This is climate breakdown

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by V25V

What's even crazier is that someone will probably convince people to try that. They are seeding clouds in Dubai and we see where that got them, of course they denied this was the fault of seeding and blamed the disaster on global warming.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68839043

If you read the article, it's apparent that cloud seeding had little or nothing to do with the excessive rain in UAE. Parts of Spain near Valencia recently experienced a year's rain in one day.

Hurricanes off the US East coast are gradually ramping up in severity. Unprecedented droughts and widfires are breaking out.

This is not "normal".

[Krash]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

If you read the article, it's apparent that cloud seeding had little or nothing to do with the excessive rain in UAE. Parts of Spain near Valencia recently experienced a year's rain in one day.

Hurricanes off the US East coast are gradually ramping up in severity. Unprecedented droughts and widfires are breaking out.

This is not "normal".

We have no idea what hurricane strength was 1,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago. Absolutely no idea at all. So you can’t say they’re getting more severe.

You can’t draw conclusions based on 50 years of casual observation. It’s like saying who will win the World Series after the first inning of the first game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VictorGMT]

Originally Posted by rolexpatek363

99% of scientists in this field the world over agree that human activity is warming our climate with disatrous results.

So obvious.

The scientists like being employed.

They are ostracized, isolated and denied funding if they don't roll with the story.

99% agreement is a feature of cults, not science.

Originally Posted by Krash

We have no idea what hurricane strength was 1,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago. Absolutely no idea at all. So you can’t say they’re getting more severe.

Sure we do. We find ten tree fossils, carbon date them, and get all the scientists to agree that the fossils are 9,978 years old and provide "evidence" indicates that hurricanes were weaker at that time. Peer review each others papers, invite each other to speak, fly private jets to each others conferences. It's a good life and there are people who will really eat it up. In the 70's, talk about the "New Ice Age".

Make a movie about a bad powerpoint in 2000 after losing an election, and "An Inconvenient Truth" says we'll be under water in ten years.

There are people who wake up daily with a sense of dread, and you've given it a name.

The Next Ice Age.

Oops I meant...

Global Warming.

Oops I meant...

Weather.

Oops I meant...

Climate Change.

After twenty years, 100% of scientists got their degrees from you, only a percent or two will escape the orthodoxy.

[VictorGMT]

Originally Posted by Krash

You can’t draw conclusions based on 50 years of casual observation. It’s like saying who will win the World Series after the first inning of the first game.

It's like guessing who won the 1951 World Series by watching six innings of a little league game.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Krash

We have no idea what hurricane strength was 1,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago. Absolutely no idea at all. So you can’t say they’re getting more severe.

You can’t draw conclusions based on 50 years of casual observation. It’s like saying who will win the World Series after the first inning of the first game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is another example of someone holding an opinion without a basis for that opinion.

You can say it cannot be known with precision. But it is not accurate to say “no idea”… first of all, you need not go back 1,000 years to understand relevant climate (and weather) trends. You just need to measure pre- vs post-industrialization. Second, there are ways to triangulate towards some “idea” of broader trends or significant changes. You can use evidence (geological/mineral, botanical, historical written records, etc). With enough data and with an understanding of how this fits together, you can start to test hypotheses.

If you reject it in this area, you should reject it in other research areas. It was flagged above that there is correlation in outlets propagating deceptive or poorly constructed rebuttals to the consensus views on climate change and vaccine efficacy. This doesn’t surprise me - but taken to an extreme, the same anti-scientific method approach would halt progress. It is akin to the dark ages…

[BraveBold]

Done with this thread - it is a Rolex/watch site.

Well, that and cars and maybe shoes…

[Krash]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

This is another example of someone holding an opinion without a basis for that opinion.

You can say it cannot be known with precision. But it is not accurate to say “no idea”… first of all, you need not go back 1,000 years to understand relevant climate (and weather) trends. You just need to measure pre- vs post-industrialization. Second, there are ways to triangulate towards some “idea” of broader trends or significant changes. You can use evidence (geological/mineral, botanical, historical written records, etc). With enough data and with an understanding of how this fits together, you can start to test hypotheses.

If you reject it in this area, you should reject it in other research areas. It was flagged above that there is correlation in outlets propagating deceptive or poorly constructed rebuttals to the consensus views on climate change and vaccine efficacy. This doesn’t surprise me - but taken to an extreme, the same anti-scientific method approach would halt progress. It is akin to the dark ages…

Let me know when you have barometric pressure, wind speeds, rainfall, and the average diameter of hurricanes 1,000 years ago. When you have real data, I’ll listen. Otherwise, you’re just guessing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Talon84]

The one thing we know for sure is that an increased population is leading to increased co2 emissions and climate change.

As a gay guy im doing my bit, so in the interest of balance, i get to drive gas guzzling race cars in lieu of snotty nosed, expensive, climate destroying children.

Sounds fair me thinks

[SDGT3]

I’m always amazed when climate activists throw red paint on a Picasso or Van Gogh at the museum to make their point. I then wonder if it was an oil based paint or water based

As someone earlier said, their level of certainty calls their actions and beliefs into question. My gauge is not what people say, but instead what they do. During the pandemic, the governor of California locked the state down, but he felt safe enough to go to the French Laundry for a party. Anthony Fauci told everyone to double mask, but he was seen at baseball games with no mask. In this instance, I see all the elite climate change supporters continue to buy in Martha’s Vineyard and California coast and get there by private jets and mega yachts with no worries about rising sea levels. If they’re not worried, neither am
I.

[Talon84]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

…….. by private jets and mega yachts with no worries about rising sea levels.

In fairness, thats probably why theyre not worried.

Neither planes nor yachts really have a problem with rising sea levels

Tbh, not sure if i believe all the climate change ‘stuff’, 50 or 100 years of science is a rather small sample size of millions of years of weather…..it would be like polling 50 nutters out of the entire population of america and basing the election result on it.

With that said i hate waste and inefficiency so i do think as a civilisation we can all take small steps to reduce waste and our footprint on mother nature

[gamingdoctor]

Originally Posted by Old Geezer

Unfortunately, the same agendas that drive news media, pervert research. Perhaps not yet as much but look at the institutions performing the research and who is funding them. The papers largely "prove" what those funding the research want them to prove.

Respectfully, I feel this is a cop out answer. We can criticize agendas all day long but there needs to be some critical review of the actual research.

I work in the medical field - there is definitely bias in drug studies conducted by pharm companies, but it doesn't mean all their research is automatically trash. There needs to be some critical thinking of how the research is being conducted on a case by case basis to form our own opinion.

[INC]

It is nothing more then the usual religion thing. BELIEVE that you have to FEAR! Believe in us! We will save you...

...r money. "Give it to us, because we can spend it"

Remember, these HIGH PRIESTS are always the same, just the script changes time by time

Ps.: The dinosaurs cries out loud.