Bitcoin Forum

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Some people believe the earth is flat.

You have to realize not everyone has the same intelligence.   Those who took chemistry in high school will understand global warming is real.   :)

Yes it is for real that is why we could not predict the weather nowadays especially here in the Philippines that located almost at the center of equator. We have only W seasons here dry and wet season. Unfortunately there is no remarks on when will the wet season and dry season since the rain and sunshine comes and go. Sometimes the sun shines brightly while raining. It is the effect of global warming and we need something to do about it.

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you? 

For me, In our country (Philippines)  global warming is real because in my experience its getting hotter not like before.

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

most people say the global heat is real, because it proved to be a lot of disasters, especially many forest fires that occurred not caused by human activities but the fire arising from the heat of the earth

Factors that affect the amount of the sun's energy reaching Earth's surface are what drive the climate in these models, as in real life. These include things like greenhouse gases, particles in the atmosphere (such as from volcanoes), and changes in energy coming from the sun itself.

Sea level is rising in many areas of the world. This is partially attributed to the melting of ice caps and glaciers, but more to the changes in the gases contained within the sea.

The Old Farmer's Almanac is forecasting that portions of the United States will see a "snow-verload" during what has been described as a snowy winter.

For instance, it is predicting a "wet and wild" 2019-20 winter in the northeastern U.S.

But overall, it is calling for "shivers, snowflakes … and strong storms" with the "snow-verload" impacting northern states in the Midwest and West.

"In the U.S., this winter will be remembered for strong storms bringing a steady roofbeat of heavy rain and sleet, not to mention piles of snow. The 2020 Old Farmer's Almanac is calling for frequent snow events—from flurries to no fewer than seven big snowstorms from coast to coast, including two in April for the Intermountain region west of the Rockies," it wrote on its website.

Meanwhile, the middle of the country and New England will have "more wet than white" conditions. "Meanwhile, much of the Deep South will be saturated by soakers. As winter rages, the tip of the nice-berg will be Florida, the Gulf Coast, and Texas, which will bask in pleasant weather," the Almanac said.

Temperatures will also plunge "from the Heartland westward to the Pacific and in the Desert Southwest, Pacific Southwest, and Hawaii," it added. Above-normal temperatures are forecast elsewhere.

The cold in those areas will last until Valentine's Day, or Feb. 14, 2020.

"This could feel like the never-ending winter, particularly in the Midwest and east to the Ohio Valley and Appalachians, where wintery weather will last well into March and even through the first days of spring," Almanac editor Janice Stillman said.

After that, temperatures will be quite hot across the eastern two-thirds of the country in spring and summer, the Old Farmer's Almanac said.

Everywhere that is the case. Even here in India, the summers have become unbearable. People are getting sun-strokes and other heat-related complications more often. Another negative impact is that the droughts are also getting more frequent, and the agricultural yields are going down.

most people say the global heat is real, because it proved to be a lot of disasters, especially many forest fires that occurred not caused by human activities but the fire arising from the heat of the earth

There are many evidence to show such as the increasing floods happening in many parts of the world. Global warming is that real, take a critical look at what is happening at the Northern pole and the result that brought the popular ice challenge across the globe to show solidarity to the people who were affected.

Scientists have found something about the North Pole that could send a shiver down Santa's spine: It used to be downright balmy.

In fact, 55 million years ago the Arctic was once a lot like Miami, with an average temperature of 74 degrees, alligator ancestors and palm trees, scientists say.

That conclusion, based on first-of-their-kind core samples extracted from more than 1,000 feet below the Arctic Ocean floor, is contained in three studies published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

...

Global cooling is a major cause of lowering temperature in various regions. One way to reduce this is by increasing our carbon emission.

...
One scary aspect of global warming is that whilst most countries suffer, Russia benefits. Those vast swathes of frozen tundra become habitable. That vast country that has always been hampered by a dearth of warm water ports suddenly has access everywhere. So whilst it is in almost everyone's interests to fight climate change, I can't see Russia ever agreeing.

The ices are melting, there are a lot of proof about that. When ices melt, all this water warms up the ocean. As you know, oceans are Earths cooling system, it distributes the heat with its currents and spreads around the globe.
If the heat in oceans increases, there may be no current to distribute the heat at all. If that happens, we will suffer by a lot...
+The hurricanes will become and are becoming more and more frequent and stronger.
+Sea level is rising, taking the land back. Almost all cities are located near rivers and oceans due to transportation benefits. They will be flooded.
+Extreme summers and winters. Global warming isn't about sea level rise, it means epically hot summers and extremely cold winters.

There are a number of false claims in your post.

1. No current to distribute  the heat.

That is impossible. Current, either in air or liquids such as water, is the inevitable result of temperature differences. Those are inevitable given the variance in solar to different latitudes, the tilt of the earth and the elliptical orbit.\

2. Cities near rivers and oceans will be flooded.

If so they are in the wrong places.

3. Epically hot summer and extremely cold winters.

No, an increase in heat to the globe could not possibly mean "extremely cold winters." On the average, winters would be hotter by the same amount summer days were hotter.

I think it is real and inevitable.

But it seems too arrogant to contribute the major cause to ourselves.
The earth had multiple times of global warming and freezing during geological history.

And the major greenhouse gas seems to be water vapor other than carbon dioxide (though the latter one forms the major part of man-made).
https://ib.bioninja.com.au/_Media/greenhouse-gas-chart_med.jpeg

Just heard on the radio driving to work that ozone hole is the smallest in the last 20 years. And if we keep up with with alternative sources as much as we upgraded in the last 10 years we are on the right way to completely fix our ozone layer.

The other day, the train wreck of Democrats vying for the White House in 2020 participated in a seven-hour “town hall” event hosted by CNN during which they were asked important questions such as, will you ban meat in order to save the planet?, and will you support mass genocide to stop global warming?, to which Bernie Sanders responded to the latter question with an affirmative yes!

Okay, so the question wasn’t posed exactly like that. But in so many words, Beloved Bernie indicated that he’s fully onboard with exterminating masses of humans, including through abortion, as part of his plan to tackle the problem of “human population growth.” To Bernie, killing off unborn babies, including those pesky black ones, is great for “empowering women” and “educating everyone on the need to curb population growth.”

“The answer is yes,” Bernie stated when asked questions including everything aforementioned in quotes about implementing a global policy of population control. “Women in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions,” he added, referring to the leftist sacrament of abortion.

Bernie says that, yes, he is “courageous enough” to talk about the “need” for massive population reduction around the world “to address the climate catastrophe” that he and his climate lunatic followers believe is manifesting all around us in the form of hot summer days and routine Atlantic hurricanes.

The ices are melting, there are a lot of proof about that. When ices melt, all this water warms up the ocean. As you know, oceans are Earths cooling system, it distributes the heat with its currents and spreads around the globe.
If the heat in oceans increases, there may be no current to distribute the heat at all. If that happens, we will suffer by a lot...
+The hurricanes will become and are becoming more and more frequent and stronger.
+Sea level is rising, taking the land back. Almost all cities are located near rivers and oceans due to transportation benefits. They will be flooded.
+Extreme summers and winters. Global warming isn't about sea level rise, it means epically hot summers and extremely cold winters.

I remember in my childhood that winters were snowy and summers were mild. Right now, we have snowless cold cold winters and in summer there is extreme heat (never ever I remember that there would be 40 celsius in summer..)

So yes, the global warming is real and a very serious deal. We should think about planet we live on, not about profit. Right now we can quite easily move to renewable energy and quit burning fuel, but the history is repeating. The French monarch Liudvik XIV once said: "Après moi, le déluge" ("After me, the flood"). . We should think more about the future generations and not about ourselves right now  :)

that is the most fucked up writer I have ever seen.      It really takes a special kind of talent to convert "access to abortion" into "genocide" .

Global warming itself might be real but is it man made? That's the problem here, after investigating quite a bit, I haven't actually found convincing evidence.

Man has accelerated a natural process of climate change. The issue is not climate change itself. The point is that we are accelerating and this could lead to life on Earth not being able to adapt quickly enough.

The normal pace of climate change is geological weather, ages, something on the scale of millions of years, we are causing significant climate changes in less than two hundred years ...

Example of reading on the topic: https://time.com/5680432/climate-change-history-carbon/

Yes it is real. We are destroying this planet.

I guess that this would be a problem on our generation and to the next generations(possibly the worst cases). With global warming, comes with different types of calamities such as change of different climates, heating of the Earth and also pollution, not just air but all types of it. I think this would be a hard time fixing this problem. Since this problem was from the beginning of advancement in technology and we need that type of advancement to survive. Unless we find something to fix the weakened ozone. 

Global warming is very real and you can actually get the data like the level of ice decrease and the amount of gases harming the ozone layer. Even without datas, just think, the ever increasing pollution you see around, those are healthy? It makes sense to believe that they will cause harm and hence leads us to global warming, ozone layer depletion etc etc.

The mainstream media has made a radical departure away from vehement chemtrail denialism into systematic chemtrail embrace, and the question remains as to why the climate "deep state" has suddenly decided to show its cards.

Geoengineering, which was long dubbed a "conspiracy theory" by the narrative gatekeepers, has suddenly become not just a thing, but the thing that will supposedly provide the solution to "climate change" and "global warming." But is this really the true purpose of chemtrails?

Just as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, long warned, the geoengineering conspiracy would one day be exposed and make its way into the mainstream, but under false pretenses – and that's exactly what appears to be happening.

Geoengineering is real, they're now admitting, and it's for the good of the planet. But the truth is that the chemtrail agenda is a nefarious tool that the "elite" are using as a means of weather control, and thus population control.

While it's somewhat encouraging to see that what we and others have long warned about is, in fact, turning out to be everything we said it was, the revelation of this to the general public suggests that the globalists are much further along in fulfilling their agenda than many people probably think.

Global warming is very real and you can actually get the data like the level of ice decrease and the amount of gases harming the ozone layer. Even without datas, just think, the ever increasing pollution you see around, those are healthy? It makes sense to believe that they will cause harm and hence leads us to global warming, ozone layer depletion etc etc.

This letter will not make it into national or global media, nor will it cause the UN to change its ways. If these same scientists understood Technocracy, they would change their battle strategy. ? TN Editor

Professor Guus Berkhout
The Hague
guus.berkhout@clintel.org

23 September 2019

Sr. António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations,
United Nations Headquarters,
New York, NY 10017, United States of America.

Ms. Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, Executive Secretary,
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
UNFCCC Secretariat, UN Campus, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1,
53113 Bonn, Germany

Your Excellencies,

There is no climate emergency.

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors.

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Global warming is a real fact.
If you are old enough, you can realize that in the past the climate was different than the one that there is right now. I remember that in my country we didn't have so much heat and now we nearly reach 40 celsius during summer.

The problem that 'future generations' will have is that 'our' idiot generation fell for the global climate change hoax and ushered in a totalitarian technocratic dictatorship from which it actually WILL be difficult to break free.

Said dictatorship will almost certainly de-populate humans down to a level which some group of Gaia-worshiping Lucifarian freaks thinks sounds good to them.  Doubtless it will, coincidentally, be a number which they consider manageable and in order to preserve their position at the top of the pyramid.

Global warming is real and it's fucking awesome!!!!!

Climate change across the earth is see to everyone, but we cannot know the extent of the melting of glaciers and what the real consequences will be

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country.

Yes it has been scientifically proven through many ways, the most simple of them all being that the average temperatures thought mankind's latest decades has had quite a growth.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html

And yes the widespread usage of cars, the rapid development in the industrial domain, one that needs a lot of energy thus leading to an excess of exhaust fumes in the atmosphere, and even stockraising are important factors. If we do not take immediate steps towards a solution such as heavier regulation on the safety procedures of factories, such as filtering, and environmentally friendly sustainable forms of energy, we could very well have a big problem in our hands.

Some people believe the earth is flat.

You have to realize not everyone has the same intelligence.   Those who took chemistry in high school will understand global warming is real.   :)

Some people believe the earth is flat.

You have to realize not everyone has the same intelligence.   Those who took chemistry in high school will understand global warming is real.   :)

Some people believe the earth is flat.

You have to realize not everyone has the same intelligence.   Those who took chemistry in high school will understand global warming is real.   :)

I know of no 'climate denier' who thinks that the earth is flat.  'Flat Earth' is a psy-op developed specifically to associate with people who don't go along with the corp/gov line on such things as 'global warming', 'vaccines', etc.

Ahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha.
Global warming deniers == vaccines deniers. It's your words, are you? :)

I have one interesting thought in my mind: If some people denies the fact of global warming which is not denied by any famous scientists...

When a scientist says that he does not deny global warming, that does not mean that he agrees with alarmist or politicians or common

people's brainwashing

The one thing DOES NOT LEAD to the other.

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

yep, they can disagree with media representation or some ways to resolve it, but compared to climate deniers they don't deny the fact of it. ...

Thus it has no specific meaning.

Rather it's used by a person to smear those that do not agree with his views.

I have specific meaning to this, and I think all here understand what meaning is under this words. Maybe just because i don't want (or can't) to give more specific term, and don't want to write every time big essay about what i mean under this term.


I said it many times before, but you can't disagree with the fact of climate change. It's the same as disagree with the fact that the Sun is rising on the east

I have specific meaning to this, and I think all here understand what meaning is under this words. Maybe just because i don't want (or can't) to give more specific term, and don't want to write every time big essay about what i mean under this term.


I said it many times before, but you can't disagree with the fact of climate change. It's the same as disagree with the fact that the Sun is rising on the east

For me, In our country (Philippines)  global warming is real because in my experience its getting hotter not like before.

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

I once experimented by dropping a piece of ice in a glass half-filled with water. (Just as to make a prototype of icebergs in the ocean). Allowed the ice to meltdown, and what I observed was that the water level remained the same (Archimedes' Principle). This means global warming won't cause any rise in the ocean's water level. I wonder how is it harmful to us then? Just curious, I know I sound dumb!

I once experimented by dropping a piece of ice in a glass half-filled with water. (Just as to make a prototype of icebergs in the ocean). Allowed the ice to meltdown, and what I observed was that the water level remained the same (Archimedes' Principle). This means global warming won't cause any rise in the ocean's water level. I wonder how is it harmful to us then? Just curious, I know I sound dumb!

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

I once experimented by dropping a piece of ice in a glass half-filled with water. (Just as to make a prototype of icebergs in the ocean). Allowed the ice to meltdown, and what I observed was that the water level remained the same (Archimedes' Principle). This means global warming won't cause any rise in the ocean's water level. I wonder how is it harmful to us then? Just curious, I know I sound dumb!

Global warming is certainly real. The evidence is overwhelming that is real and that we are responsible for it. Yes there are a few deniers - but if you look at who is saying climate change is not real, you'll notice that it is people who have vested interests that they are trying to protect.

Go back a few years, you have the exact same situation with a few people claiming that smoking isn't dangerous - and these people all have interests in the tobacco industry.
It's the same with anything, over and over again throughout history.

Indeed, look at right now, you have the exact same situation with people claiming that we need to buy solar panels and windmills - and those people all have interests in the solar and windmill industries.

It's the same with anything, over and over again throughout history.

Indeed, look at right now, you have the exact same situation with people claiming that we need to buy solar panels and windmills - and those people all have interests in the solar and windmill industries.

It's the same with anything, over and over again throughout history.

I'm not sure that we are being brainwashed by the mighty renewable energy lobby.  ::)
Even if there was a secret cabal of evil windmill-salesmen, it's the wrong industry for them to choose - the point of renewable energy is that it is renewable, you don't need to pay over and over again for it.

There is a lot of truth to the old saying - follow the money. You can't deny the power of the (non-renewable) energy industry. Western involvement in the middle-east wars is largely because of the oil that they can grab. The US aren't sending military forces to mountain-tops around the world so that they can install windmills.

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

The term "renewable energy" doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have to pay for it over and over again. After all, the generators at the dams continue to turn as the water flows through their turbines. Isn't that renewable, as the rains and snows fall? Even nuclear power is renewed by more atoms breaking down.

The term is being misused, just like the climate change term is. Who is misusing the terms? Big Business, who is making money off you by narrowing your thinking.

It isn't to the point of brainwashing, yet. But in many cases it appears to be getting near.

8)

Yes, hydroelectric is renewable. Nuclear fusion will effectively be renewable if it ever appears. Nuclear fission, no that's not renewable.


Agree that Big Business has a huge effect on what people think, but I think that in this case Big Business means oil and gas.


Your sunglasses thing is always a cool way to sign-off. It makes me want to agree with you even if I don't, damn you. Stop influencing my thinking!
I kind of want my own sign-off emoji, but that's the only good one, the rest of them look stupid, I'd be stuck with something like this:   :-*

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

I don't know what other people believe, but global warming and climate change are real
many events that we feel today that can be used as evidence of global warming
such as Global Temperature Rise, Warming Oceans, Shrinking Ice Sheets, Glacial Retreat,
Decreased Snow Cover, Sea Level Rise, Declining Arctic Sea Ice, Extreme Events, and Ocean Acidification
you can read this https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Ahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha.
Global warming deniers == vaccines deniers. It's your words, are you? :)

I have one interesting thought in my mind: If some people denies the fact of global warming which is not denied by any famous scientists, why in that case they must believe to that scientists in terms of vaccines or shape of Earth?

If scientists corrupted - they lying about everything else (is this not obvious?).  So, if you denies climate change than you in the "ark" with vaccine deniers, conspiracy theorists, flat earth sect and others who fighting with deep state goverment and reptilians.

About global warming: This is real, you can check it by yourself, just take a look to average temperature in your region twenty years ago, forty years ago and in the past century.
But difference is about which leads to this: sun activity or human activity (in real - all both affects).

Of course, representation of global warming in media is often weird, but it not denies the fact of the problem.

So, THING is real and is proved by, ... THING???

This is the first time I’ve heard about theory that global warming is a myth. When did it appear?  What are its main arguments? All the proofs I found were like “Greenland in IX century was covered with grass”.

This is the first time I’ve heard about theory that global warming is a myth. When did it appear?  What are its main arguments? All the proofs I found were like “Greenland in IX century was covered with grass”.

i heard about their reason and somehow its almost true actually. it does look like the big countries like US and EU are preventing developing countries to improve their economic growth being industrialized by stopping them for manufacturing products. if they are stopping by spreading the word through global warning and contributing the destruction of ozone layer. but why are they not stopping China for their factories producing massive smoke in Asia?  they  just want the poor countries to remain poor as how it looks.

...
Those big countries are also the main polluters. They contributed more CO2 and the smaller nations,and these smaller nations are the victims here because they suffer more of these calamities. Climate change is real and right now, several locations around the world are  burning,some are flooding heavily,super typhoon are common nowadays  and earthquake are everywhere and  recently in Philippines. I think these are all connected and a collective effort globally  should be made in order to minimize these calamities.We have still time.

Flat Earthers, antivaxers, and climate deniers are all one in the same. They are all believing that the entire scientific community is in on a grand conspiracy and they are very dangerous people.

Of course it is real and I feel it by the temperature on my country was changed always.  Just search it on google if you want to know it because based on the history on the country who has a huge Ice does melt this year so how can you explain that global warming doesn't exist?

They accept that global warming doesn't exist and they are the same breed off the branch who believed(s) once that Earth was flat and jailed Galileo for it. They also believed that outer space is filled with oxygen and there is a big snake at the end of the flat earth. Since they find it cold in their home because of AC, they disregard global warming.

This simply shows you how the big money interests control the media so that they can covertly lead you into their one-world government.

