Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data

[Muhammed]

Good, I can burn a whole stack of tires for earth day this year.

There is much better uses old tires. They have literally saved me thousands of dollars
.

 

[gtopa1]

Lol. As massive parts of the Antarctic ice sheet break off.

Collapsing Antarctic Scare Narrative…4 NEW Papers Find Antarctic Ice Is MORE STABLE Than Thought​

2 months ago

Guest Blogger


From the NoTricksZone
By P Gosselin
Four new studies in prestigious journals show Antarctic ice shelf as stable as ever.
Hat-tip: EIKE Klimaschau

Andreasen et al (2023) finds net gain​

A study by Julia R. Andreasen and colleagues looked at the changes in ice shelves, Antarctic-wide, using MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite data from 2009 to 2019.

Image: Andreasen et al (2023)
They found that over the period 2009-2019, overall Antarctic ice shelf area grew by 5305 km2.

18 ice shelves retreated somewhat and 16 larger shelves grew in terms of area. “Our observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade,” the scientists summarized.

Banwell et al (2023) meltwater volume dropped​

Another new paper by Banwell et al published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters looked at the duration and amount of surface ice melting on Antarctica’s ice shelves from 1980 to 2021, using microwave satellite data the snow model SNOWPACK.

Result: They found that the highest meltwater volumes were produced on the Peninsula, reaching a peak in the 1992/1993 and 1994/1995, and that SNOWPACK calculated “a small, but significant, decreasing trend in both annual melt days and meltwater production volume over the 41 years.”

Frazer et al (2023)​

Another study published in Nature authored by Frazer et al (2023) found that although West Antarctica – particularly from Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers – has seen dramatic ice losses in recent decades, projections of their future rate are confounded by limited observations.

Also, looking at the period 2003 and 2015, they found rates of glacier retreat and acceleration to be extensive along the Bellingshausen Sea coastline, but slowed along the Amundsen Sea.

The authors conclude: Our results provide direct observations that the pace, magnitude and extent of ice destabilization around West Antarctica vary by location, with the Amundsen Sea response most sensitive to interdecadal atmosphere-ocean variability.

Baico et al (2023) 35 meters thinner thousands of years ago​

Finally, in yet another new published paper by Baico et al (2023), the authors looked at subglacial bedrock cores show that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) between Thwaites and Pope glaciers and found it “was at least 35 m thinner than present in the past several thousand years and then subsequently thickened.”

Moreover: “A past episode of ice sheet thinning that took place in a similar, although not identical, climate was not irreversible. We propose that the past thinning–thickening cycle was due to a glacioisostatic rebound feedback, similar to that invoked as a possible stabilizing mechanism for current grounding line retreat, in which isostatic uplift caused by Early Holocene thinning led to relative sea level fall favoring grounding line advance.”

Collapsing Antarctic Scare Narrative…4 NEW Papers Find Antarctic Ice Is MORE STABLE Than Thought

Four new studies in prestigious journals show Antarctic ice shelf as stable as ever.

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[gtopa1]

I am pleased to see you do not neglect your contra-indicator function on this bored. Kudos

Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.​

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

​

Collapsing Antarctic Scare Narrative…4 NEW Papers Find Antarctic Ice Is MORE STABLE Than Thought​

2 months ago

Guest Blogger


From the NoTricksZone
By P Gosselin
Four new studies in prestigious journals show Antarctic ice shelf as stable as ever.
Hat-tip: EIKE Klimaschau

Andreasen et al (2023) finds net gain​

A study by Julia R. Andreasen and colleagues looked at the changes in ice shelves, Antarctic-wide, using MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite data from 2009 to 2019.

Image: Andreasen et al (2023)
They found that over the period 2009-2019, overall Antarctic ice shelf area grew by 5305 km2.

18 ice shelves retreated somewhat and 16 larger shelves grew in terms of area. “Our observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade,” the scientists summarized.

Banwell et al (2023) meltwater volume dropped​

Another new paper by Banwell et al published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters looked at the duration and amount of surface ice melting on Antarctica’s ice shelves from 1980 to 2021, using microwave satellite data the snow model SNOWPACK.

Result: They found that the highest meltwater volumes were produced on the Peninsula, reaching a peak in the 1992/1993 and 1994/1995, and that SNOWPACK calculated “a small, but significant, decreasing trend in both annual melt days and meltwater production volume over the 41 years.”

Frazer et al (2023)​

Another study published in Nature authored by Frazer et al (2023) found that although West Antarctica – particularly from Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers – has seen dramatic ice losses in recent decades, projections of their future rate are confounded by limited observations.

