There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

[Billy_Bob]

You are just fucking unbelievable. You said:

"I just went to the NASA web site, I looked at the papers they are using as "evidence. Most have been withdrawn or retracted since publication."

You did not (and still have not) identified which NASA site you went to or any one of these papers you claim have been withdrawn or retracted. Not-fucking-one. Now, when I post the contents of NASA's specific climate change evidence page (not ONE of which has been retracted or withdrawn) you try to change the subject.

You are a piece of fucking work.

You're going to make me show you.... LOL This is going to be fun. The one time I get to show you how stupid you really are.

Lets take an easy one...

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

IN this paper Santer hypothesizes that the increased atmosphere above the poles and the Ozone levels created the warming. IN the subsequent paper below he retracts this assessment due to failures in the model he used. Yet here is NASA quoting a paper that the lead Author admits was in error.

Incorporating model quality information in climate change detection and attribution studies

In a recent multimodel detection and attribution (D&A) study using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor was identifiable with ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

GO play with yourself... The list is full of this kind of stuff and they still cite it as reasons to take away our rights.

 

[Crick]

You're going to make me show you.... LOL This is going to be fun. The one time I get to show you how stupid you really are.

Lets take an easy one...

B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

IN this paper Santer hypothesizes that the increased atmosphere above the poles and the Ozone levels created the warming. IN the subsequent paper below he retracts this assessment due to failures in the model he used. Yet here is NASA quoting a paper that the lead Author admits was in error.

Incorporating model quality information in climate change detection and attribution studies

In a recent multimodel detection and attribution (D&A) study using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor was identifiable with ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

GO play with yourself... The list is full of this kind of stuff and they still cite it as reasons to take away our rights.

And on what NASA page did you find this paper? I see lots of Santer papers on NASA and NOAA sites, but not this one. And you have a good long ways to go before you've validated your comment that "Most have been withdrawn or retracted".

 

[Crick]

And on what NASA page did you find this paper? I see lots of Santer papers on NASA and NOAA sites, but not this one. And you have a good long ways to go before you've validated your comment that "Most have been withdrawn or retracted".

NASA probably has over a thousand papers on their website. I am not contending that they are 100% problem-free. But your claim that "most of them" have been withdrawn - particularly with not yet a single link to a NASA page, is complete nonsense. It is, in fact, a blatant, demonstrable lie.

 

[Crick]

NASA probably has over a thousand papers on their website. I am not contending that they are 100% problem-free. But your claim that "most of them" have been withdrawn - particularly with not yet a single link to a NASA page, is complete nonsense. It is, in fact, a blatant, demonstrable lie.

How's the search going?

 

[Crick]

How's the search going?

Does it really take this long to find that NASA page on which you found that most of the listed papers had been withdrawn? Or, instead, have you found that your lack of honesty has gotten you into another intractable embarrassment. I mean, you did say "This is going to be fun. The one time I get to show you how stupid you really are". And, being a goddamned PhD of goddamned atmospheric goddamned physics, you must be able to just clean my clock on this. You have to be WA-A-A-A-A-YYYYYYyyyyy smarter than me. I've been bracing myself for the blow since Wednesday and... well... it hasn't happened yet. You must be working up a real doozy.

So, where is it?

Have you been just too busy for a bunch of intellectual ants like us (realtively speaking), maybe working on that magnetic theory of gravity? Or, remember this piece of brilliance: "While this is a mathematical construct and not proven, its the theroy(sic), which does not interfere with the second law of energy movement. The reason it doesn't is how a more organized/energetic body reacts to less organized/lower energy photon. When a lower energy photon (matter) hits a warmer body it must warm the photon matter. In doing so it consumes energy cooling the bigger mass. This is one of the hotly debated actions of a photon, is it energy or mass.. It acts like mass cooling the larger object according to empirical experiment". --Billy Boy

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Does it really take this long to find that NASA page on which you found that most of the listed papers had been withdrawn? Or, instead, have you found that your lack of honesty has gotten you into another intractable embarrassment. I mean, you did say "This is going to be fun. The one time I get to show you how stupid you really are". And, being a goddamned PhD of goddamned atmospheric goddamned physics, you must be able to just clean my clock on this. You have to be WA-A-A-A-A-YYYYYYyyyyy smarter than me. I've been bracing myself for the blow since Wednesday and... well... it hasn't happened yet. You must be working up a real doozy.

So, where is it?

