Is there a Scientific Theory to explain Climate Change?

[jwoodie]

Global Warming had a CO2/Hockey Stick argument to support its proposition, but its successor, Climate Change, doesn't seem to have any scientific argument to explain a cause/effect relationship. Instead, it has devolved into a constantly changing series of social/political theories which do not even purport to be connected to physical weather events. Is there any scientific theory to explain why current Climate Change is different from past Climate Change?

 

[Polishprince]

Everything is always changing. Change is normative.

The new theorem called "climate change" enables proponents to label any change as bad and demand the socialist response to "combat" it.

 

[Oddball]

no

 

[jc456]

Global Warming had a CO2/Hockey Stick argument to support its proposition, but its successor, Climate Change, doesn't seem to have any scientific argument to explain a cause/effect relationship. Instead, it has devolved into a constantly changing series of social/political theories which do not even purport to be connected to physical weather events. Is there any scientific theory to explain why current Climate Change is different from past Climate Change?

IMO, the better question is why did the warmers pivot?

I mean they had their remarkable consensus nonsense

 

[BlindBoo]

Climate change is the boogieman. The predicted cataclysmic culmination of man's homemade global warming. Only it hasn't changed. It is still relatively stable, with it's feast to famine cycles. People simple will not take global warming serious until there is a major change in the climate and by then or when, (if?), it may be too late.

 

[jc456]

Climate change is the boogieman. The predicted cataclysmic culmination of man's homemade global warming. Only it hasn't changed. It is still relatively stable, with it's feast to famine cycles. People simple will not take global warming serious until there is a major change in the climate and by then or when, (if?), it may be too late.

What may be too late?

Demofks and vague

 

[Kilroy2]

The two have different meanings. Global warming is limited. Climate change includes global warming and adds additional factors into the phenomenon. This improves there argument with additional data to support there concerns.

 

[jc456]

The two have different meanings. Global warming is limited. Climate change includes global warming and adds additional factors into the phenomenon. This improves there argument with additional data to support there concerns.

Such as?

 

[Kilroy2]

Such as?

I not going to get in the argument between for and against. Done that and time to move on. So look up the definitions. It is that easy.

 

[jc456]

I not going to get in the argument between for and against. Done that and time to move on. So look up the definitions. It is that easy.

The definitions don’t match the selective outrage crowd’s assertions. You jumped in, define what you meant

 

[luiza]

Global Warming had a CO2/Hockey Stick argument to support its proposition, but its successor, Climate Change, doesn't seem to have any scientific argument to explain a cause/effect relationship. Instead, it has devolved into a constantly changing series of social/political theories which do not even purport to be connected to physical weather events. Is there any scientific theory to explain why current Climate Change is different from past Climate Change?

The Warming Theory and the hockey stick graph were so derided that the Swamp were forced to change their Fake Warming Chaos narrative to Climate Change .
There is no evidence for CC in terms of linking it to human contribution .
The energy flow for Climate is from the Sun and Galaxy centre . The dim witted and Gullibles find that difficult to absorb .
Deep State use it( human culpability ) as a weapon of Fear to win control of and to gain compliance by the Sheeple of ignorant pseudo science assertions .

 

[jc456]

The Warming Theory and the hockey stick graph were so derided that the Swamp were forced to change their Fake Warming Chaos narrative to Climate Change .
There is no evidence for CC in terms of linking it to human contribution .
The energy flow for Climate is from the Sun and Galaxy centre . The dim witted and Gullibles find that difficult to absorb .
Deep State use it( human culpability ) as a weapon of Fear to win control of and to gain compliance by the Sheeple of ignorant pseudo science assertions .

The warmer demofks think the sunlight hits the planet equally! Can you fking believe how fking stupid they are?

They don’t even know that the sun hits the equator differently than the Arctic.

Now that’s some nuclear stupid there.

Science

 

[BlindBoo]

What may be too late?

Demofks and vague

Probably dinner..........

 

[jc456]

Probably dinner..........

Breakfast too

 

[jwoodie]

I not going to get in the argument between for and against. Done that and time to move on. So look up the definitions. It is that easy.

What a pathetic reply! YOU posted that there is "additional data" to support Climate Change and then bail out when asked about it? Don't you have the least bit of intellectual honesty?

 

[jc456]

What a pathetic reply! YOU posted that there is "additional data" to support Climate Change and then bail out when asked about it? Don't you have the least bit of intellectual honesty?

Right?

 

[Kilroy2]

What a pathetic reply! YOU posted that there is "additional data" to support Climate Change and then bail out when asked about it? Don't you have the least bit of intellectual honesty?

No I kept it simple as one just evolved into the other.

You claim that the original had an argument and the successor does not. Yet the successor incorporates everything from the original as the successor. This includes the basic arguments. I just said look it up as you say climate change does not have an argument. Yet it has the same argument as global warming but with a few more points that can be argued.

There is only one argument and that is scientific consensus. I have better things to do than repeat a topic that has numerous threads.

 

[jc456]

No I kept it simple as one just evolved into the other.

You claim that the original had an argument and the successor does not. Yet the successor incorporates everything from the original as the successor. This includes the basic arguments. I just said look it up as you say climate change does not have an argument. Yet it has the same argument as global warming but with a few more points that can be argued.

There is only one argument and that is scientific consensus. I have better things to do than repeat a topic that has numerous threads.

No such thing as consensus in science! You have selective outrage

 

[Kilroy2]

No such thing as consensus in science! You have selective outrage

Thus you have shown that you do not understand something so basic as scientific consensus and deny it because you have lost. Selective outrage is nothing more that choosing to be outrage due to lack of understanding and wanting to keep what you believe alive without having to proof anything.

Good luck with that.

 

[jc456]

Selective outrage is nothing more that choosing to be outrage due to lack of understanding and wanting to keep what you believe alive without having to proof anything.

Exactly, and you don't know there isn't consensus in science. Science demands one always question results or theories.