The Church of Climate Change

https://share.newsbreak.com/3g8b5uua

 

It never ceases to amaze me how some people choose ideology over reason, anti-science over science and willful ignorance over knowledge.

 

What is anti-science in your mind?

In my mind' "anti-science" is when somebody claims the science is settled. Science is never settled, it is constantly progressing. Even Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is being looked at again.

There is a dogma within the Warmist church that climate is supposed to be static and unchanging. This is completely contrary to current science which indicates ice ages and periods of warming throughout history. Furthermore there is the arrogant dogma that not only is climate climate change due to human influence but that the climate can altered by human influence.

"I can control the weather!", said no sane person ever.

 

I didn't click on the link, so I don't know exactly what your topic is supposed to be. Also because you included no comment with your topic post I don't know what your position on the subject is. But it could be an interesting discussion. Maybe.

 

There is a reason, it's called control. And fear propagated by the warmists breads the fear they need to control folks. Simple equation to understand.

 

You do not understand the benefits of global warming and increased CO2?

The growing seasons would get longer and the regions in which certain plants can grow would move to the north and the south. Food would be a lot easier to get.

 

here you go... a solution

 

Then why do the Warmists claim We need to slow any changes?

The measures the Warmists propose, such as switching everything to electricity, are not anti-warming they are anti-human.

Don't you think you Warmist should come up with the needed electricity first before you starve everyone of energy? You can't run a Tesla EV off of sunshine, breezes, and unicorn farts.

 

Sorry for that my friend. It's a link from the news regurgitator on my phone. Here's the original piece without the intermediary:

https://nypost.com/2023/03/27/clima...ys-wrong-but-cling-to-their-anti-human-faith/

And I can say we are in complete agreement. I'm an automotive engineer who was stuck in the middle of the original chaos and fraud surrounding Massachusetts v. EPA back in 2007. I understand the thermodynamics that obliterates the idea of climate change as well as the modeling and the subsequent development of "forcing factors" that underlying non-empirical "science" that constitutes the government funded Climate Change industry.

I'll be happy to talk all you want about it, but my standard reply will usually be, "Yep, you nailed it."

 

So, this should be simple. Supply a reasonably supportable test that demonstrates at a global level that CO2 concentration has an actual effect on the climate. Perhaps you can cite an actual reputable study not a simulation study, but real world experimentation? perhaps? If you cannot recognize that all the "end of the world" rhetoric that attaches to the warmest church, what traction do you suppose there would be? If fear doesn't sell your point, what would? And once folks stop fearing incremental concentration increases with respect to CO2, where does that leave the folks who demand we submit to them? And face it, folks are demanding that we simply submit. Do you not acknowledge that dynamic? And since these are demonstrable evidentiary kinds of things we can cite, how does having said that if progressives didn't use fear their agenda wouldn't be adopted become a conspiracy? I suggest it's entirely transparently happening in real time in front of our faces. When you take a look at this deeply, you will have to ultimately admit that the green initiatives aren't just policy, they are cultural, and the intent is to ultimately take away options for folks for their own good. Do you deny this?

 

Golly... So you said all of that in a mirror, and magic happened, and it appeared here on the page. Will wonders never cease... So, the admission here, by you, is that absent any actual ability to substantiate your BS, you're choose the ad hom away path.. Got it.

 

There is an entire library of evidence on anthropic climate change and I will not waste my time trying to teach denial cultists. You all need to go to the library.

