2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I do whatever it takes to make money and provide for my family.

As Placeholder you were banned for constant anti Semitic posts.

Perhaps you could explain to us lesser beings how that makes you righteous!

How do you know how/why a member gets banned................?  🤔

37 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.

 

I think that such a broad statement (no such thing as human caused climate change) is wrong. There is a direct correlation between recent rapidly rising CO₂ levels and rapid global temperature increases, so at least partial anthropogenic influence is certain, since the 1850's (industrial revolution).   

 

That said, reliable and accurate atmospheric data has only been measurable around the globe for a relatively short period. Earlier data is more estimated/inferred than absolute, although a lot of it may be reasonably calculated. I think that the vast amount of data available today may be skewed against older data by a high weighting of monitors in modern cities, where temperatures may be amplified due to construction methods and materials, as well as emissions.

 

The greens always focus on carbon as the problem but there has been little work done to identify other possibilities. Carbon itself would be far less concerning if we had not destroyed so much of the great carbon sink - the world's forests.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

 

I think that such a broad statement (no such thing as human caused climate change) is wrong. There is a direct correlation between recent rapidly rising CO₂ levels and rapid global temperature increases, so at least partial anthropogenic influence is certain, since the 1850's (industrial revolution).   

 

That said, reliable and accurate atmospheric data has only been measurable around the globe for a relatively short period. Earlier data is more estimated/inferred than absolute, although a lot of it may be reasonably calculated. I think that the vast amount of data available today may be skewed against older data by a high weighting of monitors in modern cities, where temperatures may be amplified due to construction methods and materials, as well as emissions.

 

The greens always focus on carbon as the problem but there has been little work done to identify other possibilities. Carbon itself would be far less concerning if we had not destroyed so much of the great carbon sink - the world's forests.                                                    

I think it's getting colder!

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I think it's getting colder!

 

I can agree, at least as far as our area of Thailand is concerned. And I don't mean just the last few days!

 

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

  

 

 I think that the vast amount of data available today may be skewed against older data by a high weighting of monitors in modern cities, where temperatures may be amplified due to construction methods and materials, as well as emissions.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

The issue has been raised before. Richard Muller, an eminent physicist questioned climate temperature readings on the same grounds. He got funding from denialists to explore the possibility despite the fact that climatologists advised him that they had already taken that into account. His findings? That, in fact, climatologists were telling him the truth. Muller went on to found Berkeley Earth, an organization dedicted to climatological research.

https://www.aaas.org/taxonomy/term/4/richard-muller-now-convinced-world-warming

 

As you might imagine, the denialists who were eagerly awaiting the results of his research, no longer mention him or the results of his research.

52 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.

How does the standard you set, a standard that invalidates the results of virtually all scientific research, not just climatological research,  affirm your point? 

But thanks for providing  the irony. Truly ludicrous.

Reported post and responses to it removed

There is nothing wrong with clean air, and be clean.

 

Is there vested interests taking advantage and exploiting this issue - you bet. This is what ruins all credibility there have. 

 

Futhermore, it doesn't sit well that all sacrifices are to be made by the common man. Has anyone asked Leonardo Di Capri why he flies private jets? Why he uses yachts that create so much destruction to the marine life? It's hyprocrisy - and we don't like lectures. 

1 minute ago, DonniePeverley said:

There is nothing wrong with clean air, and be clean.

 

Is there vested interests taking advantage and exploiting this issue - you bet. This is what ruins all credibility there have. 

 

Futhermore, it doesn't sit well that all sacrifices are to be made by the common man. Has anyone asked Leonardo Di Capri why he flies private jets? Why he uses yachts that create so much destruction to the marine life? It's hyprocrisy - and we don't like lectures. 

Not only don't you like lectures, apparently, you don't like science either. What has Leonardo di Caprio's hypocrisy got to do with the science?

As for vested interests, you mean Little Oil against Big Green?

25 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Who is they?

Climatologists.

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Climatologists.

So random people you don't know lol

Richard S. Lindzen, a professor emeritus of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), is known for his contrarian views on climate change, despite being a respected atmospheric physicist with significant contributions to dynamical meteorology, including the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation and explanations for atmospheric tides and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical stratosphere. He has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change, criticizing what he calls "climate alarmism" and arguing that the warming caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels is not a significant threat.

1 minute ago, Harrisfan said:

So random people you don't know lol

You, on the other hand, have a wide and demonstrable acquaintance the eminent scientists from several scientific fields? And you base the validity of their research on your acquaintance with them? It is to laugh.

On 12/1/2025 at 11:15 AM, Yagoda said:

Still beleive in the Armageddon, huh. Or is it your Chinese Masters investment in Solar LOL

Its called facts, thats why you didnt recognize them grandpa. Time to get with reality. Plenty of info out there but i guess if it doesnt mesh with your trump agenda and spoon feed to you its beyond comprehension 

8 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

 

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

You do?  Seize, vein, weird, heist, their, feisty, foreign, protein for a start.