8)

climate change is happening right now, visible from year to year.

The relevant phrase here is 'geological timescales'.

No, Greenland hasn't always been covered in ice, and no it hasn't always been an island. Even Antarctica was once covered in lush tropical forests. Continents move due to tectonic plate activity, over billions of years. Here's a video of just the last 200m years: https://youtu.be/WaUk94AdXPA

Continents move and climates change. The world of the dinosaurs was much hotter and more humid than today. The point is that these changes occur over geological timescales, which are difficult for the human mind to comprehend. It's why people have trouble believing that things like the human eye evolved - they can't consider the time it took to happen.

Natural climate change takes a long time. Human-driven climate change is happening right now, visible from year to year. It's completely different to the natural process.

It is quite clear that noticeable changes can and have occurred in relatively short periods of time.  The 'little ice age', and 'medieval warming period' are two such instances documented in history.

You may have heard of 'climategate'.

Yes, but these were fractions of a degree over a couple of hundred years, not measurable difference from decade to decade as we have now.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


A while ago, but yes, I'm pretty sure it was totally debunked, and there was no evidence of data manipulation.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/climategate-bogus-sceptics-lies

I still maintain that timescale is key. The climate is changing so rapidly, and in perfect concert with increasing industrialisation and emissions. The evidence is overwhelming now.
Think about CFCs and the Ozone Layer back in the 1980s, another climate change caused by man, and thankfully one that we have taken steps to rectify. I don't think anyone denies that humans caused the hole in the Ozeone Layer any more.

My facts are lies to you, and your facts are lies to me. I think we've reached a bit of an impasse.

Perhaps we'll agree that it is always important to question everything and ensure that you reach your own conclusions, whatever those conclusions may be.

I may disagree with your conclusions, but I am always happy to have the debate. It's far better to disagree with people from time to time than to live your life in an echo chamber of confirmation that just reinforces existing prejudices.

This is very different than the presentation of facts. You have not presented facts at all, with the possible exception of one chart, which in fact lies by omission of certain facts, such as the past 1960 Briffa tree ring series, without which the statistical validity of the "Hockey chart graph" is falsified, leading to a very different conclusion than what you have. Obviously, reading / reporting / believing someone's "conclusions" is not "evidence" and it is not "facts."

Thus I suggested you have BELIEFS.

as noted by the black line which follows all the other colours during the 1800's and early 1900's but then mysteriously veers out of balance of all the other metrics after 1960..
isnt it both revealing and strange how only the black line goes out of sync far away from the other colours. yet many state how the other colours set the average but then proclaim people should ignore the other colours and only trust the black line post 1960

I've never heard anything like that said except by you. But you are welcome to illustrate "the MANY (who) state..."

In that multi-variate statistical analysis, what matters is the effect of including data sets inane then seeing the result of the statistics. It's not a game where you cut off one or another data set to get the desired result.

Climate change is real. It's mostly due to the natural events and only a small fraction due to human activities. Yet we should all move to renewables or cleaner nuclear energy and go electric. Fossil fuel not only assist climate change, they are harsh to health.
Looking at just the last two thousand years might not give us the whole picture. Our earth has naturally cooled and heated many times. No human melted the ice in Ice age.

as noted by the black line which follows all the other colours during the 1800's and early 1900's but then mysteriously veers out of balance of all the other metrics after 1960..
isnt it both revealing and strange how only the black line goes out of sync far away from the other colours. yet many state how the other colours set the average but then proclaim people should ignore the other colours and only trust the black line post 1960

The black line

i know exactly what it represents. my comments were more of sarcasm not a sign of no knowledge.

Most people have no clue.  My explanation was for the benefit of those who do not.  I would have PM'd you if my message were for your eyes only.

Unfortunately most people, and especially most people who are freaked out that we are all going to die from global climate catastrophe, simply don't have the ability to understand these concepts even if they do bother to read the few sentences.

Just like Bertrand Russell predicted/specified: "...criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."

I usually do not take everything I see on face value, I tend to make my own research before jumping into any conclusions and where the issue of global warming is concerned, u think it is real because where I live, every year the weather seems to be changing from what it used to be, the summers especially seems to be getting warmer and longer than it used to be in the previous year, please plant a tree, it's very important.

"Buying into convenient lies" does not imply the presence of facts

This is very different than the presentation of facts. You have not presented facts at all, with the possible exception of one chart

Climate change is real if we mean changes in the climate. But if we mean any significant amount of global warming, then climate change is not real.

8)

Global warming is real. The temperature measurement of last few decades shows a gradual increase in temperature around the world. You can't deny it.
I live in a place where I can see mountains. They used to be covered with snow the whole year when I was a kid. They are getting naked each year. Now there's snow only in the winter. And the snow line is getting higher. The snowfall are getting unpredictable. Sometimes we have huge snowfalls and they melt real quick.

;)


I've presented (and linked to) a few facts - just in that post, we have: a) the debunking of climategate, b) the CFC / Ozone Layer issue (an allusion to something that is I think accepted as fact - let me know if not and I'll go get some evidence), c) the fact that 'little ice age' and 'medieval warm period' were fractions of a degree over a couple of hundred years.
......

i am in agreement with you.
as said isnt it revealing how its only the black line thats out of sync post 1960. but how so many others who apocalyptic preach only want people to notice the black line and ignore the other stats that would indicate something else
if taken together and seen 6 lines where 5 are of -0.2<>0 and one line then de-syncs to +0.6 and then someone added on * with annotation of '2016' at +0.8
anyone with a sane mind would question the black line and prefer to know more of the other 5 lines results

^^^ And on top of that, one medium sized volcano would greatly, if not completely, disrupt anything we might think we are doing to control the climate.

8)

carbon is not even 1 thousandth of a percent of the atmosphere..
what you need to look into is the water vapour

the reason carbon became an important factor is not about climate but about human lung health.
rain/lack of rain.. whether rains soaks into soil or is running down guttering and concrete drainage systems. affects how much clouds and rain a place gets, far more than carbon

come on think about it. the deserts of the equator where no cars drive are getting hotter due to the invisible cars that can drive on sand... or less water=less water= less cooling effect in the area

Actually, back in the day people were told by 'authorities' that the earth was flat and almost every 'sane' person believed it fully for that reason.

Now people are told by 'authorities' that the earth is about to melt and kill us all unless we 'believe' in them and their priests and do whatever they say we need to do.

The Warmunistas of today are a combination of the flat-earthers who loved big brother prior to (and during) Galileo and the idiots who fell for Marxism in the pre-Soviet period.

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

I never thought from the angle that you are talking about but I am sure that global warming is real and a very serious issue. We do come across soo much news talking about the out of time floods, droughts and other natural calamities. Also, SOLAR alliance formed between nations between tropic of Cancer & tropic of Capricorn to facilitate use of renewable energy, the PARIS accord and similar amendments do point at the fact that global warming is indeed real.

Lmfao. So you are telling me I believe that the Earth is not flat because the authority tells me that Earth is not flat?

And I believe that global warming (the only possible conclusion to all those cutting down of tress for industries etc and with so many vehicles releases those gases) is I believe only because the authorities tell me?

I believe Earth is round because it makes sense. It makes sense for the reason of its orbit around the sun for its shape. And I can see a ship sinking when it passes through sea after a long distance (not that it sinks). I also believe that Earth moves around the sun, and not because the authorities tell me for it. Also I believe that all those gases ejaculated by the vehicles and pollution and so much stuffs should lead to a disastrous conclusion. They simply can't leave no effect. It's common sense.

Now here is a very simple question. Do you seriously believe that your just saying something means people should believe it is a FACT? That seems to be what is implied in your posts.

I'll write your next post for you: These aren't your facts, you are taking other people's evidence at face value. This is BELIEF not FACT.

Okay, this is because I'm not an expert. I do have a background in science, but I'm not a climate scientist. Fortunately plenty of people are (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change).

No, not because I said it - I am not an expert, none us of here are. You should consider the evidence (i.e. the facts) and then decided for yourself whether you believe it.
Yes, I know you won't accept any evidence from me unless I've actually been out in the field and conducted the research myself, that's why I put this:

No, not because I said it - I am not an expert, none us of here are. You should consider the evidence (i.e. the facts) and then decided for yourself whether you believe it.
Yes, I know you won't accept any evidence from me unless I've actually been out in the field and conducted the research myself, that's why I put this:

Many people seem to agree that it is warming. What they can't agree on is whether much of it due to human activities or if it's a natural process. That's what I usually see people argue about now.

True it's bad that species are dying off before being cataloged, pests are increasing and that island nations are sinking but there might be some positive if it would extend the warm period by a few more centuries, allowing people to then prepare for an ice age.

Many people seem to agree that it is warming. What they can't agree on is whether much of it due to human activities or if it's a natural process. That's what I usually see people argue about now.

True it's bad that species are dying off before being cataloged, pests are increasing and that island nations are sinking

but there might be some positive if it would extend the warm period by a few more centuries, allowing people to then prepare for an ice age.

Things have changed a lot since then. I'm sure you are aware of the argument that "the sun could not cause the recent warming, because total solar output does not change sufficiently to cause it".
But do you understand the relation of the CERN CLOUD experiments on that hypothesis?

You and I are perfectly capable of discussing how that affects state of understanding of solar influence on the earth.

Many people seem to agree that it is warming. What they can't agree on is whether much of it due to human activities or if it's a natural process. That's what I usually see people argue about now.

True it's bad that species are dying off before being cataloged, pests are increasing and that island nations are sinking but there might be some positive if it would extend the warm period by a few more centuries, allowing people to then prepare for an ice age.

I'm aware of it. I understand how cosmic rays can potentially have some very minor effect on cloud formation. ...

....There is a chance that the current human-caused climate change might cause the gulf stream to shut down... then temperatures in the UK and western Europe will plummet. A couple of centuries is the wrong timescale to think about the effects of human-caused change.

I live in the UK. We're at the same latitude as Siberia, but we are kept warm by the gulf stream. There is a chance that the current human-caused climate change might cause the gulf stream to shut down... then temperatures in the UK and western Europe will plummet. A couple of centuries is the wrong timescale to think about the effects of human-caused change.

Though “according to the studies,” the increase in the emission of greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere due to industrialization although the first world countries had been signing treaties to minimize emission of greenhouse gasses the third world countries who are still developing had been given a leeway in order to boost their economy since it is fundamental for them at this point then switch nuclear energy.

Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.

As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future. We urge widespread use of vital signs, which will better allow policymakers, the private sector, and the public to understand the magnitude of this crisis, track progress, and realign priorities for alleviating climate change. The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual. We believe that the prospects will be greatest if decision-makers and all of humanity promptly respond to this warning and declaration of a climate emergency and act to sustain life on planet Earth, our only home.

Contributing re

Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality.

If anyone here is interested in Science, theres a big development today.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806?searchresult=1

This is probably the main reason people resist Science. Selfishness.
Of course capitalists will try to paint this as a hoax that the entire scientific community is in on.

If anyone here is interested in Science, theres a big development today.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806?searchresult=1

Scientists who are Christians constantly warn people of the impending doom if they don't turn to God for Jesus-salvation help. Jesus will return shortly. But even if it is 10,000 years before He returns, for you it will seem like at your death. One moment you are alive and even kicking. The next you are being called out of the grave by Jesus in the resurrection, possibly faster than you have even realized that you died.

...
As the Alliance of World Scientists, we stand ready to assist decision-makers in a just transition to a sustainable and equitable future. We urge widespread use of vital signs, which will better allow policymakers, the private sector, and the public to understand the magnitude of this crisis, track progress, and realign priorities for alleviating climate change. The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all

.... 29 charts there for starters, plus references to supplementary evidence.

There is nothing wrong with these charts, although most people are unable to understand them or relate them to the larger picture of climate. And in many cases, they cannot be related. They are just presented in a sort of format like "Oh, and what about THIS? And THIS? And how about THAT?"

That is not scientific analysis. It does not separate cause or effect.

A much superior measure is the upper stratospheric temperature as measured by satellite.

Thanks, I've already posted this in the 'hoax is a hoax' thread, and I came here to fight for reason in this thread, too. Glad to see someone else is bombarding people with facts and evidence.


I don't think religion comes into it, just facts. Have a look at the link. 29 charts there for starters, plus references to supplementary evidence.

Several days ago, Ed Vallee, head meteorologist at Empire Weather LLC, stated that an Arctic blast of cold air would roll into the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions later in the week, with the chance of producing one of the first snowmaking weather events of the year.

As of Wednesday morning, there's more evidence that Vallee's forecast has been spot on. Tens of millions across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions will get an early shot of winter over the next several days.

The first round of Arctic air will make its way from the north-central U.S. into the Great Lakes and Northeast Wednesday through Saturday. The cold weather could produce the first significant snowstorm of the year for parts of the interior, including places like northern New England, where at least 6 inches of snow is expected Thursday into Friday.

Another blast of Arctic air will arrive across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions early next week.

...
True climatology is a really complex science ....

We've posted links to a document saying that man-made climate change is real, that is full of evidence and citations, and that has been signed by 11,000 scientists.
No-one can seriously suggest that these 11,000 people are all in on some massive conspiracy. Or that every expert in the world is deluded.
Come on. Is it more likely that 11,000 experts are wrong, or that you are wrong?

It absolutely is a conspiracy. But it's probably a conspiracy to remain stupid or ignorant.  ...

It's a conspiricy to remain employed.  You don't tow the party line on 'global climate change' in academia or 'vaccines are great' in medicine and your ass doesn't work.

Many scientists do come out and talk about what a fraud it is, but almost always after they retire.

This simply shows you how the big money interests control the media so that they can covertly lead you into their one-world government.

8)

Do you really believe in the existence of a one-world government?

Global warming means on average. It absolutely doesn't mean that every part of the globe will be hotter at every moment in the year.
In fact global warming leads to greater temperature volatility. Yes, long droughts and fires, but also stronger hurricanes and heavier rainfall.
You go out on a summer's day, and it can be very humid. Go out on a winter's day, and it is never humid. Hot air contains more water. Hot air has more energy. Global warming doesn't mean hotter everywhere all the time, it means hotter on average, globally, year to year. GW is weather on steroids.

I wonder how other people can stay blind and say it's not happening.

Global warming means on average. It absolutely doesn't mean that every part of the globe will be hotter at every moment in the year.
In fact global warming leads to greater temperature volatility. Yes, long droughts and fires, but also stronger hurricanes and heavier rainfall.
You go out on a summer's day, and it can be very humid. Go out on a winter's day, and it is never humid. Hot air contains more water. Hot air has more energy. Global warming doesn't mean hotter everywhere all the time, it means hotter on average, globally, year to year. GW is weather on steroids.

That's pretty much what your much ballyhooed charts have. Three data points.

Apologies, I'll concede the point. It doesn't mean year to year, it does indeed mean longer term patterns.

The point about warming stands though. GW doesn't mean hotter everywhere all the time. It means more extreme weather, due in large part to the fact that hotter air holds more water. Warmer on average over time, but also more extreme.

You're being disingenuous. I know you're smart enough not to believe that evidence for GW is simply three dots on one chart.

From a viewport of climatology not weather, they are each three data points.

"Hotter air holds more water" is incorrect. Air does not "hold" water vapor. Water vapor is a gas, and it goes where it goes by way of it's own dynamics. In the atmosphere, water vapor has a partial pressure, as do other components.

Again, come on, you know full well what I mean. Whether air technically 'holds' water or not is an irrelevant distinction in this context. If you heat the air it gets hotter. If you heat water, it evaporates. The more heat the more the evaporation. Where does it evaporate to? Upwards, into the air. Amongst the atoms and molecules that comprise the air, whatever. The hotter the air, the more moisture it contains / has alongside it. Globally, on average. If you don't believe me, then boil a kettle.

...
Again, come on, you know full well what I mean. Whether air technically 'holds' water or not is an irrelevant distinction in this context. If you heat the air it gets hotter. If you heat water, it evaporates. The more heat the more the evaporation. Where does it evaporate to? Upwards, into the air. Amongst the atoms and molecules that comprise the air, whatever. The hotter the air, the more moisture it contains / has alongside it. Globally, on average. If you don't believe me, then boil a kettle.

Okay, you have some air with some water "in" it. Inverted commas so we don't get drawn into that technicality again.
The air has a certain relative humidity.
You increase the temperature of the air without changing the quantity of water "in" it.
Relative humidity drops, yes?
Because warm air has the potential to "hold" more water than does cooler air.

The calculation for absolute humidity is different, this does not take temperature into consideration. Which coinidentally is what you're doing.

Okay, so you're saying it's impossible for air temperature on the surface of the Earth to increase, right? Because hot air just rises and the atmosphere gets bigger?

No.

Some radiative heat out into space, sure. But the air "contains" greenhouse gases, including water vapour.

So as the temperature increases, the Earth "tries" to radiate more heat out into space, yes, but the increasing temperature means more greenhouse gases (including water vapour), which trap more of that heat and prevent it from escaping.

It most certainly does radiate more heat out into space, when it has more heat to radiate...

Increasing temp means more greenhouse gases (including  water vapor)

No it does not. The water is part of the hydrologic CYCLE.

Now you seem to be arguing that that vertical cone of atmosphere is headed for an overall, average higher humidity somehow. Based on what? Humidity rains out.

Global Warming Real?

No, you can not nether destroy or create only transform / move.
Different regions gain others lose depending on the amount of concrete and bitumen put in place which act as a storage medium (same principle as storage heaters).

No, you can not nether destroy or create only transform / move.
Different regions gain others lose depending on the amount of concrete and bitumen put in place which act as a storage medium (same principle as storage heaters).

Yes, higher humidity due to more evaporation due to higher temperatures. Yes, it rains out. More rain as a consequence of global warming.

I guess then that higher amount of water in the air will subtract from that sea level rise problema.

More rain sounds basically good to me.

I'm sure you have figured out some way it's bad?

Haha, yes I have :)
Yes, a higher amount of water in the air would mean lower sea levels - were it not for all the melting ice everywhere. The way we're heading, in some years' time the north pole might be totally ice-free in summer.

The scariest part is the areas of the globe that are already hot that will get hotter still, pushing the limit of human survivability. We are close already in places to temperatures where the human body cannot cool itself.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/heatwave-unsurvivable-climate-change-india-pakistan-bangladesh-2100-global-warming-a7874016.html

Over the next several days, it will literally feel like it is mid-January in much of the central and eastern portions of the United States. Many areas will be hit by temperatures that are 30 degrees below normal, and heavy snow is expected in some areas of the Midwest. Unfortunately, this bitterly cold weather is coming at a very bad time for corn farmers. According to the latest USDA crop progress report, only 52 percent of the corn in the middle of the country has been harvested. So about half of the corn is still sitting out there, and these extraordinarily low temperatures could potentially be absolutely devastating. In essence, this cold front threatens to put an exclamation point on an absolutely horrific year for U.S. farmers. According to the National Weather Service, we could possibly see "170 potential daily record cold high temperatures" over the next three days…

Yes, (human-caused) global warming does cause dramatic weather events. Global warming means warmer on average across the whole planet. It means more extreme heatwaves and droughts, but it also means stronger hurricanes, heavier storms, more snow in winter - just not everywhere at the same time. My town currently has severe flooding at an unprecedented level. Right now.

The scariest part is the areas of the globe that are already hot that will get hotter still, pushing the limit of human survivability. We are close already in places to temperatures where the human body cannot cool itself.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/heatwave-unsurvivable-climate-change-india-pakistan-bangladesh-2100-global-warming-a7874016.html

It's not supportable rationally, but is just a belief system like religion.

