[Godstud]

So you can't understand science, because you believe in religion. I get it.

Why do you even post in threads like this, if you can't recognize science? Stick to philosophy, religion, and Trump. Science is obviously beyond your ken.

Science doesn't dismiss religion. When religious people try to dismiss science because of their faith, it just comes off as colossally stupid. It's the epitome of willful ignorance.

[Hindsite]

So you can't understand science, because you believe in religion. I get it.

Why do you even post in threads like this, if you can't recognize science? Stick to philosophy, religion, and Trump. Science is obviously beyond your ken.

Science doesn't dismiss religion. When religious people try to dismiss science because of their faith, it just comes off as colossally stupid. It's the epitome of willful ignorance.

Well, I do understand the so-called science on global warming. It is all based on taking temperature data over the earth and averaging them over several years. Since, their averages are about 1 degree higher now than it was when they were predicting a mini ice age, it translates to global warming or climate change. At this point it is still all speculation and not true science because there are too many variables.

[Godstud]

No. It's quite clear that you do not understand the science. That's fundamentally clear by your answers.

You talk of "several years", when they talk of climate change over decades and a century. You can't even tell the difference between weather and climate. This has nothing to do with Evolution, either. You're wrong there, as well.

At this point it is still all speculation and not true science because there are too many variables.

That's simply not true. That's what you believe. The facts, however, demonstrate this belief to be false.

That you dismiss NASA as a source shows how little you know about the science.

The science is clear. Global warming is happening.
We are the primary cause.

Trends in temperature readings from around the world show that global warming is taking place.

Every one of the past 40 years has been warmer than the 20th century average. 2016 was the hottest year on record. The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

Over the past 130 years, the global average temperature has increased 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, with more than half of that increase occurring over only the past 35 years. The pattern is unmistakable: Every one of the past 40 years has been warmer than the 20th century average. 2016 was the hottest year on record. The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-w ... ng-science

The science is clear. It has nothing to do with your religion. Evolution also has nothing to do with your religion.

[Hindsite]

Trends in temperature readings from around the world show that global warming is taking place.

Every one of the past 40 years has been warmer than the 20th century average. 2016 was the hottest year on record. The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

Over the past 130 years, the global average temperature has increased 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, with more than half of that increase occurring over only the past 35 years.
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-w ... ng-science

This is basically the same as I said. It does not matter if you call the temperature collection data as being over several years or decades, the procedure is the same. An average increase in temperature of only 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit over 130 years is not bad. In fact, it may be good. Who knows? I suspect that the temperature average over the next 35 years will start trending toward global cooling as it often does. That is now why these so-called scientists call it "climate change" instead of global warming.

[Godstud]

Calling them "so-called" shows how ignorant you are about the science. Global warming IS happening, whether or not dumb people believe it, or not.

[Hindsite]

Calling them "so-called" shows how ignorant you are about the science. Global warming IS happening, whether or not dumb people believe it, or not.

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century.

They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.

Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.

Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.

Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.

Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics.

Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.

Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.

Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.

Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).

Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.

Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.

Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.

Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.

Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.

Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.

As I said before. there are too many variables too make such projections in temperature and climate change. We already know that Al Gore's projected claims have not come true. So there is no reason to believe these new projected claims, because they do not account for all the variables that might effect global warming or climate change. So pardon me, if I don't take the gloom and doom predictions serious at this point in time. Anyway, I have good air conditioning in my home. Praise the Lord.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I'm not sure where you got that list of scientists from, Hindsite, but I'd be willing to bet an entry or two is erroneous, as people who pretend climate change is a Satanic hoax (not everyone on that list is that stupid, but I'm guessing wherever you went to copy-paste that link is a weird site of some kind) generally lie or misrepresent whatever information they use, which isn't really your fault. The fact remains that the vast majority of scientists involved in researching climate change, meaning pretty much everyone not on that small "list" you posted (I'm curious to know what website you got it from, considering they thought it was a good idea to include "Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry," someone who worked for the oil industry, as a leading voice of climate change skepticism ) agrees that climate change is happening.

[Sivad]

The fact remains that the vast majority of scientists involved in researching climate change [...] agrees that climate change is happening.

But that's trivial, even the president of Heartland Institute accepts that human activity contributes to climate change.