 

33 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I think that such a broad statement (no such thing as human caused climate change) is wrong. There is a direct correlation between recent rapidly rising CO₂ levels and rapid global temperature increases, so at least partial anthropogenic influence is certain, since the 1850's (industrial revolution).

A correlation is just that, a correlation and can also correlate a person is a hamburger because the person only eats hamburgers. 

38 minutes ago, nauseus said:

There is a direct correlation between recent rapidly rising CO₂ levels and rapid global temperature increases, so at least partial anthropogenic influence is certain, since the 1850's (industrial revolution).   

 

That said, reliable and accurate atmospheric data has only been measurable around the globe for a relatively short period. Earlier data is more estimated/inferred than absolute, although a lot of it may be reasonably calculated. I think that the vast amount of data available today may be skewed against older data by a high weighting of monitors in modern cities, where temperatures may be amplified due to construction methods and materials, as well as emissions.

Of course, is why credibly is at risk and cautious skepticism needs to be applied.

41 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The greens always focus on carbon as the problem but there has been little work done to identify other possibilities. Carbon itself would be far less concerning if we had not destroyed so much of the great carbon sink - the world's forests.

The natural influence on climate is immense, from space to the earth’s core. Not a static that the climate cult likes to believe.

temperature and co2 show an inverse correlation for over 100 million years in a row, but the biggest issue is that we are stuck in a deep ice age and cant seem to exit, and another serious issue is that co2 levels are way below optimal for plant growth

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391

26 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

How does the standard you set, a standard that invalidates the results of virtually all scientific research, not just climatological research,  affirm your point? 

But thanks for providing  the irony. Truly ludicrous.

Argumentative. Circular ludicrous nonsense as usual.

4 minutes ago, novacova said:

Argumentative. Circular ludicrous nonsense as usual.

As per usual just labeling. Clearly you have no answer for the fact that you demand absolute proof on a scientific issue when there is no such thing has absolute proof in science.

That's what any  rational thinker would call an impossible standard to achieve.

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

As per usual just labeling. Clearly you have no answer for the fact that you demand absolute proof on a scientific issue when there is no such thing has absolute proof in science.

A good example of not understanding an illustration of what was presented to you, again there’s no proof that humans cause climate changes/disruptions. 

5 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

That's what any  rational thinker would call an impossible standard to achieve.

Again, an imposed reflection of one’s self. Argumentative and circular nonsense. Beyond silliness.
 

Perhaps the biggest "tell" of the "climate game" is the collective behavior of all the alarmists. People who claim the earth is in dire straights simply don't live as if they believe it. They still drive big cars, own multiple homes (some in coastal areas), jet around the world, etc.  It is all a case of "do as I say, not as I do". 

 

I mean, just look at the COP 30 meeting that was just held.  More than 50,000 people gather in the rainforest to talk about saving the rainforest... now if only there were some technology that let people communicate without being face-to-face, what a miracle that would be...

Flame post removed.

 

@Harrisfan another and final warning, rule 9. You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages. You will respect other members and post in a civil manner. Personal attacks, insults or hate speech posted on the forum or sent by private message are not allowed.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

since the 1850's (industrial revolution). 

1850 marks the end of "little ice age", so it should come as no surprise we are recovering from that suffering

16 minutes ago, novacova said:

A good example of not understanding an illustration of what was presented to you, again there’s no proof that humans cause climate changes/disruptions. 

Again, an imposed reflection of one’s self. Argumentative and circular nonsense. Beyond silliness.
 

Before you demanded absolute proof. Does this mean that you're shedding this criterion? If not, then it's just the same old nonsense from you.

How many scientific papers have you read Alan? 

13 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Before you demanded absolute proof. Does this mean that you're shedding this criterion? If not, then it's just the same old nonsense from you.

Explain how co2 works in an open atmosphere vs closed one.

1 hour ago, mordothailand said:

temperature and co2 show an inverse correlation for over 100 million years in a row, but the biggest issue is that we are stuck in a deep ice age and cant seem to exit, and another serious issue is that co2 levels are way below optimal for plant growth

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391

 

 

The biggest issue with that is that humans would not have survived the 5 major extinction events that occurred during this period.

 

My garden is growing OK.

2 hours 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.

Alan I think  you will find that when people think they have to part with a buck or two they actually demand proof on 

such a scale  . It 's more to do with human nature than the  actual weather changes   ! 

1 hour ago, novacova said:

A correlation is just that, a correlation and can also correlate a person is a hamburger because the person only eats hamburgers. 

Of course, is why credibly is at risk and cautious skepticism needs to be applied.

The natural influence on climate is immense, from space to the earth’s core. Not a static that the climate cult likes to believe.

 

You confuse correlation with identification. Correlation is often used in scientific study , especially in geology.

 

Let me try correlating my boot with your bottom?

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

 

The biggest issue with that is that humans would not have survived the 5 major extinction events that occurred during this period.

 

My garden is growing OK.

there are ways to improve plant growth

 

there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!

 

https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide