The sky is falling, the sky is falling......I have to laugh every time I read one of these articles from the climate alarmists. Now we read that July is set to be the worlds warmest on record.......but records have only been kept for maybe hundreds of years but the earth is projected to be 4.5 to 5 billion years old. And new reports keep coming out that the Antarctic was once a tropical rain forest.

 

The current observable sample size (warmest on record) is grossly inaccurate to make any relevant statistical observation and to base one's conclusion on this July's temperature is unethical and deceptive.

2 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

 

I don't find it highly technical but then I have a pretty good grounding in the physical sciences.

 

I think a significant percentage of people understand how a microwave works so they should understand how absorption of electromagnetic radiation by certain substances is part of the cause of climate change.

That maybe so but that still doesn't proof that that is caused by man or the Natural Phenomenon, Let it Be. 

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Frigid arctic air moving southwards. The polar vortex issue.

And this explains why the antarctic was once a tropical rain forest?

13 hours ago, heybruce said:

Really?  You have proof that climate change has happened globally this fast in the past?  Please show us this proof.

So now you are trying to say that that's man's fault hey? you Can't proof that .

Nature can change slow or Fast that't not for you to argue about .

9 minutes ago, Keep Right said:

And this explains why the antarctic was once a tropical rain forest?

No, continental drift explains that.  The tropics are the region within 23.5 degrees latitude of the equator.

A post with a trolling meme and a reply has been removed.

24 minutes ago, ICU Kid said:

Science is never settled - it's an ongoing process.

Thats the difference between science & dogma.

 

As this undersecretary at the United Nations explains, the UN, WEF etc. partner with search engines like Google to ensure any sceptical views on CC are not seen by the vast majority.  She also says "We own the science" (much as the Spanish Inquisition did back in the day).  See for yourself:

Science is never settled is doublespeak for denial. It doesn't have to be "settled". It's not a single fact or piece pof evidence wer're looking at here, it's millions. There is absolutely not a shred of doubt among climate scientists.

2 minutes ago, Keep Right said:

And this explains why the antarctic was once a tropical rain forest?

Antarctica was never a tropical rain. It was a rain forest. Back then, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 1100 ppm. That would be about 4 times the pre-industrial level 200 years ago. Thanks for reinforcing the point about CO2's potency as a greenhouse gas.

https://www.vox.com/22797395/antarctica-was-once-a-rainforest-could-it-be-again

The BBC scare mongering. They cant predict the weather for the next day yet these self appointed visionaries want to tell everyone what the weather will be like in several years time.

Just now, Photoguy21 said:

The BBC scare mongering. They cant predict the weather for the next day yet these self appointed visionaries want to tell everyone what the weather will be like in several years time.

You're a scientist and you don't understand the difference between weather and climate?

20 hours ago, placeholder said:

Stop making things up. There is no record in the past 125000 years at least, of temperature rise occurring this rapidly. Even if I had the expertise to fully understand the science, would have the expertise to understand it. In an example I cited earlier, complicated statistical analysis was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Higgs Boson had been found. Would you understand the explanation from a physicist given the complicated techniques involved? If they can't prove it so you can understand it, does that mean it's not proven? Get over yourself.

Nature Can change for the better for people or worse.  

That can occur slow or fast that's not for you or anyone to blame man for that.

Let it Be

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

You're a scientist and you don't understand the difference between weather and climate?

Yes I do but unlike you I dont believe the rubbish that is pushed out by the media. Do you ever consider climate changes due to El Nina and El Nino? Probably not.

1 minute ago, digger70 said:

Nature Can change for the better for people or worse.  

That can occur slow or fast that's not for you or anyone to blame man for that.

Let it Be

Well no. Let it be is exactly what the BBC, all the world's children and all the world's climate scientists don't want you to do? Don't you get it?

Just now, digger70 said:

Nature Can change for the better for people or worse.  

That can occur slow or fast that's not for you or anyone to blame man for that.

Let it Be

Got any evidence so support that fast a change over the last few million years?  Occasionally there have been catastrophes like asteroids striking the earth. But no valid scientific explanation for the current rapid rise in temperature apart from the effects of greenhouse gasses exists. It's quite a coinicidence that the theory has been right on target in predicting the speed of global warming.

