Climate Change denial vs History

The climate has always changed WITHOUT the help of people and it always will, any educated person knows that. The problem most thinking people have is the nonsense of global warming that the left with their agenda is trying to push off on us.

 

It is an attempt to correlate the hysteria of climate change with real science. Instead of embracing scrutiny, as real science does, they attempt to belittle & demean any who disagree with their Fake Science assertions.

In actual truth, they have the problem reversed. it is the pseudo scientists, with their false predictions, fake data, & agenda driven conclusions that are the actual science 'deniers'. Scrutiny & skepticism is a hallmark of real science. The fake scientists demand conformity to their mandates, & do not follow scientific methodology.

 

Spoken like a true fascist. Smart people built cars , trains and planes, all polluters in their scientific minds. Get back to us when you truly believe and give up all your fossil fuel based products. Not much fun living in a sand castle.

 

Many think that climate science, taken as a whole, is the most complex and difficult science there is. Maybe a tiny better than particle physics, but not by much -- too close to call. It's hard to imagine all of those climatologists having the entirety of climatology down pat.

 

Just the same BS believing if you repeat something enough times that makes it true.

 

For decades, "science" insisted we were entering another ice age. Now "science" says all that "science" was exactly wrong. So it is science demanding "believe me when I tell you that we lied for decades about the climate, but now are telling you the truth, which is exactly oppose what we said before."

 

Why does any change so terrify so many Democrats and liberals?

 

Ignore the science you don't like and doesn't fit with your religion, I gotcha.

 

It doesn't, the ones in charge are making a killing off of their hysteria from acolytes like Golem.

 

Peer reviewing is doesn't make the evidence is valid. Proving validity requires some one else finding the same results by examining the same conditions. That's what science is and it works great. Unfortunately the science biz is working poorly these days as "a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments".

This is the beauty of science though, that if it's true then more often then not the rest of us can verify by running tests at home. (Remind me to tell you how you can show light travels at some 300M/sec --in your kitchen.) As for AGW you and I could come up w/ respectable temp proxies on our own too if we wanted, but while math and science is easy it's the people who are difficult. Namely, there's apparently no advocate of AGW around w/ numbers that can stand the light of day.

 

--and every single man, woman, and child believes that the entire mass of earth has more heat now than in any time since the planet was first formed!

Seriously, you most probably will want to clarify that...

 

Yes!!! Presenting scientific evidence is by far the very best way to control the conversation by those with an agenda driven view. It also works pretty well for controlling the conversation by those with non-agenda driven views too.

 

Maybe not. But just saying thing without peer-reviewing is most definitely a sign that it has been pulled out of the wrong side of the body.

Of course.

Therefore they have not met the Scientific requirements that other scientific theories (like Global Warming) have met.

True. There isn't an "advocate". There is just an overwhelming number of peer-reviewed studies which have been replicated again and again. You see, in science, advocates don't count. Only proof, through peer-reviewed (and replicated) studies count.

 

I have seen some claims here about CO2 levels changing throughout Earth's history.

Right now the only time that CO2 were the highest prior to today was before humans existed.

Yes it has always changed. The thing is it has always changed slowly over a very long time. That is what is left out of that argument.

Right now it is changing faster than any point in Earth's history.

You are missing something here. It was a handful of scientist claiming global cooling. The main thing pushing it were some articles from various media sources and not peer reviewed papers.

A total of 7 peer reviewed papers were written predicting cooling. 42 were written predicting warming.

The closest thing to consensus at the time was saying that climate is a difficult subject with many factors and variables involved.

The problem with your logic here is you need to measure CO2 levels and temperatures then compare them to what they were in the past and globally.

You certainly can track the weather in a local area, but will lack personally collecting global data or the ability to get samples from coral reefs, fossils or study trees from around the world. Paleolimnology and paleoceanography would also be hard to practice at home. Studying loess and eolian dust just around the home would also yield inconclusive data. You should get the point by now. Climate change is not something you can prove by conducting an experiment in your home.

 

lol................I was thinking the same thing. If global temps were next year the lowest in recorded history, those same ***** would find a way to blame it on human activity.
"Government scientists blame global cooling on the cold shoulder the leftist eggheads have received in Washington DC".