Have you been just too busy for a bunch of intellectual ants like us (realtively speaking), maybe working on that magnetic theory of gravity? Or, remember this piece of brilliance: "While this is a mathematical construct and not proven, its the theroy(sic), which does not interfere with the second law of energy movement. The reason it doesn't is how a more organized/energetic body reacts to less organized/lower energy photon. When a lower energy photon (matter) hits a warmer body it must warm the photon matter. In doing so it consumes energy cooling the bigger mass. This is one of the hotly debated actions of a photon, is it energy or mass.. It acts like mass cooling the larger object according to empirical experiment". --Billy Boy

It's true, Billy isn't real strong on the science.
I wonder if he's SSDD's brother?

 

[themirrorthief]

It's true, Billy isn't real strong on the science.
I wonder if he's SSDD's brother?

poor chicken little....the sky is fallng again

 

[Crick]

It's true, Billy isn't real strong on the science.

No, he's not.

I wonder if he's SSDD's brother?

There are similarities but, unfortunately, the odds of there being two such people are depressingly high.

 

[Crick]

From ChatGPT this morning.

ME: I have been arguing with a number of people who do not believe in anthropogenic global warming

ChatGPT: I see. Climate change is a complex and controversial topic, and it can be difficult to navigate conversations with people who hold differing beliefs. However, there is a wealth of scientific evidence that suggests anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is a real phenomenon with significant implications for the planet.
To better understand this topic, it may be helpful to review some of the key evidence and arguments that support the scientific consensus on climate change. Some of these include:

1. Increased greenhouse gas concentrations: The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been increasing since the Industrial Revolution due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agriculture. These gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, leading to warming.
2. Temperature records: Temperature records show that the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century. This warming trend is unusual and cannot be explained by natural factors alone.
3. Ice and snow loss: Arctic sea ice has been declining at a rate of about 13% per decade since the 1970s, and mountain glaciers around the world are melting at an accelerating rate. These changes are consistent with a warming planet.
4. Extreme weather events: Heatwaves, droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense in many parts of the world, which is consistent with the scientific predictions of climate models.
5. Consensus among scientists: There is overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that human activities are causing global warming. According to a survey of scientific papers on climate change, 97% of authors who took a position on the topic endorsed the consensus that human activities are causing global warming.

It's important to approach discussions about climate change with an open mind and a willingness to engage in respectful dialogue. It's also important to remember that people's beliefs are often deeply rooted and may not change overnight. However, by sharing information and evidence in a calm and respectful manner, you may be able to help others understand the urgency and importance of addressing climate change.

 

[Crick]

From ChatGPT this morning.

ME: I have been arguing with a number of people who do not believe in anthropogenic global warming

ChatGPT: I see. Climate change is a complex and controversial topic, and it can be difficult to navigate conversations with people who hold differing beliefs. However, there is a wealth of scientific evidence that suggests anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is a real phenomenon with significant implications for the planet.
To better understand this topic, it may be helpful to review some of the key evidence and arguments that support the scientific consensus on climate change. Some of these include:

1. Increased greenhouse gas concentrations: The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been increasing since the Industrial Revolution due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agriculture. These gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, leading to warming.
2. Temperature records: Temperature records show that the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century. This warming trend is unusual and cannot be explained by natural factors alone.
3. Ice and snow loss: Arctic sea ice has been declining at a rate of about 13% per decade since the 1970s, and mountain glaciers around the world are melting at an accelerating rate. These changes are consistent with a warming planet.
4. Extreme weather events: Heatwaves, droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense in many parts of the world, which is consistent with the scientific predictions of climate models.
5. Consensus among scientists: There is overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that human activities are causing global warming. According to a survey of scientific papers on climate change, 97% of authors who took a position on the topic endorsed the consensus that human activities are causing global warming.

It's important to approach discussions about climate change with an open mind and a willingness to engage in respectful dialogue. It's also important to remember that people's beliefs are often deeply rooted and may not change overnight. However, by sharing information and evidence in a calm and respectful manner, you may be able to help others understand the urgency and importance of addressing climate change.

A "regenerated Response"

I understand that climate change can be a contentious topic, and it's natural to encounter people with different beliefs and opinions on the matter. As an AI language model, I can provide you with information and resources that support the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is occurring and that human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, are the primary cause of this change. This consensus is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including observations of rising global temperatures, melting ice caps, and changes in weather patterns.

If you're interested in engaging with people who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, it might be helpful to approach the conversation with a spirit of curiosity and openness, rather than confrontation or judgment. You can ask them about their specific beliefs and try to understand their perspective, while also sharing the scientific evidence that supports the consensus view.

There are many online resources available that can help you better understand the science of climate change and the arguments used by those who deny it. Some reputable sources include NASA's Climate Change website, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the Climate Reality Project.

