How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[skookerasbil]

You have no interest in learning anything about AGW or the climate. You simply think you have a gotcha point with which you can feel comfortable resigning your family for the next four or five generations to living in a world descending into misery and chaos.

The science says the conclusions of the IPCC are correct. Very close to 100% of all the scientists studying this subject agree. They are not stupid. They are not socialists. They are not conspirators plotting to take your money, create a New World Order, destroy capitalism or boost the "commies". They are doing science because they think it's important that we ALL know what has happened, what is happening and what is likely to happen in the future. They've got children too. Stop telling yourself stuff that you know you're too smart to believe. Follow the real evidence.

You fake.....you just told me last week, "The IPCC doesn't draw conclusions! They gather the research!"

You phony fraud!!

 

[Flash]

These stupid Moon Bats are confused about this subject.

Over 90% of the time the earth has existed the temperature has been warmer than it is now.

At some times when the earth was warmer the CO2 levels were lower. During other times when the earth was cooler the CO2 levels were much higher. At one time ten times higher.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere usually lags temperature changes.

AGW is pure bullshit.

 

[oldsoul]

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural
"it goes up, it goes down"
but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]
`

First let me say that I did not click on any of the above link, as I am not interested in reading those articles at this time. Secondly, I am, admittedly, a skeptic. I am unsure as to whether or not changes in the environment are human caused or not. Now, we could debate the validity of the science, or we could just cut to the chase and discuss the real, underlying problem with EVERY single claim that the "science is settled". What is that you ask? Well, if the science truly is settled, then why is it that human caused climate change is still referred to as either a hypothesis, or a theory?

Hypothesis: "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

Theory: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."

Truth: "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

Natural Law: "an observable law relating to natural phenomena."

So, if the "science is settled", then would human caused global climate change not be either truth, or natural law? Yet, very few scientists (if any), and no proponents (that I am aware of) actually use those terms. This is why I am a skeptic. Even the scientists agree, when obliged to be truly honest, we simply do not know for sure. Ask any scientist, when you are no longer a skeptic on a matter, you are no longer in a mental position to be impartial, and open to unexpected findings. In short, if you are no longer skeptical, you are no longer a good scientist.

 

[abu afak]

First let me say that I did not click on any of the above link, as I am not interested in reading those articles at this time. ....

Then you're a ******* Idiot, and this is no real response.

Several are great sources by anyone's measure, but you don't want facts changing your politics
What a jerk you are.

`

 

[jc456]

This winter's extreme climate makes us pay more attention to environmental protection.

Winters extreme climate has been happening before the dawn of man. Care to explain that?

Well I've lived in chicago for 45 years and the climate is the same today as it was 45 years ago. so please one of you leftist planet haters, tell me why it hasn't even though you all said it has?

 

[jc456]

If you don't actually have any input into this debate, kindly fuck off.

are you sticking to that answer? again no one fking knows who the fk you're talking to. duhhhhhh derp

 

[Oddball]

First let me say that I did not click on any of the above link, as I am not interested in reading those articles at this time. ....

Then you're a ******* Idiot, and this is no real response.

Several are great sources by anyone's measure, but you don't want facts changing your politics
What a JERK you are.

`

Try the decaf sometime....Most people say you can't tell the difference.

 

[Crick]

OLDSOUL
No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis. It is a WIDELY accepted theory. Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality. Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia. If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch

 

[mamooth]

These stupid Moon Bats are confused about this subject.

We're not confused. You're a cultist who parrots whatever idiot propaganda he's commanded to parrot.

Over 90% of the time the earth has existed the temperature has been warmer than it is now.

Since forest fires used to always be natural, humans can't cause foreest firest.

Since climate always used to change naturallly, humans can't change climate.

Both statements are equally stupid.

At some times when the earth was warmer the CO2 levels were lower. During other times when the earth was cooler the CO2 levels were much higher. At one time ten times higher.

That's nice, but totally irrelevant, given that nobody ever said CO2 was the only thing affecting climate.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere usually lags temperature changes.

And that's totally irrelevant. CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing.

AGW is pure bullshit.

And you're an imbecile. But then, that's a given. If you could think rationally, you would have seen right through the idiot denier propaganda, so you wouldn't have gotten sucked into your liars' cult.

 

[Oddball]

OLDSOUL
No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis. It is a WIDELY accepted theory. Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality. Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia. If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch

No, it's still a hypothesis...There's no actual physically reproducible, quantifiable, and falsifiable evidence available in order to give it the status of a theory.

And the IPCC is a political cabal, not a scientific one....The biggest clue of this is in the "I".

 

[SSDD]

OLDSOUL
No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis. It is a WIDELY accepted theory. Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality. Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia. If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch

Theory has a specific definition...and how a hypothesis gets elevated to the status of theory happens in a particular way...A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.See Note at hypothesis .

The AGW hypothesis has produced predictive failure after predictive failure...you can show no repeated, or repeatable experiments regarding the climate and how energy moves through the system or what factors drive it...AGW not only is not a theory...it is a piss poor hypothesis.

The fact that climate science calls it a theory speaks volumes to the incompetence of climate science....

 

[SSDD]

We're not confused. You're a cultist who parrots whatever idiot propaganda he's commanded to parrot.

Says the cultist moonbat who parrots whatever idiot propaganda she is commanded to parrot..

