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.
Very scientific analysis...
I am confused.
Are we basing climate change/global warming on the weather or not?
See the link in post #12. The original position of scientists was that weather cannot be ascribed or blamed on climate change. As more studies are done, that is changing. The science of "climate attribution" uses rigorous analysis to determine to what degree, if any, a certain extreme weather event is caused by climate change.
I accept that climate change is real but that's just one giant pile of stupid.
It's pointing at every record high, or low, or snowfall or drought or flooding....just opens the door for the opposition to cite the opposite when it occurs.
Taking an utterly unscientific approach like Mayor McCheese is NOT a good thing.
Just another hack mayor politicizing his town's situation. He needs to be more concerned about getting the citizens to safety instead of crowing some myth.
I'm just curious: Other than not believing/agreeing with what he has to say about climate change, do you live in or have family/friends in Kimmswick, MO (population approximately 152) or some evidence, to show that he is not showing concern and taking action on behalf of the citizens he serves?
Whether one believes in climate change or not, it's not smart to build near bodies of water that are prone to flooding.
Yet individuals and municipalities continue to eliminate the buffer that nature would provide, or when none would be there, still build where it's stupid to do so.
Actually science is increasingly on the mayor's side here. There is an emerging field of science called "climate attribution" that uses rigorous analysis to determine to what extent, if any, is extreme weather caused or worsened by climate change. Climate Attribution
We are in the early stages of a climate crisis. Is that climate alarmism? No, not all. The rapidly increasing extreme weather events worldwide speak for themselves.
Climate attribution... the latest fake science term to try and extract money through fear.
Look at these two paragraphs from the link Climate Attribution above...
When scientists investigate climate change's effects on extreme events, they are not asking whether climate change caused an event. Instead, they attempt to determine whether and by how much climate change has affected the likelihood or intensity of an event. They often rely on real-world observations incorporated into climate models, which make calculations to simulate what would likely happen if individual conditions - such as global average temperatures - were different.
Extreme events are by definition rare - if they occurred regularly, we would likely not consider them extreme. By running climate models that recreate real-world conditions at the time of an event, scientists can determine just how rare - that is, how likely or unlikely - an event that actually occurred really was. Researchers then determine the likelihood of the same event under a different set of conditions by repeating the process using a climate model that simulates a hypothetical world in which humans have no influence on the climate. By comparing the likelihoods under these two scenarios, researchers can determine the extent to which human-caused climate change affected an event.
Summarizing... they have no clue on climate change affecting the weather. They don't even go there. Probably pretty smart to stay away from that. That's the first underline.
The second underline... They use criteria from a world that will never exist (a world without human influence). In other words, they make up the criteria to create the outcome they want, and come up with the numbers they want.
Hypothetical... simulations... not real data... not real science.
Actually science is increasingly on the mayor's side here. There is an emerging field of science called "climate attribution" that uses rigorous analysis to determine to what extent, if any, is extreme weather caused or worsened by climate change. Climate Attribution
We are in the early stages of a climate crisis. Is that climate alarmism? No, not all. The rapidly increasing extreme weather events worldwide speak for themselves.
If it's AGW, it can't be stopped no matter how much you tax.
Climate attribution... the latest fake science term to try and extract money through fear.
Look at these two paragraphs from the link Climate Attribution above...
When scientists investigate climate change's effects on extreme events, they are not asking whether climate change caused an event. Instead, they attempt to determine whether and by how much climate change has affected the likelihood or intensity of an event. They often rely on real-world observations incorporated into climate models, which make calculations to simulate what would likely happen if individual conditions - such as global average temperatures - were different.
Extreme events are by definition rare - if they occurred regularly, we would likely not consider them extreme. By running climate models that recreate real-world conditions at the time of an event, scientists can determine just how rare - that is, how likely or unlikely - an event that actually occurred really was. Researchers then determine the likelihood of the same event under a different set of conditions by repeating the process using a climate model that simulates a hypothetical world in which humans have no influence on the climate. By comparing the likelihoods under these two scenarios, researchers can determine the extent to which human-caused climate change affected an event.
Summarizing... they have no clue on climate change affecting the weather. They don't even go there. Probably pretty smart to stay away from that. That's the first underline.
The second underline... They use criteria from a world that will never exist (a world without human influence). In other words, they make up the criteria to create the outcome they want, and come up with the numbers they want.
Hypothetical... simulations... not real data... not real science.
When talking about AGW, you must cherry pick the data to support it.
You know, like when we talk about CO2 levels, you should only go back 800,000 years. If you go back too far, you'll find levels nearly 5 times higher on a lush planet with great biodiversity.
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.
