[Suntzu]

Let us assume one of NOAA's data sets wasn't well thought out, or part of an elaborate conspiracy for no apparent reason at all.

This does not change NASA:



(Which, incidentally, isapparently threatening enough that the Trump administration is trying to stifle it)

The conspiracy would reach into the ESA and the UN. As well as all of the countries participating with these agencies.

The conspiracy to keep this data going would have to be by far the most vast conspiracy ever created. The amount of people that would have to be pulling the strings of this, at the same time, in different places all over the planet, are in the hundreds of thousands. And they'd have to all have been perfectly silent about the real data that they're altering.

The question is then begged, why?

What does everyone gain from this vast conspiracy?

On the other hand, what do people have to gain from denying climate change being related to humankind? This is a much easier question to answer, is it not? Surely the people making money from current policies wouldn't want a change.

You chart is CO2 . . .

. . . not temperature.

[Suntzu]

Or what @The Immortal Goon showed, but in an extra obvious format covering the 22Ky (20,000 BCE - 2017 CE)

That is a cool chart! So according to the chart our temperature is current about where it was when the Egyptians were building the pyramids?

[Pants-of-dog]

You chart is CO2 . . .

. . . not temperature.

Sure. As long as we agree that your claims about a vast conspiracy are as incorrect as most conspiracy theories.

And that you cite papers that have not been peer reviewed.

[The Immortal Goon]

I'm just going to set this here.

Carbon Dioxide Controls the Earth's Temperature.

[SolarCross]

Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels

-------------

On NASA's credibility, one has to acknowledge that while they are staffed by hundreds of bright minds they are also an institution with a gargantuan hunger for money, going into space is not cheap, and a huge hunger to spend that money on projects that they as space nerds desire very greatly but is not necessarily so desired by the wider public who is forced to pay for them. NASA will know very well to make use of anything that will may motivate a loosening of the public purse strings. They did very well out of playing on the US's wounded national pride at the USSR's space achievements and the cold war in general to get the boosted budgets necessary to do the lunar landings and later the space shuttle for example.

Global Warming is potentially good for their budgets as it can be spun as a need to expedite Mars and Moon colonisation, orbital weather monitoring stations, LEO habitats, you name it.

[Pants-of-dog]

And?

[MememyselfandIJK]

That is a cool chart! So according to the chart our temperature is current about where it was when the Egyptians were building the pyramids?

Read the graph. The global temperature is at its highest point since the last ice age. Also slope is important -- this is by far the most rapid heating in human history.

[Suntzu]

I did. At the time the pyramids were built it looks about +0.5 C and now about +0.7 C.

[One Degree]

Ofcourse the fact earths population increased from under one billion in 1800 to over 7 billion now is irrelevant?

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course, the fact that earth's population increased from under one billion in 1800 to over 7 billion now is irrelevant?

Not exactly.

It is just not nearly as significant as other factors, such as industrialisation or the rate of intercontinental shipping.

[One Degree]

Not exactly.

It is just not nearly as significant as other factors, such as industrialisation or the rate of intercontinental shipping.

Both of these are 7 times more destructive due to population increases. Population is the problem and the best cure.

[Pants-of-dog]

Both of these are 7 times more destructive due to population increases.

Not really.

Most population increase happens in less developed nations. Most use of industrialisation and intercontinental shipping is done in more developed nations.

If a rural African woman has another kid, it won't have nearly the same impact as, say, the amount of pollution being caused at any given moment by large SUVs waiting in line at the McDonalds drive thru.

Population is the problem and the best cure.

How exactly is it a solution?

Who gets killed?

[Suntzu]

Barefooted Indians burning down the rain forests to grow crops is not a problem.

Folk cutting down forest to make charcoal to cook with on open fires is not a problem.

[One Degree]

Not really.

Most population increase happens in less developed nations. Most use of industrialisation and intercontinental shipping is done in more developed nations.

If a rural African woman has another kid, it won't have nearly the same impact as, say, the amount of pollution being caused at any given moment by large SUVs waiting in line at the McDonalds drive thru.



How exactly is it a solution?

Who gets killed?

Industrialized nations populations are decreasing except for immigration. Stop excess immigration and the population will adjust itself.

[Pants-of-dog]

Barefooted Indians burning down the rain forests to grow crops is not a problem.

Folk cutting down forest to make charcoal to cook with on open fires is not a problem.

Please see my previous post where I point out that the paper you cited is not peer reviewed.

Then look up "strawman argument". Thank you.

----------------

Industrialized nations populations are decreasing except for immigration. Stop excess immigration and the population will adjust itself.

How is this a solution? If the developed world keeps using the same amount of energy with a stable or decreasing population, then anthropogenic climate change is still a huge problem driven mostly by industrialisation.

Nor does it address global population levels. Are you simply going to ignore the developing world?

[Suntzu]

Please see my previous post where I point out that the paper you cited is not peer reviewed.

Then look up "strawman argument". Thank you.

----------------

Wasn't mentioned in the paper.

Try again.

How is this a solution? If the developed world keeps using the same amount of energy with a stable or decreasing population, then anthropogenic climate change is still a huge problem driven mostly by industrialisation.

Nor does it address global population levels. Are you simply going to ignore the developing world?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Suntzu

You might want to reformat that.

[Suntzu]

[Pants-of-dog]

@Suntzu Yes, thank you for providing the information underlining my final question to One Degree.

[One Degree]

How is this a solution? If the developed world keeps using the same amount of energy with a stable or decreasing population, then anthropogenic climate change is still a huge problem driven mostly by industrialisation.

Nor does it address global population levels. Are you simply going to ignore the developing world?

@Pants-of-dog Why would the industrialized world keep using the same amount of energy with a reduced population? Fewer people, fewer industry needed.
If people from the developing world are not allowed to reduce their population pressure by immigrating then they too will come to the realization of controlling birth rates. Alleviating their population pressure through immigration prevents them from fully confronting their own contributions to the problem. "We don't need to change, we can just move to a better place."