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; 41% say they thought the effects of global warming would be near catastrophic over the next 50–100 years; 44% say said effects would be moderately dangerous; 13% saw relatively little danger; 56% say global climate change is a mature science; 39% say it is an emerging science.

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science (AGU), a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[21][22]

When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?’’: 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.[22]

When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[22]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

[Godstud]

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century.

These people say it is true:

Bod Phillips, Burger King customer service rep.

Steve Rogers, Former Col. US military

Nancy Bubbles, Hooters sales Rep.

Bruce Banner, Gamma Ray Scientist

Rick Walker, US Forest Ranger

Chelsea Dawn, Stripper

Mika Tan, Porn star

Bob Barker, Former gameshow host

Peter Parker, Physicist/student

Cordell Walker, Texas Ranger

Dave, Wendy's owner

So then you make a big list of people whose science degrees have absolutely nothing to do with climate science, it's not an argument.

[Hindsite]

I'm not sure where you got that list of scientists from, Hindsite, but I'd be willing to bet an entry or two is erroneous, as people who pretend climate change is a Satanic hoax (not everyone on that list is that stupid, but I'm guessing wherever you went to copy-paste that link is a weird site of some kind) generally lie or misrepresent whatever information they use, which isn't really your fault. The fact remains that the vast majority of scientists involved in researching climate change, meaning pretty much everyone not on that small "list" you posted (I'm curious to know what website you got it from, considering they thought it was a good idea to include "Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry," someone who worked for the oil industry, as a leading voice of climate change skepticism ) agrees that climate change is happening.

I copied and pasted it from Wikipedia.

climate change is hoax by gravy-train scientists'

What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change

Climate Change Global Warming HOAX! The BIGGER Agenda REVEALED

[Hong Wu]

I posted this in another thread but I think it's relevant here as well:



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... antarctica

Wasn't carbon dioxide being blamed for the thinning of antarctic ice? Wasn't this unexplained thinning one of the main alleged symptoms of supposed global warming?

[Sivad]

There is a misconception that the major challenges in physical climate science are settled. “That’s absolutely not true,” says Sandrine Bony, a climate researcher at the Laboratory of Dynamic Meteorology in Paris. “In fact, essential physical aspects of climate change are poorly understood.”

The perception that climate science is ‘solved’ is an inadvertent result of pressure on climatologists to convey a simple message to the public — for instance, that all dry regions will get dryer and all wet regions wetter in a warming climate, says Piers Forster, a climate modeller at the University of Leeds, UK. That has made the science “sound somewhat dull”, he says.

“We too quickly turn to the policy implications of our work and forget the basic science,” adds Bjorn Stevens, a director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, and a co-author of the Nature Geoscience paper. Although climate scientists agree on the basics — for example, climate change is primarily the result of human activity — large uncertainties persist in ‘climate sensitivity’, the increase in average global temperature caused by a given rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide.

As Bony and co-authors argue, understanding how the warming climate might affect cloud cover, which influences the amount of sunlight reflected back into space and thus Earth’s energy cycle, is key to addressing these uncertainties. A major weakness of current climate models is their limited ability to simulate the convection by which humid air is lifted into the atmosphere and which drives cloud formation and rainfall. In some instances, the models cannot even agree on whether the future will bring more rain or less.

Building better cloud-resolving models requires enormous computer power, as well as people who have a deep understanding of climate physics combined with skills in numerical modelling. But the number of scientists involved in developing computer algorithms for improved climate models is tiny, says Christian Jakob, an atmosphere researcher at Monash University in Clayton, Australia.
http://www.nature.com/news/climatologists-to-physicists-your-planet-needs-you-1.17270

All models are wrong, some are useful … but when?

[Godstud]

@Hong Wu That doesn't change anything, as those volcanoes were just discovered. They were always there. They aren't a factor in global warming just because we just found them.

That's like someone discovering America, NOW.

The science is there. The climate models from a decade or so ago predicted hurricanes like the ones the US had this year. Every year the science gets better. That doesn't mean we won't learn more things about climate science, but for now denying it is as fundamentally stupid as people denying Evolution, or how birds fly.

Also: here you can watch some videos and tell me about how it isn't changing, afterwards.

[Sivad]

The science is there. The climate models from a decade or so ago predicted hurricanes like the ones the US had this year.

According to the science we won't be able to detect the AGW signal in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes for many decades.

