[sounding]

Originally Posted by blueash

Would you like me to find 500 vaccine Covid deniers who are active or retired doctors? Would you find their videos convincing and say that the science is not well founded and that the vaccines were not well designed? Were the models "inadequate" Is Covid a "blessing" I cannot imagine any scientist citing "blessing" as an explanation for a science opinion.

The overwhelming number of people working on climate are on one side of the divide. A few are on the other. You get so upset and get very snarky about non MD on this thread claiming any expertise in medicine yet here you are, no background in climate yet you have the gall to do exactly what the Covid vaccine skeptics did and you soundly condemned them.

You have your mind made up, use the "shoving it down our throats" image, claim it is all a conspiracy of brain washed fools in it for the money. Their Big Pharma is your Big Climate.

And no, another lecture from you about the Pleistocene era does not ring any useful bells here. At least you have finally admitted that global warming is real. And that humans have an affect on what is happening.

The above statement that C02 is not a concern according to your experts is so bizarre that you should have immediately discarded their letter as junk science. Ask the planet Venus about C02. I certainly would call a byproduct of burning fossil fuels a pollutant.

If anyone wants to read the truth about C02 here is a useful website debunking the bunk being spread above.

As to whether climate models have been accurate in their prediction of future temperatures.. just google that question. NASA has a lovely set of graphs you can see Or maybe NASA and Columbia and Harvard and Japan and England and Australia etc etc are all part of the climate cabal that taught the Covid cabal everything about righteous argle bargle

Those that go down the Venus/CO2 rabbit hole are unaware of the ideal gas law (PV=nRT) which applies to all planets - except Carl Sagan's brain. This was explained in detail at the Weather Club's talk call "Carl Sagan and his Runaway Greenhouse Theory" which fails the laws of basic atmospheric science.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by blueash

This graph uses as a zero point the temperature average over a 30 year period from 1991 to 2020. Of course this was a period when temps were already moving upward as you can see looking at how no years prior to 2002 were warmer than that average. So when a person who regularly posts that we are in a cooling trend selectively uses a single hot year as a baseline, know you are being manipulated and lied to.

Diligence is required when using modeled data similar to that shown here, because here is how computer modeling fills in the no-data gaps with "fabricated" data. No wonder everyone sees red - where there's none.

[Eclas]

quit watching cnn. you'll sleep better

[ithos]

Originally Posted by blueash

I am sure you apply the same decision making to your view of religion. It is a very rare person who spouts their faith actually lives the tenets of that faith in each action they take. It is a very rare doctor who takes their own advice, it is a very rare cop who follows the law, it is a very rare politician who has ethics...

So your "believe in Global Warming" argument rejection must mean you reject medicine, religion, law enforcement.... or your argument is bogus.

Not even the most ardent rejectionist are now arguing there is no global warming event like they did a few years ago. Now the goalposts have moved and they accept that the planet is rapidly warming as there is now irrefutable evidence of that fact.

Instead it is now that humans play no role in that event or that it doesn't matter because it sure will be nice when it is warmer. You can see both of these arguments presented in this very thread. One person telling us that climate always changes, but ignoring that it does not change as rapidly as it is now without some major shift in the factors that control climate none of which have occurred other than humans burning fossil fuels and changing the amount of greenhouses gases.

Another poster telling us how wonderful hot earth will be because we will have such a nice diverse number of species.

Follow the money others pontificate... Yes, I am sure that those university adjuncts are rolling in cash now, way more that the profits of Exxon and Shell and BP an others, almost none of which is going to cleaning up or new investment or employee benefits. No those obscene profits are going into stock buy backs to increase the net worth of the CEOs and the 1% That is the money you need to be following. That is where the big bucks are.

I will await somebody posting how much those working on fixing the problem profited in 2022. And this is PROFIT not income.

One way or the other there will be winners and losers with regard to corporate profits. The only difference is that if the climate scaremongers succeed it will result in a significant reduction of the standard of living for first world countries and much worse for underdeveloped populations.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by cjrjck

I asked this same question earlier so I will try again. For the sake of conversation, call me skeptic. Why does that bother you so much? I respect your right to believe anything about any subject, even if I disagree with you on some issues. It's really none of my business otherwise. Yet for some reason I can't understand, when it comes to this issue, bringing skeptics into the "fold" seems to be a paramount concern for many of the "true believers". Why?

