It has been proven the scientists were using incorrect data.

No one can. They just parrot the "incorrect data" talking point

they have been fucking with the data. yes the planet is changing. check out solar minimum. ben davidson is a good start. best of luck to you.

https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ bad science=bad scientists, whose shoddy findings are then used to propagate the idea that humans alone are responsible for co2 emissions and global warming.. we are not. someone is paying them for the research and wants THOSE specific findings.

that's fine. i used a scientific paper to back up my findings... either way, the argument is moot.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZdoPVMl7F_kyLCmUVZzs1x6 this may help for clarification..

they are inextricably linked. electric universe and all.

Anthropomorphic climate change is exaggerated and corrupt, see "Climategate" 2009 -2010.

Is there a correlation between atmospheric C02 and world temperature changes? (Look over 10's of thousands of years).

Is the IPCC data reliable?

What the fuck does anybody know?

Are Death and Climate Taxes the only constants in the future?

It's on you child, do some research and follow the money.

You have an internet connection and a Brain, look at what influence the Sun has on the Earth.

The look at Globalist ambitions with the mindset of Means,Motive and Opportunity.

so rather than showing your evidence you just call him a child and tell him to do his own research. You made a claim and rather than back it up when asked you resort to ad hom.

Sad

This is a conspiracy sub and the climate change conspiracy is well documented.

I asked very direct questions that anyone can research and answer.

If you are too lazy to do it then you are sad, ignorant and childish.

You are definitely doing well convincing me I should take any time to look into anything you said

I really don't care what you think so lucky I am not selling anything to you. Go explore and make your own mind up it will be more rewarding.

You cared enough to comment

I have started calling it “unintentional anthropomorphic climate change” because I believe geo-engineering is already happening.

[removed]

What?? You think that gigantic ball of radiation in the middle of our solar system that we really have no clue about has something to do with how hot or cold it is 8 light minutes away? You must be CRAZY!!

Yea, the IPCC is a political group, and the field of climate science is highly politicized. Their models have been consistently wrong. You’d have to be naive to blindly trust their word.

https://youtu.be/LOyBfihjQvI

Trump also believes the body is a battery with finite energy which is why he doesnt exercise, so I place very little faith in his understanding of even the basics of science.

People discuss “the money” and corruption that have caused the global warming conspiracy but those people ignore the money from coal and oil lobbyists control almost everything. I really dont see anything comparable that would give the climate change scientists motive for making it up.

Trump also believes the body is a battery with finite energy which is why he doesnt exercise

Hahaha. Wait, wait,... is this real?

Yep, read this

Choose to believe what you want, but if every scientist in the world is lying that would be one hellva cover up. Asked in another way, why should I care what a politician says about climate change?

I would never trust a single thing that came out of the mouth of a person that has literally set a record for most inacurrate responses and lies. Fuck that.

Most scientists, at one time thought germs didn't exist. Most scientists, at one point thought there was one galaxy.

What most or all scientists believe is irrelevant, the science is what matters.

I'm not making a comment on climate change, but your appeal to a perceived authority.

Here's 30k scientists that disagree.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

They don't appear to be climate change scientists?

Climate change scientist = someone who has to prove there is climate change in order to have a job

Ok, so why should I care what mathematics PhD has to say about climate change? You sound like someone that is into religion, is that about right?

Trump is right on climate change and the longer it takes you to understand that the more pathetic and painful your useless life will be.

Yup, nailed it on the religious side.

Bingo

Which one of Trumps varied and contradictory positions on Climate Change is right?

Why do you think Trump, how doesnt understand how exercise works, is capable of making an educated decision on something as complex as global climate?

Because he hates gays, wants to stick it to immigrants, and claims to follow Jesus. It's enough for them. Also that magic R

Yup there's no helping me I'm a deplorable who believes my President and if you think there's no politics in the trillion dollar industry of climate science than there is no helping you. Like I said to the last guy, your life is going to get more and more painful the longer you think you're smarter than the President when every piece of quantifiable evidence proves you wrong.

• The world has cooled since DJT has become President
• United States is the only country that reduced CO2 in the Paris Accord group
• United States lead the world in reducing carbon emissions
• Trump is pressuring the manufacturers of China, BY FAR the biggest polluting group on the planet

Trump will go down as the greenest President in history. The longer it takes you to realize this the more painful it's going to be realize your a simple fuck who got this whole thing wrong.

This isn't even a political question, it's scientific. Even if all energy sources were covered to Green energy today we would still be getting more adverse climate change due to a rebound effect.

I think Jimmy Carter would take umbridge with that claim.

