Global warming :: is it just a 'chinese hoax' like trump told us or is it serious?

Climate change skeptics deny the truth of man-made global warming despite overwhelming scientific evidences.   When scientists focus only on natural factors, models cannot reproduce the observed warming.  First, the kind of changes that would normally happen over thousands of years are happening in decades.   There are unique changes associated with greenhouse effect.  Greater warming in polar regions than tropical regions, continents than oceans, night time than day time, winter than summer and lower atmosphere than upper atmosphere.  

 Secondly, scientists found that growing greenhouse effect is caused by excess carbon dioxide with an isotopic signature that is unique to fossil fuels and different from other sources.  Now there is overwhelming scientific consensus accepting man-made greenhouse effect.

@thirdperson

 Again you have failed to examine the complete picture. 
  You have also never addressed the issues I brought up before about the carbon issue and temperatures.  
Your premise is that these scientists say there is no warming or that there is no human influence.  Neither of which is true.  These are the sorts of things you need to look into to get a more complete picture.  

@thirdperson

 “Climate change skeptics”

For example, I would consider dropping this phrase altogether.  
Can you name any reasonable ones?  I cannot think of a single one and I would, most likely, know some of them personally.

@thirdperson

@fubah2

Very well stated       the scientific consensus is clear that humans r accelerating the warming far faster than any natural cycle

Yeah ok great . How many times you gonna repeat this same ‘ol ham sandwich god damn the shit’s got mold on it by golly the bread is sprouting ergot too on that son of a bitch and if you eat it good luck you’ll be tripping balls thinking that you’re hanging with Moses and his burning bush but it’ll just be your ChiaPet on fire cuz you threw it in the oven along with your Peppa Pig coloring books ……

evolve yourselves for Lord Jesus and speak to His Creations !

What are the issues brought up before about the carbon issue and temperatures?  Scientists didn't say there is no warming or there is no human influence.  What is the complete picture?  

Now you’re talking third ! You’re making discussion ! Way to go bro !

finally someone with a little gumption !

I swear to God if you were right here in front of me I’d hug you , but we would both have to shimmy our hips in opposite directions so that are wieners wouldn’t touch , cuz hey pal , that would be weird , because we have never had dinner or watched a romantic comedy together and you haven’t even met my family yet …

if i were to bet i would estimate about 90% of those morons would also be 2020 election deniers

@thirdperson

 This was the question of the lagging effect of the CO2 against the temperatures, basically.  You can go back to the other thread and read the entire issue.

The complete picture is the 97% that you have come to believe is a solid number.  I would recommend researching that and how that number was arrived at.

The complete picture would be reading some of the many climatology experts that question the amount, some even the affect, that humans have on it in comparison to various other factors.

I have addressed these in great detail elsewhere.  But it is very good to read up on this on many sites to see that some very reputable scientists, using the exact same data, come to the opposite conclusions that the 'louder' crowd seem to.

There are many, many studies that show a lot more affect from various other sources.

None of these guys that I know doubt the 'climate change' part -- most do not doubt the 'man-influenced' part; what they question is the overall amount, etc.

In science we are always taking in new information and are open to all new information and theories to study.

For example, read up on some of the predictions of the scientists and the models.  Some have been off by a huge factor.  For example, even guys from the 70s when the earth had been cooling predicted a warming trend and they were a lot closer than some with the advanced modeling.  Because of how the models are being fed numbers that lead to a pre-suppositioned conclusions.  Then they have to go back and manipulate these numbers and predictions.

There are very many different places to look all of this up.   

@thirdperson

 No one that I know of is saying to completely dismiss the information.  None of them are not for a clean planet and environment.  They simply question the 'science' behind spending this much money on something that is not, for sure, scientifically proven and how much man can really influence the climate -- even should man go completely carbon-free, etc.

These guys question whether it has become a money-grab religion or cult of sorts.  They say the numbers do not reflect what is being pushed onto the public to fit their narrative. 

     also agree withthe vast majority of climate scientists 

the global warming that should be taking thousands of years is rapidly accelerating way beyond anything naturral

Weak reason to believe carbon dioxide cannot cause warming because rise in carbon dioxide lags rise in temperature.  This is like saying "chickens don't lay eggs because they come from eggs."  Actually, increasing carbon dioxide is both the cause and effect of warming in positive climate feedback loop.  In fact, 90% of warming occurs after increase in carbon dioxide in greenhouse effect. 

Best estimate of human contribution to modern warming is 100% according to United nations IPCC.  Since 1850, almost all warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions or human activities.  Current level of carbon dioxide in atmosphere is the highest in over 800,000 years.  Natural variability in climate is unlikely to play a major role in long term warming.

@thirdperson

 They just have to ask Sidney Powell John Eastman 2 wealths of knowledge on their theory’s! 

These are some of the things you should research.  There is no clear-cut evidence here.  A large part of this is extrapolation for a purpose.  This is not weak reasoning at all.  A lot of reputable guys question this.

You can see the charts online for yourself and look at the data and see many other scientist's interpretation of this data.  

You cannot dismiss this out of hand -- especially when this is the major argument to support your stance.

Natural variability certainly has to be considered when there have been many other minor, and very major, warming and cooling trends.  There are far too many variables that go into climate to simply dismiss them and put it all on man-made influence.  The big cooling was just as major but not blamed nearly entirely on man.  You absolutely have to ask why this is.  You also have to question what changed around say 1998 or so.

But go online to some of these sites and research this.  I truly think a reasonable person would have to reconsider blaming man for such a large portion of this.

You also have seen major trends before -- how were they for certain driven naturally but this time ONLY man is credited for being able to influence the climate.

@thirdperson

 When you do look at these sites, they will often refer you to other places to read and research.  You will see many reputable and published folks on them.  It is just not the quacks.  Both sides have these quacks -- but the man-made side has far more non-scientists propagating their agenda -- you have to ask why that is?  They have not studied this subject and, quite honestly, would have no clue what they were looking at if they had, it is simply something they are not trained on.

It is not really like saying "chickens don't lay eggs because they come from eggs."  If that were the case, a more accurate modeling could be done using this data -- which is very key to the alarmists's stance.  The direct, and certainly more sole, correlation could be very easily calculated.  There are very easy equations for this sort of thing.  That is why there is such a disparity on how much is even man-influenced.  

These guys cannot tell you what would happen if tomorrow all carbon-producing activity suddenly stopped.  Would the temperature start to drop, would it continue up for a while, would it drop too much -- and by how much?

It is an argument they cannot lose and they know it.  Because no matter what you say they make up a counter.  They will say well it takes time, or the damage was done and now they cannot reverse it -- because, again, they do not know and cannot calculate it.  It is mostly extrapolation.  Especially when you compare it to trends in the past.  They will make up weak counters for these as well.

They want to give man far too much blame.  It is not like man has been proven to be able to control Earth's thermostat.  But they want the money to act as if they can.

So, if that is the case, these guys would argue since you cannot even determine the exact extent how do you know you can influence a slowing of the trend, let alone a halting of the trend, and for sure a reversal of the trend.

@thirdperson

Is it correct to spend an absolute fortune on something you cannot prove is doing any good nor has done any good.  So far there is no evidence to prove it -- if anything the affect would say the exact opposite.  All the while these guys will argue the trend is increasing and getting out of hand while industrialized nations have made great improvements in the very area that they put the blame on.

Their argument would be why not use a large portion of this money to do something to help the impoverished areas and environment in ways that can absolutely be seen to help.  This is a huge sum of money being spent, or maybe 'wasted', on something that is not empirical-proven.  Use this money for the folks that could really use it.

They never have a good answer for this.  Studies have shown how this is harming poor countries and folks in general.

They can never answer what the ideal temperature should be.  They are selfish about this.  It is very subjective to a group of folks and their needs.  Siberia and Canada may like longer growing seasons, etc.  The Amazon may like more CO2, etc., etc.  To pick a random time out of history that is from a very, very small portion of time and say this is what the temperature should be is very, very arrogant.  There may be good reasons the climate should fluctuate for the Earth overall.  These same folks will dismiss a point for more areas to grow crops or longer seasons by simply saying that there are too many people anyway.  There is a very implicit point there and that is very arrogant, if not downright cruel.

