3 hours ago, Wingate said:

It comes as no surprise that people who belong to one cult join others. It's a personality flaw that makes them weak and vulnerable to charlatans and snake oil salesmen.

 

"Climate Hoax" types are invariably MAGA, because their messiah called it Chinese or Democratic or leftists hoax.

 

None is a climatologist and almost none is a scientist. All are sheeple, led by the siren song of the bloated moron.

the climate is changing all the time and the Earth is still here!!

 

Geologists and paleontologists have found that in the last 100 million years, global temperatures have peaked twice. One spike was the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse roughly 92 million years ago, about 25 million years before Earth’s last dinosaurs went extinct. A 2024 paleoclimate reconstruction named PhanDA (Phanerozoic Data Assimilation) found a strong correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide during the Paleozoic (from the start of the reconstruction at 485 million years ago through 250 million years ago) and the Cenozoic (the last 65 million years) but did not find a similarly strong link during the age of the dinosaurs. So, the precise cause of the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse will need continued research, but the fossils indicate a very warm planet. Temperatures were so high that champsosaurs (crocodile-like reptiles) lived as far north as the Canadian Arctic, and warm-temperature forests thrived near the South Pole.

 

Another hothouse period was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) about 56 million years ago. During much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. Though not quite as hot as the Cretaceous hothouse, the PETM saw average global surface temperature rise about 6°C (11°F) in less than 10 millennia. That figured among the fastest periods of warming observed in the geological record, but as the Smithsonian’s Scott Wing explains, continued high greenhouse gas emissions and the projected amount of warming they are likely to cause over the next few centuries could amount to roughly the same amount of warming at a rate 10 times faster.

 

During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 34°C (93°F). (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.) At roughly the same time, paleoclimate data like fossilized phytoplankton and ocean sediments record a massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, at least doubling or possibly even quadrupling the background concentrations.

 

It is still uncertain where all the carbon dioxide came from and what the exact sequence of events was. Scientists have considered the drying up of large inland seas, volcanic activity, thawing permafrost, release of methane from warming ocean sediments, huge wildfires, and even—briefly—a comet. In recent years, evidence has emerged that huge volcanic eruptions occurred in North America at the time of the PETM, and these volcanoes were a likely source of at least some of the carbon dioxide.

 

 

Of course, nuclear fusion would solve all our energy problems once an for all.

 

Scientists work on it since the mid 50ties, always claiming that in 20 years "we will have fugured it out". The narrative has not changed, the sermon is still "In 20 years we will have figured out".

 

It is one thing to initiate a nuclear fusion but another thing to maintain a nuclear fusion.

 

There may be limits to human technological/innovative capabilities. If one can not solve a problem for 70 years, then another 70 years will not likely solve the problem.

26 minutes ago, ericthai said:

the climate is changing all the time and the Earth is still here!!

 

Geologists and paleontologists have found that in the last 100 million years, global temperatures have peaked twice. One spike was the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse roughly 92 million years ago, about 25 million years before Earth’s last dinosaurs went extinct. A 2024 paleoclimate reconstruction named PhanDA (Phanerozoic Data Assimilation) found a strong correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide during the Paleozoic (from the start of the reconstruction at 485 million years ago through 250 million years ago) and the Cenozoic (the last 65 million years) but did not find a similarly strong link during the age of the dinosaurs. So, the precise cause of the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse will need continued research, but the fossils indicate a very warm planet. Temperatures were so high that champsosaurs (crocodile-like reptiles) lived as far north as the Canadian Arctic, and warm-temperature forests thrived near the South Pole.

 

Another hothouse period was the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) about 56 million years ago. During much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. Though not quite as hot as the Cretaceous hothouse, the PETM saw average global surface temperature rise about 6°C (11°F) in less than 10 millennia. That figured among the fastest periods of warming observed in the geological record, but as the Smithsonian’s Scott Wing explains, continued high greenhouse gas emissions and the projected amount of warming they are likely to cause over the next few centuries could amount to roughly the same amount of warming at a rate 10 times faster.