[Godstud]

Please note, @Sivad, that I did not post those videos expecting anyone to actually watch them. Posting hour long youtube videos to ANYONE is stupidity, and expecting anyone to watch even 5 minutes of a video that only confirms someone else's bias, is a complete waste of time.

Please post real sources. Video sources are as shit as telling a story about how once it was really hot out, and that proves global warming, or that it was cold out last night, and so global warming is a hoax.

Here's an actual source disputing that.

Was the Extreme 2017 Hurricane Season Driven by Climate Change?
STORM INTENSITY
Many experts are confident that a warmer world will create stronger storms—and already is doing so. Since 1981 the maximum wind speed of the most powerful hurricanes has risen, according to research (pdf) by Jim Elsner, a climatologist at The Florida State University. That’s because higher ocean heat provides more energy for storms, fueling their intensity. Hurricane Patricia, in 2015, set the record at the time for top wind speed—215 miles per hour—in the north Atlantic. The next year Winston shattered records as the most intense cyclone in the Southern Hemisphere.
The dynamic between storms and warming oceans occurs in part because of the role hurricanes play in our climate system: they rebalance Earth’s heat. The storms remove heat from tropical oceans in the form of moisture and pump the heat up into the atmosphere, where heat is redistributed and radiated out into space. “In some sense, hurricanes are a relief valve,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “From the climate standpoint, you need to have some hurricanes to come along and cool the ocean, to keep them at reasonable temperatures. No other phenomenon can play this role.

RAINFALL
Experts also expect that climate change may increase the intensity of hurricane rainfall. The unprecedented, deep flooding in the Houston area certainly bears witness to that idea. Warmer air holds more water vapor. For hurricanes, “that can lead to more efficiency; the rate at which rain falls out of the clouds increases,” Elsner says. “We’re seeing that in some of these storms.” Knutson gives a number for this phenomenon: Hurricane rainfall rate is projected to rise 7 percent for every degree Celsius rise in tropical sea surface temperatures.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... te-change/

[Hindsite]

ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"

[Sivad]

Reddit AMA
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/commen ... professor/

I'm Kerry Emanuel, a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I do research on hurricanes and other types of severe weather, on climate change, and how climate change might affect severe weather.

Q: …aren’t there more hurricanes due to global warming?

A: We do see some signals in open-ocean hurricane statistics, but since only about 1 and 3 Atlantic hurricanes make landfall in the U.S., and these do damage over a tiny fraction of their lifetimes, the record of landfalling storms is too short to see any climate signals, save perhaps for El Nino-related signals. We do not expect to see a global warming signal in U.S. hurricane damage for some decades.


Second, there is some indication that hurricanes (and cloud clusters in general) dry out the atmosphere, and this could have climate impacts. But this is very early, tentative work.

…

It is very hard to attribute individual events, or even groups of events, to climate change. This is simply a matter of statistics. We usually need long records to detect climate signals. There are also natural, long-period fluctuations of the North Atlantic climate that modulate rainfall in places like England.


"there are too few storms to show that the stronger hurricanes are being caused by climate change"

[Suntzu]

Before man arrived on the scene in great numbers, Earth's climate never changed.

[Godstud]

@Hindsite posting Youtube videos is childish. Please show me a study and not one person's opinion. I can find thousands of videso demonstrating how stupid your one person is.

Not all scientists are equal as well. I remember you showing me a guy with a PhD in Philosophy as an argument against Evolution.

[Hindsite]

@Hindsite posting Youtube videos is childish. Please show me a study and not one person's opinion. I can find thousands of videso demonstrating how stupid your one person is.

Not all scientists are equal as well. I remember you showing me a guy with a PhD in Philosophy as an argument against Evolution.

The Climate Change Hoax

"Consensus" is a political word, not a scientific word.

Weather Channel Founder John Coleman calls global warming scare a hoax. He claims the manufacture of this claim has wasted millions of dollars and was nothing more than a publicity stunt. And that those who started it knew what they were doing. Calls Al Gore a fraud. Don't panic. Laugh instead. We will be just fine.

Greenpeace Co Founders Warns of Global Climate Change Scam Global Warming Hoax

He says that we are in an ice age now as is witnessed by the two polar ice caps. In fact without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die. If these politicians succeed, food and energy will again be reserved for the rich and billions of humans will die of starvation or exposure.