And again, research the highly-promoted 97% number and exactly where they get this number from.

Too many directions and tangents to address all of them here.  But you can research some of this for yourself and see where it leads you.  People nowadays need to do this more.  It helps enhance their critical thinking skills.  No one should just accept the unproven narrative on any issue; if anything, they should, question those types of things even more.  After all it is their money that issuing grabbed; it is their kid's and grandkid's future that is at stake.

Don’t worry once all the Grusch stuff comes to light we will have a plethora of clean energy options and things will balance out temperature-wise so none of you will have to be uncomfortable and sweat ….

@Raiders22

 third is an AI leftist bot. This "poster" is only doing "research" for the narrative this bot is designed to post.  It has never, ever, answered someones question. Just skip over it's/she/he/they posts. third loves to say "xxxxxx is right...". Who is third to know who is right and who is wrong?! It's garbage that this site allows this non human to post here. Probably why this section doesn't get much action. If we wanted to listen to AI bots, we would be on Thread. 

@BigGame90

I get what you are saying.  But WSC says not to say that, he says that is inappropriate to call a poster that.  So, I am okay with that stance.  

But for me to respond to 'him' is better than attempting to engage the cheerleaders that have not even researched their own 'stance' and just go with the narrative.  None of that side ever backs up their opinion with facts or research countering opposing data, even their own assertions are usually weak.  But most opinions initially are.  Maybe I can at least convince there to be more research and open mindedness from someone that at least tries to research their topic -- even if they only research things that support their opinion.

I get what you are saying though.  Some only post things that support their side; some get frustrated when you post links and say you should put it in your own words (mainly because they refuse to provide links or data that back their own opinions up and refuse to read yours); some do not know how to engage without name calling; and some do not engage at all but simply give high fives.  This is not debate or even discussion.

But on a topic like this it can be data-driven and not as much opinion.  Maybe that will make it easier to engage.

But at least he seemed to respond directly and engage and even asked questions this time. 

@spockgato

I think most people are for clean energy.  Why would they not be.

But to try to 'force' very costly 'innovation' for an agenda is deceptive and does more harm than good.

Even folks that are experts in entirely different fields and know nothing about climate are worried to rock this boat.  For example, remember when the General that has studied war and threats for the military was asked about Biden's comments about the climate and the military.  Remember how carefully he couched his response.  He did not have to do that.  This simply shows how much this attitude has bled over into even the military.  This is the case with more than just the climate.

Here are key parts of what he was responding to and what he said:

Milley's comments came a day after President Joe Biden told U.S. troops in England that top military leaders had told him about 12 years ago that global warming was the greatest threat facing America, due to its effects on population movements, increased scarcity of land capable of growing food and possible fighting over land.

"When I was over in the Tank in the Pentagon, when I first was elected vice president with President Obama, the military sat us down to let us know what the greatest threats facing America were -- the greatest physical threats," Biden said at RAF Mildenhall. "And this is not a joke: You know what the Joint Chiefs told us the greatest threat facing America was? Global warming."

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to discuss the Pentagon's proposed fiscal 2022 budget, Milley said that China is the top military threat facing the United States, and Russia is also a considerable "great power competitor."

"The president is looking at [potential threats] at a much broader angle than I am," Milley said. "I'm looking at it from a strictly military standpoint and, from a strictly military standpoint, I'm putting China and Russia up there. That is not, however, in conflict with the acknowledgment that climate change, or infrastructure, or education systems -- national security has a broad angle to it."

@Raiders22

 I'll refer to third as a real person when ever that posters posts appear to be written from a real person and not from an AI bot that is designed to spew left leaning crap. You can ask third questions all day about their own opinion about their own post and the only info that will come out is from an article, or poll. Every time. Third- "so and so is right, according to this poll...yadda yadda crap crap" 

@thirdperson

Bottom line fact.