[nick demis]

Check out talks by John Shewchuk if you want facts instead of bias politics.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by nick demis

Check out talks by John Shewchuk if you want facts instead of bias politics.

https://mobile.twitter.com/_climatecraze

These do not look like facts. Just the opposite.

[Taltarzac725]

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I would expect NASA wants to get the facts as they are sending people into the upper atmosphere.

Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I would expect NASA wants to get the facts as they are sending people into the upper atmosphere.

Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Of course, what NASA knows and what NASA tells us may be two vastly different things. Remember who funds NASA.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Of course, what NASA knows and what NASA tells us may be two vastly different things. Remember who funds NASA.

Oh, oh! Don't shine the light on the conspiracy or our reptilian overlords may come abduct you. 😉

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Oh, oh! Don't shine the light on the conspiracy or our reptilian overlords may come abduct you. 😉

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Of course, what NASA knows and what NASA tells us may be two vastly different things. Remember who funds NASA.

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

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.

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

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

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???????

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

4 1/2 million years?
Now we are going back before even my time!
200 years of records still beats 7 to show a trend in my book.
The planet is getting warmer without a doubt. Even in my short time in the world, the climate has changed.
Man made?
I lean on the 'not' side in that argument, but the jury is still out on that discussion, and none of the opinionated on TOTV will ever hear the official verdict.

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