[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

I am so tired of the supposed "facts." When really they are just "educated" guesses. Scientists "knowing" what the temperatures were 1000 years ago much less a million or 50 years in the future is absolute baloney. Every single day there are stories about scientists have "learned" knew things which makes what they "already knew" wrong.

Here are just a few...there are lots.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...f22ec4fd&ei=16

New Discoveries Changed Our Understanding of Human History

If you don't trust science, then you shouldn't trust anyone. They'll miss you at the weather club meeting. Don't bother going to a doctor, their whole business is based in science.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

You'd be surprised how many requested this talk.

Actually, very little surprises me any more.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Interesting. I think I heard:

1. Climate change is real but it's a small price to pay for the convenience of burning fossil fuels.

2. Climate change is real but we don't know the precise magnitude of how bad it will be and we like the convenience of burning fossil fuels.

3. If we use our definitions to restate what a paper claims to show then we can demonstrate that the paper doesn't show that. Oh, and we like the convenience of burning fossil fuels.

To be fair, the paper says:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

People can debate whether "humans are causing global warming" means all warming is caused by humans or whether it means the significant increase in warming is caused by humans. The video argues against the former but so would I. On the other hand, while the irrefutable proof is missing, I believe the latter.

But what you didn't list is: "Climate change is real, but it has been going on in repetitive cycles for millions of years BEFORE we burned fossil fuels--and we still like burning them"

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

But what you didn't list is: "Climate change is real, but it has been going on in repetitive cycles for millions of years BEFORE we burned fossil fuels--and we still like burning them"

I didn't hear that; I guess I need to go back and listen more carefully.

I will say that I agree with that as an explanation for part of the warming. What I don't see in that statement and I can't get out of my mind is the correlation between the increase in CO2 and the increase in the *rate* of warming. Could be a coincidence, that happens, but it could also be more.

Has AGW been proven to be the cause of the increase in rate? Not sure about that. Plenty of models and explanations for why AGW *could* be the cause though.

Worth spending $100T on? Now we're really into speculation and opinion. Renewable power, less dependence on fossil fuels, cleaner vehicles are all worth exploring. Waiting for China or India to invest in the research and development is a lost cause. Getting ahead of the game and driving the price down so that India and China can afford the "green" solutions? We're back into opinions again but that might be worthwhile.

[Topspinmo]

IMO the problem with climate too many humans and too many corn, soybeans fields, strip mines, cattle farms, fishing boats the dredge the oceans. Too many termite mounds, and many more. But overpopulation and deforestation NO 1 IMO.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

IMO the problem with climate too many humans and too many corn, soybeans fields, strip mines, cattle farms, fishing boats the dredge the oceans. Too many termite mounds, and many more. But overpopulation and deforestation NO 1 IMO.

Don't forget too many farting cows

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

If you don't trust science, then you shouldn't trust anyone. They'll miss you at the weather club meeting. Don't bother going to a doctor, their whole business is based in science.

That's just it. It's not science, it's just their current guess. So you trust them completely when they say the first thing is the truth and you trust them completely when they say that was wrong this new thing is the absolute truth? I didn't say I don't trust science. I don't trust people who claim to know what happened a million years ago and what will happen 50 years from now.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

Hear a new talk at the Weather Club, "We Live In The Pleistocene Ice Age" on August 17 at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor. We live in the coldest period of Earth's 4.5 billion year history. It's called the Pleistocene Ice Age, which started 2.5 million years ago; and with few exceptions, each Ice Age glaciation gets colder and colder. Before the Pleistocene, the Earth had no permanent ice caps - but now we do. Even though we are in an Interglacial Warming Period, many glaciers continue to grow.

Somehow when I think of this particular Weather Club.....the concept of "cone of uncertainty" comes to mind.
.......To be serious. If you Google, "is Antarctica losing mass (melting)? You get to NASA (.com) where you see the statement. Antarctica is melting at an average rate of 150 BILLION tons per year. Greenland's loss is even greater.....losing about 270 BILLION tons per year, adding to sea level rise.
........NASA satellites show that the land ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica have been LOSING mass since 2002.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by sounding

Hear a new talk at the Weather Club, "We Live In The Pleistocene Ice Age" on August 17 at 1:30 PM at Laurel Manor. We live in the coldest period of Earth's 4.5 billion year history. It's called the Pleistocene Ice Age, which started 2.5 million years ago; and with few exceptions, each Ice Age glaciation gets colder and colder. Before the Pleistocene, the Earth had no permanent ice caps - but now we do. Even though we are in an Interglacial Warming Period, many glaciers continue to grow.

