program.

Seems qualified. I mean, he is no Greta Thunberg, but he is qualified to have a voice.

As I said, there is no doubt the climate is changing.
My 'opinion' is it is a natural change, not man made.
Can I prove it? Of course not, any more than any other opinion.
What do I propose should be done?
Get on with the remaining years I have left.
Doesn't hurt to clean the environment along the way, which has been done since I was a kid.
Air pollution, river cleanliness, car emissions etc are a thousand times better in the 80+ years I have lived, yet enough will never be enough for the fanatics.

Sounds reasonable to me. The US seems to be moving in the right direction. We have more forestland now that we did 100 years ago. Let's keep moving in the right direction.

Thanks, I have given it a good old "college try" and I have no serious megaphone. I feel a little like the main lady in the movie "Aliens" when she asks, "Have IQs fallen recently here on Earth".

I have often wondered why climate change advocates are so unwilling to admit that we just don't know enough, or have enough long term data to know for sure.
I suspect it is because their fearless leaders---the ones with an agenda----send forth their minions to "spread the word" like good little woke soldiers, ignorant of what they are espousing or the true purpose of this nonsense. Or maybe they have an inkling, but are hoping to get a few crumbs off the table of the masters who stand to rake in trillions on this fraud they are perpetuating on the world.

"WOKE", now that IS a cute word. I have been hearing that used a lot "in the potholes of their minds". I wonder....if an Englishman was WOKE, would he/she be a WOKE / BLOKE known to STROKE and SMOKE COKE while he would GLOTE about the prowess of his GOAT that was known to EMOTE from an island REMOTE and in the sun, they would SOAK ?
Truthfully, I say unto you......the world needs to WOKE up to the REALITIES of Global Warming and the associated human population increases...... before we-all WOKE up back into a neanderthal era. We will be using our rusting 7 and 9 irons to fight off the coyotes and wolves that are the only other creatures surviving !

Wow---you're a poet and didn't knowit.

and we're more likely to be fighting off cockroaches than wolves.:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Good post.

Simple ......buy an E-bike and an Electric car. WE have been talking about that starting 8 pages ago.

How is it that the US has more forestland than "ever" after the whole West burned down for the last 2 years? Maybe we have a lot of forestlands, but only the seeds left over from the fire are starting to grow. And last I heard plant seeds do NOT remove much CO2 from the atmosphere.

Actually, the best independent climatologists state that if humans have any effect on the climate, it is simply to delay the next period of glaciation by about 5,000 years, and even that is mainly due to the rise of agriculture in Asia starting about 8,000 BC. So by fighting "global warming", you are hastening the glaciers. Personally, I'd rather put on # 700 sunblock and bask on my new beachfront property here in The Villages than be crushed by 2 miles of ice.

I hope some people are getting paid as oil and gas lobbyists because they are certainly working hard to spread those, "greater tidings of joy".

If the roaches start evolving larger to the size of wolves and then both wolves and humans are toast.

I am more interested in E-Vehicles than Paleontology.

Until they make AFFORDABLE electric vehicles that can go from here to South of the Border on a single charge, I'll stick with my gas-powered car. Right now I believe Tesla is the only company that makes long-distance e-vehicles and the Model S tops out at just under 400 miles, for $95,000. Also I'd much prefer relying on a gas golf cart, in an area like this where you can lose electricity for an hour if the wind's blowing the wrong way (I have never experienced SO many outages in my life). I can take my golf cart around 200 miles before I need more gas, and that's around 3-4 weeks.

Using 5 gallons of gas every 3-4 weeks is a reasonable use of gasoline, in my opinion. It takes me around that long to need a fill-up in my car, as well, except when I drive to my parents' house every other month. Also reasonable.

A way to REDUCE gas use is to INCREASE car-pooling options for businesses, increasing electric-powered bus service in and out of more populated areas, giving tax breaks for businesses that are located in or near populated areas and provide bicycle racks (such as supermarkets, fast food joints, and so on).

No one should feel shamed for owning a gas fueled vehicle. But we can all contribute to a more ecologically-friendly use of them.

New dinosaur-age cockroaches discovered - Big Think

Cockroaches have been around a long time but the science of them looks to be in a jumble. Just how long have they been around? 300 million years? Longer? Shorter. Cockroach Facts: 10 Facinating Facts about Roaches

It does not look like they were ever that big.

As you requested ...

Manipulative, and unsubstantiated. Here's the actual article: Norwegian Shipping Company Bans Electrified Vehicles Over Fire Fears | Carscoops

It's not that the risk is too great for EVs. But rather - the company is better able to put out fires caused by gasoline, rather than EV, hydrogen, or hybrids. In addition, the ship that sank had both EVs and gas-powered vehicles on board, and the cause of the fire that sank it was not determined to be EVs, specifically.

I have no problem with those who want to buy experimental cars -- I just have a problem with freedom loving people being forced to subsidize those purchases -- and making poorer people poorer.

Here are 2 things that MOST people don't know about Electrical motors in general - they turn in a circular motion - unlike gas motors that have pistons that FLAIL up and down BEFORE they can get energy turned into circular motion by an inefficient thing called a flywheel and a fluid or disc clutch
........Most vehicle gas motors use up and down pistons (VW and Porshe used to use horizontal pistons), which make their center of gravity higher than electrical motors which have a lower center of gravity and their batteries are lower and also help keep the center of gravity low. A low center of Gravity is desirable for EVERYTHING that a vehicle (car, truck, or golf cart) does - makes for better accelerating and decelerating (also helped by braking force by the motor acting as a generator) (Prius does that also). Low center allows a vehicle to corner better.
........Low center of gravity is especially important to Golf Carts.........because we ALL know how many of them roll over.......and imagine how many more roll over in hilly northern states. Farm tractors have a high center of gravity and we know how much they roll over. Riding lawnmowers would have a lower center of gravity if Electric. The E-Advantages are numerous and massive.
...........The bottom line is that E-vehicles have so MANY engineering advantages and they will come down in price with more PRODUCTION. The bottom line is that in 5 to 10 years there will NO LONGER be debate and you and I and everyone in the 1st world countries will be OWNING E-vehicles. Gas ICE will slowly phase out.

The EV shadow -- ... Here's What It Takes To Recycle 1 EV Battery - YouTube

That reminds me that dolphins also seem to have sprung up suddenly in prehistoric time scales. Now I remember that back from college so, no one jump to hissy fits if that has changed .....I am just throwing it out for anyone that is interested in researching it. That is my disclaimer and I am sticking to it.

A big "F" deal because obviously battery technology is going to improve. Remember that some US cities banned automobiles because they backfired and scared horses. Life is a SERIES of progressive steps. What am I .......teaching grade schoolers?

An E-bike would make poor people richer because they could commute further and thus have a greater AREA to hunt for a better job ........as opposed to being confined to walking or a standard bike.

But if you were familiar with the latter, you wouldn't want the former.

This is all a diversion from the single most important question ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE6rAWcjTyw

Many trees REQUIRE fire to reproduce, thus replenishing and improving the forests...

How Trees Survive and Thrive After A Fire - National Forest Foundation

Evolution of Dolphins - microbewiki

Their knowledge base changes with new discoveries and the like.

Same with Global Warming except it is moving to the future with changes in the environment which need hypotheses and sound reasoning based on those facts. And the introduction over the past however years with computer data about the weather.