 

Hmm.. so see, this is where your assertion doesn't actually meet with the facts. There are, for sure, libraries of BS that has been produced, let's start with the Mann Hockey Stick. I assume these are the studies you'd reference. But at least be honest, that to date, no where have any org, including CERN yet actually produced a repeatable atmosphere from which to compare with reality. There is, for sure, lots of inferential data points out there, but so far, none of those has actually been able to explain with any rigor how, for example, suddenly at or around 12600 years ago, the world was plunged into global flooding. What magic occurred that so completely melted the laurentian ice sheet, for example, what caused sea levels then to rise some 400 Feet? These are entirely unanswered by anthropogenic (the word I assume you meant to actually use above) but who cares. You believe the catechism. That much is evident. So the real question then is why? You suggest that it is me who believes in the conspiracy when it is you and yours who created it to begin the narrative on global economic controls brought on by climate change. I didn't. As I have repeatedly said and written, the climate has changed, does change, and will change in the future. All of the above. Since Man is a very recent inclusion in the conversation, it's entirely disingenuous to claim that man was able to suddenly change the climate if we also have to rely on your version of history. And isn't that really the ploy here? If you, as you claim, own the narrative everyone else has to use, isn't that you investing then in your own conspiracy theory and the attempting to sublimate all other potentials from being discussed, and you use ad hom as an attack then to substitute for actual discourse. That seems super disingenuous. But you do you..

 

Agreed. Its well-established, for example, that more carbon dioxide = more efficient crop yeilds, so any cropland lost to sea level rise will be offset by existing cropland producing more, as well as currently frozen land thawing and being more arable and drier land being more arable due to crops requiring less water when they have more carbon dioxide. Yet this never seems to be included in the 'more carbon = global warming = bad' equation, which only ever presents the negative aspects, almost as if it were designed to promote fear instead of scientific analysis or honest debate...

 

Where exactly is this "library"? Been looking for a couple decades and can't find anything.

 

Well, this thread has definitely moved toward proving "climate change" definitely is a religion.

 

Nah. This is just science vs. accusation.

Not exactly as objective as SAE vs. Metric. If you really want to get into the fortune telling aspect of climate change, first in the 1970's scientists and the media predicted another ice age in another couple decades. Come the nineties and the ice cube the polar bears used to live on has all but melted away leaving every poor polar bear swimming with the seals...

Of course the True Believers cannot have a discussion about the science. They just want to talk about unbelievers at them, they certainly cannot risk discussion lest they be forced to question their belief system in the religion of scientism.

 

Looks like clickbait to me - can you not post the relevant points?

 

Ok no problems since this has been accepted science since Arrhenius in 1896
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

But if you want a simple experiment- mythbusters did a beauty


Then, if you are really really want to challenge the science then please point out where the science in this report is failing

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/

waits for inevitable attack along political rather than scientific lines

 

Ahhh! Rupert strikes again! NYPost. Old Rupey has never agreed about climate change because it would take money away from his mates like the Koch bros. Unsurprisingly in the article itself - There is a lot of blather about how “it is an article of faith” sprinkled with attacks on a young woman but oddly no mention of the actual scientific reports these predictions are based on (won’t go there with all the strawmen - let’s just say more than Kansas). It is almost as if the author had not read the IPCC reports

 

Because the refuse to actually look at the science. I doubt one denialist on this board has ever read even the summary reports from the IPCC

 

So, as noted in the challenge, the need is to actually demonstrate a climate change, not a temporal one. So myth busters being fun to watch clearly haven't produced for you. The iPPC report is just another in a long string of cultural socialism wrapped up in the banner of apocalyptic window-dressing masquerading as science. The actual data which so many of us have posted on other threads continues to conflict with the analysis of the IPCC and of course, you simply would rather take the word of folks who aren't actual scientists over the actual scientists who produce the work that undercuts the IPCC. So, rather than look for science, you find comfort in the warmth of socially destructive community.

 

What scientists have produced is evidence that there is a spike in global average temperatures and that the most likely explanation for this (no other explanation fits the facts) is man-made. And, frankly, no. There isn't a wealth of scientific work that undercuts the IPCC report . . . just people badly misreading and jumping to unsupported conclusions.

 

Again, sophistry, and ignores other plausible explanations. Why? Because CO2 can be tied directly to energy scarcity. If we tied the same conversation to H2O, that's likely not going to make folks happy. Would you agree?

The IPCC report has been fully abused by actual science. I know you don't care to know these things, it doesn't not make them facts.