[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

I can’t believe you guys took the bait from this OP.

Would you rather we discuss covid vaccines or dog poop?

[Tvflguy]

This is one of those Threads that I flick thru. I have a pet peeve of 1500 word posts. As if I would spend time pursing thru the yada. The experts come out to their keyboards and spew.

I know, just don’t read. I don’t. Rather read about dog poop and fallen fronds.

[dtennent]

For those who who believe that climate change is not real, please read the following review article.
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience

As a scientist who has published many articles over the years, I have never seen this type of agreement on any topic of discussion in peer reviewed articles. While there will always be some who will publish what they think others want, the vast majority of scientists have the integrity to publish their data and the their analysis of that data.

I think those who have no expertise in the field, who make statements of ‘fact’, who publish in non peer reviewed places and who won’t provide their sources are doing all of us a great disservice.

[PugMom]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by dtennent

For those who who believe that climate change is not real, please read the following review article.
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience

As a scientist who has published many articles over the years, I have never seen this type of agreement on any topic of discussion in peer reviewed articles. While there will always be some who will publish what they think others want, the vast majority of scientists have the integrity to publish their data and the their analysis of that data.

I think those who have no expertise in the field, who make statements of ‘fact’, who publish in non peer reviewed places and who won’t provide their sources are doing all of us a great disservice.

I think you are kidding yourself. I, too have published papers in respected journals but never on a politically controversial subject. Have your publications been controversial???? Was your research funded by government grants, or were you free to write what you wanted?

Since you know the process, answer this-----who gets the funding after their proposal to the appropriate government agency???

1) The guy who plans a research study with the goal of proving that fossil fuels have done absolutely nothing to change our climate, and asks for $250,000

2) The guy who proposes a study with the goal of showing that fossil fuels are causing an imminent climate change that will devastate our world and do so much sooner than expected, in fact, in our lifetimes, and asks for 50 million.

Be honest, we all know the answer to that one

So much for 99% agreement----the number is a joke in and of itself----get 10 of us together in a room and you'll get 10 different opinions. Then there's the question of just who is telling us this 99% agreement
Go look at the "consensus" among recently retired climatologists and those that are not getting US gov't funding---you get a completely different story.
Second to last, look at the accuracy of the Euro vs. the US weather prediction models for the last 20 years---I think you'll find the Euro model to be far, far more accurate. Why? Because for that time period the American model has incorporated CO2 emissions and global warming into its model. So, as a scientist, what does it tell you when a model with a pretty decent track record changes to add garbage into its prediction and then starts to fail? Again, be honest
And lastly---I'll repeat my question: Since half the country is no longer under 2 miles of ice as it was 20,000 years ago, since the climate has warmed, what kind of SUV did Fred Flintstone drive? And was Bedrock using nuclear power instead of burning fossil fuels? Put in perspective, that's why "global warming" is a joke and a political fraud that we get to pay for

[justjim]

“People will generally only accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe.” Andy Rooney Never more true than on TOTV.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by dtennent

For those who who believe that climate change is not real, please read the following review article.
Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - IOPscience

As a scientist who has published many articles over the years, I have never seen this type of agreement on any topic of discussion in peer reviewed articles. While there will always be some who will publish what they think others want, the vast majority of scientists have the integrity to publish their data and the their analysis of that data.

I think those who have no expertise in the field, who make statements of ‘fact’, who publish in non peer reviewed places and who won’t provide their sources are doing all of us a great disservice.

Thank you for your post. And sadly, I expect it won't change any minds.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I think you are kidding yourself. I, too have published papers in respected journals but never on a politically controversial subject. Have your publications been controversial???? Was your research funded by government grants, or were you free to write what you wanted?

Since you know the process, answer this-----who gets the funding after their proposal to the appropriate government agency???

1) The guy who plans a research study with the goal of proving that fossil fuels have done absolutely nothing to change our climate, and asks for $250,000

2) The guy who proposes a study with the goal of showing that fossil fuels are causing an imminent climate change that will devastate our world and do so much sooner than expected, in fact, in our lifetimes, and asks for 50 million.

