This year already holds a record. Of forrest fires and floods. Koyaanisqatsi. The Hopi knew already: trays of burning ashes emptied on the world. If the modern lifestyle continues. The first pieces of ash have hit us...

Yes.

Yes. — SoftEdgedWonder

oh please. We haven't discovered America yet. We don't know how to kindle fires yet. We don't know if germs cause disease yet. — Wayfarer

You have zero reason to doubt climate change, other than the misinformation you've been fed.
6m — Olivier5

I'm not a climate change denier myself but it doesn't seem to enjoy the same level of certainty like, say, the existence of the sun. Nobody denies the latter but a significant number of people, scientists among them, have serious misgivings about the former. The jury's still out, I'm afraid.

Remember (to all members), climate change activists make two claims:

1. There's climate change (global warming + extreme weather).

2. Human activity is causing this.

Those are extraordinary claims. How can one species have an impact on such scales? The Sagan standard applies.

I'm not a climate change denier myself but it doesn't seem to enjoy the same level of certainty like, say, the existence of the sun. — TheMadFool

Bollocks.

Bollicks — Wayfarer

:lol: Where's the evidence for climate change? :chin:

for chrissake MF, there is abundant documented evidence with vast scientific consensus. Only a fool would deny it.

Basically, everything that was predicted by Al Gore’s film Inconvenient Truth in - when was that? 2006? - is happening, but the bad news is, a lot of it is happening faster than was even predicted then.

The scientific principle is exceedingly simple - increasing percentage of CO² in the atmosphere causes it to retain heat more efficiently. It was predicted in the 1960’s - actually there were predictions many years before - and it’s been tracked ever since. 350ppm (parts per million) was a marker that was supposed to be a line in the sand but I think it’s been surpassed already. Sea-level rises, melting of polar ice and glaciers, record-breaking temperatures, enormous wildfires and huge rain events provide abundant testimony of what is happening. It’s one of the reasons that even the climate-change denying Murdoch press in Australia has been forced to change its editorial stance.

I don’t know what ‘the single source of truth’ for climate change is, but there are many authoritative sources such as NASA, the UN, various Climate Councils. But it’s simply bollocks to say that it’s not established or not known, it is beyond reasonable doubt.

a significant number of people, scientists among them, have serious misgivings about the former. — TheMadFool

That is a lie you've been told. There are no serious, qualified scientist with 'misgivings' about climate change.

for chrissake MF, there is abundant documented evidence with vast scientific consensus. Only a fool would deny it. — Wayfarer

I'll only believe in man-induced climate change if the observed global warming (rising temperatures) perfectly matches that predicted based on human-activity-related CO2 emissions.

Here is one index

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/climate-change-qa/information

The IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is listed there, is probably the most authoritative source.

:lol: Where's the evidence for climate change? — TheMadFool

Evidence: This year, a local supershower of rain stationary felt down in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. These were predicted to occur only in about 20 years!
And look at the floods in the US this year. Or the forrest fires globally.
The polar ice is almost gone.
Average temperature has risen in a short time.
What more do I have to say? Is it just a coincidence?

Evidence: This year, a local supershower of rain stationary felt down in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands. These were predicted to occur only in about 20 years!
And look at the floods in the US this year. Or the forrest fires globally.
The polar ice is almost gone.
Average temperature has risen in a short time.
What more do I have to say? Is it just a coincidence? — SoftEdgedWonder

I'll only believe in man-induced climate change if the observed global warming (rising temperatures) perfectly matches that predicted based on human-activity-related CO2 emissions. — TheMadFool

I'll only believe in man-induced climate change if the observed global warming (rising temperatures) perfectly matches that predicted based on human-activity-related CO2 emissions. — TheMadFool

It doesn't match perfectly. The supershowers were predicted to occur in 20 years. These showers ar people's-activity-induced.

Does your anus perfectly match predictions made about its throughput, or doesn't it? If if it doesn't, should we believe in your anus?

Does your anus perfectly match predictions made about its throughput, or doesn't it? If if it doesn't, should we believe in your anus? — Olivier5

:rofl:

I mean, people asking for perfection are all absolutely perfect themselves, right?