Also, looking at the period 2003 and 2015, they found rates of glacier retreat and acceleration to be extensive along the Bellingshausen Sea coastline, but slowed along the Amundsen Sea.

The authors conclude: Our results provide direct observations that the pace, magnitude and extent of ice destabilization around West Antarctica vary by location, with the Amundsen Sea response most sensitive to interdecadal atmosphere-ocean variability.

Baico et al (2023) 35 meters thinner thousands of years ago​

Finally, in yet another new published paper by Baico et al (2023), the authors looked at subglacial bedrock cores show that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) between Thwaites and Pope glaciers and found it “was at least 35 m thinner than present in the past several thousand years and then subsequently thickened.”

Moreover: “A past episode of ice sheet thinning that took place in a similar, although not identical, climate was not irreversible. We propose that the past thinning–thickening cycle was due to a glacioisostatic rebound feedback, similar to that invoked as a possible stabilizing mechanism for current grounding line retreat, in which isostatic uplift caused by Early Holocene thinning led to relative sea level fall favoring grounding line advance.”

Collapsing Antarctic Scare Narrative…4 NEW Papers Find Antarctic Ice Is MORE STABLE Than Thought​

Four new studies in prestigious journals show Antarctic ice shelf as stable as ever.

wattsupwiththat.com

Greg

 

[ding]

Willie Soon. And the kook-Chinese-cult-run Epoch Times.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Willie Soon will write anything you want him to write for $50k. That's his standard price for a paper.

That is, he's a typical corrupt denier fraud.

Follow the money. All the denier scientists are bribed.

Any of the ethical scientists could triple their salaries if they would lie for deniers. They won't. They effectively take a pay cut to tell the truth, which gives them even more credibility.

 

[Flash]

Yes I know: "Another Climate Change thread ?!"
Well I'm not sure if this would fit within an existing thread or maybe should focus of one on it's own.
EXCERPTS from a recent article;

Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data​

‘Climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,’ said astrophysicist Willie Soon.​

...
Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.

The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response.

But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back. In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.

Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”

The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.

The experts said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” supposedly caused by human activities disappears.

Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.

Some experts told The Epoch Times that deliberate fraud appeared to be at work, while others suggested more innocent explanations.

But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.

With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.
....
“When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said.

While it is “definitely warmer” now than in the 19th century, Mr. Soon said that temperature proxy data show the 19th century “was exceptionally cold.”

“It was the end of a period that’s known as the Little Ice Age,” he said.

Data taken from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, and temperature proxies such as tree rings, glaciers, and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said.
“They show that the current climate outside of cities is not unusual,” he said, adding that heat from urban areas is improperly affecting the data.

“If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate.”
...
One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.

He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data.

“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”

This is “very bizarre,” he said.

“If the adjustments for a given weather station have any basis in reality, then we would expect the computer program to calculate the same adjustments every time. What we found is this is not what’s happening,” Mr. Connolly said.
....
In a new peer-reviewed study, the coalition of scientists estimate that as much as 40 percent of the observed warming since the 19th century used by the IPCC is actually the result of this urban heat bias—not CO2-driven global warming.

“When we look at non-urban temperature data for the land, oceans, and other temperature records, the warming is much less dramatic and seems similar to other warm periods prior to the Industrial Revolution,” Mr. Connolly said.

The IPCC doesn’t control for the urban heat island effect, he said.
...
Taken together, the rural-only record shows that the moderate warming is likely just a recovery from the Little Ice Age from about A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1900, which itself followed the Medieval Warm Period from about A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200 that saw Vikings farming in Greenland.
“The Medieval Warm Period seems to have been about as warm as the modern warm period, but only when we use the rural-only record,” Mr. Connolly said.

While there has been global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, if the urban datasets are excluded, all of the primary global temperature estimates show “that the planet alternates between phases of warming and cooling,” he said.
...

Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data

‘Climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,’ said astrophysicist Willie Soon.

www.theepochtimes.com

Just another example of how the scam is being pushed by the idiots that have a record of lying.

 

[westwall]

I am pleased to see you do not neglect your contra-indicator function on this bored. Kudos

Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.​

Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

​

According to COMPUTER MODELS.

Raw data shows the exact opposite.

Soooooo, who to believe. Factual data, or computer derived fiction?

 

[Seymour Flops]

It seems like every source has an Agenda.