The world has cooled since DJT has become President

Would you like to back this up with facts?

You don't actually have to, because it makes a fun thought experiment anyway: Trump has been president for about two years now. If what you say is true, and a maintainable, effective amount of defense against climate collapse has been mounted over the last two years this raises some interesting questions:

1) What did Trump do to immediately reverse the course of centuries worth of global damage to the climate? What has been put in place by the administration to which we can attribute the saving of the world? One must assume they didn't take effect on day one, so any cooling between his inauguration and these... I want to say weather control devices? probably isn't his work.

2) If Trump is this good for the climate, why doesn't he take credit for this? Contrary to doing so, he has repeatedly declared that climate change is not happening, and scientists have called his policies incredibly dangerous to the climate both locally and globally. Why doesn't he hit back with these new facts about how great he is?

3) If it's this easy—Trump has spent a lot of time golfing, and his cabinet and advisors have spent most of their time embroiled in scandal—why haven't countries with more stable, climate conscious governments also had this measurable effect on reversing climate change?

Or perhaps, and here's a startling possibility, there is a fluctuation in the Earth's temperature on a year-to-year basis so looking at the last few years ignores a century of startling temperature rise. Perhaps, if you want to get apocalyptic, it wouldn't take a huge rise in temperature to set off a chain of events which lead to our extinction.

Wow, you’re so proud of your ignorance. Congratulations on blindly following your political leader, I’m sure its not easy you to be such a gulliable dupe.

My question is

What will they do after he finishes his presidency

Death cult, probably.

Hopefully not. Factories and other blue collar jobs still need workers

Nah, they've been automating that shit since the 70s. The robot overlords will have no need for them.

Trump believes he has the best genetics and is super healthy.

Oh there is plenty of politics involved. Gigantic oil companies paying off politicians who lie to you so the public supports less regulation for the giant companies responsible for fucking the earth up to make money.

Sure. Hope your battery doesn't run out with all that step you are blowing.

Any scientist with a background in chemistry/physics can easily understand the science

How do you figure?

Because it’s really not that complicated. If you have read and understand the literature, which any PhD in a hard science is easily able to do, it’s quite possibly to have an informed opinion on the subject.

Really? Do you really think that being an expert in a totally different field makes you qualified to be an expert in just about any field? Because if that is what you think, then you are wrong.

Being an “expert” in the field is an arbitrary label. Again, the field is relatively narrow and it’s not that complicated. What matters far more than arbitrary labels is whether you actually understand the literature and models being used, assuming that you understand the science.

If you need immediate to tell you what the so-called “consensus is among so-called “expert climate scientists,” then you are being manipulated.

Am I to take your word for this, or do you have any real evidence for any of this?

Sure, you can take my word as a PhD in chemistry who has read and understands the literature.

Or you don't have to, it doesn't really matter to me. I'm just telling you what I know to be true. And to be honest, I think that many non-scientists could understand it too if they put a little effort into it.

And why should I or anyone believe that you are a PhD in anything? And why doesn't a PhD understand how evidence works?

You can believe whatever you want! As I said above, it really doesn't matter to me. Keep believing what the media tells you about climate change if that is more comfortable for you, I'm not going to try to tell you how to think.

Wow, you expect me to believe you because your word? And this is all you have to say about your evidence? Am we are supposed to believe that you have a PhD in chemistry as well? Please go away.

Man you're slow, huh? I've already told you twice that I don't care what you think, since you're obviously incapable of thinking for yourself like an NPC. You even use the third person to speak lmao. I wont be responding again, so go ahead and run your next script but don't expect a response.

just butting in to make the call - you are probably talking to a non-paid regular human with no interest in burying useful honest comments on this thread... or not

Heh, I had definitely had the same thought. At least its obvious to most of us by now...

The unfortunate thing is that a new user will see the vote patterns and the comments like this and they might be fooled, which I guess is the point of the whole operation.

can confirm - non-PhD and have followed the entire debate from end to end: something is definitely upside down about it. You have to close your eyes not to see that.

Props to you for taking the time to read up on it and for thinking for yourself. I did the same thing, and what I think it comes down to is that we don't know the extent to which CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are drivers of climate, compared to other factors (like the solar cycle, for instance).

Also, they are mostly relying on man-made climate models, full of assumptions. These models have been consistently wrong and are being adjusted downwards over and over again, so they have clearly made some bad assumptions. That, combined with how highly politicized the field is, should make anyone skeptical I think.

Yes all that and more - by the early 1990s there was much evidence detailing solar influence on global atmosphere and ocean currents (ENSO eg) - all that work was effectively muted by the sudden dominant position of Warming/Changers as THE experts...

