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.
You're right, that doesn't prove anything. But the burden of proof is on those who want the citizens of the productive countries in the world to embark on a vast, expensive experiment that accomplishes nothing against an unproven risk. Granted, the list of entertainers who fueled the Paris conclave included:
Chris Pine
Jon Bon Jovi
Lance Bass
Ed Begley, Jr
Vance Joy
Peter Gabriel
There are musical performances to help focus the politicians as:
Damian Kulash
Duran Duran
Elton John
Fall Out Boy
Florence & The Machine
Hozier
Mumford And Sons
Walk The Moon
These dedicated actors, singers, musical groups and politicians no doubt felt very good about themselves. They are "saving the earth" and having a very good time in the process. The very real problem with these gatherings is that they will come up with an agreement that will accomplish nothing, and be very costly to ordinary, hard-working people. Why is this predictable? Politicians want money.
Are you suggesting that we didn’t start recording temperatures until 1988?
We started in the 1700s, but accurate thermometers were not distributed across the planet until the mid 1900s. Since accurate conclusions would require thousands of years of measurement, the accurate modern data that we have should be considered about 1% of what we need.
Love that TIME magazine cover. Oh! And the data that allowed the armageddonism of that time came from climate scientists. We have to believe the consensus of climate scientists and redistribute all are wealth to primitive savages in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 100th worlds. Right? The climate scientists are in agreement. The Ice Age is coming. Only they were wrong. No Ice Age. So no, I am not going to allow the Paris freaks to steal the wealth of my country, put it in a climate change envelope, and send it to Bangladesh. Not happening on my watch.
We'll deal with the climate if it changes. We'll relocate ALL the cities, and all the island peoples can move. There will be unimaginable benefits as well as costs. We DON'T need to modify our industrial progressive ever more advanced lifestyles. And if we do? Then we should die.
It's the same Leftist group of "scientists" that tout Socialism, multiculturalism, income-sameness, blm, et all.
We know your game.
Most people are cognisant of pollution and are good stewards of their locale.
You people are obsessed with this leftist non-God religion know as climate change.
Don't think we aren't on to you.
You mean like NASA? You think NASA is some conspiring, liberal organization because NASA is very enthusiastic about teaching that climate change is real and caused by humans. If you haven't been to their website, I suggest you go there. We're talking about NASA: the worldwide respected organization with access to the kinds of satellites that study climate and weather.
They're all just Satanists though.
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
We started in the 1700s, but accurate thermometers were not distributed across the planet until the mid 1900s. Since accurate conclusions would require thousands of years of measurement, the accurate modern data that we have should be considered about 1% of what we need.
Why do we need thousands of years of measurement to show that the earth has been warming since the 1950s? I don’t understand.
Why do we need thousands of years of measurement to show that the earth has been warming since the 1950s? I don’t understand.
Because you cannot prove that the Earth is warming since 1950 by analyzing a dataset that includes temperatures from 1950 to 2018. Temperature trends span centuries, not decades. A warmup observed from 1950-2018 is meaningless in geologic time and very well could be simple random variance.
People really don't understand variance, and the time frames that are often necessary to eliminate it from an analysis.
In the world of poker we see this. Some guy has a lifetime of success while another equally good player is break-even or a small loser. How can this be? Can someone be luckier than another in the game of poker throughout an entire lifetime? Doesn't it all even out? It turns out that statistically, a human lifetime is not enough time to remove the effects of random variance. You can't play enough hands in 50 years to eliminate the variance. So a somewhat worse player could actually be luckier than a better player in poker for his entire lifetime, outperform him, and it would not be statistically meaningful.
Because you cannot prove that the Earth is warming since 1950 by analyzing a dataset that includes temperatures from 1950 to 2018. Temperature trends span centuries, not decades. A warmup observed from 1950-2018 is meaningless in geologic time and very well could be simple random variance.
People really don't understand variance, and the time frames that are often necessary to eliminate it from an analysis.
In the world of poker we see this. Some guy has a lifetime of success while another equally good player is break-even or a small loser. How can this be? Can someone be luckier than another in the game of poker throughout an entire lifetime? Doesn't it all even out? It turns out that statistically, a human lifetime is not enough time to remove the effects of random variance. You can't play enough hands in 50 years to eliminate the variance. So a somewhat worse player could actually be luckier than a better player in poker for his entire lifetime, outperform him, and it would not be statistically meaningful.
If reliable temperature measurements show that average temperatures have been rising since the 1950s, then average temperatures really have been rising since the 1950s.
If reliable temperature measurements show that average temperatures have been rising since the 1950s, then average temperatures really have been rising since the 1950s.
But why have temperatures not budged in the component cities that make up U.S., or world, records? New York's average high for July 11 is the same as it was in 1911.
Love that TIME magazine cover. Oh! And the data that allowed the armageddonism of that time came from climate scientists. We have to believe the consensus of climate scientists and redistribute all are wealth to primitive savages in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 100th worlds. Right? The climate scientists are in agreement. The Ice Age is coming. Only they were wrong. No Ice Age. So no, I am not going to allow the Paris freaks to steal the wealth of my country, put it in a climate change envelope, and send it to Bangladesh. Not happening on my watch.
We'll deal with the climate if it changes. We'll relocate ALL the cities, and all the island peoples can move. There will be unimaginable benefits as well as costs. We DON'T need to modify our industrial progressive ever more advanced lifestyles. And if we do? Then we should die.
That was from fifty years ago. That's quite awhile. Also:
What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."
"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."
A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:
"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
Peer-Reviewed Literature
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice...termediate.htm
Last edited by Clintone; 07-09-2018 at 12:13 PM..
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.
