Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just wish those that lament over climate change would address the real issue and not just say we need more Teslas and less steak. Theres just too many people. The Amazon forest is not on fire due to climate change, the area is being burned down by humans to make way for crops and grazing pastures. The Brazilian population has doubled in the last 20 years and they need food and space now. Same goes for Africa....good job Globalists!
I just wish those that lament over climate change would address the real issue and not just say we need more Teslas and less steak. Theres just too many people. The Amazon forest is not on fire due to climate change, the area is being burned down by humans to make way for crops and grazing pastures. The Brazilian population has doubled in the last 20 years and they need food and space now. Same goes for Africa....good job Globalists!
The Earth will chew us up and spit us out when it's had enough of our shenanigans. No need to bog yourself down in the details when you understand that.
Greg Fishel, respected meteorologist, wrote a rant of Facebook criticizing people who question the science behind climate change, telling them to “put up or shut up.” He says climate deniers are self-appointed "experts" who just post junk on the internet and none of their stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal. He challenges them to do just that.
I agree. If climate deniers have a mechanism that explains how increased CO2 and methane don't heat the Earth, and supply a rigorous proof that Arrhenius was wrong, then let's see it. Get it published.
Thank you! I’m glad I’m not the only one saying this.
By the way, check out Potholer54 on YouTube, he does an excellent job shredding denier talking points to pieces.
You don't have to prove that something ISN'T happening: the burden of proof is on those making the claim.
Right, and science has completely met that burden through rigorous analysis. The science proving AGW is real is rock solid, with better than 99.999% certainty. What the deniers do is publish spurious theories and cherry-picked data that tries to refute science with fear, uncertainty and doubt.
The deniers aren't refuting science with science. The denier movement is political.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
Is it likely that climate change is dependent only only one variable (CO2), let alone one so negligible that it constitutes less than one-half of one-tenth of one percent of the atmosphere?
CO2 does not act alone. It enables an increase in water vapor pressure, which is a potent greenhouse gas. It's a feedback mechanism.
Not at all. Mann's lawsuit has nothing to do with the science of climate change, which has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (to 5-sigma statistical significance) is caused by man's use of fossil fuels.
Not at all. No one denies that natural climate change is continuing today; it is a much smaller and much slower process than man-made climate change. Manmade CC is totally swamping the natural signal.
The North American Ice Sheet was common? The earth heals itself. With or without man.
You don't have to prove that something ISN'T happening: the burden of proof is on those making the claim. But here's a study that was accepted for publication by the online Journal of Geophysical Research, that re-focuses attention on a far more likely driver of climate change (sun spot activity) that is entering a cycle that results in COOLING. https://electroverse.net/chinese-sci...lobal-cooling/
Your link is to a climate denier site which yet again is all hat and no cattle. They were unable to give a citation for this supposed Chinese research paper or even the full name of the author of this supposed paper. Same old tired denier tactic that you people tried to use in the Michael Mann thread - when all else fails lie through your teeth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog
Who is more likely to be objective: the U.S. and the U.N., who have been pushing this massive expansion of taxes and regulation with tactics anathema to science, or China - which cares about surviving and thriving in the future and doesn't need public support to impose new taxes/regulations? For intellectual rigor, I'd trust the Chinese scientists (considering how many Asian students we see in the hard sciences in our top universities).
This newfound republican admiration of communist countries and dictators was old even before the 2016 elections. First it was Trump's unstinting admiration for Vladimir Putin, former higher up in the KGB. Then we have Trump falling in love with North Korea's President Kim - a brutal dictator. Now we must kneel before Communist China's version of scientific enquiry.
You deniers are getting more desperate by the day, and this rejection of American science and scientists will win you no new friends among rational people.
If China is so wonderful, I suggest you go live there and stay until China freezes over.
I think we need to define what a "climate denier" is. I acknowledge that the Earth has a climate. I don't deny that. I know that climate, by it's very definition changes over the course of time, all by itself. Having said that I do not believe there is enough evidence to prove that human activity changes climate. In addition, I've been around long enough to see the great global cooling scare of the mid 70's. Then we were told the Earth is warming. But when the numbers didn't keep up with the established narrative, it became climate change. So we are right back where we started. In conclusion, the climate is going to change, always has, always will. I don't deny that.
So what then, is a "climate denier"?
No one is arguing that the climate doesn't change naturally but what is missing from your argument is if man is not the cause then exactly what is causing the warming. Just ignoring the overwhelming evidence for "beliefs" is not a rational argument.
I would say people that deny the research by the IPCC, NASA and world wide scientific organizations are certainly deniers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