Much of science is controlled in an effort to keep the population in the dark. Why would that be so hard of a concept?? We already know how many doctors, pharmacies and treatment technicians are already in on the hoax. It's just to make money, and why wouldn't science be the same?

You have no idea how science works, do you?

Scientist don't just get together and decide how things work. They do it by designing experiments and then publishing there results, which every other scientist in that profession, then try to show that first scientist is wrong. They do this by doing exactly what the first scientist did it. If they all get the same observation, then it is confirmed, until someone else comes along and sees something different.

That is how Noble prizes are won.

"Noble".

You're funny, guy.

As a scientist, he’s right. The IPCC is a political body and climate change is a highly politicized field.

Not all scientists get a voice.

??? What does that even mean? I can publish a paper, and you could peer review it.

If I knew you published it, and where.

You think there might maybe be places on line that you, or anyone that wanted to could find and publish to?

Yup. Now the next step is to find out if that source can be trusted. And if the scientist can be trusted. Could it be that science is a faith-based system to lay people?

Again you don't know how science works. Please see my comments on this elsewhere in this thread.

You don't know what I don't know. You're the one who didn't know what I meant when I said not all scientists get a voice.

I am so sorry for you.

Don't be sorry, be more careful.

I am sorry for you because you seem so trapped in your thinking.

You sound like my grandma trying to explain why doctors know best when they were smoking in their offices as scientific reports and medical evidence was piling up on the smoking cancer risks.

The World churns on money and dark politics. Scientists ific method today is pretty much dead. The Scientific method works, but its integrity and success depends on how much independence researchers have in conducting experiments that are not tainted and controlled by industry and money interests.

Look at the collapse of the Peer Review process, those boards are stacked with industry paid researchers who have invested interest to protect Monsanto, Merck or whoever the research may be revealing data on. The pharmaceutical industry is perfect example of toxic marriage of Science and profiteers. The scientific process is nullified in vaccines peer review and trials for example. The whole clinical trials process is not science driven, it's just bullshit!

For example, Peter Doshi had to sue Health Canada just to see the clinical trial data from 10 years ago for vaccines being pushed for children and public health. The scientific process is in crisis. Researchers are ruined if they don't comply with industry now.

Wow, just wow. I am just so tired of trying to explain how science works.

You're explaining how the scientific method works on paper. We all learned it in grade school. But what about how it is applied in reality? how is the Peer Review process working? Is it fair and accessible? Does support researchers who are not aligned with industry?

If the answer is no, Houston, we have a problem with Science!

Case: Seralini et Al 2012, media and industry forced the Jou rnal of Food and chemical toxicology to retract a paper on roundup toxicity.

The Journal of Food and chemical toxicity is probably exhibit A for How Monsanto controls the heart of Scientific review process. Again Journal of Nature, we see the same problem. Researchers being denied publishing if data reflects badly on Monsanto even though Peer review has no evidence to suggest experiments were wrong. Paul Christou and Richard Goodman, former monsanto employees holding massive power leverage at both Nature and FCT journals.

So your saying that not having evidence is evidence of something then? Can you hear the kra kra it n there?

Nuanced, complex, and way over your head. Not "kra kra".

Every scientist in the world? Come on. Even the "97%" claim was debunked long ago.

Follow the money. The IPCC is saying that if we don't invest $2.4 TRILLION a year in green energy, we are all going to die!!! Al Gore was a politician. He said we'd be dead already, meanwhile he has made $300 million speculating in green tech... while buying a $9 million mansion on the shore. Yeah, he's so worried about it being swallowed up.

Climate change scientists. Why would I care what a mathematics PhD thinks about climate change?

Beyond verifying that the math is correct, you shouldn't.

Every person has their field of expertise. I wouldn't trust a surgeon to fix my plumbing. Why should I trust anyone to be more knowledgeable about the climate than those that study it for a living?

It's not every scientist in the world though. It's every scientist in a compartmentalized field competing in an intramural war for funding. I think people like yourself who make blanket statements like "every scientist in the world" either aren't aware of or fully understand the state modern academia is in nowadays where every discipline is highly compartmentalized and isolated. The interactions between various fields when conducting research is absurdly small compared to the amount of research being conducted. So it's very easy for different corporations and government agencies to shape a certain paradigm via research grants and board positions.

Great, would love to see your evidence for any of this.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/02/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne/

Lmao dude this is just how the world works. You can look into any field. Money talks

That is your evidence? You couldn't just say I don't have any?

Lmao someone's mad. You say it takes a huge cover up, I'm just telling you all it takes is a fuck load of money to influence results. It's ok man, just pretend this doesn't happen in your world. Ignorance is bliss after all

Evidence works both ways. Where is your evidence proving climate change scientists do not have an agenda? You mock him for lacking evidence. Where's yours.

If you'd use critical thinking you should understand it's not hard to imagine that a subset of the scientific community that relies on a specific phenomenon would limit facts/results that disqualify that phenomenon and thus damage their own careers.

It doesn't work that way. That is religion telling you that you have to be able to disprove something. Let me ask you, how did you disprove vampires? I really want to know.

Why are you talking about religion? You're the one asking for evidence. Now you're saying evidence is religious nonsense. Congrats, you just played yourself.

I didn't make any claims, I don't need to show any evidence.

My mistake. I thought maybe by inferring that u/heej needed evidence to prove climate scientists may be biased you were claiming that they are unbiased and could not be manipulating results in an effort to protect their position.

So you have no claim on whether these climate scientists might have an agenda and skewed the results in a way that would be advantageous to themselves?

I tend to live my life with the motto, make as few claims as possible, but when I do, I am willing to show my evidence, to the best of my ability.

That's a good motto. You don't seem to be challenging any of the commentary that promotes the ideas of climate scientists being unbiased. Strange that you only require this from one side and not the other... Hmm

I am replying to ones that make claims. I challenge any and all claims, that I am aware of.

Evidence? dude you dont need evidence to understand any of this. Your'e simply dumb if you disagree with what heej said

​

Please go return grazing with the other sheep!

Removed. Rule 4.

I'm sorry but that is so wrong. There are thousands of scientists from many different fields comparing and confirming data.

Trump did build a wall against the coast to stave off climate change, with rising tides threatening his golf course.

I think of you pay attention over the last 35 years, climate change is quite apparent. Annecotally, there seems to be some much more extreme weather events both around the world and temperate areas. I see in my own coastal village that the stone piers have been devoured by the ocean.

If the ice caps are melting at the rate they are and temperature set to increase, even if it's not man-made despite our reliance on carbon emitting fuels or gigantic methane and beef farms, it would not hurt our species survival to cut back a shade, just in case.

It was 87 two days ago in Ohio. It’s set to get down to 30 tonight. It’s only been in the past 3-4 years that these temps have been jumping down and up at crazy rates. Shit last year I was riding in February for a week when it got up to 65. I couldn’t believe it. Then it dropped right back down to 15 degrees.

Agreed. Everyone is talking about something very weird in the weather patterns which experts are not able or willing to adequately explain to us.

In Texas it's pretty chilly outm yesterday I splashed myself with a water hose after working on a client's home from how hot I was.

Seems to me that TPTB have more to gain by not reacting to climate change than by reacting. The rich are going to be fine.

As far as Trump goes, there's a possibility he just doesn't believe in it, as well as the possibility that he's part of a conspiracy along with TPTB to do nothing to address it, however, I think the more likely reason behind it is that he's representing his base's beliefs.

If there is a conspiracy, it's in the way that corporations and evangelical dominionists have used propaganda in order to turn people away from science in service of their own ends. Trump's climate change denialism is more a symptom of that than the cause.

Its about diverting attention towards profit making. Of course we have massive environmental change, caused directly by overpopulation, pollution, deforestation etc, But instead of tackling these we are teased with carbon taxes and endless political debate. The rich are fine in every scenario. They just want to be richer. The only thing they are afraid of are the people rising up, as history shows.

Carbon taxes were originally a Conservative idea to allow the market to play a role in reducing emissions. The left took up the idea and pushed it just to get something, anything done. Once that happened, Conservatives bailed on the idea in favor of doubling-down on climate change denial.

This is demonstrably false though. The IPCC and things like Agenda 21 were pushed by the very oil giants that are supposedly quaking in their boots. Maurice Strong was the one who founded the IPCC, and he was a Rockefeller man through and through.

The TPTB aren't always a homogeneous group and often times, they try to work and control both sides of an issue.

For sure, but that does not negate the fact that the bigger influences like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds have completely used this to their advantage. Corbett wrote an excellent article about Maurice Strong which touches on this.

Okay, if man made climate change is real, do you think for a second that TPTB wouldn't want their people at the head of it -- Managing the efforts to reduce its impact on their interests, using it to help bludgeon the interests of rivals? ExxonMobil and the Koch Bros are funding a ton of climate-change denialism. Are they not part of TPTB because they're at the forefront of the opposite end of this issue?

I think you misunderstood me - I agree with you that there are players in the TPTB that aggressively fund CC denial. However, my point is that the bigger players have used it to consolidate power for themselves.

I think we agree for the most part aside for some minor differences.

And my major point is that whether you're a climate-change believer or a denier, you're still siding with TPTB, one way or the other.

So, as a regular person, you have to try to cut through the BS as much as possible when you look at the science, as muddied as you might find it, and get to the truth.

Yeah, that's for sure. Worst part is, there is nothing probably we can do - corporations are the biggest source of pollution on Earth.

http://joannenova.com.au

this website has a lot of data. I haven't looked into it for a few years since I read enough to know global warming is bullshit. the planet has been hotter and its been colder, yet if I pay more tax we can keep it just right for goldilocks .

I think it's made up. One of the points in the Paris climate deal is first world countries loan money to third world countries to build new power plants. Is there taxpayer going to own these power plants? No it's just another Corp welfare scheme bought with manufactured consent.

I don't agree with the loans at all, but tax payers down own anything the fund to begin with.

It isn't about climate change. This whole thing is about redistributing American wealth into third world nations. Nothing more than a new Marshall Plan to prop up potential new markets.

As far as I'm concerned, the US is doing its job fighting climate change. Our technology and demands from consumers has already made an impact. That isn't what they want though.

We are coming out of a mini ice age and the world is warming naturally. Earth got colder at the height of industrial revolution and they claimed we were going into another ice age and called it the big freeze in the 70s. We are at some of the lowest carbon dioxide ratios in the atmosphere in the history of the world. And carbon dioxide makes up a whopping 0.4% by volume (CO2 is about 400 parts per million (ppm)) of the atmosphere. From 2000 to 2010, it increased by 10ppm per year. Volcanos put out more than all humanity in one eruption.

They don't talk about the only thing that has a direct correlation to temperature of the Earth throughout history - that big glowing thing in the sky we call the Sun. The solar cycles match up perfectly with past warming periods, like during the Roman Empire, and cooling periods, like the Dark Ages. Solar activity affects the planet. Shocking, I know. And we just had one of the lowest sunspot activity years in decades, literally going hundreds of days without a single sunspot. Many are predicting a solar minimum approaching and temperatures ARE dropping on average and likely to get worse. Expect some "climate change" 180s talking about cooling effects in the coming years (mid 2020s should see the full impact of solar minimum). Not ice age or anything, but similar to 1970s.

Most climate data is flawed and intentionally lies, too. They use monitor stations near runways at airports that are routinely hit with jetwash from planes, are placed on concrete or asphalt, which absorb and release heat and cause higher readings, and don't adjust for urban heat island effect yet ignore colder spots as outliers. No climate change model has been accurate even 5 years after publishing, let alone predicting decades in advance. The solar cycle, however, is near perfect sync with temperature.

Other factors not accounted for include our weakening magnetic field of the Earth, which should be a huge source of concern, the drastic slowing of our oceans currents, the healing of the ozone layer in original 'holes' (and knowledge that the ozone has seasons that contract and expand naturally) and the opening of the massive hole over China from their excess pollution. In regards to coral reefs and other ocean issues, heat has nothing to do with it. The average ocean temperature change in the past 100 years has been 0.1 degree Celsius. Not annually. In 100 years. 0.1 degree. Maybe massive pollution from India and China, who are responsible for roughly 90% of all plastics dumped into the ocean and supertankers that put out more pollution than the entire auto industry and only number a dozen or so while working only 250 days a year might be an issue. Maybe temperature or 1st world CO2 emissions aren't to blame for these problems.

Weather has not changed either. There aren't more hurricanes or floods or wildfires. Damages and destruction are higher because the population of hurricane alley has grown by over 50% and they built up massive infrastructure in an area known for hurricanes. The costs can be higher, but that doesn't mean the hurricanes are more frequent or stronger or abnormal. Wild fires in California are at historic lows. Climate change didn't cause a forest fire, despite their attempts at blaming it on it. US total acres burned in case you might think California was an exception.

Paris Climate Change pact is a joke, too. Here's some math for costs for Australia to meet its goals. Also, what does gender equality, indigenous rights, disabled rights, migrants and other nonsense have to do with climate?

Some historical data for you. Annotated temperature through ages. Note that Britain used to grow grapes and had a warm climate - many of the buildings and signs remain showing these old vineyards and grape growing history. They only show you a very, very, very, tiny subset of temperature data that fits their narrative.

1910 Glaciers receding - strange, no human CO2 should be affecting the climate at this point. Industry was starting up. It's not until post ww2 that everyone has cars, fridges, stoves, burn coal for heat, massive pollution, etc (where temperatures dropped leading into the 'big freeze in the 70s, another thing they don't tell you - temps are going up now despite our reducing our co2 levels).
Time Magazines for Big Freeze in 70s

1922 global warming - weird. still not really major co2 footprint. post-ww1 time, leading to depression. few cars or other amenities for majority of world. many have outhouses, farms, etc. impossible for us to be responsible at this time for arctic opening up.

1907 artic heatwave - strange. I wonder what happened? All those steam locomotives and people wlaking everywhere I guess.

1970 vs 2000 time magazine - guess they just made a mistake. Polar bears survived without ice when caps melted previously. They are thriving in the arctic right now, despite the huge hysteria about one polar bear found dead (they claim drowned, but it didn't) and how global warming was causing them to be wiped out.

1989 we'll be underwater - seems realistic and settled science. Ocean levels have been rising at a set level for hundred+ years. Predictable and unchanging and unaffected by humans. No one is flooded or underwater. Ocean floor is actually compressing as more weight of water is distributed. Crazy science.
Co2 levels through ages - weird. They are so low, yet the planet is going to be destroyed and all life wiped out. This must have killed the dinosaurs.
We must sacrifice democracy for climate change - Wow, this is a pretty strange take on solution to climate change. Almost like they want you to give up your rights and freedoms for something they contrived out of thin air and use for doomsday prophecies to pray on emotions.

The Sun is what affects the planet. We are coming out of a mini Ice Age, so temperatures were rising. CO2 is lowest in Earth history. Climate scientists are always wrong. They get grants and government funding and its a multibillion dollar industry now. Tens of thousands of people will be out of jobs if they backtrack or turn against this. Its used as a political weapon to attack anyone that "denies" it. They rebranded global warming to climate change because they know it will be cooling very soon and so they could package any weather phenomenon as climate change - everything is now climate change, so they are never wrong. Funny how advertising works.

LOL at the downvotes...... yet no one wants to even provide a rebuttal.

Thanks for sharing, i agree with a lot you wrote.

Ps, happy cake day :)

As with other points in time, there has been significant changes in the earth's previous ocean currents and wind currents. How these effect the global climate cannot be anticipated based on historical trends. What we know is the following: CO2 trends seem to precede temperature trends, and the current CO2 growth is far outside of the norm since the industrial revolution (and yes, temperatures have seemed to mirror this). Since we can't historically measure the effects of this type of change, we can only HOPE for a rebound, but we can't be sure.

Part of the problem has also been that we experienced a mini Ice Age in "recent" history so the data can be skewed if the entire history has not taken into account.

Is this conclusive? Depends on your mindset, but using a practical version of Pascal's Wager (or game theory if you would rather have a mathematical basis): if the world will be find, we then both choices will put us at the same point at the end (no gain or loss). Therefore it only matters if the world CAN be changed: in that case we are risking everything to stay the same. The only logical solution is to adapt.

We can historically measure them because of core samples, tree rings, written record of famines - some lasting years - harsh winters and so on. Human markers exist, such as the Hunger Stones, that tell us droughts and water levels. If you look at the Australia data for Paris Accord I posted, it shows the absolutely ridiculous costs imposed to meet those numbers. America would have been spending hundreds of millions to support China and India - the two biggest polluters in the world that use slave labour and have caste systems and communist practices and other human rights violations. Corporations are responsible for over 70% of all CO2 emissions, yet only the average person has to pay carbon taxes on gasoline and only 1st world countries are blamed and forced to pay for it. Industry and jobs move to the 3rd world, who get subsidies from these types of climate accords, pocket the money and use cheap labour to make things that used to enrich the 1st world. On top of this, the corporations and oligarchs get tax breaks for 'green energy' initiatives and government funding to 'go green'. We pay for them to go greener. We pay for them to move our jobs and money to the 3rd world. AND we pay for them to get more money in hand outs in those 3rd world countries that don't have to meet climate accord targets - China is not bound by anything in the Paris Accord and its just an economic dependent getting help.

There is no wager or game theory - it's pure corruption. They are not acting in good faith and are manipulating data that is proven wrong every single time. Not one predicitive model has been close or even remotely accurate and they've been proven to cheat the data. Even talk of fires, hurricanes, and other weather were admitted in court as not changing because of CO2 emissions or man made climate change.

There's making changes, like reducing CFC emissions, cleaning oil spills/better techniques to clean up, filters on stacks, and so on and then tehres spending billions upon billions to send jobs overseas and not policing the true polluters. Fractions of percentages in reduction for this cost while China is producing more than anyone else. America is one of only 1st world countries to meet targets and reduce emissions, yet are being crucified in media to reduce. If they actually cared, theyd do something about China, India and their ilk - not actively steal from us and give to them while pocketing our taxes. There's nothing to indicate they actually give two fucks about the environment in their political dogma and complete media smear campaign against anyone to question it.

