[Byte1]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

20,000 years away? Just may be sooner than that, IF some of us don't quit shouting that science is a conspiracy to steal our money.
150 years of climate data? The data is in core samples of earth and ice. It is in the rocks and evidence is there. That is how we know what the earth climate was in past ages. But you deny or forgot millions of years of earth history and the sciences that solve the mysteries of the past. Instead you brand all those scientists as idiots, liars and conspirators in a money grab scam?
And the little gravestone? That is an insult to all the men and women who ever did research to try and find cures for human illnesses or answers to scientific questions.

Are you suggesting that scientists would volunteer to do these studies if they were not getting paid? And do you think that they would stretch out this research if they were not getting paid? Do you believe ALL scientists and their results? You said you believe the information that scientists have provided about the climate changes in the "millions of years" of history, but when someone says that most of that time, humans weren't around, and there was climate change you still feel that mankind has caused climate change? Why is it that so many folks seem to think that man caused pollution is synonymous with man caused climate change?
I guess you can say that I changed the climate from cold winters by moving South to Florida where the winters are warm. That changed the climate for me. But, even though some on here argue that man is responsible for climate change, they have yet to prove that man has contributed to changing the climate. Just stating absolutely that man really has changed the changes or weather cycles, does not prove it. Yes, I believe that scientists that get paid to do research into a subject with the goal of proving a preconceived outcome, are wasting (stealing) taxpayer money, if they are not being honest/honorable about the results. An arson investigator can prove that a man caused a fire, therefore fire was caused by man. However, there can be a forest fire that was caused by lightning also. That investigator cannot say that all fires are caused by man. He cannot say that since man CAN cause fire, a forest fire was caused by man. Not a very good example, but you cannot say that man exists therefore man caused climate change.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

On second thought, not worth the effort

It is very worth it, as these issues (like climate change) reflect what Eisenhower warned us about many years ago -- how government increasingly controls "the science" -- and today everyone is "expected" to follow -- or be cancelled ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V71-kXuQhTo Einstein said, "Genius abhors consensus, because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."

[MorTech]

Higher global temperatures (Sun activity) causes increased atmospheric CO2 and H2O that act like a blanket to decrease global low/high pressure deltas and thus fewer hurricanes/tornados. This is 5th grade stuff.

[rsmurano]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

These arguments sound exactly like those made against the CDC, Dr. Fauci, concern over COVID, mitigation efforts, vaccine manufacturers, the vaccines, and now the boosters.

I am truly having a hard time figuring out whether I should follow the science, believe those that can dig up articles refuting the science, or do my own research.

Who would ever believe in the cdc or fauci or gore? Which hoax did you believe in during the last 50 years? The hole in the ozone layer that was going to destroy us? Global cooling? Global warming? According to some politicians we only have 4 years left before earth is destroyed..

[ChrisTinaBruce]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Why, repeat WHY, would we follow "leaders" who have a vested interest in promoting human activity as a cause of climate change??????

The EPA "leaders" want to keep their government jobs-----imagine someone in the EPA coming out and publicly stating that human activity has done nothing to change the climate----"Gone in Sixty Seconds" would be a gross underestimate of their longevity.

Imagine a climate scientist putting forth a proposal for a government grant with the premise that he intends to show human activity causing climate change is a myth----can anyone spell a grant of ZERO

Can you imagine a professor of climatology at one our universities (bastions of free speech) teaching their students that anthropogenic climate change is a myth?

And then the truly indoctrinated tout that "90%+ of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change". First of all, that number has been shown to be false and secondly, DOH!!!! no kidding

And those are just the people trying to preserve their salaries. Then we can move on to those that stand to make hundreds of millions for this farce....

Nailed It!

[Worldseries27]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

exactly!!!!!

why doesn't greenpeace sail over to china, the worlds greatest polluter ,and harass their infrastructure which is polluting the atmosphere
or hire somali pirates to assist them

[Romad]

You could go to the TV Weather Club meeting this afternoon and find out.

