Yes or No: Do you believe in man made “climate change “?

Global warming is a hoax. Only uneducated democrats believe the global warming hoax.

Nope

Libertarian Centrist wrote:

Nope

Let me expand: as a supporter of Our President, I cannot, in good faith, believe in climate change. I must show solidarity, even in the face of facts. Faith is stronger that the liberal hegemony.

Feelings > facts

Why is solar energy so popular now and what is the alternative? I want to try installing solar panels. I found more interesting information here How is it?

Why is solar energy so popular now and what is the alternative? I want to try installing solar panels. I found more interesting information here https://solarneeded.com/ How is it?

I am Sam wrote:

fisky wrote:

You (apparently) believe that scientists can accurately predict the temperature 80 years from now... based on only 40 years of satellite data and an additional 100 years of questionable surface station data. I don't think this is possible.

They can actually measure paleo temperatures and CO2 with reasonable accuracy, and good relativity.

Re the 'questionable surface station data', from what has been shown about that, the temperatures would have been inflated due to it, so one can assume the temps to have been even lower.

The original old surface station data is no where to be found, it has been lost. It has been shown that the old data is constantly adjusted. There is disagreement on the number of valid stations to calculate the earth temperature. **** Most importantly to lay people, the predictions have been wrong. ****

You are just repeating talking points. There are many real climate scientists, and other scientist, that disagree. Unfortunately, you have made your mind up about who is competent and who is not.

The climate science community is like a communist community. You disagree, your career is over. You never get funded again. See plenty of examples about it.

I am Sam wrote:

The official 2019 Australian climate statement will be released on Thursday, but as indicated three weeks ago, December was going to be hottest ever, and it was. The records across all states for broken by far the hottest average for December since recording started.

2019 was also the hottest ever, 1.5 deg C above long term average and 0.13 deg above 2013 (previous record year), with the top 5 now 2019, 2013, 2005, 2018, 2017

The ten hottest years globally were 2016, 2015, 2017,2018,2014,2010,2005,2013,2009,1998 and 2019 is slated to slot into top three

Meanwhile down under has started where it left off. Saturday 4th January presented the hottest ever temperatures recorded in Canberra (43,6 deg) and in Sydney metropolitan - Penrith recording 48.9 deg (previous hottest last January at 47.3 deg)

Explain to me why your think "temperature" or "temperature trends" will not come down in the future.

Hot years tend to cluster around each other. If 2018 is the hottest year ever, 2017 and 2019 are bound to be around the hottest. So that does not prove anything. The other question is how much hotter it actually is, what the actual difference really means. Does it matter? Is it significant to cry like the world is ending?

Please don't tell me the world will be under water. That has been one of the worst predictions ever.

How dare you use reason and critical thinking.

You are a racist

_its_baddude wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

The official 2019 Australian climate statement will be released on Thursday, but as indicated three weeks ago, December was going to be hottest ever, and it was. The records across all states for broken by far the hottest average for December since recording started. . . .

. . . Hot years tend to cluster around each other. If 2018 is the hottest year ever, 2017 and 2019 are bound to be around the hottest. So that does not prove anything . . .

_its_baddude wrote:

The original old surface station data is no where to be found, it has been lost.

Bullshit

Citizen Runner wrote:

_its_baddude wrote:

. . . Hot years tend to cluster around each other. If 2018 is the hottest year ever, 2017 and 2019 are bound to be around the hottest. So that does not prove anything . . .

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/oztx-1.jpg

_its_baddude wrote:

The original old surface station data is no where to be found, it has been lost.

Bullshit

Where is the original data?

For example:

GHCN V4 unadj - Monthly means created by NOAA/NCEI "quality controlled"

There are many people that claim the input to the modelers has been cooked.

GlobalWarmingDenier wrote:

Global warming is a hoax. Only uneducated democrats believe the global warming hoax.

You don't believe that humans have the ability to alter the climate? I understand that you are a useless tit, but not everyone is. Humans have been pretty damn kickass when it comes to taking over this world and putting out some serious carbon dioxide etc. in the process. Look at our population now. Look at all the cars, planes, buildings, etc. Total domination! The real problem is now that we've got here, just not as easy to roll back, but yeah, we sure as heck did change a lot in the process, including the environment and climate. Hell, we've wiped out whole species and are continuing to do so. Do you deny that too?

how useless do you think we are? wrote:

GlobalWarmingDenier wrote:

Global warming is a hoax. Only uneducated democrats believe the global warming hoax.

You don't believe that humans have the ability to alter the climate? I understand that you are a useless tit, but not everyone is. Humans have been pretty damn kickass when it comes to taking over this world and putting out some serious carbon dioxide etc. in the process. Look at our population now. Look at all the cars, planes, buildings, etc. Total domination! The real problem is now that we've got here, just not as easy to roll back, but yeah, we sure as heck did change a lot in the process, including the environment and climate. Hell, we've wiped out whole species and are continuing to do so. Do you deny that too?

Wow, you sound triggered. Trump derangement syndrome?

_its_baddude wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/oztx-1.jpg

Bullshit

Where is the original data?

For example:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v4_globe/

GHCN V4 unadj - Monthly means created by NOAA/NCEI "quality controlled"

There are many people that claim the input to the modelers has been cooked.

_its_baddude wrote:

Hot years tend to cluster around each other. If 2018 is the hottest year ever, 2017 and 2019 are bound to be around the hottest. So that does not prove anything. The other question is how much hotter it actually is, what the actual difference really means. Does it matter? Is it significant to cry like the world is ending?

You mean like ignorant people tend to cluster around each other.

Forget about 'clusters' and the last 20 yrs, how about the trend since our energy turned to coal and oil?

I know your brain can't fathom how , say 0.5 deg average across planet can make a difference to ice melting? I mean, the only thing your small brain probably can relate to is adding ice to your moonshine.

However, the climate zones have already drifted north and south from equator.

Mediterranean areas have become more desert like eg, Cape Town, Perth, North West Africa, South West Europe, California, Chile. Temperate has become more sub tropical eg eastern Australia (it only takes a drift of

Post was cut off.. seems certain characters still cant be used.

Ice is already melting, sea levels are already rising, if you can afford it why not holiday in Tuvalu and have a look.

Cyclones in your own country are increasing and changing pattern.

You deniers are making as if the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed and acknowledge research and cash strapped scientists are somehow 'controlling' the debate over the few rebels funded by big corporations and govts vested in fossilised fuels. Are you guys really that dumb? Wait, don't answer, you do elect people that sprout such rubbish

Think of how your pot grows in a greenhouse and how that greenhouse works, just don't smoke the pot first before thinking. You need both your brain cells here to keep up.

**CO2, that for millenia (back 800,000 yrs ago) has hovered under 280ppm, passed that level for first time in 1950. Guess what? It increased every year and is now at 407ppm. But you knew that already didn't you?

If it reaches (as projected) 500ppm by 2050 it will take many decades of counteraction to reverse to pre-industrialised levels, and if it reaches , (as projected if fossilised fuels are used to exhaustion), 1,500ppm it will take tens of thousands of years to reverse.

But this of course is of no concern to you and your buddies, so long as the greenhouse produces pot and your ice chills the moonshine for now, you will be long gone by then.

** and if you do not understand how they can measure CO2 accurately from samples dating millenia, and to lesser accuracy (but with reliable trend) also temperature, then please stick to the pot and moonshine.

Just drop it. Your arguments have been debunked time and time again. I think you need to take a chill pill and get over the fact that the democrats LOST in 2016.

You need to have a little more faith in our president. He is an incredibly intelligent man (and a Christian) who is leading America on the path to righteousness, no matter what your "facts" say.

#FeelingsOverFacts

Libertarian Centrist wrote:

Just drop it. Your arguments have been debunked time and time again. I think you need to take a chill pill and get over the fact that the democrats LOST in 2016.

You need to have a little more faith in our president. He is an incredibly intelligent man (and a Christian) who is leading America on the path to righteousness, no matter what your "facts" say.

#FeelingsOverFacts

LOL...you are obviously getting enjoyment out of trolling while wanking yourself after being on the pot and moonshine.

From my other posts with same registered name it has been pretty obvious to the dumbest that I am not American, and don't care how stupid your politicians all are.

I am Sam wrote:Putting it simply, there is a causal relationship to the extreme increase in warming trend by industrialisation and CO2 emissions. ...

I've been waiting for someone to restate this claim.

First, a bit of background on myself and past engagement in LRC AGW threads, which I have not joined in recent months. I have a doctorate in an area of natural sciences but not in climate studies. I have followed the AGW discussion for many years, and I sit on the fence dividing vehement deniers from fervent believers (I use the adjectives purposefully); global temperatures are increasing, and to me the question is to what degree has human influence contributed to change from other factors. My degree-of-belief (stated in Bayesian or subjective probabilistic terms) is that there's a roughly 70-80% probability that human activity has had some (unknown but significant) effect on climate. I don't consider myself a "denier" but will happily accept that label from true believers if that's what suits their point of view. To me, the most interesting question isn't a scientific defense of causation (which I currently consider impossible), rather I am far more interested in the psychology and emotion around the discussion. I think we should "do something" about climate change, not so much because I think it will have a beneficial effect (I think we are more likely to create unexpected consequences than "control" climate), but more to the point because it is a focus around which to spur innovation and scientific advancement, which is more likely than not to benefit society in some real, meaningful but likely unexpected ways.

OK, so back to the question of causation, which lies at the root of my unwillingness to get all the way on board with the fervent believers...

I'm reading an excellent book right now called The Book of Why, by Judea Pearl, which explores the topic of causation, and its identification using statistical methods. I would be very, very interested to read a good, concise, well-argued position on causation for climate change that demonstrates the relative importance of various contributing causes, including human contributions (meaning, mainly, greenhouse gas emissions). When I raise this question, I am inevitably pointed to the scientific basis sections in the IPCC reports, which do not, in my view, make convincing arguments about causation, in my view. There is a lot of discussion around correlated phenomena and hypothesized (= certain to fervent believers, nonsense to vehement deniers) models, but very little solid analysis of causation, which requires considerably more careful statistical analysis, and which is largely frustrated by the complexity of the system under study.

All that to say, I do "deny" that your claim that "... there is a causal relationship to the extreme increase in warming trend by industrialisation and CO2 emissions..." is true with demonstrated high confidence.

Can you share a good summary review of causation on the topic? I may be simply unaware.

the shill wrote:

Can you share a good summary review of causation on the topic? I may be simply unaware.

This guy in the pub asked me; "What if I put a raw sausage and a dehydrated turd in the microwave. Which one will cook first?" (Yes. You know, moonshine and pot and all that)

And I replied; "I could take a while to explain and convince you. Why don't we just put it in the microwave and see, will only take a couple of minutes. But it will be messy" *

So, in this case, we could simply do some research, lots of reading, or believe the science now, like it has always helped us improve civilisation, or we could just wait a long while to see what will happen in 100 years.**

* It was messy and smelly, but really quick. They also kicked us out, but there were other pubs.

**It took a long while, it was messy, smelly and there was no other planet to go to