Still waiting for our lands to flood and for the north to never see snow again. Does climate change, absolutely. Is there some kind of human element that can further change it, probably to some degree but no where near what some say. The alarmist like this are ridiculous. Probably the same people who years ago said the Great Barrier Reef would be total gone but yet now it’s flourishing. Is the Great Barrier Reef making a comeback? The science is settled crowd needs to learn science is never settled. We obviously still know very little of what Earth and nature is capable of.
Think about Iceland. It's basically inhabitable because of the ocean stream's moderation of temperatures.
I’ll bite- Dire prediction after dire prediction of “the end is near” without coming true - it’s the repent or die religion of the secular. The emotional sales job on the young showing movies in school about the polar bears losing their habitat ( I remember having those talks with my children) Scientists who have proven to have falsified data to continue their funding ($$$). Oops - pay no attention to the men behind the curtain. The mad insistence that those who express doubt are clueless (recent social media banishment on Covid proved that the guardians of info cannot be trusted). As a consequence- serious scientists who do not follow the climate change mantra are shut down. Sad for science and healthy discussion. The hypocrisy of folks flying in their personal jets to confer and lecture the rest of us on how wrong we are to live as we do. And, the arrogance of same to lecture the 3rd world that “we’ve got ours and you need to tone down the growth “ while not holding China nor India accountable (talk about bullying!!). And, finally the ever changing script: Global warming to Climate change. Sounds a lot like a big marketing campaign to me. It’s hot? Climate change. It’s dry? Climate change. You’re breathing air? Climate change. Got it, don’t trust it.
I’m not sure what your number 4 is, but one key factor over very long periods is the changing revolution path of the earth around the sun - sometimes it elongates and becomes more elliptical and that can affect climate. Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. This process takes around 100,000 years so it isn’t likely a cause of climate change or the last 150 years.
You can make what you want about the accuracy of individual predictions, or the zealotry/hypocrisy of any particular climate advocate, etc, but that has nothing to do with the actual science. In actuality the models and high level predictions made decades ago have been remarkably accurate, including climate scientists that worked for Exxon starting in the 70s. As to the term “climate change”, that phrase was actually popularized by republicans and specifically Republican pollster Frank Luntz in the 90’s because they thought climate change sounded less ominous than global warming.
I’d like to add, the richest and strongest government in the world can’t solve homelessness but we are being sold that it can solve global climate change. What is that saying about I got a bridge to sell you?
I guess we should just give up. No use trying to mitigate pollution, clean our water and air. It’s just useless to try since we can’t even solve homelessness
FORECAST FOR (Published 1974) https://www.sciencenews.org/archive/climate-change-chilling-possibilities Coming 10,000 year ice age. Oops, Great Barrier Reef will Be gone . Oops every other prediction .oops answer … shut up and pay me and kneel Before Zod. I don’t blame them for trying. It’s lucrative and the power that comes with it is intoxicating.
To your first point, I didn’t say it did - just stating that when people are given a platform and say “in five years Baskin Robins will have no more ice to make ice cream” and 20+ years later that’s not true why should I believe the same person - or similar folks - making similar claims? Crying wolf - and worse, it’s likely drowning out worthwhile points in their sea of hysteria. Don’t really care where it started (just as Republicans initially were funding dossier against Trump) just know how it’s used now: every drop of rain, every atmospheric event is tied to “Climate Change” and we should all shudder, hide in our EVs and pray to the Al Gore god that he will swoop down in his jet and save us.
Meh, the biggest assumption here is proxy data from five surface temp surveys. That being an adequate representation of actual water temps in the stream is a big stretch. Could be, but nowhere near high confidence in that. There is not enough data to support such an assumption. The actual paper is much less sensational than the title and abstract. The authors actually have a timeline out to almost 2200 for “likely” collapse. They also misinterpret the trends from 2004 on, in addition to that being a short period to identify reliable trends at all. The authors themselves also have a pretty hearty section about the uncertainty at the end. Tha AMOC shutting down will be a calamity, no doubt. And red lights have been flashing for a long time. But this particular paper barely advances the collapse argument, if at all. The only advancement would be if there is actually a collapse in the near term, which would add weight to the possibility that their stretch assumptions are correct (like the surface water proxies). But just on what is known currently I am skeptical. The concern is certainly not reduced, I just don’t see it as elevated by this particular paper.
There were lots of models which predicted the stock market crash in the Great Recession years in advance. The problem is they were far outnumbered by models which showed a continuation of the real estate boom. You can find models that say anything you want them to.
Yeah, no, that’s bullshit. How reliable are climate models? The most remarkable is the accuracy of the Exxon models. Also interesting the comparison to skeptic models like Lindzen. Major climate models; Skeptic models plus Exxon
You keep mentioning Exxon, as if they mean anything in this discussion. Does name dropping Exxon somehow get you street cred in this? I'm sure Exxon came up with a lot of possible outcomes on their models in the 1970s. Just like meteorologists every day comb through myriads of models to produce a weather forecast. However, it should be known that as soon as you get to 4 or 5 days out from current, most meteorological discussions from the NWS will tell you their confidence begins to fade. Once we're at 7+ days out, they're just making a "best guess." It's impossible for them to predict weather a month from now with any sort of detail and accuracy. The same holds true with climatology. As it relates to global temperatures rising or falling, they have a 50/50 shot of being right. I can also find tons of models for you within the past 20 years that have predicted cooling. Those get buried in the noise.
In a conversation about climate you start talking about weather. Discussing matters of science with you is a waste of time.
Echo post #15, and I'll only add that the thing that alienates more than anything, is the arrogant hypocritical pomposity and corrupt endgame, with which the MM climate change flag wavers carry forth their campaign to 'save the planet', to wit: "--->>>Y'ALL<<<--- need to reduce --->>>Y'ALL'S<<<--- Carbon footprint, while we jet set about, to *SAVE THE PLANET*". Yeah..... Go *FUND* yourselves..
Thanks for the response. In looking at at what you have expressed, it sounds like you and 92Gator have a problem with the messenger and method of delivering the message rather than the message itself? Would you agree with that? Maybe a poor analogy, but similar to the "I'm not a Christian, because Christians are hypocrites".