20 minutes ago, placeholder said:

no valid scientific explanation for the current rapid rise in temperature apart from the effects of greenhouse gasses exists.

No valid explanation as you said .

So they make one up .That's Scare mongering.

21 hours ago, placeholder said:

There is no record in the past 125000 years at least, of temperature rise occurring this rapidly.

More to the point, there is NO RECORD FULL STOP. Oh sorry I forgot about the ice-cores in Nevada and southern Italy

Both Google and Youtube a disgrace

 

https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/7/22715102/google-youtube-climate-change-deniers-ads-monetization

39 minutes ago, nglodnig said:

More to the point, there is NO RECORD FULL STOP. Oh sorry I forgot about the ice-cores in Nevada and southern Italy

Yes you did. But you caught yourself.

And there's also sedimentation that allows further lookbacks.

https://phys.org/news/2016-04-ancient-marine-sediments-clues-future.html

1 hour ago, digger70 said:

No valid explanation as you said .

So they make one up .That's Scare mongering.

It says a lot about your character that you would misleadingly quote me. Here's my comment in full:

"Got any evidence so support that fast a change over the last few million years?  Occasionally there have been catastrophes like asteroids striking the earth. But no valid scientific explanation for the current rapid rise in temperature apart from the effects of greenhouse gasses exists. It's quite a coinicidence that the theory has been right on target in predicting the speed of global warming."

 

 

The topic heading should be Weather:July hottest on record.

 

1 month is weather not climate.

53 minutes ago, nglodnig said:

More to the point, there is NO RECORD FULL STOP. Oh sorry I forgot about the ice-cores in Nevada and southern Italy

Thai records are only about 70 years old. UK has limited records back a few centuries.

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

The topic heading should be Weather:July hottest on record.

 

1 month is weather not climate.

They're not ;looking at one month. Think about it.

15 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yes you did. But you caught yourself.

Sorry shoulda put a "sarcasm alert" there because you obviously missed it.

There is NO PROOF of accurate daily temperatures going back tens of thousands of years or more. There are extrapolations and theories but it CANNOT be verified. 

4 minutes ago, bignok said:

Weather. Learn what climate is.

Every July for 200 years is climate, not weather. You are trolling. You know exactly whey they focused on July. If you don't you must have skipped that day in junior science class.

7 minutes ago, nglodnig said:

Sorry shoulda put a "sarcasm alert" there because you obviously missed it.

There is NO PROOF of accurate daily temperatures going back tens of thousands of years or more. There are extrapolations and theories but it CANNOT be verified. 

Please, accurate daily temperatures are not necessary to detect trends. What's more different proxies are compared to each to make sure that they are statistically valid.

12 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

On the other side of the coin is the sycophantic reporting by the legacy media of any piece of flatulent nonsense put out by the climate zealots.

 

Such as that globalist hack Antonio Guterres, head of the UN, who said last week "The era of global warming has ended, the era of global boiling has arrived", as though his lofty status gave him the right to declare the start of an entire new age.

 

This is exactly the sort of doomsaying nonsense that puts thinking people right off the climate cabal, but not, of course, the fawning climate toadies at The Guardian, who declared from their bunker that "Era of global boiling has arrived and it is terrifying,",  as if Guterres’s word was gospel, his every utterance a divine truth.

 

These people make themselves look utterly ridiculous, and by extension make the whole global warming movement look even more like a giant Ponzi scheme.

Utterly irrelevant to the underlying science.

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

to each to make sure that they are statistically valid

That does NOT make them true

 

2 minutes ago, nglodnig said:

That does NOT make them true

It's you against paleoclimatologists. So far, you've got nothing.

1 minute ago, Eleftheros said:

To tie together two threads, Lindzen is one of the best credentialed scientists in the fields of atmospheric physics and climate change, winner of multiple awards and over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers on these topics.

 

Yet the bulk of his Wikipedia entry is given over to insults sent his way by people far less credentialed than Lindzen himself, slanderously calling him, among other things, "not intellectually honest at all.".

 

The legacy media would rather eat rat turds than allow Lindzen on the air to explain his views or, God forbid, debate with anyone.

True, Gore would never debate with him. Lindzen would rip him apart.

Posts with unattributed content and the replies have been removed.  Please provide a link to the sources of information even if the source is Wikipedia.

 

A post with a video from a Questionable source and the replies have been removed.