The Questions that Global Warming Concerned People have Not Answered in this Forum

[CrusaderFrank]

1) Is there evidence of a steady rise in the Earth's temperature, say since the industrial revolution?

There is absolutely zero evidence showing that increasing CO2 from 280 to 420PPM raises temperatures in any meaningful or measurable amount.

2) Is there proof that this rise is caused by human activity, and that nothing else could be the cause?

The only human activity affecting the climate are chemtrails. Human contribution to CO2 is less than a rounding error

3) What are the steps we should take to stop or reverse this human-caused global warming?

China is the worlds largest emitter of CO2, ask them

4) How much will those steps cost, in terms of tax dollars spent, and lost opportunities, including lost opportunities for developing nations to grow and prosper, and for developed countries to innovate?

50 to 100 trillion, which is a small price to pay to keep the AGWCult in business and the CCP happy

5) By how much will that proposed expendature reduce the Earth's temperature, and how do we know that?

We don’t know it! Only Deniers concern themselves with trivial matters like costs and evidence. Have you accepted the CO2 molecule as your lord and savior?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I don't understand why these questions are so hard. If you have missed them thus far, they are:

1) Is there evidence of a steady rise in the Earth's temperature, say since the industrial revolution?
2) Is there proof that this rise is caused by human activity, and that nothing else could be the cause?
3) What are the steps we should take to stop or reverse this human-caused global warming?
4) How much will those steps cost, in terms of tax dollars spent, and lost opportunities, including lost opportunities for developing nations to grow and prosper, and for developed countries to innovate?
5) By how much will that proposed expendature reduce the Earth's temperature, and how do we know that?

If you cannot answer each of these questions, with evidence, not just guesses or links, then any policy you advocate based on "global warming" have no basis in evidence.

I’m assuming your questions are rhetorical, otherwise they’re a waste of time. The last thing AGW alarmists want is discussion. Their parrots are too caught up in virtue-signaling ego to get it.
Or, to quote Thomas Sowell…
“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”

 

[Seymour Flops]

The obvious point you don't want to admit was that the Wikipedia article was extremely well referenced and your comments about the "Hiatus" were uninformed and lacked any reliable basis.

Are you aware of how wiki is edited?

 

[Crick]

Are you aware of how wiki is edited?

Of course. Do you think the links in that Reference section don't work? I counted at least 27 peer-reviewed studies in that list. What references do YOU have supporting your argument?

 

[Crick]

I’m assuming your questions are rhetorical, otherwise they’re a waste of time. The last thing AGW alarmists want is discussion. Their parrots are too caught up in virtue-signaling ego to get it.
Or, to quote Thomas Sowell…
“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”

Would you like to see some discussion by "AGW alarmists:? Try www.ipcc.ch

 

[Crick]

I’m assuming your questions are rhetorical, otherwise they’re a waste of time. The last thing AGW alarmists want is discussion. Their parrots are too caught up in virtue-signaling ego to get it.
Or, to quote Thomas Sowell…
“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”

Those aren't questions from mainstream science. They're questions from another AGW denier. The effort is patently rhetorical. The author hasn't the slightest interest in actual science or the acquisition of knowledge.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Of course. Do you think the links in that Reference section don't work? I counted at least 27 peer-reviewed studies in that list. What references do YOU have supporting your argument?

How do you know that those links support YOUR argument, if you haven’t even read them? Don’t forget that you posted that tree ring study, and it turned out it actually wrecked your entire argument.

 

[Flash]

I don't understand why these questions are so hard. If you have missed them thus far, they are:

1) Is there evidence of a steady rise in the Earth's temperature, say since the industrial revolution?
2) Is there proof that this rise is caused by human activity, and that nothing else could be the cause?
3) What are the steps we should take to stop or reverse this human-caused global warming?
4) How much will those steps cost, in terms of tax dollars spent, and lost opportunities, including lost opportunities for developing nations to grow and prosper, and for developed countries to innovate?
5) By how much will that proposed expendature reduce the Earth's temperature, and how do we know that?

If you cannot answer each of these questions, with evidence, not just guesses or links, then any policy you advocate based on "global warming" have no basis in evidence.

The correlation between a rise in temperature and the industrial age is bogus science.

The main reason is that we really do not have good data on what the temperature of the earth is now compared to what it was pre industrial age. For instance, it could have been warmer in the Medieval Warming Period or the Roman Warming Period than it is now. We just don't know. We know that it was warm then from ice core samples and tree ring data but those methods are not accurate enough to say what the temperature was then compared to what it is now.

Another reason is that the theory is that the Industrial Age CO2 emissions are causing a greenhouse gas that is warming the earth. However, there is no scientifically defensible evidence that CO2 levels at what we are at now are causing a greenhouse effect. We only have computer models that predict it but no real evidence. In fact the actual data shows that CO2 levels lags increases in temperature. There have been times when atmospheric COs have been higher and the earth cooler and times when the CO2 levels have been lower and the earth warmer.

Another fact is that the statement that the earth is getting warmer now is based upon limited proxy data that is modeled for the entire earth dependent upon computer generated algorithms that may or may not be valid. The old "shit in shit out" computer models.

Finally we have the fact that the so called scientists making the claims have been caught many times lying and fabricating and cherry picking data and they have almost no credibility. They have even admitted that it is a lie.

Climate change is a real thing. Been going on for billions of years. However the claim that humans are causing climate change is absolutely bullshit and is not based upon and credible evidence.

 

[Crick]

The correlation between a rise in temperature and the industrial age is bogus science.

And the real science you have to support that charge is... where?

The main reason is that we really do not have good data on what the temperature of the earth is now compared to what it was pre industrial age.

And the real science you have to support that charge is... where?

For instance, it could have been warmer in the Medieval Warming Period or the Roman Warming Period than it is now.

This study found that The RWP, the MWP and the LIA were all regional. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5505119/

We just don't know.

We have well supported theories that are far more likely to be correct than anything you've put up here.

We know that it was warm then from ice core samples and tree ring data but those methods are not accurate enough to say what the temperature was then compared to what it is now.

Temperature reconstructions these days use large number of different types of proxies from all over the planet (since measurements in a given location only provide temperatures from that location). The error range of these data are known and included in such studies. It is NOT the complete ignorance you and other scientifically illiterate frequently claim it to be.

Another reason is that the theory is that the Industrial Age CO2 emissions are causing a greenhouse gas that is warming the earth. However, there is no scientifically defensible evidence that CO2 levels at what we are at now are causing a greenhouse effect.

That is incorrect. The forcing factor for a given CO2 concentration is calculable. The reason climate scientists don't have a rock solid single number is the complexity of climate systems. There are numerous factors that warm and cool the planet and they must all be taken into acdount. Some, like clouds, work in both directions.

We only have computer models that predict it but no real evidence.

That is false.

In fact the actual data shows that CO2 levels lags increases in temperature.

Do you realize that this statement counters the one just prior? As I know you've been told but apparently either failed to understand or chose to lie about, CO2 both lags and leads temperature change. When temperatures increase, for whatever reason, gas dissolved in the world's oceans, lakes and streams, comes out of solution, increasing its levels in the atmosphere. When CO2 increases in the atmosphere, it drives the greenhouse effect to warm the planet to higher temperatures.

There have been times when atmospheric COs have been higher and the earth cooler and times when the CO2 levels have been lower and the earth warmer.

That has not happened as often as you would like to think. And as I noted above and as has always been the position of mainstream science, there are numerous factors that affect the Earth's temperatures: volcanism, plate tectonics, carbon soot, sulfate aerosols, etc.

Another fact is that the statement that the earth is getting warmer now is based upon limited proxy data that is modeled for the entire earth dependent upon computer generated algorithms that may or may not be valid.

That is false. These data come from thosuands of thermometers on the surface, in the ocean, at altitude and in space. Models are used to calculate likely temperatures between measurement locations.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-annual-mean-temperature-difference-from-pre-industrial-conditions-1850-1900-for_fig1_350979227

The old "shit in shit out" computer models.

The input to these models are thousands of careful measurements from calibrated sources taken at multiple times daily across the fucking planet and under the sea. Not shit.

Finally we have the fact that the so called scientists making the claims have been caught many times lying and fabricating and cherry picking data and they have almost no credibility.

The folks who have been caught lying would be the ones making this claim. I have repeatedly demanded that you identify any such incidents and you have not responded ONCE.

They have even admitted that it is a lie

How about a link to such an admission?

.Climate change is a real thing. Been going on for billions of years. However the claim that humans are causing climate change is absolutely bullshit and is not based upon and credible evidence.

God, are you stupid. And dishonest in the extreme.

 

[Flash]

3) What are the steps we should take to stop or reverse this human-caused global warming?

Nothing because there is no scientifically defensible proof that any change in the climate is caused by humans.

Climate change is a natural phenomena and has been going on ever since the earth was created.

Humans have adapted to massive climate changes in the past and we will do it again in the future.

