Climate change: Is it for real?

Is it possible that all the hoopla about global warming (more recently referred to as "climate change") is simply erroneous?

Here a part of an article that suggests exactly that:

Here is the link to the entire article: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/mi...-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/

 

Yes it's real. Anyone paying attention can see it themselves.

 

The only thing constant in climate is change.

 

Well, I have not noticed it; and I have been around for 67 years...

 

I was watching the local news the other day and they were doing a story on some neighborhoods that were suffering from flooding. The flooding (which a local complained got worse each year) was due to it being high tide.

I could also point to the desertification that has a stranglehold on North America and Africa but you'd pretend not to see that either.

 

So, a particular case of local flooding is unquestionable proof of global warming?

Really?

Like so many on the left, you prefer to "debate" by impugning the motives of those who disagree with you...

 

No, the spike in temps over the last century is the proof. The flooding (indisputably the result of a rise in sea level) was just an example of the effects.

And no, I simply called you on your willful ignorance. If it hurt your fellings, it's only because you know I'm right.

 

Ahh Dr. Evans. The guy with deep ties to mining and development. The guy who claims to be a rocket scientist. The guy who has no peer reviewed articles. The very guy who said he is no climate modeler.

This is what strikes me as odd. There are rules to actually BEING a scientist. You must be relevant in your field for one. He is not. At all. He even says so. He works for think tanks that seek to deny climate science. His wife denies change, but she has the same ties. The only thing about this guy that is scientific in the field of climate change is his vast unwillingness to work in it. It makes sense it would hurt his livelihood. Why do folks like you look to support arguments against true scientists with bloggers. All the folks who say it is real are current and relevant in the field. They have studies that have stood up to peer review. And they actually study the trends. This guy is into gold, mining, and development. He has an interest in denying it. He gets paid by convincing people it is not real. Scientists get paid either way and they say what they see. Then others attack them from all angles. If their study passes peer review it becomes the latest "SCIENCE." This guy is a marketer, not a scientist.

 

So your line of defense is to attack the messenger, rather than to make actual, rational arguments for your view...

 

Most people in climate science are not climate scientists so I guess that blows your whole rant out of the water. Oh, and the usual, "any skeptic is paid by anyone other than government is somehow tainted", yet the billions poured into this by government has no effect.

 

LOL, here is a picture for you.



Oh, and BTW, flooding is caused by rain, not sea level and don't use Katrina as an example since it is below sea level to begin with and the flooding was more due to politics than a category 3 hurricane.

 

This is what the alarmism is like since the actual recorded temperatures are from a relatively short time span.

"Two of the worst ice storms I have encountered happened during my lifetime, therefore; ice storms are getting worse."

 

Weather has always been unpredictable. You have on 76 degree day and think the world is coming to an end while the temperature record in the US keeps getting cooler.



In the meantime, the agenda keeps on rolling.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/10/12/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science-part-ii/

 

So high tide is caused by rain now?

 

You mean you don't know high tide is caused by the moon?

 

You were the fool that blamed tidal flooding on rain.

 

Nope, you claimed that 'The Flooding' is caused by a rise in sea level. Most flooding is caused by rain, even less by storm surge. Now, would that be the 1/2 inch rise in the Battery of NY over the last century?

 

So the tidal zone expanding every year isn't due to rising sea levels? Are you trying to argue that the laws of physics have been thrown out the window and gravity is growing in power? You lost this, don't keep digging that hole.

 

They have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age end of the 1600's. So what? You think they are supposed to be static? There is no noticeable acceleration as alarmists claim and in fact many areas show a decrease in the rate. In the US East coast there has been an increase but that is due to the change in the Atlantic AMO and not due to anything global. Most of this alarmism is based on models. Hate to tell you this, but models are not fact or reality.

You are making alarmist claims about something you have no clue about except for media alarmism.

 

Lol. The funnest part about arguing climate change is not arguing climate change. It is about the definition of "science." The actual, rational, arguments are espoused from anthropology to zoology. It is a fact. Yes the word. Fact. It is that. There are bubbles in ice cores. Corals locations. CO2 deposits in limestone, the list is endless. The list was complied by people who are recognized in their field. So yes, some yuk yuk who says he is a rocket scientist, when all other rocket scients say he is not speaks. I listen to the folks responsible for sending the Rosetta Mission. When a dude says, "I'm no climatologist," yes I believe him. He is a marketing messenger. I will believe him with the price of gold, but, lol, Dear God really??? The guy is a joke. A complete joke.

In college we are taught to evaluate our sources before we use them. I'm guessing you were never in college.

 

There is ALOT you don't get. Lets go CO2 levels. We went from 250 part per million to 400. Wow that is only a little cause its "per million." Yuk yuk, that is 30 percent. It has happened before. They called that time the Pliocene era. It took 800,000 years. We did it in 250. There is a concept called "rate."

 

I am guessing that you dismiss this man, out of hand, simply because you do not agree with his conclusions.

Apparently, "bubbles in ice cores" and "CO2 deposits in limestone" amount to your proof(?) of AGW...

 

Then there is the hypothesis that CO2 drives temperature in a non-linear chaotic system yet during over 1/3 of that CO2 rise the temperatures have been flat. Remember, this alarmism is driven not by observed science but by computer models.

 

As an example of just how "climate change" has become more of a religion than a true science, a French broadcaster was recently removed from the air, for the postmodern sin of challenging the belief in climate change: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...orm-over-book-questioning-climate-change.html

Whenever some people are grimly intolerant of any competing view, it really does not appear to be true science at work...

 

So when a scientist is 'recognized in their field' and they use other data to twist something into an alarmist result, you buy it hook, line, and sinker without ever checking into the actual science itself?