And southern California is presently receiving record rains attributed by the NWS to the lowing in latitude of the jet stream, itself caused by rising surface water temps in the pacific. What point are you trying to make? I try to avoid an anecdotes, but 1000s of anecdotes become qualitative better than an instance of anecdotal evidence. Whether it is ice cores, storms, anomalies, surface temps, its all consistent with the hard science of greenhouse gases and heat.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Timeline of Earth's Recent Average Temperatures
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
And southern California is presently receiving record rains attributed by the NWS to the lowing in latitude of the jet stream, itself caused by rising surface water temps in the pacific. What point are you trying to make? I try to avoid an anecdotes, but 1000s of anecdotes become qualitative better than an instance of anecdotal evidence. Whether it is ice cores, storms, anomalies, surface temps, its all consistent with the hard science of greenhouse gases and heat.
Obama promised to invest 5 billion US taxpayer dollars to 3rd world countries by way of green technologies. Can anyone guess who, or should I say which politicos, both domestic and foreign, have huge investments in green technologies?
Fair enough to question motivations. You want to shine that light on the oil industry and its phony self funded science and propaganda outlets?
The_Trump_Effect
Verified User
There is no evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the Earth as you say, because from 20,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago 90 percent of the last glaciation melted, this melting continues today and all is normal. Thus climate change is happening, because it has always been happening. No consensus of fools who proclaimed WRONGLY that Hillary could not lose can change the truth.
But feel free to stomp, I get rid of my used tires by burning
But feel free to stomp, I get rid of my used tires by burning
Midas Whale67
Banned
And southern California is presently receiving record rains attributed by the NWS to the lowing in latitude of the jet stream, itself caused by rising surface water temps in the pacific. What point are you trying to make? I try to avoid an anecdotes, but 1000s of anecdotes become qualitative better than an instance of anecdotal evidence. Whether it is ice cores, storms, anomalies, surface temps, its all consistent with the hard science of greenhouse gases and heat.
Zzzzzzzz!
There are PLENTY of discussion forums where you can provide your tomes of knowledge to those who will challenge you all day.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I don't need a torque wrench to tell me that you are a nut who's been overtightened. Here is Feynman on the scientific method, note that computer models are neither proof or indeed even of use unless they can predict future. This they have singularly failed to do over several decades.Your comparison between religious faith and faith in experts is inapt, both empirically and statistically. I'm tired of morons who equate them. If I'm a mechanic and I blindly follow a consensus of 52 mechanics in popular mechanics who believe the torque on a bolt should be x rather than 48 think it should be x-1 on my customer's Aston Martin db9 rather than employing my independent knowledge and experience, then I am lazy and dishonest. If I am the customer, I am neither being lazy nor dishonest to trust the weight of expertise (or that of my mechanic). In our particular case the consensus is overwhelming. In our case the science is far more complex than torque on a single object. Nobody can be an expert on everything, logically challenged faith your public intellectual hero's opinion notwithstanding. Assuming that lack of ability, faith in experts consensus is the logical course of action. Since you disagree, I know you are dishonest or stupid, as you put your faith in the heterodox position in all things that you do not know. That's dumb. Or do you assert you are capable of knowing all things and that others are too?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
And southern California is presently receiving record rains attributed by the NWS to the lowing in latitude of the jet stream, itself caused by rising surface water temps in the pacific. What point are you trying to make? I try to avoid an anecdotes, but 1000s of anecdotes become qualitative better than an instance of anecdotal evidence. Whether it is ice cores, storms, anomalies, surface temps, its all consistent with the hard science of greenhouse gases and heat.
Yet the RSS and UAH datasets tell a different story. What I find laughable is NOAA using surface temperature measurements to prove its case and ignoring NASA's own satellites. Satellites give a 24/7/365 picture of the Earth including both poles.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/judi...e-in-global-warming/amp/?client=chrome-mobile
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Richard Feynman anticipated the rise of global warming. He would have had a field day with the bullshit that is spouted by climate alarmists.
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yet everyone there is an event like the Californian drought there will be a whole Greek chorus of wailing and gnashing of teeth intoning that this is incontrovertible evidence of warming. Anyway I am off out for a drink, I will leave you in the capable hands of Dick Lindzen to make the case far more eloquently than me.And southern California is presently receiving record rains attributed by the NWS to the lowing in latitude of the jet stream, itself caused by rising surface water temps in the pacific. What point are you trying to make? I try to avoid an anecdotes, but 1000s of anecdotes become qualitative better than an instance of anecdotal evidence. Whether it is ice cores, storms, anomalies, surface temps, its all consistent with the hard science of greenhouse gases and heat.
Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.