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you? 

Okay, if we won't agree on what is genuine evidence, have a look at my post above yours - look at the sort of people who are on the same side of the debate as you, most notably big oil. Who gains and who loses if society accepts climate change as real?

Okay, if we won't agree on what is genuine evidence, have a look at my post above yours - look at the sort of people who are on the same side of the debate as you, most notably big oil. Who gains and who loses if society accepts climate change as real?

Well, Big Environmental gains.

 ::)

"Big Environmental" ? That's hilarious. You mean those fictional mighty multinational wind farm companies that are out to destroy the tiny helpless oil companies?

 ::)

"Big Environmental" ? That's hilarious. You mean those fictional mighty multinational wind farm companies that are out to destroy the tiny helpless oil companies?

So you don't think there's big easy money in Big Environmental?

Hello, Solyndra.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/specialreports/solyndra-scandal/

I believe that there are those who are attempting to form a formal one-world government. How deep it exists in all governments is unknown, formally.

8)

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

yeah, It is real. becasue mankind was killing the Earth

I have a quiet unique sights for this.. Mankind killing the earth? I don't think so.. Theory of evolution by Darwin, only the strongest one could live, we humans try to survive but not all of us can survive. Earth is balancing itself. Human annoyed the mama, so mama earth make a strategy to get rid of humans.

Also, i think the earth is always and will stay balanced. Climate change is real, but it's not going to kill the earth, it's going to kill us. How old is our earth? How old is human being? There's no way the earth could die because of us, that's just silly. The possible ways earth can die is because of large space objects, the death of the sun which is billionnnnnsssss years in the future, etc. We underestimate the earth too much,

Sometimes its funny ,we talk about climate change and how earth is dying.. in fact it's climate change and how humans are going to kill theirselves.

By the way, it's just a thoughts of mine... i hope no one feel offended or something :)

Well,  global warming is indeed real. Like, man open your eyes it's everywhere. Could you elaborate with the words "conspiracy.."? Though we have reasons to be skeptics, the argument must be clear.. for me, i stand between agree and disagree.. but it's not the matter, the effects are real. ...

I have a quiet unique sights for this.. Mankind killing the earth? I don't think so.. Theory of evolution by Darwin, only the strongest one could live, we humans try to survive but not all of us can survive. Earth is balancing itself. Human annoyed the mama, so mama earth make a strategy to get rid of humans.

Also, i think the earth is always and will stay balanced. Climate change is real, but it's not going to kill the earth, it's going to kill us. How old is our earth? How old is human being? There's no way the earth could die because of us, that's just silly. The possible ways earth can die is because of large space objects, the death of the sun which is billionnnnnsssss years in the future, etc. We underestimate the earth too much,

Sometimes its funny ,we talk about climate change and how earth is dying.. in fact it's climate change and how humans are going to kill theirselves.

By the way, it's just a thoughts of mine... i hope no one feel offended or something :)

Lol.  That 'insight' is not at all unique.  It is the standard doctrine of some of the eco-centered religious sects.

Handily enough there is nothing especially wrong with aligned 'wise men' helping the process along.  It doesn't fundamentally conflict with the idea that Mother Earth evolved means of getting what She wants/needs.  Their high-priest class is just the a tool in her tool kit.

It's pretty universal that religious sects develop philosophies which happen to be convenient for the leadership class of the sect.  It might be that people give a 10% of their wealth to God (by way of the church's coffers.)  Or it might be that the herd gets culled periodically (and if She uses the scient-priests that She created then that does make inherent sense as a way to "get 'er done.")

Care to explain what it is you see that is so "real?"

I live in Indonesia, where the forrests are burning everywhere and the temperature now is not as good as the old days. It's getting warmer and warmer. However we humans did not get impacted too much for now, the animals are dying and for long term it's not going to be good for our ecosystem, for us. https://www.wwf.org.uk/learn/effects-of/climate-change there you go, link you to what i said is so "real".

Here is another evidence from nasa's sights https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Now care to explain what it is you see is not so "real"? :D

Hahah, is it getting colder there too?

Naw. It's just right here. Poor baby. I feel sorry for you.

8)

It really happened. Are you unable to feel the difference in temperature all this time? maybe the area you live doesn't really feel, but in my country it's really a thing that keeps happening with temperatures that get hotter over time. Even the rainy season is very rare in some places, causing drought.

Scientific “consensus” is a popular buzzword commonly used by climate fanatics to “prove” that man-made climate change is a real thing. But is there really even a consensus as these hysterics claim? Not even close.

As it turns out, the climate lobby loves to pull its “facts” right out of thin air, including the newly minted fiction that “More than 11,000 scientists declare ‘climate emergency.'” While this regurgitated mainstream media headline is pretty cut and dry, the claim it makes is patently false, we’ve now learned.

Just like the Greta Thunberg hoax, the notion that more than 11,000 actual scientists are suddenly lamenting an impending “climate emergency” has absolutely no basis in reality.

In truth, these 11,000 “scientists” are actually just 11,000 ordinary people who were duped into believing that cow farts are destroying the planet, and subsequently responded by signing their names on some website.

Canada, and the Northern United States, particularly the Midwest and the Northern East are having extremely cold temps for this time of year. Have you checked Siberia to see if it is the same?

8)

.
Just search if the ice of Southern or northern Pole does complete its high temperature compares to the history of 19th century and you can see the difference between them.

We've already covered that global warming doesn't mean all of the globe all of the time. It means warmer on average, but also leads to more volaitle weather in general. I'll not cover the warm air 'holding' more water again, but global warming = disruption. More droughts and heatwaves, yes, but also stronger hurricanes, worse rainfall and flooding and also, in some places, colder winters.
I live in western europe, which is kept artificially warm by the gulf stream. We are at the same latitude as Canada and Siberia, but we don't have their winters. If the gulf stream shuts down - as it may with global warming - then our winters get a hell of a lot colder. Because of global warming.

Totally baseless fear mongering.

Aside from being ridiculous, your arguments are dated. Today, acolytes and the faithful use the words "Climate Change." "Global Warming" is no longer the phrase that interests people. Have you not been told?

We've already covered that global warming doesn't mean all of the globe all of the time. It means warmer on average, but also leads to more volaitle weather in general. I'll not cover the warm air 'holding' more water again, but global warming = disruption. More droughts and heatwaves, yes, but also stronger hurricanes, worse rainfall and flooding and also, in some places, colder winters.
I live in western europe, which is kept artificially warm by the gulf stream. We are at the same latitude as Canada and Siberia, but we don't have their winters. If the gulf stream shuts down - as it may with global warming - then our winters get a hell of a lot colder. Because of global warming.

Yes I believe global warming is real, it's clear Theres  a lot of sign expample on the is earthquakes and other worse calamities they experience this recent days.
And according from the expert and science test the cause of this global warming because of pollution came from the manufacturing and from the waste of the people around the world.

Yes, it is real. Now we are experiencing a hotter weather than before. It is because the layer which hold on the direct sunrays is gradually decreasing, thus the sunlight is directly penetrating the earth. It is caused by the greenhouse effect and sometimes it is caused by humans who burn plastic and rubber which affect the ozone layer. Here in the philippines, we happen to experience "El Niño" or sudden drought due to too much heat from the sun. I think we must be alarmed for it may lead to extinction making all forms of life in this earth end. Please save our mother earth.  ;)

No, I mean literally that you are spewing nonsense. Sure it's just what you were told, does not matter. Look at it...

....global warming doesn't mean ...warmer
 ... on average,... more volaitle weather
...global warming = disruption.
... More droughts and heatwaves,
... stronger hurricanes,
... worse rainfall and flooding
... colder winters.

If something means everything, then it means nothing.

my issues isnt about that climate is occuring
my issue is that calling it 'global warming' is too simplified and explains nothing
my issue is that it aint carbon causing it but the change in water vapour dynamic
my other issue is that land developers are deforesting rain forests and also making 'beach front' properties and buying up cheap flood plain land and converting it to housing and thus eventually causing lots of issues
there have been soo many homes made on flood plains then people stupidly get surprised their house is ankle deep in water after the winter thaw

my final issue is not just blaming carbon. but then when doing all the 'carbon tax' and environmental investment. instead of using the funds or making laws that for every tree chopped another should be planted. the funds are instead being given to large companies who just us it unwisely like to cover insurance premiums to make it chap to build on flood plains and build beach front wave defense walls to make it allowable to construct beach front property on land that should not be suitable to build on

Agree with all of that. Climate change deniers are the vested interests who have money to lose by admitting it is happening. Half of the UK is knee-deep in water right now, but building on flood plains will continue unabated for so long as there is someone who can make money from it.

i think the term 'global warming'. is too abstract. i prefer the term 'climate change'

No, I mean literally that you are spewing nonsense. Sure it's just what you were told, does not matter. Look at it...

....global warming doesn't mean ...warmer
 ... on average,... more volaitle weather
...global warming = disruption.
... More droughts and heatwaves,
... stronger hurricanes,
... worse rainfall and flooding
... colder winters.

If something means everything, then it means nothing.

The bottom-line point is, talking about global warming does 2 things:
1. Provides for fun conversation;
2. Doesn't change what the weather will be.

8)

i think the term 'global warming'. is too abstract. i prefer the term 'climate change'

It is scary how rapidly climate change seems to be accelerating - or at least the visible effects. Just in the last two years where I live, we've had both the longest, hottest, driest summer I remember, month after month of sun, with the grass bleached white... plus we've had the wettest autumn with the heaviest floods, as I say, I've literally been knee-deep in water myself, wading from one side of town to the other.

Yes global warming is real. Sea level are rising, glaciers are melting at much faster pace, abnormal weather change, floods and many more are enough to prove that we are destroying the mother earth.

