Don’t Call It Climate Change. Red States Prepare For ‘Extreme Weather’

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Here you are again, relying on consensus.

Stating it exists is not relying on it. Obviously.

The 500 experts are free to publish their research. So are you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And science it is NOT.

IPCC? 100% wrong. Science is all it is. It's a compilation of all the science from across nearly every field of science. It presents what the science shows thus far. That's all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I was worried about manmde global climate warming change until I saw Obama buy an oceanfront mansion

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But yes, china is letting citizens freeze this winter by slashing coal production

Which they did to keep their own cities from being polluted. This had and has nothing to do with a global effort to combat climate change. It is China working its way through its own conundrum and dependence on coal.

 

[Mac-7]

Which they did to keep their own cities from being polluted. This had and has nothing to do with a global effort to combat climate change. It is China working its way through its own conundrum and dependence on coal.

Piecing together various news reports about china I believe the chinese economy is a mess and getting worse

I not sure the CCP are making rational decisions anymore

Cutting off supplies of coal to 100 million poor people is not going to solve any problems

 

[Nostra]

W

IPCC? 100% wrong. Science is all it is. It's a compilation of all the science from across nearly every field of science. It presents what the science shows thus far. That's all.

Why did the IPCC destroy data when asked to produce it to show how they came to their conclusions?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Piecing together various news reports about china I believe the chinese economy is a mess and getting worse

I not sure the CCP are making rational decisions anymore

Cutting off supplies of coal to 100 million poor people is not going to solve any problems

Their people have been shown a higher standard of living and now expect it.

 

[ding]

Man, I wish that were true. I'm not sure it is. Look at the effort these guys put forth. You don't see them doing this with other scientific theories. I mean, yeah, it's no actual challenge to the theory. But it is quite a challenge to acting on it.

You mean like the universe being created from nothing hardwired to produce life and intelligence? No, I do.

Or arguing the science behind the widespread use of solar resulting in a cooling effect on the planet? I do that too.

 

[ding]

You missed the point AGAIN.

Consensus is NOT scientific. Science is not based on consensus.

Only hacks rely on consensus to prove a theory.

Theories are not proved. Only disproved.

But he's a true believer.

 

[ding]

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

So, IPCC is not a consensus of opinion. It isn't meant to be. It is basically just a compilation of the evidence and the best short term climate predictions. It's "actionable intelligence" for governments and the private sector. Their opinions of what to do about it are up to them.

These are separate topics entirely.

Not when they skew the analysis using the urban heat island effect and low variability solar output datasets to arrive at the conclusion they want. That's not science at all. That's just dishonest.

 

[ding]

Stating it exists is not relying on it. Obviously.

The 500 experts are free to publish their research. So are you.

It is when the intent is to discourage discussion, investigation and challenges (hallmarks of the scientific process). The only thing that will change your mind is a cooling trend. Fortunately for us we live in a bipolar glaciated world where climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks. Of course even then you will probably deny it until

 

[ding]

Never claimed it was. Science is scientific.

Yet here you are, presenting the opinions of "500 experts".

So make up your mind.

Science, huh?

When you can tell me why we shouldn't expect increasing temperatures when our present temperature is still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles, let me know.

When you can show me an experiment that quantified the radiative forcing of CO2 increasing from 300 ppm to 420 ppm, let me know.

When you can tell me why the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, let me know.

When you can tell me why the southern hemisphere has a higher temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the northern hemisphere does, let me know.

When you can tell me why the warmest global temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere receives the most sunshine, let me know.

When you can tell me why the coldest average temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere receives the least sun light, let me know.

When you can tell me why the planet experienced increased climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty after it transitioned from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world, let me know.

Because until YOU can answer these questions you don't know jack shit about earth's climate. And you will never understand why I question the psuedo-science that is masquerading as science.

 

[ding]

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

So, IPCC is not a consensus of opinion. It isn't meant to be. It is basically just a compilation of the evidence and the best short term climate predictions. It's "actionable intelligence" for governments and the private sector. Their opinions of what to do about it are up to them.

These are separate topics entirely.

That's rather dishonest of you. Of course their conclusions are a consensus. The problem is they are trying to force their consensus on others. The lead author - Dr. Ronan Connolly, Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) - of a recently published study refuting the IPCC's finding and methods said this in the conclusion of the paper.

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress.

 

[ding]

Oh yes, there is still overwhelming consensus.

I beg to disagree...

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

Here you are again, relying on consensus.

I don't believe the politicians believe there is a consensus in the American people. And that's probably the only thing keeping them from acting. They don't want to lose their jobs.

 

[ding]

And science it is NOT.

If it were science they would perform an experiment measuring and quantifying the radiative forcing of CO2 at different concentrations. There's literally nothing stopping them from doing so. Unless of course they know it won't show what they want.

 

[HenryBHough]

I'll develop instant faith in a Global Warming cheerleader who'll spout her gibberish for just one hour while standing buck nekkid on a block of ice in downtown Truckee, California (lush, warm California) on Groundhog Day.

 

[ding]

Stating it exists is not relying on it. Obviously.

The 500 experts are free to publish their research. So are you.

Didn't you just attack the authors of a recently published paper? You didn't challenge any of the content. You literally attacked the character of the authors. You are like the climate gestapo in that regard.

 

[ding]

IPCC? 100% wrong. Science is all it is. It's a compilation of all the science from across nearly every field of science. It presents what the science shows thus far. That's all.

If it were science they would perform an experiment measuring and quantifying the radiative forcing of CO2 at different concentrations. There's literally nothing stopping them from doing so. Unless of course they know it won't show what they want.

 

[ding]

Which they did to keep their own cities from being polluted. This had and has nothing to do with a global effort to combat climate change. It is China working its way through its own conundrum and dependence on coal.

uh huh