Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[CaptainLucky]

I'm surprised that there are any "believers" left after 30+ years of failed "global warming" predictions,
the man made climate change bullshit theory has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Anyone got any proof that the warming since the little ice age ended is caused by "man made" Co2 and nothing else.

Hey Porky take it the 82 is your IQ ? because you seem like a real DC

I’m not sure about the whole issue but I have heard that last year was the warmest year ever. Global warming or just weather patterns? Idk I’m not a scientist but something seems strange. CL

 

[igrowone]

I’m not sure about the whole issue but I have heard that last year was the warmest year ever. Global warming or just weather patterns? Idk I’m not a scientist but something seems strange. CL

strange days indeed

 

[Normannen]

Stranger things happening...

 

[arsekick]

 

[Normannen]

View attachment 18942303

tbh, a scientist who changes their mind after reading ONE book is better off retired...I had to read a minimum of 6 books a year during my career. And to change my mind about something usually takes more than ONE book...as with cannabis, it took me 4 years of active research and eventually the "science" just didn't add up. So far I have personally observed the effects of global warming in my lifetime, so one book, and an overly charged resignation letter are not likely to dent the thousannds of peer reviewed observations of which I am personally a part of. Now, if we want to discuss the numerous scams that the "green industry" is setting up to profit from the honest and well informed concern of any earthling with a modicum of intelligence , I'm all for it, otherwise, hit it off and leave, please, really...

 

[hamstring]

Its the same old shite. People get caught up with the nomenclature.

Is the earth warming sure, its well documented, but people want to fight about if humans are causing it or not. Who gives a flying fuck.

Talk about wokeness. Is my basements filling up with water or H2O. I can try and resolve the problem or argue about the name.

You do realize there was a time when both Dem and Rep were doing commercials together about climate change. Its also well documented . Wonder why that changed $$$$$$$$.

WeCanSolveIt.org Ad - Gingrich & Pelosi - Yahoo Video Search Results

The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web.

video.search.yahoo.com

 

[hamstring]

View attachment 18942303

Isnt it funny how you can find anything you want on google to support your beliefs but if you dig a bit further it gets complicated, right?

A Physicist’s Climate Complaints​

BY ANDREW C. REVKIN OCTOBER 15, 2010 11:48 AM October 15, 2010 11:48 am 236
Almost 20 years ago, Harold Lewis, a respected physicist who had advised the government and the Pentagon on matters ranging from nuclear winter to missile defense, included his assessment of climate change from the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in a book on technological risk:

All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business. [ Read more.]

A couple of pages later, he laid out the implications of warming and the need for “global cooperation and sacrifice now, to avert something far in the future.” He noted that this was unlikely, given human nature, but said, “one can only hope.” Here’s the relevant section:

What a difference a couple of decades can make. One week ago Lewis was vaulted to celebrity status by conservative and contrarian Web sites and commentators when he disseminated his letter of resignation from the 48,000-member American Physical Society over its support for what he called “the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.”
Lewis’s letter contained a long list of complaints, ranging from the group’s lack of a response to his efforts to convene a committee to assess evidence for a human link to climate change to its defense of choosing the word “incontrovertible” to describe the evidence for global warming in its statement on climate science and policies in 2007. (The society added a substantial sentence-by-sentence deconstruction of its statement earlier this year, but stuck with the original language.) He concluded that, in his view, global warming was “the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
Below you can read parts of an e-mail exchange I had this week with Lewis, aiming to clarify how he came to this conclusion. I only stumbled on the excerpts from his 1992 book Thursday night, after our initial discussions. I’ve sent him a follow-on query about how his conclusions then relate to his views now and will provide an update when he responds.
For its part, the American Physical Society issued a statement on Tuesday denying any financial interest in forming its stance on global warming science and policy and defending its statements on the issue. It also defended the preponderant scientific view of basic climate conclusions, saying:

In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”

Here are relevant excerpts from my exchange with Lewis (with some e-mail shorthand adjusted). Revkin:

I’d greatly appreciate a few minutes of your time to try to get some clarification of where you see the fraud ending and the legitimate science beginning. Too often, the vague concept of human-driven global warming is dealt with as a single entity when in fact it’s a host of questions:
– How much can humans warm the planet?
– How much HAVE humans warmed the planet (so far; the attribution question)?
– How much warming is too much?
– What’s the best way to limit climate-related risks as human numbers and appetites crest in the next few decades?
Each question has its own issues and evidence, to my mind….

Lewis:

OK, as a first step, fraud is a contagious disease. Bernie Madoff committed fraud, pure and simple, but the people who profited from it covered the spectrum. Undoubtedly some were completely unaware, and there was every gradation…. The important thing for me is the suppression of open debate, which is the conventional way to identify fraud.
Your specific questions.
No one knows how much humans can (your word) warm the planet — the science is complicated. It might be a degree or two (Celsius) per century, but anyone who says he knows is committing fraud.
How much HAVE (your capitalization) people warmed the planet, again no one knows. Within what is actually known (not computer modeled) it could be zero. I believe I was chairing JASON in the early 1970s when Gordon MacDonald ran our first computer modeling on the subject, and the results were not all that different from what people get now using the same methods. But there were no data then on attribution, and there are no data now. It’s not a coffee klatch subject.
How much warming is too much?
There is no universal metric for such matters. I used to think that Phoenix was unbearably hot, but Indians lived there. I’ve spent lots of time in New Mexico (Los Alamos), where 7,000 feet makes high temperatures a pleasure. Humans adapt. The fact that we can adapt intelligently is what distinguishes us from others of our fellow animals. Of course most conceivable adaptations require energy (compare Phoenix), so the stupidest thing we can do is deprive ourselves of real energy to protect against conjectured warming.
What’s the best way to limit climate-related risks as human numbers crest…
First use real science to identify and quantify the threats, then I’ll propose responses. First things first. I remember the motto that made the rounds at the first Sputnik in the late 1950s: When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles; scream and shout. Not a good answer to any human problem.

Revkin:

– One point to ponder in your response to the greenhouse sensitivity question is that your conclusion about fraud would apply to anyone who says he knows the warming would be a minor inconvenience, along with anyone stating firmly that a meltdown is nigh, right?
Would you agree on that? In other words, anyone concluding with high confidence that humans cannot substantially heat the planet — given the enduring questions — is not being honest, right?

Lewis:

[A]nyone who claims to be able to predict the climate well enough to guide public policy is committing a fraud. HOWEVER there are harmless frauds and harmful ones, and i have far less animus toward perpetrators of the former. That’s as a citizen; as a physicist, no fraud is acceptable. So even though cold fusion hurt no one, it was a sin. The consequences matter.

Again, I’ll update this post when Lewis offers an explanation of why his views on global warming research and risk have so starkly changed. In the meantime, I asked another student of technological risk, David Ropeik, to have a look at Lewis’s letter. Here’s his analysis:

I just read Dr. Lewis’ angry letter of resignation from the APS. It puts him at an extreme on the spectrum of debate over climate change in both tone and substance. So I guess the old reporter instincts in me would be cautious about anything he’d have to say, as would be the case with any extreme advocate on any side of any issue.
Much more to the point, however, it is not surprising that, as a physicist, he not only laments that people are too worried about some technological risks, but he is frustrated and condescending toward what he describes as people’s irrationality regarding these issues.
What strikes me as irrational is that an intelligent person like Dr. Lewis, who has devoted his professional life to science, would either pay no heed to, or dismiss, the mountains of scientific evidence, from neuroscience and psychology and economics and sociology, that demonstrates beyond any serious question that the way we perceive risk is affective… Our fears are a combination of the facts and how those facts feel.
Our brains are hard wired to do it this way. It seems Dr. Lewis is demonstrating the very phenomenon he laments, letting his affect and worldviews interfere with taking all the reliable evidence into account in order to make a truly informed and fair judgment.

 

[Koondense]

Worth reading:

Entering uncharted territory

Global warming in the pipeline

Cheers

 

[trichrider]

your links didn't work.

 

[arsekick]

tbh, a scientist who changes their mind after reading ONE book is better off retired...I had to read a minimum of 6 books a year during my career. And to change my mind about something usually takes more than ONE book...as with cannabis, it took me 4 years of active research and eventually the "science" just didn't add up. So far I have personally observed the effects of global warming in my lifetime, so one book, and an overly charged resignation letter are not likely to dent the thousannds of peer reviewed observations of which I am personally a part of. Now, if we want to discuss the numerous scams that the "green industry" is setting up to profit from the honest and well informed concern of any earthling with a modicum of intelligence , I'm all for it, otherwise, hit it off and leave, please, really...

So you have personally observed the effects of "man made" global warming. What have you observed ?.

Could you put up one of the thousand's of peer reviewed papers that prove "man made" Co2 causes global warming.

The whole green industry is a scam which any earthling with modicum of intelligence could see.

Why should I leave the thread ? is it because I don't believe ?

So you are a "climate" scientist, good stuff maybe you can change my mind and show me proof that "man made" Co2 causes global warming and natural Co2 does not. or simply prove that Co2 is the control knob of earths climate and nothing else is.

It shouldn't be to hard for a "climate" scientist, while your at it maybe put your qualifications up

 

[arsekick]

 

[arsekick]

 

[arsekick]

Looks like the USA is experiencing some extreme "man made" global warming ATM

 

[Normannen]

So you have personally observed the effects of "man made" global warming. What have you observed ?.

Could you put up one of the thousand's of peer reviewed papers that prove "man made" Co2 causes global warming.

The whole green industry is a scam which any earthling with modicum of intelligence could see.

Why should I leave the thread ? is it because I don't believe ?

So you are a "climate" scientist, good stuff maybe you can change my mind and show me proof that "man made" Co2 causes global warming and natural Co2 does not. or simply prove that Co2 is the control knob of earths climate and nothing else is.

It shouldn't be to hard for a "climate" scientist, while your at it maybe put your qualifications up

You're the one who'se burden of proof falls upon, but you fail to provide convincing evidence that would prove the consensus otherwise. And yes, back to your original "remark" I have observed man made global warming as I keep observing the permafrost receeding under my very own feet during my lifetime, I have traveled the world round from the depths of Africa to the Thousand island and observed with my own eyes the desolation the anthropocene is wrecking upon the environment. And it's all in line with scientific observations that fit the consenus. You on the other hand cherry picking information from within papers that are of questionable methods and egenda (science is not about proving a point, but about finiding out the truth, which but similar process is what is happening to Cannabis, thanks to science that finds out that what most people on the right wing have been saying for the past 100years is bullocks. Likewise,contrary to what the big petrol and oil and weapons industry have been saying for the past 100 years about global warming), that is not a scientifically sound way to argue against the body of evidence we have accrued (which is not up to me to provide you with as it's readily available, and again, burden of proof falls on those who disagree against consensus, I owe you nothing, this is why I am asking you to leave, not because of belief, but because you have offered us nothing but mild entertainment).

 

[Frosty Nuggets]

You 'man made' climate change believers have been taking the pill in the intro.

 

[Normannen]

You 'man made' climate change believers have been taking the pill in the intro.

sssshhhhh...just go back to sleep, or your dreams won't come true...

 

[arsekick]

You're the one who'se burden of proof falls upon, but you fail to provide convincing evidence that would prove the consensus otherwise. And yes, back to your original "remark" I have observed man made global warming as I keep observing the permafrost receeding under my very own feet during my lifetime, I have traveled the world round from the depths of Africa to the Thousand island and observed with my own eyes the desolation the anthropocene is wrecking upon the environment. And it's all in line with scientific observations that fit the consenus. You on the other hand cherry picking information from within papers that are of questionable methods and egenda (science is not about proving a point, but about finiding out the truth, which but similar process is what is happening to Cannabis, thanks to science that finds out that what most people on the right wing have been saying for the past 100years is bullocks. Likewise,contrary to what the big petrol and oil and weapons industry have been saying for the past 100 years about global warming), that is not a scientifically sound way to argue against the body of evidence we have accrued (which is not up to me to provide you with as it's readily available, and again, burden of proof falls on those who disagree against consensus, I owe you nothing, this is why I am asking you to leave, not because of belief, but because you have offered us nothing but mild entertainment).

So you got nothing, thought so.

Its warmed up since the ice age scare of the 70s, what did you think was going to happen ?, it warmed up, the same as it did when the little ice age finished, and thank fuck for that.

There is no consensus as far as "man made" global warming is caused by man or its anything else but normal fluctuations in the planets weather/climate, if you had any proof that "man made" Co2 was the driver of the earths climate you would of put it up.

I believe all the other sciences/scientists would look down upon you "climate" scientists as being involved in a inferior branch of science with not having to provide any proof of anything just dodgy computer models that have got nothing right so far.

 

[Normannen]

View attachment 18942618

thank you for proving a point....https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/21/help-and-how-to/statistical-modeling/anova/supporting-topics/anova-statistics/understanding-mean-squares/ slap yourself

 

[Normannen]

I believe all the other sciences/scientists would look down upon you "climate" scientists as being involved in a inferior branch of science with not having to provide any proof of anything just dodgy computer models that have got nothing right so far.

science is not about belief, science doesn't give a shit about belief. we do data collection and reporting, nothing else. scientists that "look down" on "inferior" branches of science tend to get fired as there is no such thing as "inferior" branches of science, there is science, end of story.

 

[Frosty Nuggets]

Trust the seance.