 

[Crick]

A "regenerated Response"

I understand that climate change can be a contentious topic, and it's natural to encounter people with different beliefs and opinions on the matter. As an AI language model, I can provide you with information and resources that support the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

The scientific consensus is that climate change is occurring and that human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, are the primary cause of this change. This consensus is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including observations of rising global temperatures, melting ice caps, and changes in weather patterns.

If you're interested in engaging with people who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, it might be helpful to approach the conversation with a spirit of curiosity and openness, rather than confrontation or judgment. You can ask them about their specific beliefs and try to understand their perspective, while also sharing the scientific evidence that supports the consensus view.

There are many online resources available that can help you better understand the science of climate change and the arguments used by those who deny it. Some reputable sources include NASA's Climate Change website, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the Climate Reality Project.

Tried it from the other direction. Note the change in my initial comment

ME: I have been arguing with people who believe in anthropogenic global warming

ChatGPT: I apologize for my previous response. If you're arguing with people who believe in anthropogenic global warming, it might be helpful to clarify your stance on the matter and try to understand their perspective as well.
It's important to note that the scientific consensus is that climate change is occurring and that human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, are the primary cause of this change. This consensus is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including observations of rising global temperatures, melting ice caps, and changes in weather patterns.
If you're interested in engaging with people who believe in anthropogenic global warming, it might be helpful to approach the conversation with a spirit of curiosity and openness, rather than assuming that you disagree. You can ask them about their specific beliefs and try to understand their perspective, while also sharing your own thoughts and evidence on the matter.
It's important to keep in mind that climate change is a complex issue with many different factors at play, and there is ongoing debate and research in the scientific community about the best ways to address it. However, the overwhelming evidence suggests that human activities are contributing to the problem and that action is needed to mitigate the impacts of climate change.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From ChatGPT this morning.

ME: I have been arguing with a number of people who do not believe in anthropogenic global warming

ChatGPT: I see. Climate change is a complex and controversial topic, and it can be difficult to navigate conversations with people who hold differing beliefs. However, there is a wealth of scientific evidence that suggests anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is a real phenomenon with significant implications for the planet.
To better understand this topic, it may be helpful to review some of the key evidence and arguments that support the scientific consensus on climate change. Some of these include:

1. Increased greenhouse gas concentrations: The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been increasing since the Industrial Revolution due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agriculture. These gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, leading to warming.
2. Temperature records: Temperature records show that the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 19th century. This warming trend is unusual and cannot be explained by natural factors alone.
3. Ice and snow loss: Arctic sea ice has been declining at a rate of about 13% per decade since the 1970s, and mountain glaciers around the world are melting at an accelerating rate. These changes are consistent with a warming planet.
4. Extreme weather events: Heatwaves, droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense in many parts of the world, which is consistent with the scientific predictions of climate models.
5. Consensus among scientists: There is overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that human activities are causing global warming. According to a survey of scientific papers on climate change, 97% of authors who took a position on the topic endorsed the consensus that human activities are causing global warming.

It's important to approach discussions about climate change with an open mind and a willingness to engage in respectful dialogue. It's also important to remember that people's beliefs are often deeply rooted and may not change overnight. However, by sharing information and evidence in a calm and respectful manner, you may be able to help others understand the urgency and importance of addressing climate change.

Artificial intelligence, because leftists lack the real thing.

 

[Crick]

Artificial intelligence, because leftists lack the real thing.

I got on to it this morning for the first time. I couldn't think of anything to ask it right off the bat, but had just come off that exchange with Redfish and MikeTx, so I just prompted it with what I had been doing. When I turned the question around to your side, I expected it to turn around and adopt a supportive stance. But it didn't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I got on to it this morning for the first time. I couldn't think of anything to ask it right off the bat, but had just come off that exchange with Redfish and MikeTx, so I just prompted it with what I had been doing. When I turned the question around to your side, I expected it to turn around and adopt a supportive stance. But it didn't.

Ask it this, "Germany pays triple what the US does for electricity. What do they get for their wasted spending?"

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem is that fixing the problem means stopping so much production that people will starve from lack of food and would have to give up all energy-consuming activity and go back to natural cycles of only doing natural activities during the day, sleeping at night, and not using all the energy-fueled developments that material society is used to.

Even stopping the activities that the anti warning advocates urge is not enough to make a difference.

It has to be much greater, so these recommended policies are politicized. Where even China the worst polluter causing more damage than the other nations combined is refusing to participate and claims exemptions while the other compliant nations destroy their economy so China can dominate

 

[jc456]

The quick summary: Plymouth Rock was last moved in 1921, and it's regularly underwater at high tide now.

