[bopat]

I remember elementary school back in the early 70s, we had coloring books about the impending ice age and peak oil. Guess that might be coming back now that we're all done with global warming. Maybe throw in some fresh water shortages too, that's also fun.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by bopat

I remember elementary school back in the early 70s, we had coloring books about the impending ice age and peak oil. Guess that might be coming back now that we're all done with global warming. Maybe throw in some fresh water shortages too, that's also fun.

It snowed in Miami in 1977 when the AMO was coldest ... and the AMO, now in its warm phase (ala global warming), is due to begin its next cooling phase.

[MrFlorida]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

TV Warming is caused by excessive hot air from Villagers.

And also around Washington DC......

[Two Bills]

The term Climate Change is correct.
Climate has definitely changed over my 85 years, and has always been changing over millions of years.
It's the man made bit I am very skeptical about.

[MikeVillages]

Go to a weather club meeting. They often talk about how fake the warming of the planet is.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Lottoguy

They haven’t called it Global Warming in 15 years. Climate Change is what is actually going on.

Yes, the title was changed to fit the agenda. As Einstein once said, “If the facts don’t fit the theory, then change the facts.”

[Lottoguy]

A foot of snow on Bourbon Street in New Orleans is normal then?

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Lottoguy

A foot of snow on Bourbon Street in New Orleans is normal then?

It will be the new normal as we continue to cool into the next ice age glaciation period. Notice the curved purple line -- it is trending down. It is the Milankovitch Cycle's "Obliquity cycle" which is the most significant cycle regarding ice ages.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

The term Climate Change is correct.
Climate has definitely changed over my 85 years, and has always been changing over millions of years.
It's the man made bit I am very skeptical about.

I'm not. The evidence is there for those who look.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

The term Climate Change is correct.
Climate has definitely changed over my 85 years, and has always been changing over millions of years.
It's the man made bit I am very skeptical about.

This appears to be the most genuine post in the thread so far.

Would you consider "human-participation" as fair? That - we have probably not caused climate change OR global warming OR whatever else (some claim the government created the hurricanes...) - but rather, the Agricultural and Industrial ages have *contributed* to the changes?

Things like deforestation, building skyscrapers and roads on shorelines, which contributes to erosion, which contributes to shifts in tides and the patterns of marinelife, drilling holes in the ground and sucking out the oil to burn into the atmosphere, which can have SOME kind of impact, even if it's not significant, on the planet's ability to insulate itself from the sun?

I'm not judging these things that we've done in this post. I'm just stating that - we have done these things. I'm asking if you feel that what we've done MIGHT have contributed to - rather than caused - the recent changes in climate.

Whether that contribution has resulted in faster change, or more extreme change, or more frequency of the same extremes, or changing locations of those changes... just in general. Do you agree or disagree that we, the human race, have in fact contributed to change in some way?

I think we have.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

It will be the new normal as we continue to cool into the next ice age glaciation period. Notice the curved purple line -- it is trending down. It is the Milankovitch Cycle's "Obliquity cycle" which is the most significant cycle regarding ice ages.

Yes. Normally. But the earth isn't cooling, it's warming, way faster than than it normally would per the Milankovitch cycles. Even with the poles receiving less solar radiation (per Milankovitch) the earth is warming.
What drives the warming at a rate the Milankovitch cycles would/could never match? That is the result of the one variable that some just can't (or won't) credit. That variable is human intervention, interference, manipulation, industrialization, pollution, destruction, construction,, etc, etc, and on. Here is hardly a place on the planet that hasn't been affected by human activity of one sort or another. Hardly an ecosystem that hasn't been altered. Yep, we, modern humans with our big brains and opposeble thumbs. We are the one variable. Not volcanoes, dinosaurs, ore even asteroids. Humans.
Now, for the big question. Do you care? If you love your family, friends, country, planet, then, in my opinion, you should if you are sufficiently evolved. 🫥🫥🙈🙉🫥

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

This appears to be the most genuine post in the thread so far.

Would you consider "human-participation" as fair? That - we have probably not caused climate change OR global warming OR whatever else (some claim the government created the hurricanes...) - but rather, the Agricultural and Industrial ages have *contributed* to the changes?

Things like deforestation, building skyscrapers and roads on shorelines, which contributes to erosion, which contributes to shifts in tides and the patterns of marinelife, drilling holes in the ground and sucking out the oil to burn into the atmosphere, which can have SOME kind of impact, even if it's not significant, on the planet's ability to insulate itself from the sun?

I'm not judging these things that we've done in this post. I'm just stating that - we have done these things. I'm asking if you feel that what we've done MIGHT have contributed to - rather than caused - the recent changes in climate.

Whether that contribution has resulted in faster change, or more extreme change, or more frequency of the same extremes, or changing locations of those changes... just in general. Do you agree or disagree that we, the human race, have in fact contributed to change in some way?

I think we have.

And you are correct. With out a doubt.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

This appears to be the most genuine post in the thread so far.

Would you consider "human-participation" as fair? That - we have probably not caused climate change OR global warming OR whatever else (some claim the government created the hurricanes...) - but rather, the Agricultural and Industrial ages have *contributed* to the changes?

Things like deforestation, building skyscrapers and roads on shorelines, which contributes to erosion, which contributes to shifts in tides and the patterns of marinelife, drilling holes in the ground and sucking out the oil to burn into the atmosphere, which can have SOME kind of impact, even if it's not significant, on the planet's ability to insulate itself from the sun?

I'm not judging these things that we've done in this post. I'm just stating that - we have done these things. I'm asking if you feel that what we've done MIGHT have contributed to - rather than caused - the recent changes in climate.

Whether that contribution has resulted in faster change, or more extreme change, or more frequency of the same extremes, or changing locations of those changes... just in general. Do you agree or disagree that we, the human race, have in fact contributed to change in some way?

I think we have.

There is no proof man-made CO2 harms our climate -- otherwise there would be a report saying so.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sounding

There is no proof man-made CO2 harms our climate -- otherwise there would be a report saying so.

I’m sure I’m going to be sorry, but….

Okay, if the reports linking climate change to increased CO2 caused by human activity do not say that man-made CO2 is harming the environment, then what *do* they say?

Or is this that part where you acknowledge climate change, acknowledge increasing CO2, acknowledge man’s contribution to that CO2, and even acknowledge that the CO2 contributes to the climate change, but assert that the climate change is good?

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I’m sure I’m going to be sorry, but….

Okay, if the reports linking climate change to increased CO2 caused by human activity do not say that man-made CO2 is harming the environment, then what *do* they say?

Or is this that part where you acknowledge climate change, acknowledge increasing CO2, acknowledge man’s contribution to that CO2, and even acknowledge that the CO2 contributes to the climate change, but assert that the climate change is good?

This 3-minute video by Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, reflects my opinions ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzVMSxszudo