Does anyone actually believe climate change is fake???

I think those with enough brain cells believe that the climate changes. The debate is how much have humans contributed and how much can we really change.

Ultimately I do not think we can really change much. I think we could have done something but 3 Mile Island torpedoed that. If you look up the history we were full steam ahead on nuclear energy....until that incident.

Electricity has to come from somewhere. Just like with EVs the change will have to come from the industry itself for it to be fully adopted and just like with EVs the cost is a barrier that has to be overcome.

Give it another 50 years and I think you will see solar panel roofs as the norm.

Alan

Nicely summarized. But you can be sure the Liberals won't be reading this. They will cover up their eyes and faithfully adhere to the absurd narrative lest they be ostracized by their fellow Libs.

Seriously?

I'm in New England, and once again, it's February, and has yet to snow. With a forecast of mid 50's for 4 out of the next 10 days.

We have gone to Cape Cod the same August week for 30 years. 30 years ago the ocean water was cold. Sometimes too cold to stay in for long. Now? It's like 60 degree bathwater.

Michael Mann's climategate "hockey stick" shows how desperate the "Climate, Incorporated" machine is to create their obviously faked narrative. Trillions of $$ are at stake for this global grift that Greta and Al Gore have helped turn into a fundamentalist religion. Good going, anti-science pagans, you can destroy the western economies if the Socialist Climate Genie grants all your self-hating wishes. Meanwhile China and India can go on their merry way using reliable hydrocarbons to lift themselves out of poverty, but doing it on the dirty and killing millions with the unregulated pollution.

Climate change is real. Is it as dire as AOC makes it out to be? No. The world is not going to end in 2031. Thus far, in spite of gains made in the US and Europe, CO2 levels continue to rise primarily due to growth in China and India. The great flaw in things like the Paris Agreement is they involve socialist wealth transfers from wealthy nations to poorer nations. When you enact such economic policies, it creates economic stimulus in those countries which creates population growth, increased comic activity and increased emissions regardless of the form of the stimulus. We need look no further than the USA last year to see the impact of stimulus on emissions. They spiked last year in spite of Biden’s environmentalist policies because of excess economic stimulus. The ideals of equity and environmental nirvana are mutually exclusive.

Global warming became climate change when people begin to figure out their lies. One 'expert' now says anything you don't like about weather is man made. 35 years ago WWF took out a whole page ads in magazines stating we will run out of oil by 2000.

Milankovich cycles, although disputed by a small minority of scientists, are a major contributor to long term climate change. The effect of human industrialization affects micro climates indubitably more than the whole of the planet.

I think people would be more receptive to the idea if not for years and years of teaching people that 'untouched/pristine' places were actually that. For example the Amazon rain forest. It is becoming established fact that it is a giant garden and was cultivated by humans for hundreds if not thousands of years. So humans cannot have an impact on climate yet primitive humans helped to create one of the largest ecosystems on the planet?

More of this kind of information needs to be common knowledge. Humans have been having an impact on ecosystems and in turn climate since the very beginning. We need to show those facts and talk about them, not just about how we are suddenly now having an impact and changing the climate.

CO2 does absorb heat, and human industry does produce CO2. These facts are easily proven. But for those of who you are more skeptical that humans can have significant effects on climate, note that there are many ways that human industry affects the biosphere apart from radiative forcing from GHG - e.g. humans have doubled the amount of nitrogen available in the biosphere since the development of the Haber process. Many biogeochemical cycles are very easy to disrupt - especially ones that have strong limiting factors like nitrogen.

I'm yawning because your argument is so obviously flawed and has been so often thoroughly debunked that there's no way you actually believe it. What's point or fun in arguing that?

For example.....you are trying to use the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change as some sort of damning 'gotcha!' evidence. You claim the earth stopped warming in 1998. But what has the global temperature done since 1998? Can you answer that? Deniers always avoid answering that question.

You also pretend that slow changes natural fluctuations in temperature that take millennia is somehow equivalent to the the same change happening in a few decades. Why take anyone who pretends to believe that seriously?

See how easily your stance is completely destroyed? (...and has been destroyed over and over and over before...)

yawn

You don't believe in your stance.....no one is that stupid.

Why should I?

This is not an intellectual statement, but an appeal to ridicule. It's debate evasion.

In fact, global average temperature was not measured before the late 19th century. Data does not exist on the short term global fluctuations before then. Only the long-term changes can be inferred by geology. So there's no basis for large fluctuations "in a few decades" to be considered abnormal.

It's worth repeating that we're talking about just 40 years here. From 1880 to 1980, average temperature dropped, then rose back to about where it was and stayed there. Only since 1980 has there been a rapid increase. That increase is approximately flat and not accelerating.

Much is made of the "highest ever" atmospheric CO2 concentration, in comparison with time frames up to 1 million years ago. Again, this is apples to oranges, as that geologic data doesn't cover every relatively tiny 40 year interval that far back. Much is made of a 50 year delayed effect from CO2 rise to warming. But the CO2 graph from 1930 to 1970 is concave up, while the warming graph from 1980 to 2022 is not. This suggests the warming effect decreases at higher CO2 levels.

Much is made of the claim that CO2 levels can't drop back down as fast as they've risen. This again is a prediction and not an empirical observation.

The principal effect of increased CO2 has been to increase plant productivity, specifically, greening of areas that were previously threatened with desertification. This has amounted to an increase of 35% in reforestation over the last three decades per NASA. CO2 is a vital plant nutrient, essential for all life on Earth. Woke-religious fanatics want you to believe that this life-giving molecule is a toxin, produced only by the Evil White Man. This complete inversion of reality is the standard playbook for ant-scientific neo-Marxism.

"War is Peace, Knowledge is Ignorance, 2+2=5".

Nobody thinks CO2 is a toxin. CO2 does increase primary production in many cases, but there are many other limiting factors on plant growth besides CO2 (e.g. acidic soils, iron-poor water, anoxic water) and additional plant growth is not always desirable (e.g. eutrophication of bodies of water around farmland, overgroth of invasive species). Regardless, release of CO2, NO2, CH4, etc into the atmosphere have effects that reach far beyond plant growth.

That isn't to say that the world is ending, because it isn't. Earth will be fine. We should just be aware of the changes that are coming and plan accordingly - for instance, we should be prepared for refugees from low-lying cities.

While we don't have direct measurements of temperature from before the 19th century, we can make good quantatative guesses based on tracking isotope distribution in ice cores. You are correct that there is no reason that CO2 levels can't drop as fast as they've risen, but the only way they would drop that quickly is if we started a large-scale CO2 fixing project on the same scale as our fossil fuel-burning - a very expensive and thermodynamically unfavorable task.

There is even no need to read or listen to someone to believe in climate change. It is enough to look out of the window and ask yourself whether anything changed or not over the last several years. There is even no need to read or listen to someone to belive in climate change. It is enough to look out of the window and ask yourself whether anything changed or not over the last several years.

always funny to hear people bring studies, models and so on in and claim because "science" says so. scientists today also claim you can change your sex and be deer sex. scientists, professors openly say a person claiming to feel like an elephant actually is one.

I should believe same group of overeducated people (scientists), that are mostly 100 % depending on government handouts about climate change as I should about sex change.

Always funny to hear someone suggest that "science" and "scientists" are somehow a monolithic, homogenized mass.

I spoke of multiple standards of assessment that have value specifically in CLIMATE science. Evidently you couldn't dispute or refute that, so you introduced topics that are irrelevant to this thread's discussion.

Meaning that you concede the points I actually made. I'm glad we see eye to eye on that.

More generally, I am not as educated as some, yet I don't fear or resent people who know more than I do, who are further educated than I, or who have made their life's work in a field with which I have only a passing acquaintance. I'm actually glad that there are such people in the world, and I think my species is the better (overall) for it.