[me4vt]

Or just maybe GOD’s in charge as always! Man cannot control GOD’s will…….. Not Political!!

[NoMo50]

Follow the data? As has been shown many, many times, data is easily manipulated. You want to get to ground zero? Follow the money.

[mikempp]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Or maybe it got as powerful as it did because of the CO2 levels?

Have you seen the price of butter lately?!

I think the climate change might be CO2 between the ears? Climate had noithing to do with the price of butter, just an excuse.

[nancyre]

Amazing what can be done, with a Government Grant to prove a specific hypothesis. Also, change the weight of the factors in a model and the model's outcome changes. Noble prize winner planted trees in Africa - FYI they need CO2 to survive and produce Oz. They are finding methane gases being created by certain plants. Wake up to the twisting of reality to meet certain agendas.

[mikempp]

Originally Posted by sounding

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

Earth has experienced cold periods (or “ice ages”) and warm periods (“interglacials”) on roughly 100,000-year cycles for at least the last 1 million years. The last of these ices ended around 20,000 years ago.

[Beyond The Wall]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

These arguments sound exactly like those made against the CDC, Dr. Fauci, concern over COVID, mitigation efforts, vaccine manufacturers, the vaccines, and now the boosters.

I am truly having a hard time figuring out whether I should follow the science, believe those that can dig up articles refuting the science, or do my own research.

Following common sense , usually your own , is the best !

[midiwiz]

Originally Posted by sounding

It's best to follow our leaders who created the EPA Endangerment Finding, which says CO2 is a pollutant and also says ... "Human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events." They are correct -- CO2 is altering extreme weather events. Ever since 2020 the severe weather (major hurricane) trend is down -- thanks to CO2. The same goes for severe tornadoes (EF3 and greater) are also decreasing. Let's all celebrate and make more CO2. Fire up those barbies!

our leaders couldn't find their left hand if it was in their nose. You have posted nothing that is considered valid reference material, just blurb and opinion. if you'd like reference material from a referenceable source....

Have storms become more intense on the USA east coast in recent decades? Researchers from Cornell University have studied the wind speed of northeastern storms from 1951 through 2006. The scientists, Bernhardt and DeGaetano, 2012, found, “There was no clear trend in speed during the time period, although considerable season-to-season variability was present.” - Ken Gregory.

In another reference, it states that weather changes - that's what weather does.

So this nonsense about CO2 influencing hurricanes is pure rubbish, there has not been one valid and proven study done on it ever.

Thanks for the laugh today I needed one.

[Ptmckiou]

Originally Posted by sounding

Increased atmospheric CO2 prevented Hurricane Ian from attaining Category 5 status. According to the NHC and Weather Channel all the right conditions were in place ... very warm ocean temperatures, very humid air, and the La Nina in the Eastern Pacific. So it must be the higher CO2 levels.

Warm ocean waters means larger storms. Cold waters means no storms. Notice how Ian went from a 1 to a 4 in about 8 hours went it hit the warmest gulf waters. The reason it didn’t make it to a 5, is it ran out of warm water fuel, because it’s outer bands were then reaching over land. Land reduces strength.

Arctic ice cores have been studied and CO2 dramatically increased during the start of the Industrial Age. Prior to that time, studying 100,000+ years of time in deep ice cores, that type of fast ramp up of CO2 has not been since. So, it can be deduced that the Industrial Age was significant and CO2 has continued to rapidly increase compared to past ages. That warming is warming oceans, which in turn changes ocean currents, which brings more unstable weather, and larger storms because warm waters increases sizes of hurricanes. More CO2 means warmer waters, which by the way means many fish have to move farther north because typical food lives in the cooler waters. Everything is going to change with the more CO2. Now common sense would say, do everything we can do to reduce influencing more CO2 in the world. It doesn’t make sense to to ignore the trend of the CO2 in the world , and yet say, “Let’s just keep pumping as much CO2 into the world and ignore the rising levels.” Ya….like that makes sense.