Tell me the trend hasn’t gone up and down for millions of years before humans were on earth.
Also, the ocean is going to rise. There a volcanoes increasing the height of the ocean floor. There are tectonic plates pushing together and increasing their height. Lots of things cause the ocean height to increase.
You’re absolutely right. Climate change folks only show the data that corroborates their viewpoint. Even though I think humans have little impact (ie. a volcanic eruption pretty much is 1000x the yearly pollution humans emit or something like that), I do feel we should do our part to recycling, conserving etc.
Even without human, there is going to be changes. I do not know how the climate change or global warming helps some people’s political agenda. What do they want?
Clean water, clean soil and clean air is good to have and we should minimize pollution. We do not need climate change or global warming scientists to tell us.
They want to force people to buy carbon credits from companies they’ve created for the sole purpose of making money off regulating carbon emissions.
Hard to argue with science. I posted this xkcd drawing a while back. The rate of change in the last 100 years is off the chart.
You realize that based on that representation the temp hasn’t increased much at all. We’re currently between baseline and <1 degree increase. The earth was in that range thousands of years ago before the industrial age or the massive human population growth. Then it went back down. It’s more about the fear of projected increases. They’ve already proven the models that use CO2 to predict temperature increases don’t work. We deviated from those models decades ago and didn’t increase the way the models predicted. So you trust their projection to 2100 based on what science?
They only made the abstract of the paper available to the public. For the last 20 years, the models have predicted much higher warming than has happened. So you really trust their model out to 2100?
Then there’s the issue that they’ve edited all the historical data.
“Patrick Frank is a scientist at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource (SSRL), part of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory at Stanford University. Frank has published papers that explain how the errors in temperatures recorded by weather stations have been incorrectly handled. Temperature readings, he finds, have errors over twice as large as generally recognized. Based on this, Frank stated, in a 2011 article in Energy & Environment, “…the 1856–2004 global surface air temperature anomaly with its 95% confidence interval is 0.8˚C ± 0.98˚C.” The error bars are wider than the measured increase. It looks as if there’s an upward temperature trend, but we can’t tell definitively. We cannot reject the hypothesis that the world’s temperature has not changed at all.”
I am not a climate science expert, so I outsourced that to people who actually know something about it. Their overwhelming consensus is that the danger is real and imminent. It’s like if a doctor told me I have lung cancer I don’t go around the web looking for crackpot theories to argue why she’s wrong. She has the medical training. I don’t.
So what’s the downside if all these climate scientists were wrong and we go ahead and cut down on CO2 emission? What is so bad about replacing gasoline cars with EV and having our energy from sustainable sources? That future is not that bad. But what if the climate scientists were right and we did nothing? What is the downside? I argue it’s much, much worse.
Even if there is uncertainty in the science I say act now. It’s like buying insurance. 99% of the time you don’t need it. But what if you do and you didn’t have the protection?
The entire idea of carbon tax, carbon cap, and carbon trade polices are what’s wrong about it. It’s massive government overreach for something that may not even make a difference.
In college, I did a paper on freon. It was banned. I was shocked that I couldn’t find a single study that actually proved it harmed the ozone. A professor produced a theoretical paper about what he thought would happen when freon hit an ozone (O3) molecule). It was never even proven in a lab. That turned into banning freon which was supposedly cause the hole in the ozone. My chemistry professor didn’t believe me and researched himself. He was shocked that the entire thing was based on a theory.
Climate science seems a religion, not really a science.
The “consensus” was reached by media promotion and political brainwashing.
Who is the Einstein that will be no afraid of political prosecution and telling the truth based on real science?
Most people have no idea whether global warming or climate change is real science. People just use it to pledge their allegiance to their political leaders.
The consensus used to be that the earth is flat when people believe what they see. Now people do not believe what they see, they believe what the media wants them to believe.