My way of looking at it is that the evidence that we do have leads me to think that things are not as bad as what they're predicting. However, if they are right — and they could be, I acknowledge that — if they are right, the policies we've put into place are woefully inadequate. I can hope that the more pragmatic people that Trump is appointing will come up with more pragmatic ways of dealing with the vulnerabilities that we do have to climate change, whether it's caused by humans or it's caused naturally, and how we should deal with the potential risk of a lot of warming from humans.



1. Climate Models for the layman." We discuss the history and purpose of climate modeling, their uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity, and what we can or cannot learn from their study.

SHOW NOTES

Dr. Curry's blog

Dr. Curry's resignation post

Climate Models for the layman

Climate scientists open up their black boxes to scrutiny

2. Climate Models for the Layman with Dr. Judith Curry

3. Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science

Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter - https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

Climatewire: Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Judith Curry

Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology speaks during a Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing on "Data or Dogma" in 2015. Photo by Ken Cendeno, courtesy of Greenpeace.

Judith Curry, one of climate science's most vocal critics, is leaving academe because of what she calls the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming.

Curry, 63, is retiring from her tenured position as a professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She's instead going to focus on growing her private business, Climate Forecast Applications Network, which provides insights into climate and weather risks for agriculture and energy companies.

The climatologist, who distinguished herself in the field decades ago with research into the Arctic and the causes of the climate feedback that have shaped the region, writes a blog called Climate Etc. It is by turns academic and inflammatory.

There she occasionally mocks what she calls "climate alarmists" who say time is almost out unless humanity weans itself off fossil fuels. In her blog and on Twitter, she has also criticized some of the scientists, including Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann and Harvard University climate historian Naomi Oreskes, who have become leading voices for climate action. She has testified in front of Congress, boosted by politicians who use her work to argue that environmental regulations and a scaling down of fossil fuel use will be ineffective. Her work is frequently invoked by climate skeptics and denialists. Congressional Democrats, displeased with her conclusions, have investigated the source of her funding.

Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise.

Where many scientists say that humans are the primary cause of warming, Curry believes natural forces play a larger role. She also believes that uncertainty around climate models means we don't have to act so quickly and that current plans would do little to mitigate warming. She also questions the assertion made by a majority of climate scientists who believe humans have significantly contributed to climate change. In the Obama years, she has become a contrarian of sorts, often criticizing those who rely on climate models to prove that humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate.

In announcing her retirement, Curry wrote about what she called her "growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists." She said a deciding factor for leaving the ivory tower was that "I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science," adding that research and funding for it are highly politicized.

In an interview with E&E News, Curry said she would like to see a greater focus on the uncertainties of climate science and a better exploration of them through scientific debate free of politics.

"Once you understand the scientific uncertainties, the present policy path that we're on doesn't make a lot of sense," she said. "We need to open up policy dialogue to a bigger solution space. So I'm just looking to open up the dialogue and to provoke people into thinking."

Curry, in general, believes that the policies undertaken by the Obama administration won't do much to reduce global warming levels. That has made her the target of scientists who accuse her of aiding the climate denialists who oppose the environmental regulations of the last eight years and are eager to dismantle them under President-elect Donald Trump. Curry is not convinced that Trump will damage the climate science field, which she said has gone in the wrong direction under Obama.

Anyone can say it's not real - or real. But it does not matter.

Sometimes you go too deep into the question till you realize you're not going anywhere.

Either it's real or not, if we can do things that are good for both us and earth, why not?
Why wait till it went worse?

For me i think, blockchain technology is one of the world's mass solution to reduce things that caused global warming. If you think global warming is real, or not (yet), imo you guys should start knowing and learning about this kind of knowledges. There are a lot of ways of course, but here in case you want to know the brief explanations of how tech like blockchain can help :

https://blogchainzoo.com/climate-blockchange/

That's all propaganda and political talking points.

The fundamental and real thing that a blockchain could do for climate change issues would be for the raw temperature measured values to be put on a blockchain, along with all the "adjustments" made to them and the reasons for each.

That would be a scientific starting point for accurately understanding climate change. But a lot of powerful forces would be opposed to that.

Very good point. I agree, but also i think it's something we all should fight for. Decentralization and Transperancy is what this modern civilization market need beside that fact that some blockchain company will try to "adjust" it for their purpose as you said. This tech imo will minimalize the impact..

What reality is is that the "adjustments" to world and regional temperature values have been monkeyed with for decades, and those doing the changes have not adequately explained them to people who asked for explanations.

This makes it nearly impossible to establish factually whether there has been "global warming" and to what extent.

More than 100 million Americans on are under weather warnings as a pair of powerful storms promising several feet of snow and powerful winds across large swaths of the country plunge Thanksgiving travel into chaos - causing over 8,000 flights delays so far with thousands more expected as the holiday approaches. 

The majority of the delays reported Tuesday were at Denver International Airport as a strong storm dumped more than a foot of snow in northern Colorado before moving east through the Rocky Mountains and up toward the Great Lakes. 

A second major storm is expected to strike the West Coast over Tuesday and Wednesday, bringing 'bomb cyclone' conditions with over two feet of snow to the mountains in the Northwest and possible flash flooding in Southern California.

The National Weather Service described the second storm as 'historic' and said it could rival the strength of a Category 1 hurricane with winds up to 74mph in southwest Oregon and northwest California.

The storm system will then move into the Rockies toward the central US on Thanksgiving and into the weekend before dumping rain on the East Coast on Sunday.

Okay, but then what? I mean, what do you think should we do ?

Aside from distrusting politicians who would take your money for Saving the Earth?

(Always distrust something like that)

There are many serious pollution issues that seemed to be just cast aside with a mantra to reduce carbon emissions.

...
Yeah soo annoyingg i never buy it anyway i think it's really important to start from ourselves without caring the rest because the rest will follow. but yeah like i said for longterm and mass scale change-transparency and decentralized system is better (not best). This is one of the reason why i become blockchain enthusiast, it's not perfect-it have flaws but it offer us so many solutions for so many use cases rather than centralized one.

I opened my eyes because of this : https://blogchainzoo.com/use-cases/ (seriously)

Well, I looked at the section on climate change and really, seriously wasn't impressed. It's fairly often that someone thinks that the magic of blockchain will enable their personal beliefs and prejudices to win out. These people often don't even understand what blockchain will and will not do.

An example or two (from your link)


"Blockchain feature highlighted" - Peer to Peer - Crucial where regulation and governance are weak or otherwise unstable.

??? WTF??? Blockchain is a substitute for top down government organization, not something used when those functions are weak. Not something inferior, but superior.

CLI MISSION - to accelerate climate action in line with the Paris Climate Agreement ....

Last I looked at the matter, the Paris Agreement really had zero effect on climate and was sort of a political feel good thing

Climate Ledger Initiative (CLI)

International, multistakeholder initiative at the intersection of ...

Huh?

Well this is from what i see,

"Crucial where regulation and governance are weak or otherwise unstable."

It's 'where' not 'when'


About Paris Agreement, it's written on the infograph
                                                                                   "To accelerate climate action in line with ..."
Yes you are probably right paris agreement has a very low effect (i just know this from google thanks to you) but the words said

"to accelerate.. in line...."  because as we know for now we have to do all with politic rules- so this can be the answer. To gamble, you have to be inside the system first.

As I recall from reading that Paris agreement, there were huge transfer payments in the fine print, from prosperous nations to third world. It was at the core, a gigantic money scam marketed as "Saving the world."

But I can play the game your way, too. Consider this use for a blockchain. Look up the expected ACTUAL carbon impact of the Paris agreement. (Not the rosy lies, the real) Then pick a simple change that anyone can do, which if ten or a hundred million do it will beat the effect of the Paris agreement, and make it a laughing stock.

Blockchain THAT. You've done more for real world climate than the entire Paris agreement...

Thank you for the pa info,

And yesss, i am so excited for that, for a decentralized future. I hope people will be more open to this.

It's not that people aren't in favor of decentralization. It's that they don't even know what it is. It's that even if they have an inkling of it, they don't know how to determine if info is decentralized or not.

People have been trained (brainwashed) in centralization for so long, and decentralization looks so similar to centralization in some ways, that they can't tell the difference without someone showing them, point blank.

8)

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

I think it may be a conspiracy and also a fact, we ourselves can clearly feel that the earth is really warming. Whatever the factor, contributing to the protection of our beautiful earth is an urgent issue.

Winter Storm Dorothy dumped 7 to 12 inches of snow late Monday into Tuesday across Denver.

Winter storm warnings and winter weather advisories have already been posted for many regions in the Central Plains and upper Midwest on Wednesday.

https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/NWS%20Map_0.png

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Is Global Warming Real

Mainstream media outlets and political organizations have been predicting doom and gloom, what seems to be end of the world type of scenarios when they bring up the topic of global warming and climate change. This type of perception is something humanity has been experiencing for decades, just take a look at this press release from 1989, which explained how United Nations officials predicted that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth if the global warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000, it's just one of many examples.

Furthermore, anybody who seems to question the official narrative of this issue that's constantly pushed by mainstream media is made out to be a fool, and ridicule shortly ensues. Climate scientists have been ridiculed for even sharing their research and opinions suggesting that a doom and gloom scenario is not real, and that the issue of climate change is quite complex, and that man's CO2 output is not playing the role that most have been made to believe it plays.

...

Atmospheric CO2 is a key to life on earth, this is because plants use sunlight to combine CO2 molecules from the air with H2O molecules to make carbohydrates (for example, sugar) and other organic compounds. In the process, oxygen molecules (O2) are released to the atmosphere. At CO2 levels less than 150 ppm (parts per million), most plants stop growing. Over most of the history of multicellular life on earth, CO2 levels have been three or four times higher than present levels. Current CO2 levels of 400 ppm are still much less than optimum for most plant growth.