 

If that were true then there'd be at least one dataset that we could look at together. So why can't we find a primary (not "corrected") set that shows a warming trend over the past 10K years and that can be confirmed w/ other sources? Every time I pull one out it shows a cooling.

Either we can pull up an un-fudged set or we say that we have not seen any supporting evidence. No matter what "everyone knows".

 

Ah. What Golem and I were talking about was simply establishing that a warming trend exists for average biosphere temperatures over periods of time like 10K or 100K years before present. So far there's been no dataset shown on this thread that shows that current temps are either higher than ever before, or changing faster then ever before.

Please understand that I am not saying that this severely changing extreme warming is not happening, what I am saying is that this what is being said, and that I want to see original readings before they've been 'adjusted'.

 

And they don't. Climate science isn't science at all. The conscripts even have a Bible. It's more like the Koran because the religion of Climate alarmism is as intolerant of "infidels" as climate alarmists' are of "deniers". In fact, if you happen to believe the sun has something to do with warming, you are considered an infidel and subject to viscious attacks.

https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/climate-bible/
BACKGROUND
Approximately every six years, a United Nations body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) writes a massive assessment report. Informally known as the climate bible, this document is supposed to summarize the current state of our knowledge about climate change. Treated as gospel by governments around the world, it is the reason billions are being spent on carbon dioxide emissions reduction.

The bulk of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (aka AR5), is being released piecemeal throughout 2014 (see this IPCC table)

 

That document was signed in 2004.

 

As I recall, the temperature in Paraguay, a huge area, is represented by one measurement station. Climate alarmists are concerned that if the earth's temperature increases by 2 degrees, there would be disastrous consequences. Just checked --- the temperature in asuncion is 72F --- the temperature in encarnacion is 74.8F. Representing Paraguay as a single point in itself invalidates the warmunista test.

It's even possible that the change in temperature being measured is not a change in temperature at all. It could be a progression of prevailing wind directions. In Cleveland, the prevailing wind during the winter is out of the SW. What if that direction shifts each year in the same direction? Is the increase in temperature really an increase in temperature or a change in the upwind direction?

The NRC would not accept a 10CFR50.46 licensing analysis without proof that the results converged --- a change in mesh size didn't change the result. We are driving policy based on a quantity not knowing if it is not converged. Let's not even mention that an inhomogeneous system has no average temperature. That would be too much for the warmunistas to handle.

 

I think it's pretty clear

Not me. That's what climate scientists get paid for. All I need to know is that the Scientific Method was applied correctly. That is the field I understand and actually care about.

But if you want to see the data, these reports contain the corresponding references.

Enjoy!

 

The earth has been warmer than it is today, but the tempature is rising faster than ever before. There are also data sets from various fields that support this. I gave a list in a previous post here of some of those fields.

Previously it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm about 5 degrees. Today the Earth is on pace to warm at least 2 degrees in 100 years. The temperature in 100 years changed by around .001 degrees up until now where the change is happening at a significantly higher rate.

For some reason after the industrial revolution and the increase in the use of fossil fuels the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. The CO2 level began to rise higher as more countries industrialized and began using more fossil fuels. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere in Earth's history also seems to relate to how warm the Earth is. The higher the concentration the warmer the Earth was and is.

Do I really need to post links for what I typed above or do you deny that when the Earth was warmer there was higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you deny that the increase and level of CO2 in the atmosphere is not caused by using fossil fuels that result in the release of CO2?

CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been since man existed. I will use ice core data combined with direct measurements. I think you should find it acceptable because you used ice core data and implied you advocated direct measurements to be conducted in your home to support your argument.

http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/5_2_13_news_andrew_co2800000yrs_1050_591_s_c1_c_c.jpg

 

Only if the Gospels had references to scientific studies, methodology, data, corroborating evidence, etc.. Here are the full reports, in case anybody wants to compare them to a biblical gospel.

 

Please note much of Siberia and Africa are similarly representative. And bare in mind that an anomalous warm reading is almost certain more common than anomalous cold readings and the former are easier to detect.

 

Depends on what the evidence actually is. Much that is represented as evidence has been false or faked.