Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Try, like I do burying my head in a collection of climatology books, websites and articles. Also some books on statistics, probabilities and randomness. or stick with NYT.

 

And none of them changes the strong correlation between recent increases in global temperatures and increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activities during my lifetime.

 

Nuclear waste is the most immoral product to be propagated in the history of our planet. The low level wastes are extremely toxic for hundreds of years (I.e. Chernobyl and Fukushima). The high level wastes must be kept contained for hundreds of thousands of years. In the US it is currently stored at the nuclear power plants in containment rated 200 years. Future generations must maintain this, and they get nothing out of it. I’d say anyone that doesn’t have a problem with that is drinking the kool-aid.

 

No, because long term storage is not at the plant itself. What, do you actually think that the waste will reside at the plants forever, or even 200 years? *shakes head in despair*

 

You’d better check that. Last I researched, that’s where low level wastes are being stored.

Alsolast I checked there is no active repository for this waste anywhere in the world. France was working towards one.

 

Nonsense.

 

The correlation is undeniable.

 

But a correlation is essentially just a coincidence between two sets of numbers and it cannot prove that CO2 causes temperature changes any more than it can prove that temperature changes cause changes to CO2. To assume a cause from a mere correlation is to jump to a conclusion and doing that is in conflict with rational science. At best a correlation merely indicates the possibility of a cause but does not prove it.

 

I'm sure this might be old news to many, but this is probably the best website out there on the topic of spurious correlations. I'm guessing degrees in "climate change" really don't cover the downsides of statistics. Enjoy.

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

 

It's still the best conclusion and infinitely better than hypothesizing that the number of sunspots caused the recent increases in global temperatures given there is no correlation.

 

Statistical analysis of scientific data, however, allows us to determine the probability of our conclusions, and that there is no statistically significant correlation between the recent increases in global temperatures and the number of sunspots counted, let alone counted by red herrings when Australia and India were attached to Antarctica.

 

So why do you bury your head in them instead of sand if they're nonsense?

 

There is actually quite a good correlation, certainly better than with TSI -- which the CO2 narrative demands be the only permitted index of solar activity because it is known not to be relevant. But the correlation with solar activity is with the rate of change in temperature, not the level of temperature. Again, CO2 climate nonscience focuses on the level of temperature rather than the rate of change because it is known not to identify the relevant relationships, and can more easily be used to confuse cause and effect.

 

No it doesn't. Statistics, at its core, is potentially useful guesswork. If the data set has few enough degrees of freedom to be reasonably certain the correlations are reasonably reliable.

Regardless, potential error is always there. That's why it's vitally important to confirm the statistical projections with empirical testing.

That's where the whole "science" of climate change falls apart. The data has virtually infinite degrees of freedom and absolutely no empirical testing of the hypotheses derived from the statistics.

In my business if we went to EPA and asked for emissions certification based on modeling, we'd be laughed out of the room and told to go run the proscribed dyno tests etc.

"Climate change" panic is a politically motivated fraud. The people who are promoting it should be in jail for the damage it will do to humanity if allowed to proceed much farther.

Fortunately I suspect it will crash to the ground next month.

 

The observations of the warming from CO2 and greenhouse gases that I have seen are all too small to account for the warming, so it’s not really the best conclusion.

 

Nope. Statistical analysis of data enables certain tests to be performed, but conclusions require hypothesis testing, not just analysis of statistics.

Of course that is just another bald falsehood from you: the 20th century warming period coincided nicely with the highest sustained level of solar activity in thousands of years. But more importantly, sunspot number is just a proxy for solar activity that is useful because we have records of it going back hundreds of years that show a clear correlation with climate. Propagandists and alarmists who push the CO2 climate narrative often lose sight of this, and pretend sunspots themselves are the relevant causal factor, which of course they are not.

 

That's just your personal opinion. The overwhelming majority of scientists and climatologists, however, agree that increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity has recently increased global temperatures in my lifetime. Which is why responsible countries are replacing fossil fuels with more sustainable and environmentally acceptable energy sources, and none of your denials and skepticism of science will stop that.

 

And I'm sure that others will hope that Trump crashes to the ground too.

 

It’s a straightforward applictaion of the Stefan-Boltzmann law when applied to the alleged forcing of CO2 in studies like Feldman et al (2015) showing the forcing from CO2 is increasing at the sedated-snail’s pace of 0.025 W/m2 per year or 0.01 W/m2 per 1ppmv (which is utterly negligible). That study was even published in Nature.

 

That's your issue. And I accept the consensus of the overwhelming majority of scientists and climatologists that increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity has recently increased global temperatures in my lifetime. Which is why responsible countries are replacing fossil fuels with more sustainable and environmentally acceptable energy sources, and none of your denials and skepticism of science will change that.

 

Latest propaganda from The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...sts-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature

 

The only "strong correlation". is the .`5C per decade increase I've cited several times.

 

Call me a denier all you what, but it won’t alter the fact that your “overwhelming majority of scientists and climatologists” is a pipe-dream.

 

If I was on a jury, and presented all the evidence, I would agree that Climatologists have proven the CO2/global warming case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

The consensus polling were from “climate scientists”, and in 2021 the polling showed the percentage was 99%, up from 97%