As the "science" behind man-made global warming has been increasingly discredited, the story has changed. Now it's not about saving the environment but about redistributing wealth, says a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III and a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 (its latest), recently said, "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Edenhofer told a German news outlet (NZZ AM Sonntag): "Basically, it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War."

No   (You can not create or destroy, only transform/change)
Is the climate changing, Yes
It has changed 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10000 years ago.... always has, always will, adapt.

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Global warming is truth. Can you feel the changes of climate change than before? The summer and the winter is so abnormal. In my country you can feel the heat before the rain. And so after the heat there is a huge typhoon. When the summer comes. Instead going to beach. We stay at home because it's raining.

Humans are small but powerful, and human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. :) :)

Well, if you want to see some proof about global waming you should take a look at the max temp in the last years.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/GlobalWarming/images/proxy-based_temperature_reconstruction.png

And the sea volume:

https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/841/

For more information take a look to: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Well, if you want to see some proof about global waming you should take a look at the max temp in the last years.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/GlobalWarming/images/proxy-based_temperature_reconstruction.png

I have to admit to liking the spaghetti charts (lower right).

Because someone will throw that at you and say something like ...

"See? See it! It's right there!!!"

In that chart the lines are the climate models predictions, and the circles and squares lower on the chart are what the actual observations turned out to be..
Basically shows that they predict(ed) warming and it doesn't(didn't) happen..

Do you think that if I labeled the charts "Proof Of Global Warming" then they would run around posting it as proof of their position unknowingly? I bet some would, lol..

Well, it’s officially the year 2020 according to the Gregorian calendar, and millions of people are dead from climate change. Or at least that’s what The Guardian (United Kingdom) predicted back in 2004 as part of a bogus climate report (https://www.zerohedge.com/health/report-hyped-climate-alarmists-warned-millions-dead-nuclear-war-sunken-major-cities-2020) it published that year.

The left-wing paper predicted all sorts of global calamities that were supposed to have initiated the moment the ball dropped in Times Square, including European cities sinking into the ocean, nuclear war, widespread rioting, and “mega-droughts,” whatever that means.

While our world is certainly a powder keg of chaos just waiting to explode, “global warming” certainly isn’t the spark that lit the fuse. But this is what The Guardian told its readers nearly two decades ago, blaming planetary heating for an impending global catastrophe that has yet to fully materialize.

According to a “secret report” obtained by The Guardian that year, “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.” This secret report went on to warn that “[n]uclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.”

In that chart the lines are the climate models predictions, and the circles and squares lower on the chart are what the actual observations turned out to be..
Basically shows that they predict(ed) warming and it doesn't(didn't) happen..

Do you think that if I labeled the charts "Proof Of Global Warming" then they would run around posting it as proof of their position unknowingly? I bet some would, lol..

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening, and that human activity causes it...

The sun is behaving very strangely, freakishly cold weather is breaking out all over the world, ocean temperatures continue to rise, volcanoes all over the globe are shooting ash miles into the air, Australia is experiencing the worst wildfires that they have ever seen, and the north magnetic pole has been moving at a pace that is deeply alarming scientists.  Could it be possible that all of this bizarre activity is leading up to some sort of a crescendo?

Sadly, most people don't even realize what is happening, and that is because the mainstream media only emphasizes stories that fit with the particular narratives that they are currently pushing.

But it has gotten to the point where nobody can deny that really weird things are happening.  The following are 7 major earth changes that are happening right now that everyone needs to know about…

According to NASA, the Sun will reach its lowest activity in over two centuries in 2020. As a result of it going into a natural period of hibernation, Earth could see temperatures drop, resulting in food shortages on a global scale. The temperature could also drop by as much as one degree Celsius over a period of roughly 12 months—an incremental yet significant change in climate conditions that could have unpredictable results.

According to NASA, the Sun will reach its lowest activity in over two centuries in 2020. As a result of it going into a natural period of hibernation, Earth could see temperatures drop, resulting in food shortages on a global scale. The temperature could also drop by as much as one degree Celsius over a period of roughly 12 months—an incremental yet significant change in climate conditions that could have unpredictable results.

Valentina Zharkova, a professor at Northumbria University's department of mathematics, physics, and electrical engineering, told the Sun that the period will be an expanded version of the solar minimums that naturally occur every 11 years. However, rather than lasting only a few years, the "Grand Solar Minimum" could last for up to 33 years.

The professor, who has published multiple scientific papers on the subject, said:

"The Sun is approaching a hibernation period.

Last year i thought is not, but with all winter that should come now and not come , yes global worm is real in my opinion and can be stopped only if pollution will stop.

Last year i thought is not, but with all winter that should come now and not come , yes global worm is real in my opinion and can be stopped only if pollution will stop.

Sun spots are releases of energy into space, that when it hits the earth, it turns into heat. ...

No they do not.

They typically may say something like human activity is a partial factor.

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Cook et al's highly influential consensus study (2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for. The paper does not discuss the procedures used to ensure independence between the raters, to ensure that raters did not use additional information, and to ensure that later ratings were not influenced by earlier results. Clarifying these issues would further strengthen the paper, and establish it as our best estimate of the consensus.

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

It depends on semantics....

No, none of that double talk is necessary at all.

Human activity is simply one dimension affecting climate, and within that, there are regional issues such as the "brown cloud" over Asia, farming techniques, deforestation, and then in one corner a group of issues concerning co2.

Of course politicians latch on these to attempt to exert control. So yes, conspiracies certainly exist.

Yes, there are other factors besides Humans.  The consensus is that Humans are the primary factor, not that it is the sole factor.

And yes, politicians are definitely exploiting the situation.  Some are motivated by the money that is coming in from the fossil fuel industry or simply 'beating the left' , some are motivated by the renewable energy industry or the desire to 'beat the right'.

All we can do is look at the research objectively, which shows that it's extremely likely humans are the primary cause of global warming.

The mathematical factor "climate sensitivity" is the technical way of describing effect of humans.

This replaces vague words like "primary" "likely" blah blah with simple estimated constant.

^^^ Wow! You typed all that in this short of a period of time?     8)

Wonder how many of these entities run on grant money.  Grant money which wouldn't be their unless they play ball on the climate change scam.  I'll bet every last one of them.

This reminds me of the 'big list' of formed a 'consensus' of U.S. 'intelligence agencies' who found that Russia hacked the election (or one similar idiotic assertion from that time.)  It included entities who obviously had no reason or ability to look into the matter.  e.g., the Coast Guard.  It was obvious that they just signed some piece of paper which was thrust in front of the director's face.  Totally meaningless and a joke.

I should've linked the source, sorry about that.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

(edited post to include the link)

Oh ya.  NASA.  Ya, that figures.  Since Obama, NASA's mission is to make Muslims feel good about their scientific achievements and pump the climate change scam.  They don't even bother with getting into space any more.  Just outsource it to corporate cronies.

Rats!  Jewtube took down Ramzpaul's hilariously funny and poignant video of the above so I cannot readily provide a link.  Oh well.

Fair enough.

When it comes to science, what sources do you trust?

Global Warming  is a recognized, factual fact today. Temperatures are rising, warming the planet called Earth.

Increased temperatures will increase the rate of floods, cyclones, droughts and other natural disasters, fearing food crisis may occur.

I think global warming is a reality, just follow the reports from the polar observatories on the melting of the polar layers. That is true.

Yes, it is. And I find amusing people who use the scientifically foolish argument "we're in an Ice Age, so no global warming" without realising that mean temperatures should decrease or maintain stable and glaciers should increase rather than melt. It backfires.

Honestly, arguing whether global warming exists is like arguing whether the ocean has a bottom. It's a fact. What some people may question, whether genuinely curious or out of stubborn ignorance, is whether the anthropic influence is significant.

Yes, it is. And I find amusing people who use the scientifically foolish argument "we're in an Ice Age, so no global warming" without realising that mean temperatures should decrease or maintain stable and glaciers should increase rather than melt. It backfires.
...

First snow in the Iraqi city of Kerbala in more than 40 years.
Snowing in Kerbala Iraq (https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/f27dgk/first_snow_in_the_iraqi_city_of_kerbala_in_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x)

Iraq: Snow Falls in Baghdad for First Time Since 2008, only the second time the last hundred years
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/02/11/iraq-snow-falls-in-baghdad-for-first-time-since-2008/

Nobody is arguing these things.

You may be the victim of a rather simple form of mind control.  Basically, on 'the reservation' what you know about the beliefs of other side is what those running the reservation tell you those beliefs are.  And they mis-inform you about the beliefs.  Deliberately.

You should get 'off the reservation' and go out for some fresh air from time to time.  You might ultimately find life off of the reservation to be preferable.

....

https://cornwallalliance.org/2019/03/global-cooling-the-real-climate-threat/

This is the (incorrect) hypothesis called global cooling, the concept the globe's actually cooling (I assume you believe the Earth is a globe at the very least, right?). Essentially, people misusing the geological time scale and large-period climatic oscillations to justify beliefs for a short-term climatic oscilation.

It seems that global warming has been slowing down for at least the last 20 years. In other words, the rate of warming is less.

In addition, there are signs that the reason for the reduced GW rate is because global cooling is happening. "As we move further into 2020, solar activity dwindles.  This year, solar activity will be marked as the lowest in over 200 years. The low in the sun's 11-year cycle will also have at least some repercussions for the climate here on Earth," ~snip~

They are not. If you read the linked paper...

 Singh, A.K., Bhargawa, A. Prediction of declining solar activity trends during solar cycles 25 and 26 and indication of other solar minimum. Astrophys Space Sci 364, 12 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-019-3500-9

Their assertions are not based on the Milankovick cycles, but on periodic sunspot activity and what climate has seemed to correlate with that in the past.

This of course cannot be an incorrect hypothesis. But one may argue whether the sum of cooling and warming effects leads to a net of cooling or warming, or whatever.

You're right, solar activity is dwindling. But that has happened for over 35 years already, and for over 35 years temperature's been rising, therefore, the highs we experienced are not directly caused by the sun.