You assume you're comparing apples to apples by taking historical data, and while that's tempting, the rise of central America would have greatly altered the natural flow of currents on the Earth rendering all previous climate trends as moot. The only thing that would remain a valid assumption is the ability of the earth to self regulate (assuming that all other measurements remain consistent).

As you states, we are coming out of an ice age. What you failed to point out is that we should already be in the tropic period and this should not still be warming as much.

So yes, it is a wager. Do we trust the historical data that may be altering and throw caution to the wind? Or do we bank on dependable measurements that have remained consistent? Anyone that argues as you are is simply justifying laziness in spite of humanity's legacy.

Thanks for that.

The thing is the climate is changing, people can see it and it's being reported on. The problem I see is the claim that co2 is the only problem in climate change. For one, the amount of co2 humans put out is still miniscule compared to what the Earth can unleash and has done in the past. Plants feed on carbon and we are seeing plant life actually increasing!

So many things affect the Earth's climate; especially the Sun which is changing itself, no way humans are causing that! It has been hotter than this in the past and from my understanding, we are still coming out of an Ice Age. When I was younger I was told the oceans would have risen and flooded thousands of major cities by now, but people are still buying houses at the beach.

I think the real conspiracy is how much humans are having an effect and the focus on carbon as a new way to tax people. It also convinces the individual it's their fault when most of the pollution is from the Military and Industry round the world.

Good work - I have found that downvotes follow sound reasoning on this topic

is it a feel-good social agenda? are you specifically being blamed for the cause? is money involved? is there an agenda?

anyway what is it now global cooling, global warming, back to global cooling, wait lets call it climate change?

the scam has already been revealed by the carbon tax credit plans as wealth redistribution.

e two different things, but luckily the scientists know this. Not sure how much money the mathematicians in my department are making by pedalling this scam, but hey you must know more than I

you create a thread to argue one side? you're an idiot. hey, maybe YOU could be president.

Climate change is real. The conspiracy is the US government’s disinformation campaign that protects the financial interests of the elite.

We are warming the planet on purpose to prevent a severe ice age

I think you have to look at what each stands to lose if the other is right. Scientists, worst case scenario, would lose their jobs (maybe) and need to be retrained to deal with the true way of the world. Politicians would 1. Lose their jobs 2. Have the economy drastically overhauled 3. Have to rethink the entire military industrial complex 4. Decimate the livestock industry. One of these two is greater than the other. Without evidence to the contrary, I also tend to agree with the group that is an expert in their said field, politicians aren’t exactly up to speed on the comings and goings of every field. I’m also concerned that many politicians don’t understand the scientific process of laying down your hypothesis, showing your evidence to prove the hypothesis and then having these findings published for critique from others. There can be problems with the execution of the scientific process but I have not heard them brought up with regards to climate science.

1) and 2) is not a necessity. The recent IPCC support shows that we can actually maintain our living standard easily, but we will have to switch to a powermix that is mainly fed with nuclear plants in order to do so.

3) is a necessity either way. Regardless of climate change, the MIC has too much power.

4) Not necessarily so, just put the livestock on a diet that has them produce less methane.

Climate Change is real, is backed up by evidence.

It is also backed up by evidence that Trump wants to get out of Paris Agreement deal because of how restrictive it is against money making industries.

Always follow the money if you want to find the truth.

I'm sure there is a proper name for this kind of thinking, but I see it as two options:

1) We deny climate change and continue on doing things the same way. If we are correct, great, carry on. If we are incorrect, the world basically ends in 50-100 years.

2) We accept climate change is real and begin to make changes to renewable energy to reduce our carbon output. If we are correct, we stop or slow global warming and we all survive. If we are incorrect, nothing of consequence happens. We live in a world with less smog, pollution, and cleaner air.

I don't really understand why some many people are against option 2.

Option 2 requires the rest of the world to participate, the options being given to address Climate change in no way address the issue. We have been given an option a carbon tax, or in my state it would be a carbon fee. Yet I fail to see how this address, India and china some of the heaviest producers. It already appears that the USA is already headed towards a more green future. A carbon tax is more of a wealth drain then anything else.

it doesn't address the issue at hand at all. IT is an attempt to make it look like someone is doing something, while lining their pockets. It will prevent growth and cull the remaining smaller companies that wouldn't be able to maintain operations if introduced. It will penalize people that have been making an honest effort to reduce emissions.

