Lake Erie Today

[SaxonJackson]

Okay. What implications are you interpreting from this?

I'm simply saying that not all Climate Scientists agree that the "world is coming to an end and will burn up in 12 years." We've been hearing from "the experts" since the Al Gore days that we only had a few years left before the world would end. Thunberg, AOC, Gore, Kerry, and many more have been announcing the "falling of the sky" for a very long time. They all look like kooks these days.

 

[Mushroom]

Climate Scientists:

One must never fail to agree with the consensus.

 

[westwall]

You’re conflating the social context around science with the science itself. Politics, headlines, and funding debates don’t change the actual measurements, the reproducibility of experiments, or the underlying physics.

YOU, are lying.

 

[Anomalism]

I'm simply saying that not all Climate Scientists agree that the "world is coming to an end and will burn up in 12 years." We've been hearing from "the experts" since the Al Gore days that we only had a few years left before the world would end. Thunberg, AOC, Gore, Kerry, and many more have been announcing the "falling of the sky" for a very long time. They all look like kooks these days.

I’ve already said this, and I don’t believe the apocalypse is imminent either. There’s no scientific consensus claiming the world will burn up in 12 years, or any specific imminent doom.

I literally debated this with a left winger.

Individual public figures make dramatic statements, but that’s not the same as what the data or mainstream climate science concludes. The science focuses on trends, risks, and mechanisms, not doomsday deadlines.

 

[Anomalism]

YOU, are lying.

No, you're just ignorant.

 

[westwall]

I’ve already said this, and I don’t believe the apocalypse is imminent either. There’s no scientific consensus claiming the world will burn up in 12 years, or any specific imminent apocalypse.

Individual public figures make dramatic statements, but that’s not the same as what the data or mainstream climate science concludes. The science focuses on trends, risks, and mechanisms, not doomsday deadlines.

Bullshit. Every news report pushed out is a never ending screed of "life is about to end as we know it" hyperbole from your heroes.

I have lost count of the "tipping points" we have breathlessly crossed that we were warned "is our last chance for MEANINGFUL LEGISLATION" to control the climate.

You are literally lying through your teeth.

 

[Anomalism]

Bullshit. Every news report pushed out is a never ending screed of "life is about to end as we know it" hyperbole from your heroes.

I have lost count of the "tipping points" we have breathlessly crossed that we were warned "is our last chance for MEANINGFUL LEGISLATION" to control the climate.

You are literally lying through your teeth.

You’re mixing media rhetoric with scientific claims and pretending they’re the same thing.

News outlets sell clicks with drama. Activists sell urgency with slogans. That’s not what’s in the IPCC reports, the datasets, or the actual papers. Go read one: they talk in probabilities, ranges, confidence intervals, and scenarios , not “the world ends in X years.”

“Tipping point” in science doesn’t mean apocalypse button. It means a threshold where some subsystem changes state. Some are slow, some are uncertain, some may never fully trigger. That’s literally why they’re studied.

So no, I’m not lying. You’re attributing tabloid headlines and activist messaging to science and then arguing against the caricature you built.

You're shadowboxing with CNN.

 

[Mushroom]

I'm simply saying that not all Climate Scientists agree that the "world is coming to an end and will burn up in 12 years." We've been hearing from "the experts" since the Al Gore days that we only had a few years left before the world would end. Thunberg, AOC, Gore, Kerry, and many more have been announcing the "falling of the sky" for a very long time. They all look like kooks these days.

We are now two decades after "An Inconvenient Truth", and when examined factually it has aged like fine milk.

The 20 foot increase in sea level, has not happened.
Ice free summers in the Arctic, has not happened.
A sharp increase in the number of hurricanes, has not happened.
An ice free Mount Kilimanjaro has not happened.

That film was absolute propaganda. And I find it extremely telling that the sequel was called "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power". Which had even more propaganda and political attacking, because that is so popular among those that love that kind of thing.

I think this is my favorite review of that film.

The biggest surprise of Sundance so far has nothing to do with a new addition or a healthy food eatery being added near the Yarrow theater. It’s that Al Gore is not actually running for president, despite the intense campaign vibes of his ego-driven effort, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,” a follow-up to his Oscar-winning film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The documentary follow-up proves to be less about global warming than propping up a hero awkwardly desperate to captivate audiences again like he did eleven years ago. It’s like the “Zoolander 2” of global warming documentaries.

https://www.rogerebert.com/sundance/sundance-2017-an-inconvenient-sequel-truth-to-power

 

[DukeU]

Climategate was a storm over emails taken out of context. Frustration, internal debate, and strategizing about communication, not proof of fabricated data. Independent investigations repeatedly cleared the scientists of fraud, and the underlying temperature, CO2, and ice core data remain intact and reproducible.

Of course......That's why they changed the name. global warming climate change

 

[westwall]

You’re mixing media rhetoric with scientific claims and pretending they’re the same thing.

News outlets sell clicks with drama. Activists sell urgency with slogans. That’s not what’s in the IPCC reports, the datasets, or the actual papers. Go read one: they talk in probabilities, ranges, confidence intervals, and scenarios , not “the world ends in X years.”