 

During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 34°C (93°F). (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.) At roughly the same time, paleoclimate data like fossilized phytoplankton and ocean sediments record a massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, at least doubling or possibly even quadrupling the background concentrations.

 

It is still uncertain where all the carbon dioxide came from and what the exact sequence of events was. Scientists have considered the drying up of large inland seas, volcanic activity, thawing permafrost, release of methane from warming ocean sediments, huge wildfires, and even—briefly—a comet. In recent years, evidence has emerged that huge volcanic eruptions occurred in North America at the time of the PETM, and these volcanoes were a likely source of at least some of the carbon dioxide.

 

 

the climate is changing all the time and the Earth is still here!!

And where are all the plants and creatures that existed then? 

Anyway, yes climate is changing all the time. But it's the rate of change that's significant. Let me put it this way. If a bank offered you 2 kinds of savings account that were exactly identical except one offered you 10% interest and the other 1% interest, which one would you take?

It's the accelerated rate that makes climate change a problem not the fact of change itself.

8 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

8 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I'm not predicting that, I'm reacting to others' nonsense and fear-mongering about climate change Armageddon!

Read what I wrote again. I never wrote you said that. I asked you to produce evidence from climatological research that predicts Armageddon.

Why should I do that when I know that there is not going to be a climate Arnageddon?                  

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Why should I do that when I know that there is not going to be a climate Arnageddon?                  

Honorable people back up their claims. They certainly don't persist in them without offering evidence.

5 hours ago, LosLobo said:

9 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It's not necessary to "have anything" in order to prove something that doesn't exist.  The climate change hoaxers and their supporters are the ones who started making the claims so they are the ones who need to provide empirical evidence of the "Armageddon".

You’re claiming climate change doesn’t exist — that’s a factual claim, and factual claims require evidence.

No, I am not claiming that it doesn't exist, I'm responding to the fear-mongers who claim that the end of the world is nigh (figure of speech, of course) if "climate change" isn't addressed.   Climate change has been a factor for millions of years.

20 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I am not claiming that it doesn't exist, I'm responding to the fear-mongers who claim that the end of the world is nigh (figure of speech, of course) if "climate change" isn't addressed.   Climate change has been a factor for millions of years.

Change per se isn't the problem. It's the accelerated rate of change.

3 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

All those climate scientists are also card carrying members of the Illuminati?

Well stop using cars then

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Change per se isn't the problem. It's the accelerated rate of change.

Accelerated scam that fooled a lot of dumb people.

For once Sarah Pailin had it right .

 

"You don't have to lecture me on climate 

change ...I'm from Alaska .

Where we disagree is what we have to do about It" 

16 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Still beleive

 

I believe in education. Once is a typo, twice is, you forgot your i after e except after c.

22 minutes ago, Jim Blue said:

For once Sarah Pailin had it right .

 

"You don't have to lecture me on climate 

change ...I'm from Alaska .

Where we disagree is what we have to do about It" 

 

What Palin said in 2008.

 

Quote

I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change. Here in Alaska, the only arctic state in our Union, of course, we see the effects of climate change more so than any other area with ice pack melting. Regardless though of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet -- the warming and the cooling trends -- regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut down on pollution

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5778018&page=1

 

But, that's the only time she ever said anything like that.

 

11 hours ago, CallumWK said:

 

Yet another profession you had when living in the UK? That makes it 10 by now.

 

Oh wait, I recall that just 2 days ago you posted in another topic that you lie a lot, and think it is normal to do so.

I'm fairly sure all UK government employees/officials/politicians lie a lot and think it's normal to do so. Why would you expect me to be any different?

9 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, I am not claiming that it doesn't exist, I'm responding to the fear-mongers who claim that the end of the world is nigh (figure of speech, of course) if "climate change" isn't addressed.   Climate change has been a factor for millions of years.

 

'Climate change hoaxers have got nothing.'

You denied it — you claimed it was a hoax.
Now you’re running two logic fails:
– Strawman: pretending someone said 'Armageddon is coming' or claimed climate change doesn’t exist.
– Moving the goalposts: using Armageddon and 'millions of years' to dodge what you originally claimed.
Seems you have nothing — no surprise there.