​

What would be a better approach is if we tried to create an electrical grid that was powered by the community, meaning each home acting as an individual node in the system, connecting them to power the Government buildings and what not, taxes could be used to slowly roll out such a grid. I think some smaller cities could take on the task to see how fitting it would work. If the communities became independent in their energy means, we would save money in the long run.

Easy answer: Change costs money in the short term and will loose money if you have invested highly in the "old" technology. It seems more likely to me that the people that have money to lose are making TPTB financially dependent on the success of that "old" technology as well (either though payouts practical dependency).

​

There's a 3):

We accept climate change is real, acknowledge that renewables, while great, are not good at creating a baseload on the powergrid, which means we will have to use gas plants to supply said baseload and thus will keep a huge part of the CO2 emissions if we go renewables (barring some countries, like iceland, that can actually use geothermal really well). This means that nuclear becomes our only option. And yeah, that's actually from the IPCC report: their best case scenario is a year-by-year reduction of CO2 emissions with 0,3% when we use nuclear plants. Their best non-nuclear scenario is a 0,2% increase.

Nuclear is an excellent option. Especially with things like fusion (if we ever figure it out) and breeder reactors.

Not too fond of breeding reactors due to the technical challenge of their cooling systems though. And fusion is a couple of decades in the future, at least.

But that doesn't matter. According to the recent IPCC report, oldschool fusion with the newest generation reactors is enough to cause a drop in carbon emissions.

The climate is changing... And has been for thousands of years.

Climate change history https://imgur.com/gallery/vb2iLxr

Notice that 2007 and 2012 are total opposites. Notice that scientists also took alternative positions in 1976 and 1989. Is it really settled?

Not alot of confidence in shifting global cooling, global warming, climate change narrative.

https://principia-scientific.org/climate-bombshell-audit-exposes-ipcc-data-as-careless-and-amateur/

This scientific documentary explains concisely why climate change is false. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_GaYdae4j0

The MSM is lying. They take massive generalizations like "99% of climate scientists agree that human activity is causing rising CO2 leading to climate change" and misconstrue it as "99% of scientists agree that Democrat policies and electric cars will save the planet." The truth is that there's no consensus on what to do about. Nothing makes less sense to me than holding oil companies responsible. They can't analyze a hurricane and say, "the culprit of this weather event was this particular atom of CO2 that was produced by ExxonMobil, and they need to be held responsible with Cap & Trade policies." That's mindless.

Stick with the idiot-thing.

I strongly believe in CC.... because I experience it first hand.

Current weather patterns are consistent with the early stages of climate change. The only real questions are if the cause is anthropogenic in nature, and is it too late for meaningful change.

The way I understand it, he is not saying climate change is false or a hoax. He just isn't sold that HUMANS are making it worse. I believe he sees it a natural cyclical process that occurs regardless of humans interactions and we may or may not speed up/slow down that process but ultimately nature will do what nature does.

Trump doesn't have a nuanced understanding of any topic, let alone climate change.

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

Source for the down voters https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en

Anything you aren't permitted to even question without ridicule is suspect. That isn't how science works, with benevolent decree. Science is about testing, retesting, and retesting some more, everything we feel we understand.

Is the passage of Planet X through our solar system the true and hidden cause of climate change? It appears that our geographic poles are shifting. Sunrise and sunset are out of place.

e two different things, but luckily the scientists know this. Not sure how much money the mathematicians in my department are making by pedalling this scam, but hey you must know more than I

you create a thread to argue one side? you're an idiot. hey, maybe YOU could be president.

Being an “expert” in the field is an arbitrary label. Again, the field is relatively narrow and it’s not that complicated. What matters far more than arbitrary labels is whether you actually understand the literature and models being used, assuming that you understand the science.

If you need immediate to tell you what the so-called “consensus is among so-called “expert climate scientists,” then you are being manipulated.

Bingo

Okay, if man made climate change is real, do you think for a second that TPTB wouldn't want their people at the head of it -- Managing the efforts to reduce its impact on their interests, using it to help bludgeon the interests of rivals? ExxonMobil and the Koch Bros are funding a ton of climate-change denialism. Are they not part of TPTB because they're at the forefront of the opposite end of this issue?

If I knew you published it, and where.

That's a good motto. You don't seem to be challenging any of the commentary that promotes the ideas of climate scientists being unbiased. Strange that you only require this from one side and not the other... Hmm

Wow, just wow. I am just so tired of trying to explain how science works.

I really don't care what you think so lucky I am not selling anything to you. Go explore and make your own mind up it will be more rewarding.