To me, there is a difference between skeptic and denier. A skeptic acknowledges the data but still has questions or doubts. I am a bit of a skeptic myself on this subject. I see the correlation between CO2 and an increased rate of temperature rise and I have an understanding of how CO2 is able to cause temperature rise but I don't feel 100% confident that CO2 *is* the cause of that increase.

I would welcome a discussion with a skeptic. I enjoyed pondering why sea levels rose so quickly in the past compared to today. It was interesting to research sea level change in the Med and to think about how it could appear that the levels were 20ft higher on one side of the island in Roman times while also being 13ft *lower* on the other side. Asking questions about the data and sincerely looking for answers is interesting.

What is more common on this topic are deniers. Some are simply say "there ain't no climate change." Others point to gross estimations of the climate millions of years ago to ignore instrumented measurements from the last 100 years. And others attempt to mislead by posting data from denier websites or cherry-picking data until a graph looks the way they want or discussing the wardrobe choices of coral.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

.....
What is more common on this topic are deniers. Some are simply say "there ain't no climate change." Others point to gross estimations of the climate millions of years ago to ignore instrumented measurements from the last 100 years. And others attempt to mislead by posting data from denier websites or cherry-picking data until a graph looks the way they want or discussing the wardrobe choices of coral.

Not "ignoring" the last 100 years of data. Opining that it is nowhere near long enough to draw any conclusions. It's looking at a 100-year snippet out of a 100,000+ year cycle with no idea whatsoever what the data from the other 1000-hundred-year snippets were. Here's an analogy most will understand. A pro football game lasts 3600 seconds. So, what the climate change alarmists are stating is that by seeing team A holding the ball for 3.6 seconds, they know that team will hold the ball until the world ends. and if they happen to kick a field goal during that brief time, they are extrapolating a final score of 3,000,000 to 0. It simply makes no sense.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Not "ignoring" the last 100 years of data. Opining that it is nowhere near long enough to draw any conclusions. It's looking at a 100-year snippet out of a 100,000+ year cycle with no idea whatsoever what the data from the other 1000-hundred-year snippets were. Here's an analogy most will understand. A pro football game lasts 3600 seconds. So, what the climate change alarmists are stating is that by seeing team A holding the ball for 3.6 seconds, they know that team will hold the ball until the world ends. and if they happen to kick a field goal during that brief time, they are extrapolating a final score of 3,000,000 to 0. It simply makes no sense.

When a team has had its ups and downs over many seasons then you expect that team to win a few and lose a few this season as well. If you start to notice that the team is now winning a lot more than it is losing and that this started when Tom Brady was added then it would be foolish not to take notice of that. Maybe it isn't Brady, maybe it is Gronkoski, but something out of the ordinary is happening.

The rate of warming was fairly stable for a long time before beginning to increase (warm faster) around 1850. The increase in the rate of warming may not be related to the increase of CO2. However, the strong correlation between the timing of the two and the known effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas make it worth paying attention to.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

When a team has had its ups and downs over many seasons then you expect that team to win a few and lose a few this season as well. If you start to notice that the team is now winning a lot more than it is losing and that this started when Tom Brady was added then it would be foolish not to take notice of that. Maybe it isn't Brady, maybe it is Gronkoski, but something out of the ordinary is happening.

The rate of warming was fairly stable for a long time before beginning to increase (warm faster) around 1850. The increase in the rate of warming may not be related to the increase of CO2. However, the strong correlation between the timing of the two and the known effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas make it worth paying attention to.

Maybe. Or maybe it's just coincidence. Again, we have no other 150 year snippets to compare it with. What if the global temp and CO2 levels both rose from 7950-7800 BC twice as high as since 1850???? Does anyone know whether it did or didn't??? NOBODY does. Which is why claims of imminent disaster by zealots are unfounded.

And to use your Brady analogy (full disclosure, I am NOT a Patriots fan ), yes , they started on a streak with many more wins and losses back then. Would you have bet your life savings on the next game? So why bet $130 TRILLION on the next global warming game????

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by spinner1001

This thread now has over 100 posts. I believe roughly 90% of them are arguments over whether climate change exists or is it a serious global problem. But I don’t believe anyone on this thread or anywhere else has offered a **practical** solution to ‘fix’ climate change in a democratic way. Almost none of us want a totalitarian state like China to require us to follow draconian actions such as only one natural child per couple or preventing a person from flying more than 4 times over their life.

A practical fix is not ‘we can start by [eating bugs or whatever]’. That is not a serious proposal. For those believing that climate change is a serious global problem and needs to be fixed, what is the **practical** fix that moves the needle rather than only good intentions or an action without serious negative consequences? Anyone with a serious fix?

The "practical fix" is exactly the same as the one that raised 5 billion people from the standard human condition of starvation and poverty under the heel of a tyrant -- in a mere 30 years since the fall of the Soviet Union -- CAPITALISM.

A two degree rise in temperature 100 years from now will barely be noticed by us rich folks in America -- we have air conditioning. Therefore, the solution is for EVERYONE to get rich.

The "crises" of a microscopic rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be solved by WEALTH. Wealth = Matter x Energy x Human Ingenuity. W=MEH. And the only system that has ever been devised to increase wealth is CAPITALISM.

But capitalism needs energy and liberty to exist -- which are EXACTLY the two things that the "climate change" fanatics seek to end. This should not be a surprise, since the leaders of this movement are also avowed Marxists. And as countless Marxist experiments have demonstrated in the last 150 years since Marx published Das Capital, the Marxist solution to every Human complaint is -- kill more humans.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Eclas

quit watching cnn. you'll sleep better

Agree. Even the billboards in South Africa are smarter than CNN.

[donfey]

Originally Posted by Byte1

And now they are calling for a record "COLDEST" winter due to El Nino. I moved to Florida to get away from cold weather and so far I have been surprised by some pretty cold nights during the "winter" months.

We used to call that WEATHER.
The hottest temperature EVER recorded in Florida was 109 on June 29, 1931 in Monticello. Must have been plenty of cow flatulence back then.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Maybe. Or maybe it's just coincidence. Again, we have no other 150 year snippets to compare it with. What if the global temp and CO2 levels both rose from 7950-7800 BC twice as high as since 1850???? Does anyone know whether it did or didn't??? NOBODY does. Which is why claims of imminent disaster by zealots are unfounded.

And to use your Brady analogy (full disclosure, I am NOT a Patriots fan ), yes , they started on a streak with many more wins and losses back then. Would you have bet your life savings on the next game? So why bet $130 TRILLION on the next global warming game????

Fear of imminent disaster is unfounded just as the fear of a $130T expenditure is unfounded. Both have been mentioned, both appear to be sensationalized.

This could turn out to be a case of not letting a crisis go to waste. Even if it turns out not to be a crisis, climate change concern is driving advances in some useful technologies that will benefit some today and many in the future. A blank check is certainly uncalled for but directed funding used wisely could have a lot of return on investment.

[The Chipster]

I have learned NOT to use reason with climate deniers. No matter what reliable, scientific, reasonable data you share with them, they are in a cult and will not believe anything except for their conspiracy-laden anti-government/media beliefs. Better to just nod your head and smile.

Note to OP: this is not political.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by mntlblok

Well, that's just great. Can't resist a possibly interesting rabbit hole, so wasted some googling time down this one. That "sinking" thing coulda been *really* interesting to learn about, but all I got was this article where "sinking" is merely a euphemism for alarmist levels of sea level rise in a ridiculously short period of time. RISING TIDES – Stevenson Villager

And *now* learn that "Bill" isn't even currently living in Stevenson! :-) Also, it appears that I still have a bit to figure out about those "signature" listings of former places residence. Guess the lower the listing, the more recent - at least sometimes. I do now know that Victor, NY, apparently has nothing to do with any Kent Island. :-)

Try this article...

Rising seas, sinking land put Maryland’s waterfront communities at risk | Maryland | fredericknewspost.com

But even that article make little sense. It states that the Chesapeake Bay is rising at 2-3Xs the rate of worldwide sea levels...

How is that possible since it empties into the Atlantic, just a few miles away?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by mntlblok

Might the term "denier" have picked up certain connotations within this realm? Bet you knew that. :-)

It's most certainly meant as an insult...

Of course, that's not allowed on ToTV...