We cannot distinguish between natural variations in climate and human contributions. We do not know how much human activity affects global climate. No climate model can accurately predict the climate in the past. No climate model has accurately predicted climate changes in the future. We don't know. To say that we do is a hoax.
Actually, we do know, but let's pretend we don't. 1. It is possible the gigatons of emissions we produce are heating the planet up to a dangerous degree. 2. The possibility of the planet heating up to a dangerous degree is a possible existential threat to our species. 3. Possible existential threats (e.g., asteroid/comet strikes, runaway global warming, disease outbreaks) need to be taken seriously. Therefore: We need to take seriously the possible existential threat caused by our emissions. Thank you!
I believe that each of those statements aren’t correct according to research conducted by the smartest scientists in the world. Let’s look at the first one. https://www.livescience.com/16388-climate-change-debate-man-nature.html
I do not accept what they say. I do not believe them. Even I, a bricklayer from Ohio, can observe that they are dead wrong. Their computer models cannot even predict climate in the past, and they have certainly been wrong about their predictions into the future for the last twenty years. Historically, it's not at all uncommon for the "scientific consensus" to be dead wrong. I believe that anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change is a misanthropic hoax perpetrated by people who are inclined to regard human beings as an invasive species or a cancer. They regard anything uniquely human or man-made to be "unnatural". I don't believe that anything is unnatural. I believe in the actual existence of the natural and the supernatural, but I don't consider anything "unnatural". My environmental goal is not to minimize human impact on the environment. My environmental goal is to maximize human wellbeing. Human beings maximize their well being be taking dirty and dangerous environments and making them clean and safe for human beings. My environmental goal is to restore wilderness to garden. The perpetrators of the anthropogenic-catastrophic-global climate change hoax do so in direct opposition to human well being. They are those who are left to believe that the primary problem on Earth is humanity multiplying, filling the Earth and subduing it. Their environmental goal is to minimize human impact on the environmet. Al Gore wrote in his 1988 book, "Earth in the Balance", that "The primary impediment to human advancement is the Judeo-Christian world view.", and that, "what is needed is a return to Earth-based religion". I don't agree with him. I am not a pagan; I am a humanist. All pagan religions have two things in common. They all set man apart from nature, and they all maintain that the conduct of nature is in response to the conduct of man. In my opinion, that way over states man's significance. We are simply not all that. We cannot, we are not, doing all that the pagans sincerely think that we are doing. They're, at best, dead wrong; and at worst, among the many generations of those in their positions using their positions to manipulate the ignorant masses. I, for one, call BS.
Yes, global warming is a misleading name. Had it been called climate change from the beginning it wouldn't be looked at in such a negative way.
That’s fine. That’s not your job to be a scientist. You’re right about one thing. We do have a lot of people who are ignorant that weather is not climate and the simple idea that heat is being entrapped in the atmosphere. Inland is a long way from coastal areas. People who used to be doubters in Florida are alarmed at the continued rise in sea water threatening their fresh water supply in the Everglades .....something they have never seen before either. When that happens, you’ll see what is happening world wide, more migration northward and internally. Of course, people will still deny science, the military which has been tracking it for decades aling with every university and major corporation in the world. After all, they are all trying to frighten the “ignorant masses. “ That’s one heck of a conspiracy, concocted to scare the masses who don’t know the difference between weather and climate.
And yet, global warming is most correct. The human mind has a tough time looking at weather over long periods, which is really climate. The human mind has a tough time dealing with the rate of change occurring. That takes mathematics. So really, if skeptics don’t trust mathematicians, scientist, the military, universities and every other nation in the world, the skepticism is understandable.
Just for the sake of information, can anyone name where worldwide consensus science has ever been wrong.
Nonsense. Scientists make these distinctions all of the time. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean scientist are equally ignorant. Same as above. Actually they can. In fact the consensus model of climate change is the only one that can accurately predict or explain past climate change events with reasonable confidence. Same as above. The current warming trend was predicted back in the late 1800's. The prediction back then even included statements that the poles would warm faster than the equator and that nights would warm faster than days both of which have been confirmed. And that was a 120+ year old prediction. Now that's not to say that the scientific consensus can explain or predict climate change with perfection. But that's not a surprise since no scientific discipline has achieved that milestone and never will.
We can observe evidence of what happened in the past, but one thing scientists do have trouble doing, it’s “predicting” the past. The takes someone really special.
Though most people call it hindcasting, postdicting, or just simply explaining it's really no different than predicting the future. It's the exact same theory working on the same types of inputs to prognosticate the same types of outputs.
And we use the past to test models. Any time you want to test a computer model, you use known conditions first to see if the model gets it right.
Huh. Are “ most people” Friends of the language mutilation society ? Now, we can predict what we might find for evidence concerning the past, but the activity towards that end is in the future. You can also use historical evidence from the past to help model and predict what might happen in the future....But, never heard of predicting the past. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/predict
You exaggerate the extent to which others agree with you and underestimate those who disagree. One of the best things about President Trump is that he stands between me and having your best intentions imposed upon me by force of law. I'm quite comfortable with you believing what you believe, but we're going to have a problem if you to impose your beliefs upon me by force, even by force of law.
The computer models cannot even predict climate in the past, and it certainly hasn't been able to do it in the future for the last twenty years. If the models worked, they should be able to tell us what the climate was in the past. In fact, it should be easier because we have more complete data about the past then the future. The whole thing is wrong. It ACGCC will go down in the annuls of history with miasma and bewitching.
Are you allowed to pour poison or radioactive materials all over the city? If not, this must be allowed if we are to be free!!!! Oh wait, by your philosophy, as long as you don't know that poison and radioactive materials kill people, it's okay, As long as you say it isn't true, it's legal! Right?
There were a number of scientists who felt the atom could never be harnessed, never be split. They said such was beyond the power of mere mortals and was the domain of God. That humans couldn't have that much control... I'm sure that rationale was tremendous comfort to the mothers holding their children in Hiroshima as the Bomb dropped on the front yard. Science doesn't care if you believe in it or not. It is what it is.
Oh, I don’t under estimate. The doubters have a huge advantage. That’s why many still believe in the grassy knoll . All that needs be done is sow just a small element of doubt while the truth takes mountains of evidence. I’m a simple guy. I leave the evidence gathering to those who’s job it is. I’m overwhelmed when all the universities in the world , our entire military, every major corporation in the world and every country position in the world are all in agreement of AGW. I would much rather be laughed at by the “ignorant masses” as you have called them for me believing in AGW then laughed at by the much larger group enlightened masses for not. Please, anyone, tell me one university, country other then Trumpland, or one major corporation, who sides with the “ignorant masses.”