Fact Check-Plymouth Rock cannot provide an accurate measure of sea level

Plymouth Rock, the place where William Bradford and other pilgrims are popularly believed to have made first landfall in what is now the United States, is not a benchmark of sea-level rise and does not prove that modern ocean-level rise driven by human-led climate change...

www.reuters.com

It’s obvious you don’t know what high tide represents or you wouldn’t mention it during a debate of sea level rise that doesn’t exist!

What are Tides - Tides and Water Levels: NOAA's National Ocean Service Education

National Ocean Service's Education Online tutorial on Tides and Water levels: What Are Tides?

oceanservice.noaa.gov

“Basically, tides are very long-period waves that move through the oceans in response to the forces exerted by the moon and sun. Tides originate in the oceans and progress toward the coastlines where they appear as the regular rise and fall of the sea surface. When the highest part, or crest of the wave reaches a particular location, high tide occurs; low tide corresponds to the lowest part of the wave, or its trough. The difference in height between the high tide and the low tide is called the tidal range.”

No where is man made climate nonsense involved

 

[Crick]

The problem is that fixing the problem means stopping so much production that people will starve from lack of food and would have to give up all energy-consuming activity and go back to natural cycles of only doing natural activities during the day, sleeping at night, and not using all the energy-fueled developments that material society is used to.

That is incorrect. While we should have started working on this seriously a good 20 years ago and the further down the road we have pushed this problem, the more and more drastic has become the needed response, no one is going to force people to starve to avoid another tenth of a degree warming. The transition is taking place now and several development will help the process along. Batteries not requiring rare earths and rare heavy metals will decrease the cost of EVs and improve utility power storage facilitating the full time use of wind and solar. The need for nuclear power in this mix is beginning to overcome the fear instilled by Chernobyl and Fukushima and, further down the road, fusion looks to be a viable power option within less than two decades.

Even stopping the activities that the anti warning advocates urge is not enough to make a difference.

That is not true but you need to be careful to whom you're listening. Give this a look: AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC and AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC

It has to be much greater, so these recommended policies are politicized.

This issue was never realistically addressable without government action.

Where even China the worst polluter causing more damage than the other nations combined is refusing to participate and claims exemptions while the other compliant nations destroy their economy so China can dominate

The US is a close second to China's emission levels and China was a signatory to the Paris Climate Accords. They are not refusing to participate. They did not drop out as Trump chose to do. It's unclear precisely what you're saying there at the end, but I can assure there is no international agreement to let China dominate the world. China made use of the one thing they had more of than anyone else on the planet and that was copious amount of cheap labor. By not spending a cent on defense for decades they were able to afford raising their standard of living and moving from an agrarian society to a massive technical infrastructure at an astounding pace. They are now paying some of the price, however, for such a single-minded policy but the progress they made in that regard was remarkable.

 

[abu afak]

The problem is that fixing the problem means stopping so much production that people will starve from lack of food and would have to give up all energy-consuming activity and go back to natural cycles of only doing natural activities during the day, sleeping at night, and not using all the energy-fueled developments that material society is used to.

Even stopping the activities that the anti warning advocates urge is not enough to make a difference.

It has to be much greater, so these recommended policies are politicized. Where even China the worst polluter causing more damage than the other nations combined is refusing to participate and claims exemptions while the other compliant nations destroy their economy so China can dominate

We ARE fixing the problem.
Renewables now up near 25% of power with No extra cost, in fact savings. App 85% of New generation is renewables.
A few states now over 50% with many approaching that milestone.
You need to read the section more often and particularly my OPs.
You can't drop by twice a year and know what's been going on since it;s obvious you don't keep up on the topic in the news.

`

 

[Crick]

It’s obvious you don’t know what high tide represents or you wouldn’t mention it during a debate of sea level rise that doesn’t exist!

What are Tides - Tides and Water Levels: NOAA's National Ocean Service Education

National Ocean Service's Education Online tutorial on Tides and Water levels: What Are Tides?

oceanservice.noaa.gov

“Basically, tides are very long-period waves that move through the oceans in response to the forces exerted by the moon and sun. Tides originate in the oceans and progress toward the coastlines where they appear as the regular rise and fall of the sea surface. When the highest part, or crest of the wave reaches a particular location, high tide occurs; low tide corresponds to the lowest part of the wave, or its trough. The difference in height between the high tide and the low tide is called the tidal range.”

No where is man made climate nonsense involved

My god are you stupid. Let's pretend sea levels really are rising and we are watching Plymouth Rock. Q: When will it first get submerged? A: High tide.

 

[jc456]

My god are you stupid. Let's pretend sea levels really are rising and we are watching Plymouth Rock. Q: When will it first get submerged? A: High tide.

High tide cause, moon and sun