Does your anus perfectly match predictions made about its throughput, or doesn't it? If if it doesn't, should we believe in your anus? — Olivier5

Not funny but a good attempt. There's a thread :point: Is Climatology Science? and the condition that I stipulated - the predicted rise in temperatures based off of human-activity-related CO2 emissions should match the observed global warming - is basically a call to climatologists to make their case as scientific as possible, much like how real scientists conduct their business. People can be won over to their side with this simple step and, if they really want to clinch their argument, they should make observable forecasts regarding future temeperatures e.g. they could say, "another x billion metric tons of CO2 will enter the atmosphere from human activity in the next 5 years beginning 2021, expect the global temperature to rise by y degree celsius." We could then ready our thermometers and verify/falsify the claim. Simple.

It doesn't match perfectly. — SoftEdgedWonder

I rest my case.

So scientists are not allowed to make mistakes.

So scientists are not allowed to make mistakes — Olivier5

I would hope not. Their mistakes can have far-reaching effects, no? Induce mass panic for instance.

Their mistakes can have far-reaching effects, no? Induce mass panic for instance. — TheMadFool

That is again simply not true that an error in prediction by a tenth of a degree will have "serious consequences" or "induce mass panic". You're just being silly.

That is again simply not true that an error in prediction by a tenth of a degree will have "serious consequences" or "induce mass panic". You're just being silly — Olivier5

Straw man. I never mentioned the level of precision although it will matter to the quality of the prediction climatologists make and thus will also decide their credibility.

Come to think of it, I'm fairly confident that scientists should be able to create a CO2-greenhouse effect model in the lab and use it to forecast future global temperature trends. I don't know why they're so reluctant to do so. Smells fishy, don't you think?

As long as the Earth orbits the sun and spins around its axis, climate change is going to take place. Best to get used to it.

As long as the Earth orbits the sun and spins around its axis, climate change is going to take place. Best to get used to it. — Tzeentch

True.

I'm fairly confident that scientists should be able to create a CO2-greenhouse effect model in the lab and use it to forecast future global temperature trends. I don't know why they're so reluctant to do so. Smells fishy, don't you think? — TheMadFool

But there are dozens such models... What smells fishy to me is that you are not aware of that, and yet you go all judgmental about it... It proves that you do not speak in good faith, that you are lying to yourself. You are trying to find excuses.

But there are dozens such models — Olivier5

Name some and do they make predictions, have these been verified?

Name some and do they make predictions, have these been verified? — TheMadFool

I already 10 years ago, no, even in my teens, made the prediction (like the Hopi) that natural disasters (storms and fires) will increase because of human activity. Reality has confirmed my predictions.

Why should I do that? You are obviously not arguing in good faith. You are busy blindfolding yourself.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Talk to any gardener. It's in your backyard, if you have one, and if you've paid any attention to it over years. — tim wood

:100:

As a little boy back in the 60s, I flew at 30k feet. I remember seeing a distinct, bright-line horizon at the edge of the Earth and space. I remember seeing the same thing atop 14ers. No more. Not since the 80s. Not even over the middle of the Pacific. There is a blur, a haze. The horizon is still there, but it's a blur. Now I know the culprit is supposed to be invisible, and it may very well be. But if the visible shit, that light- brown rusty blur, has enveloped the planet, then you can bet the invisible shit has too. The lights at night, from space, are another example. Anyone who thinks the Earth is too big for little old us to trash just doesn't get it.

Aldo Leopold said something to the effect that those with an environmental conscious live in a world of wounds.

We see things. Situational awareness.

Where's the evidence for climate change? :chin:
— TheMadFool

Talk to any gardener. It's in your backyard, if you have one, and if you've paid any attention to it over years. — tim wood

I'm not sure how to parse your comment but I know some plant hobbyists, not exactly real gardeners, but I don't recall them complaining about the seasons. I'm curious, what did you have in mind?

Why should I do that? You are obviously not arguing in good faith. You are busy blindfolding yourself. — Olivier5

:monkey: