I've mentioned the World Economic Forum several times. That's a good start. COP 28 is convening to discuss global climate and societal actions - maining take more money from rich nations to build more pollution generating infrastructure in third world nations while requiring first world nations to throttle back on THEIR economic progress.
how do you know it's too large? How do you know it's only released by the ocean, how do you know it's far greater? It's far greater than what we measured in ice course but how do you know that represents atmospheric CO2 at the time?
Yeah but those sods are also being bribed by the multi billion dollar fossil fuel industry. Money doesn’t talk it shouts and if you actually looked at the plans for the future for the third world countries they are drooling over options like wind and solar because it negates the need for expensive diesel. Once the grid batteries drop price you will see nations like Africa and India that do not have an extensive grid network are going to build isolated renewable sites. This is already happening in Africa where smaller villages have say one person with solar and battery and villages pay to charge up phones etc
Will you do some actual reading around this please? At the moment I am getting the distinct impression that all you are doing is regurgitating Faux and other RWM sources. One of the reasons we KNOW rapid climate change is deleterious is that it has happened in the past
Scientists are not somehow scared of fossil fuel. Where did THAT idea come from? Also, scientists are certainly NOT hysterical.
The “great dying” https://theecologist.org/2019/jan/21/great-dying-climate-change-and-extinction#:~:text=Paleoclimatology links climate change to mass extinction.&text=Forget the K-Pg extinction,the end of the Permian.
Again, climate scientists are aware of past climate change. THEY were the ones who brought that information to you. Suggesting climatologists somehow forgot doesn't make sense.
Okay for all those believing “the climate has changed before” there is this https://opengeology.org/historicalgeology/paleoclimatology-earth-systems-change-through-time/ lit plots the changes the identity reasons for previous change and what the impact t on the biosphere was.
Hey! Many also believe that climatologists haven’t factored in the sun I mean seems they think the scientific community hasn’t even noticed the big ball of gas in the sky
Because it's much larger than the CO2 increases that accompanied much larger temperature increases throughout the Pleistocene. By looking at the data and being willing to know facts. Because I know the universe is not a haunted house where people see things happen without any cause.
Who took the air samples in the pleistocene? seems like you're looking at the absolute tiniest speck of data and jumping to a whacko conclusion over it. Indians political game that's not facts that's religion. [/QUOTE] Because I know the universe is not a haunted house where people see things happen without any cause.[/QUOTE] So you have no idea?
No, the decisions need to be made on what scientists are finding. The fact that there are screamers on both sides is NOT how to make decisions. Screaming is not scientific analysis.
Because I know the universe is not a haunted house where people see things happen without any cause.[/QUOTE] So you have no idea?[/QUOTE] Air samples from ancient times come from ice cores. The ice crystal formations include tiny amounts of captured air. There may be other methods.
so this is only where there's ice so only where it's really cold. You're looking at the universe through the keyhole and thinking you know the whole thing. even fossil record you're looking at the universe through keyhole you're not looking at it all. And because there is an extreme level of political motivation behind this idea it cannot be trusted.
You do know that real science finds new facts and generates new theories and hypotheses as part of the job description, right?
Believe it or nor then Sun's contribution to climate IS a point of contention amongst climatologists. There's action a thread on the subject.
Meanwhile, in the peer-reviewed world: New Study: East Asian Sea Ice Extent Increasing Since 2005 … Region Is Now Colder Than 1700s-1800s By Kenneth Richard on 13. November 2023 Yet another region of the world fails to cooperate with “global” warming instructions. New research (Zhang et al., 2023) finds the sea ice extent has undergone an overall increasing trend from 2005-2021 in the Sea of Japan, Yellow Sea, and Bohai Sea. “Over the past 17 years, the maximum sea ice extent in the marginal seas of East Asia reached a maximum value of 17.4 × 104 km² in 2016 and a minimum value of 7.6 × 104 km² in 2007.” Image Source: Zhang et al., 2023
The alarmists trot out "science" of declining soundness. Hansen’s latest overheated global warming claims are based on poor science Posted on November 6, 2023 by niclewis | 113 comments James Hansen’s latest paper “Global warming in the pipeline” (Hansen et al. (2023)) has already been heavily criticized in a lengthy comment by Michael Mann, author of the original IPCC ‘hockey stick’. However Mann does not deal with Hansen’s surprisingly high (4.8°C) new estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)[1]. This ECS estimate is 60% above Hansen’s longstanding[2] previous estimate of 3°C. It is Hansen’s new, very high ECS estimate drives, in conjunction with various questionable subsidiary assumptions, his paper’s dire predictions of high global warming and its more extreme concluding policy recommendations, such as ‘solar radiation management’ geoengineering. Continue reading →
But the problem is that a great many areas now simply do not have enough water to support their over bloated population. California is a perfect example of that. Five decades ago when they had a population of jus under 20 million, there was more than enough water for the population, agriculture, and industry. Sure, even then they were taking it from states like Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona but there was still enough water to meet the needs of everybody. Today however, the state has a population over double that of 1970. Just under 40 million. The irony is, there is just as much water available as there was in 1970, but it is no longer enough to support everything. And because politicians care more for the population than business, the farmers have largely been taking the hit. And people are screaming "drought" all over the place, even though the amount of annual rainfall has actually gone up slightly since the earliest records some 400 years ago. The simple fact is, with a population like that California does not have enough water, and will never have enough water. Even our wettest states like Georgia, Alabama, and Florida would have problems supporting that many people. And they get many times more precipitation than California does. And there is simply no way to bring any more water to California. Everywhere that can be reasonably tapped has already done so decades ago and they just can't bring any more in. Only steal water from one region of the state to their disadvantage, in order to appease the regions with the highest population.
And your typical response to anything you do not like. Obviously they are bribed and paid to say that, because nobody not on the take could ever possibly have anything of importance that contradicts your beliefs. The ultimate combination of conspiracy theory nonsense, combined with wearing blinders so you can reject anything you do not agree with.
If that weren't true, science wouldn't be making progress. But, that isn't a basis for suggesting that what science of today isn't the best knowledge we have. Do you know anyone who follows their GPS to some new location and says, "GPS says turn left. But, GPS mapping has been known to need updating, so I'm turning right." You can't argue that climatologists are wrong on the basis that science progresses. That argument would demand that NO PART of science should EVER be considered when making policy decisions.
Dude! That's literally the description of the scientific method. As long as you understand that "best" is a moving target - it's constantly moving and changing direction as the process I described above continues. non sequitur". More appropriately a scientist would follow the GPS to the point he discovers it's wrong and then Analyse the system to determine the problem and then re-enact the test. Nope. Not at all. The scientific method is repeatedly performing the experiment, analysizing results, making adjustment and doing the experiment again. Kinda like Edison trying close to a 1000 times before succeed with the light bulb.[/quote]
Errrr - do you want to actually read the actual paper itself because I have found 3 massive cherry picks so far https://annielab.org/2022/01/05/inv...y-fuels-global-climate-change-misinformation/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/ Cite a discredited source expect to be shown the scam
