[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by Cuervo

Global warming, global warming, global warming. Is it real or not there are people who have taken a stand that it on our doorstep, others who say it does not exist and others who say it does exist but it's not man made. Now the true believers say it's from all the pollutants that we have been pumping into the air. I don't fall into any one of these camps, but no matter if you believe in global warming or not what can't be denied is humans are polluting machines. We pump fumes into the air that if you were in a confined space would kill you, we have contaminated the soil to the point where it has entered our food system and in many areas in this country it is unsafe to drink the water. Stop arguing about global warming and wake up to the fact that humans are on a suicide mission with all the waste we are producing.

I believe it was Agent Smith that declared we are a virus, replicating ourselves until we exhaust all resources.

[blueash]

This one study decided to look at "surge" which it self defined as requiring a 55% increase in rate of global heating over a chosen time period. In other words a 50% surge in heating rate over the baseline already increased heating would be meaningless and produce a negative result.

These authors do not state there is not global warming. These authors do not state that warming is not accelerating suddenly. They only state that using a particular statistical definition of acceleration which they chose, that data does not show that acceleration.

They further acknowledge that the results for 2023 blow their data out the door and leave it as too short a time frame to be meaningful, which one year certainly is.

Lastly I will mention for all of you who regularly scream that anything that comes from a university professor is garbage because they have to toe the line on human caused climate change... How do you explain this paper which comes from university professors?? Apparently there is not some cabal of publishers and reviewers out to quash contrary thought.

[dfc3008]

"Figures lie and liars figure."

[Cuervo]

My issue has always been less with climate change and more to do with pollution. I also am a big believer if there is any doubt about something you get on the side of caution. If there is a question about something that could affect the health of life until you can prove something is totally safe you try to avoid it or change your habits. Let just look at some of our greatest hits: lead paint (brain damage in children), smoking (cancer), plastics (turning up today in humans), asbestos (fibers cutting the life of many) and let us not forget the medical community, thalidomide (which caused birth defects). The list goes on and on, we just ignore it until people start dropping dead and once, we solve the issue we forget it and find something else that will kill us. Look if there is any doubt about climate change, we should take whatever precautions we can until it is proven one way or another.

[GWilliams]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

Objective, scientific "proof" that there is no recent surge in global warming.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment

If you back before 1970 then you know that it is all a lie. The earth has seasons.

[cherylncliff]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

Objective, scientific "proof" that there is no recent surge in global warming.

A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet | Communications Earth & Environment

The article does not say there is no global warming. It says there is no change in the RATE of warming! It does note a spike in 2023.

The article also does not address ocean warming which is very serious.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by blueash

As a believer in science, which apparently makes me gullible, I wonder how you, IMO ridiculously, jumped, leapt, rocketed, to the conclusion that this paper in any way refutes that global warming is not real.

The author does not say it is not real. She does not say that global warming is not caused to a significant extent by humans and carbon dioxide. She does not say that the warming is not a threat to humanity. But somehow you, a physician, not a mathematician, not a physicist, not a climate scientist, think it supports your opinion that there is no human caused climate change.

That really deserves derision so here you go:

The difference between a doctor and God is;

To change the subject; it appears to not well educated me who by the way votes differently than you do, is that there has been great evidence presented to all of us that in fact that the atmosphere of this earth is getting warmer and causing a lot of problems.

I am not a person with a lot of letters after her name, but I am a pretty smart woman and the globe is warming.

The problem is that there isn't a precise and effective way to stop it that anyone on this earth knows about.

Sir.

[ken.yotz]

Interesting that in the Results section it says "However, it is somewhat naive to conclude that no surge has occurred...: You did read that part, didn't you?

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

You realize that would include golf course conditions and how long we have to wait b4 they open. 😱

Wait? Who waits? I played on my private course with my usual foursome and got a hole in one twice.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by blueash

As a believer in science, which apparently makes me gullible, I wonder how you, IMO ridiculously, jumped, leapt, rocketed, to the conclusion that this paper in any way refutes that global warming is not real.

The author does not say it is not real. She does not say that global warming is not caused to a significant extent by humans and carbon dioxide. She does not say that the warming is not a threat to humanity. But somehow you, a physician, not a mathematician, not a physicist, not a climate scientist, think it supports your opinion that there is no human caused climate change.

That really deserves derision so here you go:

Then clearly return derision is indicated (and deserved):

I DID NOT state the paper refutes global warming or that global warming does not exist. It does, since the planet has been warming for the last 20,000 years, only one part of 1 cycle of glaciation and interglacial thaws that has repeated itself over a dozen times in the last 4.5 million years of our CURRENT ICE AGE (look up the geologic definition of ice age). I agree with you about what the paper stated, simply that there is no recent surge in warming. Do I believe human activity contributes to the current warming cycle that would OCCUR ANYWAY WITHOUT HUMANS, yes, but to what extent is unknown, and most likely minimal considering the forces involve and the climate history of the last 4.5 million years. But regardless, here's the bad news: regardless of human activity, regardless of spending trillions to "combat" global warming, we will continue to warm for about another 25-35,000 years at which point ocean levels will be 200-400 feet higher and coastal cities are doomed---just as coastal cities built in India at the height of the last glacial maximum are now offshore and underwater.

Oh, I almost forgot, return derision

Don't think you can divine what I thought about anything. What my post actually stated and implied is that there is a "cult" of global warming enthusiasts with no understanding of paleoclimatology who have fallen hook, line and sinker for the "imminent disaster" narrative, and nothing will dissuade them---Not ridiculous Gore predictions, not the concept of cyclical glaciation and warming, not even the fact that the planet is 10F cooler than 65 M years ago. They have no understanding of the immense power of the sun, Earth's orbit and variations in that orbit. They 100% believe that fossil fuels alone are responsible and can only point to 100 years of WEATHER out of the past 4.5 million years as their bell weather event. So I repeat:1rotf:

Clear enough?????

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

In the (desperate) hope that the Chicken Little Crew can be enlightened and put the topic to bed permanently.

You can’t change the “religious” conviction of people with facts. They don’t care.

[hypart]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The problem is that there isn't a precise and effective way to stop it that anyone on this earth knows about.

Sir.

Sure, there is. Humans can get their energy from Nuclear and renewable sources rather than fossil fuels. Also, planting more trees will help. It's not hard or complicated.

The problem is the oil and coal industries are fighting like hell to keep it from happening by spreading misinformation. And so much of that misinformation is spread in posts like these.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Milton and Helene are obvious indicators of global warming.

Indeed. A hurricane in FL during hurricane season can only mean global warming.
I don't care for that emoji, but it seems to be the one of choice in this thread....

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Keithtama

You do know he is a leading advocate of trans humanism and a first tier Globalist.

Almost no one knows who you are talking about because you did not quote. But you are correct about Harari. See my next post below.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by OnInTwo

Nexus by Yuval Noah Harari is a fascinating non fiction read that explores information networks and their connections throughout history. Explains a lot of our our good and not so good behaviors throughout history and current events from several angles. Anyone who yearns to understand the what and why of misinformation and disinformation may want to put in the effort it takes to read it.

I used to think YNH was a genius after taking some online anthropology classes from him maybe a decade ago. But he has since proved himself to be an elitist shill for the WEF, so I have lost all respect.