I believe climate changes but not like the gloom and doom as these people are saying. I believe there are natural cycles. Back in the early 90's many said that many coastal cities would be under water and that the polar ice caps would be all melted by the year 2000. They were wrong. God Bless

The weather cannot be accurately predicted for a week out. This is whenever they have all of the recent data to load into their computer model generating software.

They couldn't even predict the path of a hurricane for a thousand miles.

So, how are they going to accurately predict the weather 10 or 20 years out?

They can't!!!

I do not believe it for one second. But the weathermen love it. They are in the spotlight. And the news networks are helping them out by using outrageous descriptors for "any" weather. They should be ashamed.

By the way, we have only been keeping accurate temperature records for a VERY short time. Considering that there are 365 days per year. The record for each day (high temp and low temp) is going to be broken quite often. After a couple of hundred more years, not so much.

Not buying it, but it looks like someone has to pay for this BS.

Isn't Global Warming supposed to be 'science'? Funny how I missed the peer-reviewed exaples for this one:



Oh yeah, be sure to remove the medieval temperature rise when it doesn't work with the agenda at hand.

Seeding panic and terror for ones personal gain and setting it out far enough to be able to retire before it is proven wrong seems to be the way to go.

You know, this was/is fairly simple. At least when I learned geography, it was common knowledge Greenland was once 'green' enough for Vikings to settle it and glaciers created drumlins around the Midwest when they melted and retreated. When I learned astronomy it was understood that solar radiation strength varied over time as well - Blackspot Maunder Minimums and Maximums.

So it was never reasonable to believe that climate was static, over the long term.

That said, the behavior of the 'climate scientists' have made me the ultimate skeptic about the idea of man's ability to impact on the scale claimed. The sum total of actual scientists who use the term 'settled science' to describe any aspect of their craft is, to three decimal places, zero. It isn't settled. No science is. Not Newton. Not Einstein.

Real scientists doubt their instruments, the calibration thereof, their labs, their data, their lab assistants, their math, and their reports generally wind up with 'more study required' not 'this is settled science.'

Now, there are true-believers in white coats, who for whatever reason don't have a skeptical bone in their bodies, and for whom the truly scientific skepticism is akin to heresy. Those shills, PR agents, useful idiots - call them what you will - are completely ignorable, IMO, despite the credibility given them by the general press and politicians looking to take the US economy apart.

Note to would-be climate change scientists. Show us your data, show how you've collected it, where you've checked and rechecked, share where you are least certain of your methods and conclusions. That just might get actual scientists interested in what you're selling, or at least interested enough to find out where your assumptions, methods, equipment or analysis might 'require more study.'

On the other hand, those who wish to spoon feed their received wisdom and denounce those critical of their assertions as 'anti-science' need to re-learn precisely what the word 'science' means.

quote:

Originally posted by rebut10:

quote:

Originally posted by GT-40DOC:
The Earth's climate is not static, but constantly changing. It has been that way for at least........ 6 months......maybe even longer!!

Ya, maybe even longer...something else has been in a state of constant change...Earth's population...Year 1 AD approximately 200 million, 1000 AD 275 million., 1804 AD 1 billion, 1900 1.6 billion, 2011 AD 7 billion.

Most of the growth these days is in 3rd world countries and Asia.

At what point does this population growth rate become unsustainable?...assuming it's not already.

It's possible this population growth is a catalyst ramping up the natural climate change cycle of the planet.

Now what to do?

Bernie says kill all the brown babies, then we can have Utopia.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
You sure you are in Houston?
I only remember one season - HOT.

Vague memories of living in the northeast in my early years through mid-teens. Good one...

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:
I ABSOLUTELY believe in Climate Change:
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

Phukking hack retards. ANY data can be skewed to fit one's agenda. Just like polls...

You sure you are in Houston?
I only remember one season - HOT.

But, he's a pilot. A hop on the jet and he can change the climate easily.

Sure there's climate change. The earth has always had climate change driven by forces not controllable by us humans. Does pouring pollution into the air have any affect? I'd guess a bit but I'd also guess not enough to measure or make a significant difference. At least at our current rate.

The thing is, even if we implemented "the Green New Deal" completely (no cars, no planes no cows etc) it would be like putting an ice cube in your pool in and effort to cool it down. Just silly.

It's real, and perhaps even man has affected it recently.

So what? Politicians are the worst group of people to deal with this 'problem'. At best they won't do any good. More likely will make things worse.

I'm not even "looking" much less buying.

No I don't buy it. As far as the environment goes, the huge amounts of plastic in the ocean has always concerned me more than global warming. Plastic is starting to show up in the food chain (microplastics in fish). I am not one of these nuts who wants to ban straws, but we do need to do a better job of disposing of plastic waste.

Climate change infidel here.

What’s a fella to believe?

Sorry, don't buy it. If I'm still around 12 years from now I'll be happy to say, "I told ya so."

I like Tony Heller.
https://youtu.be/yq8bXg6RIjo
He references historical facts in his videos.

In his infinite wisdon, I present you with Mr George Carlin:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And humans have dug up a lot of of it an put it in the atmosphere. Look at the raw numbers of both...

So, a one one-hundredths of a percent (.0001) change in atmospheric content, IF the data is valid. So far, pro- AGW raw data has required "help" from concerned scientists to further the narrative. That isn't science.

You are extraordinarily predictable.



.

What does drive climate on this planet in the order of magnitude.

1. Solar output.
2. Distance from Earth to Sun.
3. Angle of Earth to Sun.
4. Position of continents and how that interacts with ocean conveyors.
5. Composition of Earth's atmosphere.

This was all created back in 1988 by Dr. James Hansen's testimony before Congress on this topic on a hot June day, and they turned off the AC to the building so the cameras/media captured the hot and sweating testimony. Political kabuki theater at its finest. This was NASA fighting for funding and relevance in the wake of the Challenger explosion in my opinion. They were scared to death they were on the way out so they manufactured a crisis. Why else would the National Aeronautics and Space Administration get involved with something total not within their mandate? Climate science is not really a science in the standard practice. The East Anglia E Mail scandal shines some light on this notion. Here we had climate scientists boasting about tricks and making up data. Stroking and smoothing, and threatening to destroy information wanted by a FOIA request. Enter Micheal Mann who refuses to turn over his research so others can't reproduce his work. Unheard of in the scientific community. This isn't science it politics pure and simple. Now we have rumblings of Democrat state AG's talking about suing "climate deniers." Hardball, weaponized, politics.

https://climatelitigationwatch.org/

I was about 12 years old when the actor, Robert Redford was on TV actually crying about, "Global Cooling." He predicted the oceans would be dead by Y2K, etc. unless... Gov't. control, regulation, tax, etc.

Then, as always, we started going through a warming trend, so the hoax was renamed to "Global Warming."

Now, it's "Climate Change" they have both cooling trends and warming trends covered which indicates the fraudsters have evolved a bit in their attempts to fool the chicken-littles into submission.

No, I have never bought into any of this BS.

If there was no climate change then you'd have a story. "Democrat climate change" is a hoax for gullible fools. Every prediction they have been making for decades have yet to come true. My favorite is one from Al Gore. In the early 90's he said by 2013 the N. American continent would no longer be receiving any more snowfall. Now in 12 years we're doomed if you listen to the talking ass from N.Y. AOC. It's all crap simply meant to scare you and steal more money thru more taxes to combat a fairy tale.