The unavoidable fact is that more than half of the world's population CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be induced to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Their clearest and most rational path to modernity is to, basically, burn coal. It is cheap and plentiful. It will bring them electricity, transport, clean water, healthcare, better nutrition, better sanitation, and on and on. Who can say they must give this up, to shrink their carbon footprint?

China and India, the two most populous countries in the world, have "committed" to STABILIZE their carbon emissions by 2030 (not reduce them), and the last time I looked, they were not going to meet that modest goal.

So why should we in American drive electric cars, raise our thermostats in Summer and lower them in Winter, park our SUV's, and do all the other silly things we are told we must do in order to save the planet?

We in the West will devise engineering solutions to the problems of warming as they arise. Indeed, warming will be more of a benefit overall than a harmful development.

The Government tells us that warming is an "existential problem," and if you can't believe your government, then...

Since I was a kid in the mid seventies, most of the policies of the Democrats have had three effects. The Democrats would claim that these three effects have been unintended consequences, but when nearly every policy appears geared to achieving one of those three goals, it's hard to believe they have just been naive all this time. The three effects are (or were):

1) Growing the U.S. government in relation to the private sector
2) Weakening the U.S. militarily in relation to the Soviet Union
3) Weakening the U.S. economically in relation to other countries.

The Democrats lost badly on the Soviet issue, and since they have reverted back to the pro-war party they have been since they started the Civil War. In that, the have an uneasy partnership with the war mongers of the GOP.

They have done an outstanding job of growing the government. In size, it is a behemoth now, with hardly more room to grow. So they have switched to growing its power over the individual, their most hated demographic.

The "global warming" movement is about weakening the U.S. economically, so of course they don't hold other countries to the same standard as they want to set for Americans.

 

[Crick]

Willie Soon. And the kook-Chinese-cult-run Epoch Times.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Willie Soon will write anything you want him to write for $50k. That's his standard price for a paper.

That is, he's a typical corrupt denier fraud.

Follow the money. All the denier scientists are bribed.

Any of the ethical scientists could triple their salaries if they would lie for deniers. They won't. They effectively take a pay cut to tell the truth, which gives them even more credibility.

On their home page they advertise an interview of Willie Soon by... wait for it... Tucker Carlson.

 

[Crick]

Yes I know: "Another Climate Change thread ?!"
Well I'm not sure if this would fit within an existing thread or maybe should focus of one on it's own.
EXCERPTS from a recent article;

Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data​

‘Climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,’ said astrophysicist Willie Soon.​

...
Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.

The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response.

But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back. In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.

Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”

The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.

The experts said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” supposedly caused by human activities disappears.

Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.

Some experts told The Epoch Times that deliberate fraud appeared to be at work, while others suggested more innocent explanations.

But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.

With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.
....
“When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said.

While it is “definitely warmer” now than in the 19th century, Mr. Soon said that temperature proxy data show the 19th century “was exceptionally cold.”

“It was the end of a period that’s known as the Little Ice Age,” he said.

Data taken from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, and temperature proxies such as tree rings, glaciers, and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said.
“They show that the current climate outside of cities is not unusual,” he said, adding that heat from urban areas is improperly affecting the data.

“If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate.”
...
One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.

He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data.

“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”

This is “very bizarre,” he said.

“If the adjustments for a given weather station have any basis in reality, then we would expect the computer program to calculate the same adjustments every time. What we found is this is not what’s happening,” Mr. Connolly said.
....
In a new peer-reviewed study, the coalition of scientists estimate that as much as 40 percent of the observed warming since the 19th century used by the IPCC is actually the result of this urban heat bias—not CO2-driven global warming.

“When we look at non-urban temperature data for the land, oceans, and other temperature records, the warming is much less dramatic and seems similar to other warm periods prior to the Industrial Revolution,” Mr. Connolly said.

The IPCC doesn’t control for the urban heat island effect, he said.
...
Taken together, the rural-only record shows that the moderate warming is likely just a recovery from the Little Ice Age from about A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1900, which itself followed the Medieval Warm Period from about A.D. 800 to A.D. 1200 that saw Vikings farming in Greenland.
“The Medieval Warm Period seems to have been about as warm as the modern warm period, but only when we use the rural-only record,” Mr. Connolly said.

While there has been global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, if the urban datasets are excluded, all of the primary global temperature estimates show “that the planet alternates between phases of warming and cooling,” he said.
...

Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data

‘Climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,’ said astrophysicist Willie Soon.

www.theepochtimes.com

I would have liked to have seen the original CERES article (study?) and see the work supporting their claims that all global warming disappears when the "data corruption" is considered, but the link provided requires providing an email, something I'm loathe to provide folks like that. It would have been nice to just see the names of the three scientists who did this work and who, apparently, make up "scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields". Tell you what though. Here's some data unaffected by urban heat island effects.

Ocean heat content - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, how exactly is that change made to disappear?

There was another point in the article that caught my attention. The authors claim that when data corruption is taken into consideration, global warming disappears AND that natural climate variation is a more likely cause of the observed changes. So... is it warming or is it not?

 

[Muhammed]

View attachment 915031

Do you know what global cooling would look like?

The crops in the breadbaskets of the world would be devastated causing massive famine, even without resorting to commie/pinko-ism.

 

[Crick]

Do you know what global cooling would look like?

The crops in the breadbaskets of the world would be devastated causing massive famine, even without resorting to commie/pinko-ism.

Why, global cooling would allow agriculture to move south. And look at the geometry. A degree of latitude near the equator covers far more area than a degree of latitude near the poles.

 

[Muhammed]

I would have liked to have seen the original CERES article (study?) and see the work supporting their claims that all global warming disappears when the "data corruption" is considered, but the link provided requires providing an email, something I'm loathe to provide folks like that. It would have been nice to just see the names of the three scientists who did this work and who, apparently, make up "scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields". Tell you what though. Here's some data unaffected by urban heat island effects.


View attachment 915160

View attachment 915161

Ocean heat content - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, how exactly is that change made to disappear?

There was another point in the article that caught my attention. The authors claim that when data corruption is taken into consideration, global warming disappears AND that natural climate variation is a more likely cause of the observed changes. So... is it warming or is it not?

The Earth was formerly >3000 degrees.

Our Earth has been dramatically cooling for a very long fucking time.

 

[Muhammed]

View attachment 915031

Time to build an underground cave, surviving on geothermal heat, or migrate to other planets, Or build them.

Being a warm-blooded mammal sucks.

 

[Crick]

The Earth was formerly >3000 degrees.

Our Earth has been dramatically cooling for a very long fucking time.

Did you perhaps respond to the wrong post? Your comment has no pertinence to mine.

 

[Muhammed]

Did you perhaps respond to the wrong post? Your comment has no pertinence to mine.

Think!

 

[Muhammed]

Did you perhaps respond to the wrong post? Your comment has no pertinence to mine.

That's because you're a willfully ignorant moron, stupid Democratic party of slavery supporter.

Keep on Derping bitchboy.

 

[ReinyDays]

I think Foxfyre covered most everything ... it's not science unless dissenting viewpoints are presented ... Wo wären wir, wenn jeder diesen verrückten Leo Szilard ignorieren würde? ... Ich stelle mir vor, dass ich immer noch „Sieg Heil“ schleudere ...

The OP uses the word "homogenization" without defining it in this context ... so I'm assuming this is the same as in the dairy industry and this is how we keep the "cream" of data from floating up to the top ... there's no climatological "butter" to be churned here ...

Real science uses gradients ... and these have been shown "to have a consistent level of accuracy" ... and remember orange means weasel words ... and this consistency is based on a more uniform temperature field over the oceans ... and you can bet your balls all Blue Water shipping has weather stations on board ... yeah, only one word describes 71% of the Earth's surface climate ... "Oceanic" ... that's all there is out there ... there's nothing for climate to change into ... it's water, how ya "homogenizationing" it? ... I think that's a made-up word intended to deceive the reader ... fucking liars ...

“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”

This is weather ... it was sunny yesterday, it's raining today ... that's weather change, not climate change ... and the OP is wrong, these programs are run every six hours, that includes interpretation and posted on the internet ... climate is the 100-year averages, and only need be computed once a century, and the programs can run for weeks or even months at a time ...

There's science-haters on both sides ... worse ... they hate common sense as well ... "hypercanes and hockey sticks" ... just pathetic people believe in this crap, on both sides ...

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think Foxfyre covered most everything ... it's not science unless dissenting viewpoints are presented ... Wo wären wir, wenn jeder diesen verrückten Leo Szilard ignorieren würde? ... Ich stelle mir vor, dass ich immer noch „Sieg Heil“ schleudere ...

The OP uses the word "homogenization" without defining it in this context ... so I'm assuming this is the same as in the dairy industry and this is how we keep the "cream" of data from floating up to the top ... there's no climatological "butter" to be churned here ...

You have a turn of phrase, sir or ma'am. I don't know whether I agree with your opinions, because you are much too clever to be understood, but I enjoy reading your stuff.

Real science uses gradients ... and these have been shown "to have a consistent level of accuracy" ... and remember orange means weasel words ... and this consistency is based on a more uniform temperature field over the oceans ... and you can bet your balls all Blue Water shipping has weather stations on board ... yeah, only one word describes 71% of the Earth's surface climate ... "Oceanic" ... that's all there is out there ... there's nothing for climate to change into ... it's water, how ya "homogenizationing" it? ... I think that's a made-up word intended to deceive the reader ... fucking liars ...

“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”

This is weather ... it was sunny yesterday, it's raining today ... that's weather change, not climate change ... and the OP is wrong, these programs are run every six hours, that includes interpretation and posted on the internet ... climate is the 100-year averages, and only need be computed once a century, and the programs can run for weeks or even months at a time ...

There's science-haters on both sides ... worse ... they hate common sense as well ... "hypercanes and hockey sticks" ... just pathetic people believe in this crap, on both sides ...

I don't know if I agree with that.

I don't believe anything that is presented as "dogmatic science" or however they put it. Doesn't mean I automatically believe the opposite.

Case in point: Darwinism. I don't believe in it, since there is zero evidence and, even theoretically, it is unable to provide answers to the most basic questions of how it would have worked. Doesn't mean I believe in a bearded dude in the sky as creator of all. It means that so far, Darwinism is a swing and a miss at figuring out how we came to be here.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course the data collection is rigged .
We told them that twenty years ago . And demonstrated it .
The IPCC is a political body set up to find ways of better controlling people .
People like Crick Crock .
Gullibles .

It certainly appears to have been used that way far more than any serious effort to combat climate change. The carbon credit scam should inform every thinking person of what is happening while despite sometimes draconian mandates/regulations etc. do not appear to have had any effect whatsoever on the climate and there is no reason to think continuing/expanding these will have any effect either. But we could fairly quickly run out of resources like lithium, cobalt etc. necessary to make lithium batteries far more quickly than we are likely to run out of fossil fuels.

The scientists say it was humankind that increased CO2 via the industrial revolution. What they never factor into the equation is that the world population has increased by seven billion people since the industrial revolution started. An increase of that magnitude by any species is going to have an effect on immediate environments no matter what governments or scientists do.

If all those trillions being spent on forcing people to buy products they would not have chosen and live their lives more expensively and sometimes less effectively than they otherwise would had been spent on finding way for people to productively adapt to inevitable climate change such as economically converting sea water to potable water, how much better off could the people of the world be?

 

[ReinyDays]

You have a turn of phrase, sir or ma'am. I don't know whether I agree with your opinions, because you are much too clever to be understood, but I enjoy reading your stuff.

Maybe too clever to state uninformed opinions ... at least not without color coding ... you do understand my claim about scientific dissent? ... scientific method encourages alternate theories and more experiments ... we just gave a Nobel Prize in 2011 to the folks who destroyed the Big Bang Theory ...

Scientific theories are written in pencil ... so we can erase the parts we find to be in error ... and go light on gravity, looks like that all has to be changed some time in the future ...

I don't know if I agree with that.

I don't believe anything that is presented as "dogmatic science" or however they put it. Doesn't mean I automatically believe the opposite.

Case in point: Darwinism. I don't believe in it, since there is zero evidence and, even theoretically, it is unable to provide answers to the most basic questions of how it would have worked. Doesn't mean I believe in a bearded dude in the sky as creator of all. It means that so far, Darwinism is a swing and a miss at figuring out how we came to be here.

I'm glad you don't agree blindly ... either side ... you've experienced weather first-hand ... now use your common sense ... will a single degree temperature increase cause 300 mph hurricanes every year in Florida? ... or wide-spread crop damage from hockey sticks sweeping down from Canada? ...

You don't believe Darwinism? ... I'm shocked ... what next? ... meteors don't cause weather ... that's insane ... why would we still call the science "meteorology" if meteors aren't causing our day-to-day weather? ... what do the alchemists have to say? ...

Ha ha ha ... I do know what you mean ... how do you feel about Mendel's work ... we can cross pea plants and duplicate his findings easy peasy ... I've grown gardens my whole life and can vouch for the results as commonly understand ... some traits are inherited by simple mathematical formula ... other traits, not so simple ...

The difference is the mid-19th Century Fluid Mechanics I'm using has been largely verified by modern 21st Century Field Theory ... the mid-19th Century Natural Philosophy understandings have been largely replaced by 21st Century Biochemistry ...