Logically speaking, why would ANYONE believe that worldwide - glaciers are increasing? Last July was the warmest in RECORDED history and that trend is predicted by close to 100 % of all scientists to continue for the next 8 years. And it is part of MAN-MADE Global Warming. This can be proved by the increase in the ocean level worldwide that has gone up rapidly in the last few years. Also related is the CO2 increase both the oceans and in the upper atmosphere. This logically has happened because the RAPID population increase worldwide has caused humans to cut down forests and the Amazon Rain Forest, which in years past could absorb any extra CO2. And logically most CO2 production is from Internal Combustion automobile engines.

[fishon]

If the goal is depopulation, show your commitment by leading the way and being an example to others.
By and by, I’ll let you know if it works.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Logically speaking, why would ANYONE believe that worldwide - glaciers are increasing? Last July was the warmest in RECORDED history and that trend is predicted by close to 100 % of all scientists to continue for the next 8 years. And it is part of MAN-MADE Global Warming. This can be proved by the increase in the ocean level worldwide that has gone up rapidly in the last few years. Also related is the CO2 increase both the oceans and in the upper atmosphere. This logically has happened because the RAPID population increase worldwide has caused humans to cut down forests and the Amazon Rain Forest, which in years past could absorb any extra CO2. And logically most CO2 production is from Internal Combustion automobile engines.

Logically speaking, there are about 130,000 glaciers on Earth. Thousands are growing, thousands are melting. Overall, right now, I suspect that the net is more melting, and that will continue for another 20,000 years or so. After all, it started 20,000 years ago. But wait---there weren't any internal combustion engines 20,000 years ago. And now you're up to claiming 100% of scientists. Hey, I'm a scientist and I dissent, so there goes 100%.

As far as CO2 goes, atmospheric levels appear to have increased from 300 ppm to 400 ppm over the last century or so. Carbon emissions? Maybe, but there are many possible causes. After all, there have been times when Earth's CO2 in the atmosphere has exceeded 4,000 ppm, and some of those periods were ice ages.

So, once again, this ICE theme is just more useless noise, like a fly buzzing.

[miharris]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Interesting. I think I heard:

1. Climate change is real but it's a small price to pay for the convenience of burning fossil fuels.

2. Climate change is real but we don't know the precise magnitude of how bad it will be and we like the convenience of burning fossil fuels.

3. If we use our definitions to restate what a paper claims to show then we can demonstrate that the paper doesn't show that. Oh, and we like the convenience of burning fossil fuels.

To be fair, the paper says:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

People can debate whether "humans are causing global warming" means all warming is caused by humans or whether it means the significant increase in warming is caused by humans. The video argues against the former but so would I. On the other hand, while the irrefutable proof is missing, I believe the latter.

Actually according to the Video, an analysis showed that less that 2% of the papers surveyed specifically said that human activity was the main cause of Climate change, the alleged scientific researcher admitted that he included papers where he felt that the change was anthropogenic is "implied", but not stated specifically. Pretty representative of what passes for research today, total drivel.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by miharris

Actually according to the Video, an analysis showed that less that 2% of the papers surveyed specifically said that human activity was the main cause of Climate change, the alleged scientific researcher admitted that he included papers where he felt that the change was anthropogenic is "implied", but not stated specifically. Pretty representative of what passes for research today, total drivel.

The paper was misrepresented in the video. I read it today, I looked at the numbers, and I quoted directly from the paper.

If I missed something, please point out the section of the paper that I missed.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The paper was misrepresented in the video. I read it today, I looked at the numbers, and I quoted directly from the paper.

Par for the course. There seems to be a lot of "misrepresentation" going around these days.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Par for the course. There seems to be a lot of "misrepresentation" going around these days.

Unfortunately, this does seem to be the case