 

[Billy_Bob]

OLDSOUL
No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis. It is a WIDELY accepted theory. Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality. Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia. If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch

Theory has a specific definition...and how a hypothesis gets elevated to the status of theory happens in a particular way...A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.See Note at hypothesis .

The AGW hypothesis has produced predictive failure after predictive failure...you can show no repeated, or repeatable experiments regarding the climate and how energy moves through the system or what factors drive it...AGW not only is not a theory...it is a piss poor hypothesis.

The fact that climate science calls it a theory speaks volumes to the incompetence of climate science....

We have a huge crop of dupes who have no clue what these definitions are or what they mean! Its sad to see how dumbed down and ignorant these people are.

 

[Crick]

No one gives two shits what you think about any of this because...

1) You're a troll
2) The physics concepts you pushing are unsupportable insanity clearly indicating they are based on no rational thought, no critical thinking and no interest in technical accuracy
3) Did I mention you're a troll.
4) The scientists of the world, who actually DO know what they're talking about, tell us it is not only a theory, it is a very widely accepted theory.
5) Then there's the fact that you're a troll.
6) Oh! I almost forgot: YOU LIE THROUGH YOUR FUCKING TEETH

 

[Billy_Bob]

No one gives two shits what you think about any of this because...

1) You're a troll
2) The physics concepts you pushing are unsupportable insanity clearly indicating they are based on no rational thought, no critical thinking and no interest in technical accuracy
3) Did I mention you're a troll.
4) The scientists of the world, who actually DO know what they're talking about, tell us it is not only a theory, it is a very widely accepted theory.
5) Then there's the fact that you're a troll.
6) Oh! I almost forgot: YOU LIE THROUGH YOUR FUCKING TEETH

Gone for a week and your still trolling!

When will you produce any empirical evidence to support your bull shit?

 

[Oddball]

No one gives two shits what you think about any of this because...

1) You're a troll
2) The physics concepts you pushing are unsupportable insanity clearly indicating they are based on no rational thought, no critical thinking and no interest in technical accuracy
3) Did I mention you're a troll.
4) The scientists of the world, who actually DO know what they're talking about, tell us it is not only a theory, it is a very widely accepted theory.
5) Then there's the fact that you're a troll.
6) Oh! I almost forgot: YOU LIE THROUGH YOUR FUCKING TEETH

2a. Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto another is called Freudian Projection.

• “A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits.”
• “The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual.”
• “Attributing one’s own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile.”
• “The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity.”
• “People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way.”
• “Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have.”

 

[jc456]

OLDSOUL
No scientist calls Anthropogenic Global Warming a hypothesis. It is a WIDELY accepted theory. Acceptance by publishing scientists of the IPCC's conclusions on the topic nears universality. Give a quick review to Wikipedia's article Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia. If you'd like to see a good review of the evidence which convinced all those scientists, check out "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipccc.ch

still no observed evidence to back your post. shameful the tactics you use. you don't bring material forward that proves your post. such a loser.

 

[SSDD]

No one gives two shits what you think about any of this because...

1) You're a troll
2) The physics concepts you pushing are unsupportable insanity clearly indicating they are based on no rational thought, no critical thinking and no interest in technical accuracy
3) Did I mention you're a troll.
4) The scientists of the world, who actually DO know what they're talking about, tell us it is not only a theory, it is a very widely accepted theory.
5) Then there's the fact that you're a troll.
6) Oh! I almost forgot: YOU LIE THROUGH YOUR FUCKING TEETH

step on up to the plate skidmark and provide some observed, measured evidence to prove me wrong on even a single point....we both know you can't, and I never tire of pointing out that you can't...all you can do is spew your anger and frustration over having your ass handed to you at every turn....shouting names at people on the internet in all caps...what a loser you have turned out to be...

 

[SSDD]

No one gives two shits what you think about any of this because...

1) You're a troll
2) The physics concepts you pushing are unsupportable insanity clearly indicating they are based on no rational thought, no critical thinking and no interest in technical accuracy
3) Did I mention you're a troll.
4) The scientists of the world, who actually DO know what they're talking about, tell us it is not only a theory, it is a very widely accepted theory.
5) Then there's the fact that you're a troll.
6) Oh! I almost forgot: YOU LIE THROUGH YOUR FUCKING TEETH

Gone for a week and your still trolling!

When will you produce any empirical evidence to support your bull shit?

That would be never,,,never ever ever...

 

[SSDD]

No one gives two shits what you think about any of this because...

1) You're a troll
2) The physics concepts you pushing are unsupportable insanity clearly indicating they are based on no rational thought, no critical thinking and no interest in technical accuracy
3) Did I mention you're a troll.
4) The scientists of the world, who actually DO know what they're talking about, tell us it is not only a theory, it is a very widely accepted theory.
5) Then there's the fact that you're a troll.
6) Oh! I almost forgot: YOU LIE THROUGH YOUR FUCKING TEETH

2a. Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto another is called Freudian Projection.

• “A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits.”
• “The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual.”
• “Attributing one’s own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile.”
• “The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity.”
• “People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way.”
• “Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have.”

The whole group of them should change their screen names to reflect names like Strong Simplex, Super Simplex, Motiongraph, and Peerless...they are all top shelf projectors...the hairball is one of the best....constantly accusing others of precisely the behavior she is engaging in...and crick is quick to call others a liar when he is one of the most dishonest people on the board...

Good call...you nailed it..