Be honest, we all know the answer to that one

So much for 99% agreement----the number is a joke in and of itself----get 10 of us together in a room and you'll get 10 different opinions. Then there's the question of just who is telling us this 99% agreement
Go look at the "consensus" among recently retired climatologists and those that are not getting US gov't funding---you get a completely different story.
Second to last, look at the accuracy of the Euro vs. the US weather prediction models for the last 20 years---I think you'll find the Euro model to be far, far more accurate. Why? Because for that time period the American model has incorporated CO2 emissions and global warming into its model. So, as a scientist, what does it tell you when a model with a pretty decent track record changes to add garbage into its prediction and then starts to fail? Again, be honest
And lastly---I'll repeat my question: Since half the country is no longer under 2 miles of ice as it was 20,000 years ago, since the climate has warmed, what kind of SUV did Fred Flintstone drive? And was Bedrock using nuclear power instead of burning fossil fuels? Put in perspective, that's why "global warming" is a joke and a political fraud that we get to pay for

Weather and Climate are two related but different subjects. So, looking at whether to prove or disprove climate change is not valid.

And if you are right, then 90% of the scientists in the world are wrong, liars, or political flunkies. Yeah, I don't think so.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Thank you for your post. And sadly, I expect it won't change any minds.

Hopefully not. I'd hate to see anyone move from the correct scenario to a completely wrong position.

[positiveinlife]

1. Review of sceptical papers
In supplementary table 1 we present the full list of all 31 sceptical papers we found in our dataset. An in-depth evaluation of their merits is outside the scope of this paper, and could be an interesting area for further work.

So this paper put no effort into looking into the counter data that exist just summarily dismissing it. Hmmmm.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Hopefully not. I'd hate to see anyone move from the correct scenario to a completely wrong position.

Yes, and drive by one liners as usual. Very helpful in understanding what and why you believe.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Weather and Climate are two related but different subjects. So, looking at whether to prove or disprove climate change is not valid.

And if you are right, then 90% of the scientists in the world are wrong, liars, or political flunkies. Yeah, I don't think so.

Who was looking at weather (not whether)??? My post dealt strictly with climate.

And secondly, I AM right. You need to look at just who is telling you 90+% of scientists are in agreement.

And again, I ask, what model SUV was Fred Flintstone driving??? This is pretty simple, but I can walk it through again:
The "global warming advocates" take the position that the warming of our climate is due to human's burning fossil fuels and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. To that end they are willing to spend 100 TRILLION, yes trillion with a T, over the next 50 years to "combat" it. And they know we have only been burning these fuels for about 150 years. So when our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, there was no ice covering Philadelphia. Yet, 20,000 years earlier that area was covered in 2 miles of ice. There clearly was "global warming" over those 20,000 years. So, I posed the simple question---what kind of SUV was Fred Flintstone driving?? Did he use regular or premium? Were nuclear power plants and not coal burning plants providing the electricity for his home? (Or maybe he drove an EV). Guess what----none of the "global warming due to man's activity crowd" has answered that question. And they won't since it does not fit their narrative. Nor will any politician. Nor will any climatologist who is receiving federal money. And if they did, they risk having that Joyce beatch from the view calling them a "climate change DI-NYE-AH" (PS: Joyce, you're on TV, get a new voice)
The real deniers are those that will not accept that there are cyclical changes in our climate that have been going on for millions of years and are driven by the power of the sun, and changes in Earth's orbit and axis tilt. Their SUVs don't have the horsepower to compete with that.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Yes, and drive by one liners as usual. Very helpful in understanding what and why you believe.

Then you haven't been reading my posts. I think my keyboard is getting tired from all the extensive posts I've written addressing just that.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

My position is that I do NOT believe in Man Made Climate Change. Yes the climate has changed over and over for millions of years.
Can man control the climate… NO. We are waiting a lot of much needed money on this nonsense. Stop already.
That said I do believe that we should not pollute the air, land and water. That makes sense. Common Sense appears to be a thing of the past!

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by TNLAKEPANDA

My position is that I do NOT believe in Man Made Climate Change. Yes the climate has changed over and over for millions of years.
Can man control the climate… NO. We are waiting a lot of much needed money on this nonsense. Stop already.
That said I do believe that we should not pollute the air, land and water. That makes sense. Common Sense appears to be a thing of the past!

Welcome to Joyce from The View's "climate change DI-NYE-AH" club