“Tipping point” in science doesn’t mean apocalypse button. It means a threshold where some subsystem changes state. Some are slow, some are uncertain, some may never fully trigger. That’s literally why they’re studied.

So no, I’m not lying. You’re attributing tabloid headlines and activist messaging to science and then arguing against the caricature you built.

You're shadowboxing with CNN.

No, skippy, that is YOUR heroes bleating out that crap.

You can't deflect for them, sport. The posts THEY have made are everywhere.

 

[Anomalism]

Of course......That's why they changed the name. global warming climate change

You’re repeating a myth that collapses under even basic scrutiny. “Climate change” wasn’t invented to replace “global warming” after anything failed. Scientists have used both terms since the 1970s, long before Al Gore or Climategate.

The distinction is physical, not political: global warming refers to the increase in Earth’s total energy/average temperature, while climate change refers to the broader system effects of that added energy. The term broadened because the data showed the impacts aren’t just “everything gets hotter everywhere,” not because the theory was in trouble. If this were a PR scam, switching to a vaguer, harder to explain term would be the worst possible strategy.

 

[Anomalism]

No, skippy, that is YOUR heroes bleating out that crap.

You can't deflect for them, sport. The posts THEY have made are everywhere.

You’re still collapsing three different things into one bucket: individual scientists speaking in public, activists and politicians amplifying the most dramatic framing, and the actual scientific literature.

Yes, some scientists have made alarmist or overstated claims in interviews, talks, or on social media. Scientists are humans, not priesthoods. That doesn’t magically convert those statements into “the science.” Science is what survives peer review, replication, and synthesis in assessments like the IPCC, not what one person says on Twitter or at a rally.

You’re arguing from cherry picked spokespeople, not from the body of evidence. That’s media logic, not scientific logic.

 

[Woodznutz]

No, this not an argument, this is mockery. And you made my point for me, whenever it is warm you silly people claim it's a warming climate, ignoring the fact that the heat records being broken were set DECADES before.

But when it's cold, oh...that's always "just the weather".

You can't have it both ways, sport.

That's not how science works. Not that you would know.

Heat doesn't always manifest as temperature.

 

[DukeU]

You’re repeating a myth that collapses under even basic scrutiny. “Climate change” wasn’t invented to replace “global warming” after anything failed. Scientists have used both terms since the 1970s, long before Al Gore or Climategate.

The distinction is physical, not political: global warming refers to the increase in Earth’s total energy/average temperature, while climate change refers to the broader system effects of that added energy. The term broadened because the data showed the impacts aren’t just “everything gets hotter everywhere,” not because the theory was in trouble. If this were a PR scam, switching to a vaguer, harder to explain term would be the worst possible strategy.

Scientists trying to predict weather and climate for extended periods of time is laughable.

They don't know what the current conditions are.

How smart do you have to be to get your ship stuck in ice for 3 weeks?

Why didn't they cancel this trip if they are so smart?

 

[Anomalism]

Scientists trying to predict weather and climate for extended periods of time is laughable.

They don't know what the current conditions are.

How smart do you have to be to get your ship stuck in ice for 3 weeks?

Why didn't they cancel this trip if they are so smart?

View attachment 1219424

Being stuck in ice for a few weeks doesn’t disprove climate science. It proves that conditions are unpredictable on a local scale. Weather is chaotic and short term; climate is long term averages and trends.

 

[DukeU]

Being stuck in ice for a few weeks doesn’t disprove climate science. It proves that conditions are unpredictable on a local scale. Weather is chaotic and short term; climate is long term averages and trends.

Indeed.

It proves there is more ice there than what the smart people (scientists) said.

 

[westwall]

Heat doesn't always manifest as temperature.

Correct, but for the sake of this argument, it does.

 

[Anomalism]

Indeed.

It proves there is more ice there than what the smart people (scientists) said.

That statement misunderstands how climate science works. Local anomalies, like an expedition encountering more ice than expected, don’t invalidate long term trends. Climate predictions are based on decades of data, averaged across regions and global systems. Weather is chaotic and highly variable from place to place, but the overall trend in the Arctic is a significant decline in sea ice extent over time.

 

[westwall]

You’re still collapsing three different things into one bucket: individual scientists speaking in public, activists and politicians amplifying the most dramatic framing, and the actual scientific literature.

Yes, some scientists have made alarmist or overstated claims in interviews, talks, or on social media. Scientists are humans, not priesthoods. That doesn’t magically convert those statements into “the science.” Science is what survives peer review, replication, and synthesis in assessments like the IPCC, not what one person says on Twitter or at a rally.

You’re arguing from cherry picked spokespeople, not from the body of evidence. That’s media logic, not scientific logic.

No skippy, I'm not. The climatologists and politicians have been in lockstep since the early 1990's. They both have the same goal, theft of taxpayer wealth, and power.

The two are inextricably linked.

 

[westwall]

That statement misunderstands how climate science works. Local anomalies, like an expedition encountering more ice than expected, don’t invalidate long term trends. Climate predictions are based on decades of data, averaged across regions and global systems. Weather is chaotic and highly variable from place to place, but the overall trend in the Arctic is a significant decline in sea ice extent over time.

No skippy, that statement shows just a small portion of the fraudulent nature of climate "science".