[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

Why refute the experts on climate change who can't get anyone to agree with them on the statement that humans have been "mostly" "mainly" responsible for climate change since time began? No definition of time is allowed. Just everything said by the experts is irreputable and any response or opinion of random people is unacceptable.

I guess I must now blame the last Glacial Period on our ancestors who discovered fire by rubbing sticks together. Well maybe I should give them credit. I hate the cold. That is why I moved to Florida.

"Who can't get anyone to agree with them. I think I will leave that comment to speak for itself.

The most of the civilized world agree with them. But, I think this conversation is over since it never got started. Have fun, I hope you are right for everyones sake, but I will still take my advice from experts and not some random rant on the internet.

[sounding]

You bet. Those climate models all, all of them over-forecast temperatures for over 30 years. Over 30 years -- and all wrong. Except, the Russian model, which acknowledges CO2 is not a climate driver. It's amazing how foolish the people are to buy a corrupt product and then agree to change life-styles based on 30 years of bad results. Buyer beware. China and India are laughing their butts off watching us fall for corrupt climate models. The founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said this about man-made climate change ... "It is a scam."

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by sounding

You bet. Those climate models all, all of them over-forecast temperatures for over 30 years. Over 30 years -- and all wrong. Except, the Russian model, which acknowledges CO2 is not a climate driver. It's amazing how foolish the people are to buy a corrupt product and then agree to change life-styles based on 30 years of bad results. Buyer beware. China and India are laughing their butts off watching us fall for corrupt climate models. The founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said this about man-made climate change ... "It is a scam."

John Coleman had a degree in Journalism, not climatology. He read a script to tell people if it was going to rain or not.

I will take the advice of people that have studied for decades in the field of climatology over those that studied journalism

But, thank you for referencing a source. It helps to understand why you believe what you believe.

[sounding]

Censorship is a tool of tyranny. This is why we have the 1st Amendment.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by sounding

Censorship is a tool of tyranny. This is why we have the 1st Amendment.

Who are you speaking to? I have never seriously suggested censoring anyone - someone else here has several times recommended censoring.

I strongly support your right to post anything you want to and pretty much any way you want to. I can also strongly disagree with you and what you say. That is free speech.

The "other person" seems to feel they are smarter than others here and so should be allowed to squelch their free speech.

[sounding]

It's not who -- it's all about the data -- that's what science is all about. When you look at the verification data for all the (over 100) climate models, they all run too hot (except the one Russian model). If the IPCC and their models department were selling a product, they would have failed long ago -- about 30 years ago -- but the media never tells you the models are failures. However, brains behind the failing models tried to white wash their failings by giving the creator of the worst climate model the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics. That's like giving the gold medal to the last person to finish a race. The entire man-made climate-change narrative is corrupt. The data does not support the theory. In reality, Russian should have received the Nobel Prize -- but then that would have very embarrassing to the IPCC.

[Two Bills]

All I know about climate change, is I like the warmth, and that none of the protagonists on this thread will know the winning theory!

[sounding]

Bingo. And that's why I moved to Florida from up north -- it's getting too cold up there. It's good to remember that humans are tropical in nature -- because we were born without fur. We prefer heat over cold. Remove our clothes and shelters -- and watch where we migrate to.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by sounding

It's not who -- it's all about the data -- that's what science is all about. When you look at the verification data for all the (over 100) climate models, they all run too hot (except the one Russian model). If the IPCC and their models department were selling a product, they would have failed long ago -- about 30 years ago -- but the media never tells you the models are failures. However, brains behind the failing models tried to white wash their failings by giving the creator of the worst climate model the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics. That's like giving the gold medal to the last person to finish a race. The entire man-made climate-change narrative is corrupt. The data does not support the theory. In reality, Russian should have received the Nobel Prize -- but then that would have very embarrassing to the IPCC.

You are interpreting data. Personally, I am not competent to compete with the analysis of the experts when interpreting climatology data. And most of the world and most of the experts (by a wide margin) agree with the current conclusion that it is man-made, it is past the tipping point and it is going to get worse.

Please provide ANY reference to accredited sources that say "the entire man-made climate-change narrative" is corrupt. You seem very sure, so I assume you can provide that link or at least a named reference.