Lots of Americans are sick of this climate change stuff

[otto105]

Now they actually create the hobgoblins and make them real, like Islamic terrorism.

Where did all the intelligent republics go?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Where did all the intelligent republics go?

What?

 

[otto105]

What?

When did most republics decide to be lower educated and proud of it?

I know most people 100 years ago didn’t go to high school, but I don’t make that a 2022 goal for my party.

 

[ding]

When did most republics decide to be lower educated and proud of it?

I know most people 100 years ago didn’t go to high school, but I don’t make that a 2022 goal for my party.

What's your degree in? Mine is in engineering.

 

[otto105]

What's your degree in? Mine is in engineering.

Then can you provide the name of an engineering organization which denies human caused AGW?

 

[frigidweirdo]

When did most republics decide to be lower educated and proud of it?

I know most people 100 years ago didn’t go to high school, but I don’t make that a 2022 goal for my party.

Which countries have decided they want an educated populous that is able to think for itself?
I'm not sure there are many. A few in Europe perhaps, the US never has been.

Educated people are a danger to the politicians.

 

[otto105]

Which countries have decided they want an educated populous that is able to think for itself?
I'm not sure there are many. A few in Europe perhaps, the US never has been.

Educated people are a danger to the politicians.

Yup, one party here in America embraces education while the other seeks to limit it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yup, one party here in America embraces education while the other seeks to limit it.

I'm not sure that's the case. I think both parties limit education, one more than the other.

 

[ding]

Then can you provide the name of an engineering organization which denies human caused AGW?

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

 

[ding]

Then can you provide the name of an engineering organization which denies human caused AGW?

So you don't have a college degree?

 

[ding]

Then can you provide the name of an engineering organization which denies human caused AGW?

I hope you don't believe I should be bound by what others believe or don't believe.

The native state of our planet with its current land mass and ocean configuration is to cool. They have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous. The geologic record is littered with examples. This is especially true ever since the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet 3 million years ago. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainties are hallmarks of our bipolar glaciated world which has different glaciation thresholds at each pole.

The only correlation between temperature and CO2 on a planetary scale that is known with any certainty is from the time before the industrial revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature. This is a fact that no one disputes. If you don't know why this correlation existed, just ask me. Since that time man's emissions have broken the correlation between temperature and CO2. We know this with 100% certainty because we are 2C cooler than in the past with 120 ppm more CO2.

Some scientists attribute the recent warming trend to CO2 based upon model results. But other scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[otto105]

There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).

Dude, that whatever it is under Globalwrmingsolved is just a paper.

You offered a nothingburger

 

[ding]

Dude, that whatever it is under Globalwrmingsolved is just a paper.

You offered a nothingburger

Science is presented through papers, not through public endorsements. Public endorsements are intended for political purposes. But you don't know the first thing about science because you are not educated and can only state political rhetoric. And you can't even do that well because you can't even tell me what climate catastrophes you are worried about.

 

[otto105]

Science is presented through papers, not through public endorsements. Public endorsements are intended for political purposes. But you don't know the first thing about science because you are not educated and can only state political rhetoric. And you can't even do that well because you can't even tell me what climate catastrophes you are worried about.

Science is peer reviewed and scientific organizations report actual scientific findings. Which is why all support the science that human caused AGW is happening and you solar sun spot bullshit isn't.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Big Oil GOP is the only political party in the world that denies it. Or believes in US election fraud or vaccine etc hoax, you name it, hater dupe.

Lol...nobody cares about narratives and slogans.

In the end, it's all about who's not winning!!
Texas adds greatest number of oil, natural gas jobs in recorded state history

 

[skookerasbil]

If you're sick of climate change now, you may be sicker of it this summer. We'll see.

I'm an evidence based individual, I don't place much stock in predictions and I completely ignore those who say things are impossible.

If the climate change people are correct, we'll see noticeable and measurable changes within the next 5 years. The summers will become hotter. Los Angeles will become like Chandler Arizona.

We'll see, right?

But voters don't care about climate change. Never have.

Now that could change....

If...we start seeing hot spells in central Canada in January for 10 days and photos from up there....like THIS >>>

But not a moment sooner....d0y

 

[ding]

Science is peer reviewed and scientific organizations report actual scientific findings. Which is why all support the science that human caused AGW is happening and you solar sun spot bullshit isn't.

You don't know the first thing about science. You don't even have a college education.

 

[otto105]

You don't know the first thing about science. You don't even have a college education.

Dude, I have everything on my side.


You have only have to spread doubt and throw all shot at the fan.

 

[Oddball]

Yup, one party here in America embraces education while the other seeks to limit it.

Which makes it ironic that those who supposedly "embrace education" are such blooming fucking idiots.....Like you.

 

[Oddball]

Dude, I have everything on my side.


You have only have to spread doubt and throw all shot at the fan.

You have nothing on your side but a heap of stale debunked boilerplate.