patrick.net

Where is this proof of which you speak ? You mean becasue models were improved by collecting 30 years of data ? That's shocking.

Besides projections have bands representing the amount by which they know they may be off. Interesting that you say that in 1988 they said 3 to 8 degrees, and now they say two.

Are you sure they are being that precise with their prediction for 32 years out ? I'm pretty sure they still have ranges. So both could still be correct.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Fiction, from 2004, but with an extensive bibliography to support. This book broke many of my assumptions about the validity of climate science, and exposed bad science as well. The Addendum chapter on the Politicization of Science (eugenics) is a must read. You didn't get this in school.

My problem is not with saving the planet. Everyone wants to "save the planet", as do I. But to say that humans are primary cause of global warming is BS. When you can't separate hyperbole from fact, it's religion. Religion is the cause of a lot of human suffering.

Agenda of the World Climate Order:
The only solution to global warming is to "remove the human infestation!" Of course, a select few of us will remain behind as stewards of the planet, because we really care. The rest of you fuckers can die.

rocketjoe79 says

This book broke many of my assumptions about the validity of climate science, and exposed bad science as well.

That a work of fiction is what informs your views on climate science speaks volumes.

Here's Michael Crichton's closing remarks to the Senate on the subject in 2005:

"In closing, I want to state emphatically that nothing in my remarks should be taken to imply that we can ignore our environment, or that we should not take climate change seriously. On the contrary, we must dramatically improve our record on environmental management. That's why a focused effort on climate science, aimed at securing sound, independently verified answers to policy questions, is so important now."

Crichton's critique focused on one climate study by Michael Mann, in the 1990's. Now we have thousands of independently verified studies performed by countless scientists (not novelists) the world over and you are still willingly blind. Nice.

marcus says

Where is this proof of which you speak ?

You are right. I can't prove the negative.

But after years of co2 going up and temp now falling you would think the alarmists would give it a rest.

Can anyone link to the scientific formula that correlates co2 increase with warming?

The science is settled, after all.

Evan F. says

Crichton critique focused on one climate study by Michael Mann, in the 1990's.

So when do you think Mann will release his hockey stick data and methods?

Evan F. says

Now we have thousands of independently verified studies performed by countless scientists (not novelists) the world over

No we don't.

Link to the most convincing of these thousands of studies to prove me wrong. Just one.

Onvacation says

But after years of co2 going up and temp now falling you would think the alarmists would give it a rest.

Hahahaha

I earned my BS before politics invaded science. Many are swayed by the politicians who wouldn't understand the scientific method if you hit them in the head with it.

If your theory does not match reality your theory is wrong.

Many people have trouble with reality.

rocketjoe79 says

But to say that humans are primary cause of global warming is BS

Seems likely, that humans cause it, even if there wasn't a lot of science confirming the greenhouse effect. You think us emitting so much carbon in to the atmosphere at this time of warming is just a coincidence ? Do you actually question the greenhouse effect ? That is that without greenhouse gasses and water vapor, the earth would be much colder than it is?

If one accepts this fact, as all scientists do, then it's not all that much of a leap to accept that increasing the co2 content of the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

rocketjoe79 says

Agenda of the World Climate Order

I'm not big on conspiracy theories,. But I can see that there is at least a rational reason for thinking that a steady population of some level - maybe even lower than what it is today, could be better for humanity and for the planet and biosphere than letting human population growth run its course. Possibly even much better with respect to how many humans get to exist in the long run.

Appreciating this reality though is not the same as advocating Eugenics or genocide.

Onvacation says

I earned my BS before politics invaded science.

Is your BS in climate science?

Isn't it ironic ?

That is, the idea that politics at some point invaded science to such a great degree that you now get to reject any science you choose to, solely for political reasons ?

marcus says

Isn't it ironic ?

Dontcha think?

marcus says

That is that without greenhouse gasses and water vapor, the earth would be much colder than it is?

I hate to break it to you, but water vapor IS a greenhouse gas, as a matter of fact, it makes up 95% of greenhouse gases.



marcus says

If one accepts this fact, as all scientists do, then it's not all that much of a leap to accept that increasing the co2 content of the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

Sorry, wrong again. The sun creates the heat that increases the greenhouse effect and evaporation of water into water vapor. Why is it warmer on cloudy nights versus clear nights?



marcus says

I'm not big on conspiracy theories,.

But you get your info from this site below? Really?

marcus says

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

You know, the single guy working out of his spare bedroom writing a blog? Very scientific, isn't it?

marcus says

Isn't it ironic ?

You can say that again!!!

Onvacation says

I am not a shill for the oil company I just believe in science.

Two simple questions: Do you accept that overall the climate on Earth is warming?
Do you accept that the level of CO2 in the atomosphere is rising?

marcus says

even if there wasn't a lot of science confirming the greenhouse effect. You think us emitting so much carbon in to the atmosphere at this time of warming is just a coincidence ? Do you actually question the greenhouse effect ? That is that without greenhouse gasses and water vapor, the earth would be much colder than it is?

If one accepts this fact, as all scientists do, then it's not all that much of a leap to accept that increasing the co2 content of the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

Please
Onvacation says

Can anyone link to the scientific formula that correlates co2 increase with warming?

There should be a quantifiable correlation between the amount of co2 in the atmosphere and the level of global warming.

After all the science is settled.

Let's do nothing about nothing & see what happens.

That is all arguing with deniers is, doing nothing. Doing something would be:

Close the borders to 3rd worlders entering 1st world countries and allow the natural lower birthrate of the prosperous nations to let population settle to a level sustainable by wind, solar and other renewables. Solar and wind are on the increase anyway.

Restrict imports from countries that manufacture products without following similar environmental laws as the US.

Trump seems to be the only one addressing these issues.

Evan F. says

Is your BS in climate science?

No. But I do understand the scientific method.

Onvacation says

Can anyone link to the scientific formula that correlates co2 increase with warming?

Still waiting.

marcus says

That is, the idea that politics at some point invaded science to such a great degree that you now get to reject any science you choose to, solely for political reasons ?

No. It's dangerous to reject science and ostracize anyone that does not accept your flawed theory.

rdm says

Do you accept that overall the climate on Earth is warming?

It's actually cooling. Look it up. The temperature peaked in 2016 and has been falling.
2017 was the third warmest and 2018 looks to be continuing the downward trend.

The temp went up 4/100 of 1 degree 2015 to 2016 and down 1/10 from 2016 to 2017. If you believe worldwide yearlong average temperature can be measured with accuracy.

If you believe.

rdm says

Do you accept that the level of CO2 in the atomosphere is rising?

Absolutely and plants love it.

Onvacation says

rdm says

Do you accept that the level of CO2 in the atomosphere is rising?

Absolutely and plants love it.

Yes, I am surprised there seems to be no research into this type of feedback loop. Would not more CO2 accelerate plant growth? After all, plants construct themselves using carbon from the CO2 in the air, powered by sunlight. And would not slightly higher temps encourage plant growth, especially in northern climates?