The co-called climate scientists is just a bunch of low quality PhD graduates who can’t find any gainful employment outside government. They collect some statistics and produce some papers to show that they did not surf the web all day long. These low quality “research” then is promoted by the media and then exaggerated and misinterpreted. The orginal author? Nobody remembers and nobody cares. If it’s real science and if some scientist or team really made great discovery, we should know their name and we should do peer review and we should give them the fame they deserve. Instead, no one wants to put their name on it. All those climate scientists were so scared to give their names to the public. Why are the climate scientists are so scared of the public if their science is real? If climate science is real, they should be proud of their work and they should fight to get their name out and be a famous climate scientist instead of nobody in the science arena
Which climate science paper is a breakthrough and widely recognized? Which paper is the cornerstone on sea level rise? Which university and which department have the greatest climate scientists? Which tenured professor got his tenure due to his or her climate change or global warming research?
The climate science is no better than hanera’ month long 10 stock combo. If you use hanera’s 3 week study to form your 30 year stock portfolio, you could make a fortune. But at least you know there’s a famous person behind this 3 week study.
City government is spending billions of dollars to protect their cities from the future sea level rise. But they do not even have a name to send their thank-you note
Climate science seems like social science, not natural science. It’s closed related to politics and industry. It’s used mostly for political purpose and serve as basis for a lot of government regulatory actions.
Shiller got Nobel prize for stock valuation research. Which climate scientist is the candidate for Nobel prize? I would think that the person who advance the climate study is a million times more important than Shiller
If you actually read the often cited, “over 90% of climate change scientists agree” they agreed the climate is changing. It always is. There is massive disagreement over how much of the change is due to humans. People love to quote the 90% agree then pretend it refers to climate change is caused by humans. It’s blatant misrepresentation of facts. This is a prime example of how a majority of the public can be misinformed about basic facts.
There is massive denial from the right, not climate scientists.
A majority of abstracts expressed no position. You can’t then say 97% agree when a majority don’t have a position. That’s as bad as Tennessee drug testing math. They took the number of people that failed and divided by the total population instead the tested population to get a failure rate. They assumed everyone that wasn’t tested passed the test. You’re assuming everyone that doesn’t express an opinion agrees with those that express an opinion.
No one wants to address the issue that researches jobs are dependent on publishing papers that conclude global warming is real and caused by humans. If they say, there’s no global warming, then there’s no job for them. To pretend that doesn’t lead to bias is crazy. Just look at the nutrition studies funded by sugar companies. f warming was so real, then why edit the historical data 13 times over the last 3 years?
Also, why have the changed the name from global warming to climate change to climate risk? They fact they keep re-branding it while changing the risk should be a red flag. Once the data showed we had stopped warming, then they pivoted to climate change. Once they rate of change slowed, they pivoted to climate risk. Your own graphic shows we aren’t even out of historical range yet. It’s all about their projections which have been wrong for over 2 decades.
People who believe in climate change just keep ignoring these things. It really has become a religion.
So the rest of the world don’t have to bother about climate change. Let it smoke! We don’t need to push for EVs.
Superstitions of new world supported by some kind of science?
Shocking. Oh wait, it’s entirely predictable. US CO2 levels peaked over a decade ago, and US CO2 per capita peaked 2 decades ago. That’s why Biden had to move the goal to 1960’s level CO2. You know the CO2 levels we had when in the 1970’s the climate scientists were predicting another ice age. I’m not sure how anyone can still think this is about the climate or environment.
The headline is cool, but completely misleading.
“The scientists said the discovery that part of the Amazon was emitting carbon even without fires was particularly worrying. They said it was most likely the result of each year’s deforestation and fires making adjacent forests more susceptible the next year. The trees produce much of the region’s rain, so fewer trees means more severe droughts and heatwaves and more tree deaths and fires.”
When are climate change advocates going to wake up and realize forest management to reduce the severity of fires is critical? It’s hard to take them seriously when they’re so ignorant on the topic and blame everything else.