If you look into it the 97% is scientists and not climatologists. A lot of the people on the IPCC aren't climate scientists by training.
General ACTUAL SCIENTIST : Climate Change is a Scam!
- Thread starter tang
- Start date
The burden of proof is on the claimant. If they say, "Climate change is not real," or "God does not exist," then you are correct.
However, if they simply say, "Prove it," then that is not the same.
M
member 1013
Guest
M
member 3289
Guest
Climatologists are scientists
M
member 3289
Guest
If we forced people to live in cities we'd greatly reduce our impact on the environment.
M
member 3289
Guest
Your post makes no sense
U r right, not my thing.
Personally I feel dense population is not good for mental health.
I enjoy being 5 minutes from wilderness.
centralized global carbon tax economy, yo
UN wasn't working
UN wasn't working
A medical researcher is a scientist. Would that make them an authority on climate?
"Global Warming" is so fake-and-gay they had to change the cause to "Climate Change". We were warned decades ago of "Global Cooling" and that sure did age well...
M
member 3289
Guest
This is what you said:
Erroneous word choice. I accept your apology.
I remember that hype about a coming ice age from when I was a kid. Didn't last long, lol. I also remember huge scare mongering about a hole in the ozone layer. Also didn't last long, we either fixed it forever or that was bullshit too. In retrospect I wonder who benefited from those circuses, what legislation or changes in industry or finance changed as a result and in who's favor."Global Warming" is so fake-and-gay they had to change the cause to "Climate Change". We were warned decades ago of "Global Cooling" and that sure did age well...
@JonJonesBeard makes a great point, the word 'scientist' is thrown around so loosely re; climate change, anyone in a profession even remotely involving science can be called a scientist. It doesn't make them any more able to understand something so complex as climate change than anyone else. Nor does it mean they have even looked into the data sufficiently to follow the conclusions. It just means they believe the hype (or scared to say otherwise).Yes we are ravaging the fuck out of the planet and yes temperatures and climate are fluctuating (when was it not?). But most of the climate change propaganda and urgency IMHO is being propagated to push more political control, centralizing and globalizing regulations and taxes of all industry and operations via carbon tax solution.
The whole hooplah came so fast so strong from such suspicious places, the early days of the propaganda was full of shifty false data and manipulated statistics to come up with a conclusion that any good scientist would know has near infinite variables and would take way fucking longer to conclusively determine exactly what is happening and the precise causes.
Do their calculations even consider the fluctuation of the Sun, for instance? I heard once that the sun was not even factored into their equations, even though it has massive changes and effects on the planet over time/is not constant. For instance what ended the ice age, 10,000BC or whatever?
Oh, you're pretending that you didn't know what I meant. Carry on.
you should watch the video
Leigh, I know you know that guy who's somehow involved with climate science, and I've read his posts on your page as well. Here is a point by point rebuttal.I'm out with the kids and on my phone, so the pics I post may be odd sized, I can't tell.
ACC is happening, just not not at the rate a lot of people propose/believe and that's simple to demonstrate; a lot of claims talk about the increase in temperature over the last 100-150 years but carbon levels were relatively stable until the 1940s and didn't really take off until around 1980. Therefore, the warming from 1910-1940 couldn't be due to CO2, as popularly claimed (note that the Y axis is offset on the carbon level graph).
Instead, the warming period at the beginning of the 20th century correlates to solar activity. Worth noting that, based on solar activity (which is likely the main driver of temperature), we should be in a period of cooling, so the effect due to human activity is actually suppressed.
Update now I'm home (but still on a phone)
So we're only looking at the second temperature rise during the 20th century (and onwards). This still looks quite significant, ~1C over a few decades. BUT these temperature readings include readings from all over the globe; sea level, satellite, rural, and most certainly urban. Urban areas warm up due to the Urban Heat Island effect and so readings from urban areas should be discounted from the dataset, as they skew the results. Suddenly the temp increase drops in half.
0.5C over a few decades isn't quite as bad as some alarmists are making out but again, bear in mind that might be suppressed by low solar activity.
First, the theory of solar radiation accounting for the changes we've seen over the last century, and particularly the latter part of it, has been thoroughly debunked over several generations of the global warming debate. Modeling has been done over the course of a century, and a millennium to demonstrate the role solar activity has played in warming and how it differs from greenhouse effects. Here is one such paper on the topic here (PDF Download). Increases in solar activity are said to account for less than 10% of the warming we've seen over the past century. Here you can see one of the most updated measures (controlling for instrumentation changes) that demonstrates that fluctuations in total solar irradiance account for changes of at most ~0.1 degree celsius up or down over a solar cycle. There are several other studies on the role of solar irradiance and why it fails to account for the warming we have today.
Second, you discount Urban results as skewing the data based on the heat island effect. But it's unreasonable to believe that scientists haven't factored it in or would not have faced this fairly basic criticism before. The idea of using heat island effects to discredit climate change was pioneered by Ross McKitrick, an economist and Cato Institute fellow who also espouses the theory of intelligent design, earth resiliency because it's "God's creation," and that Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant because it helps fees plants. He's known for use of incorrect, if not outright falsified data and has been castigated and debunked over decades. Here's a decent breakdown of how the heat island hypothesis is factored into most models.
Lastly, the notion that there's alarmism amongst climate change prognosticators is accurate in the media and public policy sphere where the way things are reported and debated makes it seem like the Age of Apocalypse is around the corner, but usually behind the reporting and debates is sober scientific analysis. What has mostly alarmed people investigating this is the money and time spent attempting to misrepresent or misinterpret scientific discussions and debate for fairly transparent reasons having exclusively to do with profit. As I alluded to in my previous post, the narrative, once so caught up in denying any climate change was happening at all gradually became, "well, it's happening, but not by human activity," and now as that narrative continues to falter under scrutiny, the new line (already spoken by Trump, for example) is "well, it's happening and we maybe are responsible, but there's nothing we can do about it." This narrative is already cropping up more and more, and part of it is growing visibility of outlier scientists who theorize that global warming might even be positive (which I believe someone else in this thread rehearsed). Other components of it include vague allusions to engineering fixes to scrub the atmosphere or, at the most extreme, to abandon Earth. The thing that terrifies me most isn't really what natural catastrophes will happen so much as what the political reactionism will be like after societies are forced into action after having chosen to deny it mattered for so long.
The article discusses localized cold weather. It does not reference global cooling."Global Warming" is so fake-and-gay they had to change the cause to "Climate Change". We were warned decades ago of "Global Cooling" and that sure did age well...
WEATHER: The Big Freeze
I don't agree with him. He's a complete denier. He makes good arguments though and supports them with science.
I didn't say solar caused warming in the latter part of the last century, in fact I said it suppressed warming. Did you read my post?
And if solar had a minimal impact, what caused the temperature increase during the first half of the 20th century, when CO2 levels were still stable? I mean, your own link says, "Total solar irradiance (TSI) is Earth's dominant energy input, exceeding the next largest energy source by nearly 10. Even small variations in solar irradiance can produce natural forcing of Earth's climate with global and regional‐scale responses." I'm not sure you've thought this out.
I haven't made that argument. Again, I question whether you've read my post. I've simply provided the data plots that show it should be factored in. I haven't mentioned any scientist opinion. Of course they've factored it in. Many alarmists do not and they simply claim that the earth has warmed by 2C over the last century.
I'm glad you agree.
M
member 3289
Guest
Both terms are still used. They're not synonymous.