Here's an image that pictures that: Picture. (https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/TvsTSI.png)
(Sources are NASA GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt), Krivova et al. (2007) (http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html) and PMOD (http://ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/composite_d41_62_1110.dat)).

Maybe in the past the sun was more significant, but studies have pointed out this has changed. Here's another picture: Picture. (https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_Attribution_1024_med.jpg) The sources for this study are: Meehl et al. (2004), Stone et al. (2007), Lean & Rind (2008) and Huber & Knutti (2011).

There are, at the very least, 19 studies that point how the sun's influence in global warming is minimal. You can check them here (https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm).

Also, what's your scientific and falseable source that global cooling is a thing? Because quite a lot of studies converge into the idea there is none (https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm).



What I said above PLUS

That article points for dwindling solar activity but it does not mention at all the implications it have for global warming. You're sort of forcing a correlation the author did not explicit. If he did, however, I'd like you to point it out to me - word-searching for "global warming/climate change/climate/temperature" didn't wield me any results. Lastly, I have serious doubts whether these guys are climatologists given they're analysing sun activity pattern, so it's not like their prediction of climatic impacts have the same validity as those operating in that field.

What I did was simply correct your mistake, using your link. Actually the scientific link in the popular article. I assume that's okay right? You said this...

This is the (incorrect) hypothesis called global cooling, the concept the globe's actually cooling (I assume you believe the Earth is a globe at the very least, right?). Essentially, people misusing the geological time scale and large-period climatic oscillations to justify beliefs for a short-term climatic oscilation.

And you were wrong. The article and the article it linked to didn't say that.

Last I heard there were people who specialized in glaciers, some on historical glaciers, some on sedimentary deposits on the ocean floors. There are people who use boreholes to read climate from thousands of years ago. Others that look at isotope fractions in the air, and on the ground, and in rocks.

Plus the guys that wonder about correcting satellite sensors' data streams. And a hundred other areas of science related to climate. This idea that there is a single species, no doubt created by global warming, a sort of human creature who is a climatologist, is a new one.

So you don't trust astrophysics? Or those that work in the field?

I assume then you don't want your climatologists messing around with astrophysics?

But that makes no sense. Seems to me like an astrophysicist certainly could tell you something about the direct and indirect effects of the Sun on Earth's climate. More watts in, less watts in. Watts out. Effect on clouds, high or low. Who do you want to trust? The climatologist that just knows bugs?

...
They can tell a lot of stuff, most importantly what you said: more watts in, less watts in. That's about it. Can he explain to me the impact that an increase or decrease in watts will have related to Earth's absorption capacity? Can he explain how much does increased sun activity measure compared to plants' and humans' production of energy? Can he explain the effects of an increased or decreased solar output in Earth considering N different endogen factors?

Besides, how exactly can you show me evidence the sun activity IS directly responsible for long-trend climactic changes, and that those changes aren't really of increased temperatures?

And lastly, even if climate change isn't real and whatnot, why would you still oppose climate change's utmost goals - the change for a more sustainable society? Because, regardless of "political/financial gains" a "hoax climate change campaign" might have, it is undeniable that its defining aspect is a call for sustainability & environmental friendliness. And I'm not talking about what you might perceive as "shiite environmentalism", I'm talking about structural changes for the better that are honestly long required, such as less usage of fossil fuels, more usage of nuclear energy, recycling, increase in green areas, stuff like that.

So we just toss out your initial argument as based on a poor choice of an example? No problem. In logic, you would be said to have set up a straw man argument, easily defeated. But the article doesn't support even your straw man argument, so I thought to bring that to your attention.

Obviously the primary mover of climate is the Sun. Astrophysicists vary in their work, but many certainly can and do talk about the Sun as it affects planetary atmospheres. Others may be concerned only with internal solar dynamics, etc. Still others focus on cosmic rays, solar wind, space weather, many things. Primary evidence of sun affecting climate is night and day, winter and summer, and the periodic ice ages and such.

There was a semi-political attempt starting maybe in the 1990s to minimize the effects of the sun on earth's climate, so that the effect of man's emissions could be brought into the forefront and seem more "alarming." For example, Al Gore's initial movies and presentation of the "hockey stick" did not show the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm period. This was an attempt to box in "natural climate variability" as fairly insignificant. That's pretty much debunked today. Although this is best expressed with phrases like "high or low uncertainty," rather than absolute certainty.

You can't go wrong being skeptical when someone is absolutely certain of something, particularly in a mathematically chaotic environment like climate.

Bolded above, isn't that a sort of rhetorical statement that assumes a stereotyped "enemy?" You don't know anything of what I oppose or not. But to respond, ambiguous, feel good phrases like "Sustainable society" really obscure the platform rather than explain it. Same with "environmental friendliness." Recycling is fine when it's not totally ridiculous, which isn't infrequent. Is Recycling an unqualified good? No, of course not. We're on the same page on the need for increases in productive nuclear energy.

My point was: there are people who think global cooling exist AND they lack strong evidence to think that, instead opting to use the (in blunt words) stupidity of "We're in an ice age".

I presented evidence for both claims.

You retorted claiming I was wrong, pointing an article which DOES NOT BACK UP WHAT YOU SAID. Therefore, you came with a claim you did not have evidence for.....

Are we on the same page here?
...

No, I am not aware of any people that claim we are in an ice age. (looking outside) Does not look that way around here.

As for the "article I pointed to", I pointed to the logical fallacy of your argument, based on YOUR ARTICLE.

As for "global cooling," of course it can exist, and does exist historically. It is no more than another term in any simplified linear equation of climate. It may be a weak or a strong term, with high or low uncertainty, still, the summation of the equation rules. (I'm simplifying a bit here, but likely you get it). For example, the Earth has radiative input factors, but also radiative output. Generally, that would mean outflow of watts from the lower stratosphere outwards. A global cooling factor, obviously.

Not exactly. Gore worked with Dr. James Hansen, and used Michael Mann's "hockey stick." Those are / were well published and known researchers. He did not come up with his alarmist ideas by himself. Well, maybe the idea of using the scissors lift was his. And maybe the idea of breaking the AC system in August 1988 when Hansen did his seminal report to the Senate, insuring they were all unbearably hot while the subject of the presentation was "global warming..." maybe that was Gore's work.

Let's just call (A) Beliefs, for a moment.

The argument now becomes "Agree with Beliefs," and you "Are a good person." I'll point out the fallacies in that.

The propagator of the argument is free to modify "Beliefs", while those subscribing to them still must adhere to the Dogma. This is pseudo-religion and has no scientific basis and no basis in any rational mode of life. Each of those sub-arguments in list (A) should be considered on it's merits or lack of. Essentially this is a power play, an attempt to gain control of people through word arguments and propaganda tactics.

Oh, and if you want to learn about eco-friendly habits, take a look at Singapore.

...
You're missing my point. ...

If I'm missing a point, it's because you are now spewing them in about eighteen different directions. This whole thing is very simple.

It doesn't matter if you got the point. You were wrong. You said "people misuse the geological time scale and large-0period climatic oscillations to justify beliefs for a short-term climatic oscillation."

You're right, solar activity is dwindling. But that has happened for over 35 years already, and for over 35 years temperature's been rising, therefore, the highs we experienced are not directly caused by the sun.

Here's an image that pictures that: Picture. (https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/TvsTSI.png)
(Sources are NASA GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt), Krivova et al. (2007) (http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html) and PMOD (http://ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/composite_d41_62_1110.dat)).

Maybe in the past the sun was more significant, but studies have pointed out this has changed. Here's another picture: Picture. (https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_Attribution_1024_med.jpg) The sources for this study are: Meehl et al. (2004), Stone et al. (2007), Lean & Rind (2008) and Huber & Knutti (2011).

There are, at the very least, 19 studies that point how the sun's influence in global warming is minimal. You can check them here (https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm).

Also, what's your scientific and falseable source that global cooling is a thing? Because quite a lot of studies converge into the idea there is none (https://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm).

We're getting a lot more volcano activity, which is spewing loads more dust into the air than chemtrails. This will block the warmth of the sun, and we will get an ice-age shortly.

....
In fact, what larger presses DO use as a global cooling "argument" is the idea that sun activity is paramount to Earth's climate and thus if sun activity increases global warming happens and if it decreases global cooling happens. Which I have pointed out a few posts behind is not scientifically accurate.
...

You can't possibly be serious right now. Are you a troll akin to notbatman?

Well, I can't say I've heard that argument made, either.

But why don't you define what you mean by these two terms, global cooling, and global warming, so that we are not just talking about different things but thinking they are the same. To me, there are cooling influences and warming influences on climate, and they sum each day to net effects. Thus it is nonsensical to deny one, or the other. But these influences would have to be against some standard, since "cooling" and "warming" are relative to something, right?

What, then, is the equilibrium temperature of the Earth?

See the "Global climate" section of "1883 eruption of Krakatoa" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa#Global_climate). There are more global cooling writings about times before Krakatoa... back as much as a thousand years. Do your own research.

A punctual event is irrelevant. That's the equivalent of me pointing at Australia and saying "See, global warming's so bad that it has exponentially empowered natural/artificial forest fires! Do your research 8)". Sure, one is a product of the other, but it's one out-of-the-curve catastrophic anomaly rather than the norm. Besides, can you point studies that sign current or future volcanic activity is so high there is a chance of global cooling?

Not only such argument was used in this thread (by BADdecker, but by now I've learnt to take what he says with a grain of salt) but also on the sites I originally linked.

In here lies most of our misunderstandings, I'd reckon.

Global warming & cooling to me climatic trends, which indicate whether the average world temperature is rising or decreasing, and therefore to claim global cooling exists is essentially to argue the world's temperatures in the long term are decreasing.

Naturally there are cooling & warming influences, but these are factors that feed the pattern and not the pattern itself.