 

5 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

 

What Palin said in 2008.

 

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5778018&page=1

 

But, that's the only time she ever said anything like that.

 

Looks like I read the short version !

11 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Change per se isn't the problem. It's the accelerated rate of change.

What’s the cause of the accelerated rate of climate conversion ? and show us the absolute proof.

16 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

False claim

Easy to say when you don't have scientific proof.

1 minute ago, Purdey said:

Easy to say when you don't have scientific proof.

Show us the proof of the cause of climate change, not correlations or graphs, just the raw data.

4 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Easy to say when you don't have scientific proof.

And another idiot thinks you don't need scientific proof. 

11 minutes ago, Purdey said:

And another idiot thinks you don't need scientific proof. 

Your annoyance of a neutral question is quite telling and typical of those who know nothing about a subject.

15 minutes ago, novacova said:

What’s the cause of the accelerated rate of climate conversion ? and show us the absolute proof.

Where in the sciences is there ever evidence of absolute proof? Even in experimental physics, which is taken as the gold standard, there is always a small possibility of statistical error in drawing conclusions. Your comment is just another form of silly denialism masquerading as a quest for truth. Ever hear of five sigma?

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Where in the sciences is there ever evidence of absolute proof?

Exactly the point, is why politicizing any science is utter nonsense and the first step towards being discredited.

Just now, novacova said:

Exactly the point, is why politicizing any science is utter nonsense and the first step towards being discredited.

Your comment makes no sense. By your lights no scientific evidence is to be trusted.  What does that have to do with  politicizing science?

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Your comment makes no sense. By your lights no scientific evidence is to be trusted.  What does that have to do with  politicizing science?

Good grief, your entire premise on this subject is a perpetual political bent. As stated to you in years past, much of science today has been corrupted by political interest as in using correlations as evidence of which it is not, anyone who has any measure of intelligence and denies this fact is simply pretending. 
Now, produce the proof please.

2 minutes ago, novacova said:

Good grief, your entire premise on this subject is a perpetual political bent. As stated to you in years past, much of science today has been corrupted by political interest as in using correlations as evidence of which it is not, anyone who has any measure of intelligence and denies this fact is simply pretending. 
Now, produce the proof please.

There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. If your criterion were valid we'd still be living very much as people did in the the early part of the 20th century. But there are levels of statistical certainty. That's what modern science, technology, and businesses depend on.

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. If your criterion were valid we'd still be living very much as people did in the the early part of the 20th century. But there are levels of statistical certainty. That's what modern science, technology, and businesses depend on.

To expound a little further. If you're going to base a critique on the possiblity that there's a one in a million chance that they've got it wrong, then there is no progress in science. On the hand hand, such a criterion would make a great basis for fiction.

6 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. If your criterion were valid we'd still be living very much as people did in the the early part of the 20th century. But there are levels of statistical certainty. That's what modern science, technology, and businesses depend on.

Again affirming my point. There’s no such thing as human caused climate change. At best the observations are correlated to fit a political narrative. The subject of the variations of long term climate has gone completely off the rails into the political realm and therefore has lost credibility, the credibility of both sides has been put in peril by the blinding toxicity of politics. If you’d just go back and follow through with that assignment given you a few years ago you’d understand that humans have little to nearly no effect on the climate.

1 hour ago, Purdey said:

Easy to say when you don't have scientific proof.

I just posted it yesterday lol

28 minutes ago, novacova said:

Again affirming my point. There’s no such thing as human caused climate change. At best the observations are correlated to fit a political narrative. The subject of the variations of long term climate has gone completely off the rails into the political realm and therefore has lost credibility, the credibility of both sides has been put in peril by the blinding toxicity of politics. If you’d just go back and follow through with that assignment given you a few years ago you’d understand that humans have little to nearly no effect on the climate.

Yep it is all guessing. All rather vague stuff. Probably 10% truth 90 bs like most things

46 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

To expound a little further. If you're going to base a critique on the possiblity that there's a one in a million chance that they've got it wrong, then there is no progress in science. On the hand hand, such a criterion would make a great basis for fiction.

Who is they?