 

[Flash]

4) How much will those steps cost, in terms of tax dollars spent, and lost opportunities, including lost opportunities for developing nations to grow and prosper, and for developed countries to innovate?

The real danger in this AGW scam is that it is affecting public policy and that is doing significant damage to the economy. Just look what Potatohead's Environmental Wacko agenda did to drive up the cost of energy in the US and that contributed to his massive inflation as an example. Hell, that stupid sonofabitch wanted to ban gas stoves! He is spending billions of taxpayer's money on subsidies for EVs that have a larger life cycle carbon footprint than ICE vehicles.

All based upon a bat shit crazy Leftest agenda that would make Ted Kaczynski proud.

 

[Crick]

Nothing because there is no scientifically defensible proof that any change in the climate is caused by humans.

That is a lie. Look at www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/

Climate change is a natural phenomena and has been going on ever since the earth was created.

Of course it has. But the global warming that has been taking place since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is being caused by the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions.

Humans have adapted to massive climate changes in the past and we will do it again in the future.

Humans have never experienced our current CO2 levels nor the rate of warming those level are producing.

 

[Crick]

The real danger in this AGW scam

What scam? Who is pulling off this scam, how and why?

is that it is affecting public policy

Would you expect the objective discovery that certain policies were doing great harm to the world's populace and had the potential to do even greater harm in the future, cause for those policies to be affected? I would. I would vote against anyone that opposed such changes in policy.

and that is doing significant damage to the economy.

The damage is being done by AGW, not by the completely inadequate mitigation measures that have been taken so far. And I really have to ask since you state that in the present tense: "... is doing to the economy". What damage do you believe the US economy has suffered from measures to reduce GHG emissions? Unemployment is down. Job creation has been enormous several months in a row and the stock market is setting record high after record high. Where is this damage?

Gross Domestic Product

View economic output, reported as the nominal value of all new goods and services produced by labor and property located in the U.S.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Just look what Potatohead's Environmental Wacko agenda did to drive up the cost of energy in the US

The cost of gasoline was driven up by the invasion of Ukraine by Trump's best friend and mentor, Vladimir Putin.

and that contributed to his massive inflation as an example.

Inflation was an after effect of the pandemic.

Hell, that stupid sonofabitch wanted to ban gas stoves!

He never said any such thing. If you need to lie to make your case, you don't have a case.

He is spending billions of taxpayer's money on subsidies for EVs that have a larger life cycle carbon footprint than ICE vehicles.

It is a tax incentive. So let's compare it to Trump's tax cut. 1.2 million EVs were sold in the US in 2023. If every one of them got the full $7,500 tax incentive (which they did not), that would be $9 billion in lost revenue. The Trump tax cut, by the end of 2023, had cost the US government roughly $1.7 trillion, 188 TIMES as much.

All based upon a bat shit crazy Leftest agenda that would make Ted Kaczynski proud.

You and objective facts have never actually met, have you?

 

[ding]

What scam?

The only scam I see is the "science is settled" scam. The scam that wants to squelch honest debate and challenge.

 

[Flash]

What scam? Who is pulling off this scam, how and why?

Would you expect the objective discovery that certain policies were doing great harm to the world's populace and had the potential to do even greater harm in the future, cause for those policies to be affected? I would. I would vote against anyone that opposed such changes in policy.

The damage is being done by AGW, not by the completely inadequate mitigation measures that have been taken so far. And I really have to ask since you state that in the present tense: "... is doing to the economy". What damage do you believe the US economy has suffered from measures to reduce GHG emissions? Unemployment is down. Job creation has been enormous several months in a row and the stock market is setting record high after record high. Where is this damage?

View attachment 897028

Gross Domestic Product

View economic output, reported as the nominal value of all new goods and services produced by labor and property located in the U.S.

fred.stlouisfed.org

The cost of gasoline was driven up by the invasion of Ukraine by Trump's best friend and mentor, Vladimir Putin.

Inflation was an after effect of the pandemic.

He never said any such thing. If you need to lie to make your case, you don't have a case.

It is a tax incentive. So let's compare it to Trump's tax cut. 1.2 million EVs were sold in the US in 2023. If every one of them got the full $7,500 tax incentive (which they did not), that would be $9 billion in lost revenue. The Trump tax cut, by the end of 2023, had cost the US government roughly $1.7 trillion, 188 TIMES as much.

You and objective facts have never actually met, have you?

LOL! We would ordinarily just ignore you stupid AGW scammers just like we do all delusional kooks. However, the AGW Scam pays big bucks and because of that you turds can affect public policy and that results in disaster for the economy. We are seeing big time now with artificially increasing the cost of fuel, enacting oppressive and useless regulations and using massive amounts of tax money (when we are $34 trillion in debt) to subsidize worthless shit that would never be economically viable otherwise.

There is no man made climate change. That is a scientific fact and all the denying and quoting fraudulent Scammer bullshit won't change that.

The real science that you dumbasses ignore is that climate change is real and it is natural but there is no credible scientific evidence that Humans are changing the climate to any significant degree, if at all.

 

[Crick]

LOL! We would ordinarily just ignore you stupid AGW scammers

I have never noticed you ignoring me.

just like we do all delusional kooks.

No mirrors in your house, eh.

However, the AGW Scam pays big bucks

And where do those big bucks come from and to whom do they go?

and because of that you turds can affect public policy and that results in disaster for the economy.

Who is affecting public policy, how are they doing it and what economical disaster has resulted (given what unemployment, stock market and GDP look like at the moment).

We are seeing big time now with artificially increasing the cost of fuel

Who has artificially increased the cost of fuel?

"Since 1993, the US federal gasoline tax has been unchanged (and not adjusted for inflation of nearly 68-77% through 2016 depending on the source) at 18.4¢/gal (4.86¢/L)." Fuel taxes in the United States - Wikipedia.​

enacting oppressive and useless regulations

What regulations do you mean, specifically?

and using massive amounts of tax money (when we are $34 trillion in debt) to subsidize worthless shit that would never be economically viable otherwise.

The Trump tax cut has cost us about 200 TIMES what it has cost to give tax incentives to EV buyers.

There is no man made climate change.

That is a statement of serious ignorance.

That is a scientific fact

That is a lie.

and all the denying and quoting fraudulent Scammer bullshit won't change that.

Further demonstrating your ignorance.

The real science that you dumbasses ignore is that climate change is real and it is natural but there is no credible scientific evidence that Humans are changing the climate to any significant degree, if at all.

A lie you've told before and for which you've been corrected on more than one occasion, yet you continue to tell it.

See AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who is pulling off this scam, how and why?

Money for nothing, chicks for free.

 

[Robert W]

I doubt he gets out much. He’s about my age, so I’m guessing he spent his formative years watching Gilligans Island and solving one side only of his Rubics Cube.

You make a good point about disbelieving their own claims. Their solutions are exactly the same anti-American anti-growth moves that Le left has long advocated. Why would Obama buy an estate on an Island if it is destined to be underwater so soon?

That Obama estate is super close to the ocean. And also his mansion in the East of the USA is really close to the ocean. Does it make sense he of all people would take such risks?

 

[Robert W]

I am not an economist but I believe excellent information regarding this question may be found here:

Here is your answer:

 

[Robert W]

Your questions are not hard. You don't know enough about the issue to formulate hard questions. They are disingenuous

Of course. Everyone here - even a newcomer like you - have seen these data repeatedly. Thus your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE

View attachment 895127

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-annual-mean-temperature-difference-from-pre-industrial-conditions-1850-1900-for_fig1_350979227

View attachment 895128

Temperature record of the last 2,000 years - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, there is evidence. There are no proofs in the natural science. You'd think someone with two masters would understand that point. This has been repeatedly explained to you and to everyone else here. Thus, your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE.

9 ways we know humans caused climate change

Scientists have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence that humans are the main cause of climate change. Here are 9 ways the evidence stacks up.

www.edf.org

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

A straightforward explanation of how we know that humans cause global warming, using charts, graphs, and plain language.

www.ucsusa.org

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans - Carbon Brief

The science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed.

www.carbonbrief.org

Causes - NASA Science

Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results

climate.nasa.gov

What Is the Evidence for Human-Caused Climate Change?

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. Multiple studies show that 97 percent or more of climate scientists agree.

scienceexchange.caltech.edu

AND many, many more

Yes. Reduce and eventually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions.
This has been repeatedly explained to you and to everyone else here. Thus your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE.

I am not an economist but I believe excellent information regarding this question may be found here:

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

AND here

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Again, you and everyone here have been provided these links before. Thus your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE.

There is no singular proposal. This question thus lacks a valid premise. However, the obvious aim of all mitigation measures will be to stop AGW which would then allow the Earth to cool to the temperatures it was experiencing before AGW began: a drop of about 1.3C from current levels. This is completely obvious to anyone familiar with the situation. Thus your claim that this is a question that has not been answered is a LIE.


All of your questions have been answered and what has been most clearly demonstrated is that you LIE.

You did not discuss climate. What you discussed is confined to Temperature. Climate is much more than temperature.