Everything Climate Change

[mcHAPPY]

Let's simplify this "debate". What are the worst outcomes being discussed?

1. For those who believe in climate change, it's human extinction.
2. For those denying climate change, it's paying more taxes.

Even if this was a 50-50 strength debate (which it's not), which outcome can we least afford to ignore?

LOLOLOLOLOLOL


No.

Not even close.

Just like the polar bears, we'll all still be here.

[Axel]

Everything I need to know about climate change can be explained by Bill Nye the Science Guy.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos...e-the-science/

No harm in switching to energy sources that aren't carbon based, but significant harm if we don't and some theories are true. I haven't really seen a good reason not to convert to renewal energy sources.

[Nilanka]

My point proven.... old, Republican blowhards.

This is a political issue - not scientific.

It is a shame that politics and politicians who control the purse strings has managed to corrupt science. Worse it is sad to see people fall for it.


Look out for those catastrophic consequences.... like no Arctic ice or polar bears by 2014....or Manhattan submerged in water by 2011.

It's really only a political issue in the U.S., which is why I'm somewhat surprised this topic has this much traction here. And the U.S. can politicize ANY issue imaginable.

The rest of the world acknowledges the overwhelming evidence.

[Nilanka]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL


No.

Not even close.

Just like the polar bears, we'll all still be here.

[mcHAPPY]

Recent discussion about record weather events, such as the warmest year on record, is a totally misleading and scientifically useless exercise. This is especially true when restricted to the instrumental record that covers about 25% of the globe for at most 120 years. The age of the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years, so the sample size is 0.000002643172%. Discussing the significance of anything in a 120-year record plays directly into the hands of those trying to say that the last 120-years climate is abnormal and all due to human activity. It is done purely for political propaganda, to narrow people’s attention and to generate fear.

The misdirection is based on the false assumption that only a few variables and mechanisms are important in climate change, and they remain constant over the 4.54 billion years. It began with the assumption of the solar constant from the Sun that astronomers define as a medium-sized variable star. The AGW proponents successfully got the world focused on CO2, which is just 0.04% of the total atmospheric gases and varies considerably spatially and temporally. I used to argue that it is like determining the character, structure, and behavior of a human by measuring one wart on the left arm. In fact, they are only looking at one cell of that wart for their determination.

The degree that promoters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis will go to distract and deceive was emphasized again in the article by Quang M. Nguyen. Almost the entire activities of the promoters involve proving that everything in the period of instrumental record is record breaking. This includes changing the paleo record, as they did with the ‘hockey stick’ and adjusting the slope of the gradient in the instrumental record. Considering the 120-year period of instrumental record as representative of anything is ludicrous. In the infamous 2001 IPCC Report, we learned from Phil Jones that the temperature increase for the instrumental record, that became the blade of the ‘hockey stick’ was 0.6°C with an error factor of ±0.2°C or ±33%. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Two major themes of the AGW claims are that temperature change is greater and more rapid than at any time in the past. This is false, as a cursory look at any longer record demonstrates. If it wasn’t, the actions taken to change the record are unnecessary. The Antarctic and Greenland ice core records both illustrate the extent of temperature change in short time periods. Figure 1 shows a modified Antarctic ice core record.

clip_image002

Figure 1 (Original Source SPPI.org no longer available)

The total temperature range is approximately 12°C (-9°C to +3°C). The variability is dramatic even though a 70–year smoothing average was applied. The diagram compares the peak temperatures in the current interglacial with those of the four previous interglacials. The horizontal scale on the x-axis is too small to identify even the length of the instrumental record.

Steve Goreham shows how small a portion it is in this diagram of the last 10,000 years (Figure 2).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/0...e-sample-size/

Take a step back and an unbiased look.

4-5 years ago I was all on board with Al Gore and Co. Unfortunately when you start thinking for yourself, it just doesn't add up - at least for someone who has nothing to gain from research grants and political agenda.

There is a lot of science out there questioning but as this thread shows, climate change is more religion than science.

[mcHAPPY]

Your sig is perfect.

[Nilanka]

Your sig is perfect.

Aliens kidnapped your sister too, huh?

[Nilanka]

Take a step back and an unbiased look.

4-5 years ago I was all on board with Al Gore and Co. Unfortunately when you start thinking for yourself, it just doesn't add up - at least for someone who has nothing to gain from research grants and political agenda.

There is a lot of science out there questioning but as this thread shows, climate change is more religion than science.

Suggests an unbiased look be taken.

Sources a Tim Ball piece, with links to Exxon and Heartland Institute.

Wonders why nobody believes him.

[mcHAPPY]

Suggests an unbiased look be taken.

Sources a Tim Ball piece, with links to Exxon and Heartland Institute.

Wonders why nobody believes him.

For a person who wants science you do a lot of personal attacking.

You are the blueprint for the climate change crowd.

If there were less attacks on the messengers (along with less data fudging, of course) and more focus on science there would certainly be less credibility for the people who question man impact on earth climate.


What a waste of time.

[Nilanka]

For a person who wants science you do a lot of personal attacking.

You are the blueprint for the climate change crowd.

If there were less attacks on the messengers (along with less data fudging, of course) and more focus on science there would certainly be less credibility for the people who question man impact on earth climate.


What a waste of time.

Time is limited, my friend. Certainly, you don't expect us to read every single blog post available in cyberspace in order to reach an informed opinion, do you?

The logical step is to weed out the shyte by paying close attention to who's providing the information. Heartland Institute claims that 2nd-hand smoke does not negatively affect health. They've proven to be backed by political motivation, and are endangering the public with their message. The also rely on shameful demagoguery, which reeks of desperation.



This is not a Photoshopped picture. It's an actual billboard erected by the Heartland Institute.

Why would anyone take these guys seriously? They're a joke of an organization that you keep relying on for information.

[mcHAPPY]

Time is limited, my friend. Certainly, you don't expect us to read every single blog post available in cyberspace in order to reach an informed opinion, do you?

The logical step is to weed out the shyte by paying close attention to who's providing the information. Heartland Institute claims that 2nd-hand smoke does not negatively affect health. They've proven to be backed by political motivation, and are endangering the public with their message. The also rely on shameful demagoguery, which reeks of desperation.



This is not a Photoshopped picture. It's an actual billboard erected by the Heartland Institute. Why would anyone take these guys seriously? They're a joke of an organization that you keep relying on for information.

Redirection....again.

Slander....again

Ignoring facts....again.

You're a waste of time.


The good thing is nothing will ever be done on climate change as has been shown by Paris and as more time goes along it will be shown to be the fraud it is.

[Superjudge]

Let's simplify this "debate". What are the worst outcomes being discussed?

1. For those who believe in climate change, it's human extinction.
2. For those denying climate change, it's paying more taxes.

Even if this was a 50-50 strength debate (which it's not), which outcome can we least afford to ignore?

Brilliant post.

[Bendit]

Redirection....again.

Slander....again

Ignoring facts....again.

You're a waste of time.

Are you referring to me... again?

[Nilanka]

Redirection....again.

Slander....again

Ignoring facts....again.

You're a waste of time.


The good thing is nothing will ever be done on climate change as has been shown by Paris and as more time goes along it will be shown to be the fraud it is.

Redirection? Slander? Huh?

According to your logic, tenforthewin's trade rumours deserve just as much attention as Woj's. Everyone's claims are equally valid, right?

[Axel]

Redirection? Slander? Huh?

According to your logic, tenforthewin's trade rumours deserve just as much attention as Woj's. Everyone's claims are equally valid, right?

Tenforthewin is legendary. Always worth the read.