Posted on 04/06/2015 7:06:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
So what evidence would convince you that man-made climate change is possibly real?
Ummmm...maybe if there were actual and verifiable studies that proved a cause? Or, I don’t know, maybe if you quit using models that have not been manipulated? Maybe if you could prove any of what you claim actually happens and is a result of man’s actions?
Stuff like that...I know...its a lot to ask...science used to be like that.
Ronald couldn’t spell Physics.
Its like he was pulling words out of the scrabble box to form sentences.
For starters, maybe advocating massive civil engineering projects to flood sparsely populated but geographically large below sea level areas such as Egypt’s Qatarra Depression, California’s Death Valley or Russia’s Caspian Sea. Any one of these will do far more to contain rising sea levels (if they were a real threat) than trading carbon credit and handing over more economic and political power to the elites demanding that we let them solve the problem in the particular manner which they advocate.
evidence of man made climate change?
when you show me how aerosol cans and cow farts have melted the polar ice caps... on MARS... then i’ll start to buy it.
until then, i’m blaming the huge fussion reaction in the sky
the problem is this - he is relying upon data that in some instances has been demonistrated have been corrupted by ‘data corrections’. Unfortunately some scientists have fudged the numbers in order to gain research $$$. The state of science has been eroded to the degree that it is hard to give the claims credability any more.
First, I think trends of 20-100 years are meaningless. Why? Because we have no way of knowing if it is a TREND, or a temporary oscillation in recordings. The idea that we know, within 0.01 deg, what the average global temperature was in 1880 is stupid! We have less than 50 years of meaningful data. You cannot create a true climate trend based on 50 years.
Second, the folks pushing man-made global warming have lied a lot of times. The boy who cried wolf too often eventually saw a REAL wolf, but by then no one believed him. That is how I feel about out scientists now. They have lied about so many things, and used biased or selective findings so often, that I simply do not trust any study they come out with any more.
Take food. I’ve spent most of my adult life being told low fat, high carb is “healthy eating”. When I switched last fall to low carb, higher fat, I lost 25 lbs in 2 months, and have lost another 5-6 lbs over the last 4 months - without effort. I’m over 30 lbs lighter, my blood work is better, my blood pressure is down, and I did it by doing the opposite of what the government tells me to do!
So do I trust any government scientist on anything? I see no sign of either competence or honesty in what government scientists - which means almost all scientists anymore - say about anything. Ive seen deliberate distortions in environmental studies. They regularly take a very limited study and draw wildly unfounded conclusions.
So what will it take to convince me we are causing a global temperature change? Well, I won’t live long enough to see it. We’ll know in 200-500 years, I suppose. Until then, they are just pretending to know something. And given how they treat their data, I might not believe them 500 years from now...
How much? How about any at all?
“What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”
Simple: If there were evidence presented that proved that for the past billion years (prior to the past 100 years) the earth had a completely consistent climate. During this billion years, there were no stages of heating up nor cooling down. There would have to be no ice ages and no leaving ice ages. There would have to be virtually no reports of droughts, floods or hurricanes in recorded history.
Now we we would see in the past 100 years that the temperature was increasing at an exponential level with no pauses or slow-downs. The CO2 would have to be at least 5% of the total atmosphere (not .04% as it is now).
There would have to be NO history of hysterical “scientists” and liberals screaming that we are heading into an ice age or that the the ozone layer is about to disappear.
If all these things were the case, I would definitely seriously consider man made climate change.
Now, what would make them consider it’s NOT real?
The author talks about these amazing measurement periods. Like 17 years. 17 years of data. 17 years makes a tend on a billion year old planet. Pffft.
Occam's Razor - Solar Scientists have been extremely accurate in predicting the behaviour of the sun and the fact that we are approaching a minimum. They predict global temperatures will fall as solar activity decreases. They have been correct to this point and theirs is the simplest explanation of climate behaviour over the past 20 years.
OTOH, he can still lunch in public in DC.
First the 800.ooo years ago is crap. They come up with all this junk science and feed it to the so called higher education crowd who for a fact can’t find a job. Then they go out and dance to the drum beat of the goose stepping wacknuts. Once again more dumbing down of our youths and the idiots that follow them.
I absolutely accept that the earth is undergoing some degree of climate change; I believe it has always been so. Sometimes faster change, sometimes slower change but change is always happening.
I absolutely believe that Mars is warming. We don’t have a lot of baseline information but a warming trend over the last 30 years shows a warming.
I think that because both of these are true, the warming on both planets must be caused by the same thing; the sun
To even start in the debate, I would simply ask "What evidence can you cite that shows a causative effect of man's activities to any of the evidence you have identified?"
Even if these identified conditions are changing, there is no identified evidence that human activity is causative - and the correlation aspects are vastly overstated.
Finally, the question being asked is bass-ackwards. The believers need to answer the question "what would contradict the selected answer?" Without falsification criteria, there can NEVER be a scientific process.
Ohh.. and lastly, I those darn predictions \calculations made 10 to 20 years ago would have to be coming true as predicted.
So much focus is on whether or not man-made climate change exists; when it really should be be, does man-made climate-change matter?
Adapting to environmental conditions has been going on for billions and billions of year by all species. The godless progressives are so gleeful in touting the evolutionary process, yet don’t have must trust in it when it comes to mankind.
In reality, the man-made climate change issue is used by the progressives as a cover for another power grab. They don’t really fear what climate change will do to mankind.
That’s easy - just set your model for the year 1900, enter the data for each year until now, then show that the “predictions” for the year 2015 match what we have now. THEN I will believe you. But until then . . . . NEVER!
Adapting to environmental conditions has been going on for billions and billions of year by all species. The godless progressives are so gleeful in touting the evolutionary process, yet don’t have must trust in it when it comes to mankind.
In reality, the man-made climate change issue is used by the progressives as a cover for another power grab. They don’t really fear what climate change will do to mankind.
Excellent response.
The Maunder Minimum, The Milankovitch Glaciation Cycle, even Volcanic Activity, mean absolutely nothing to the lucrative Warming Industry. The verifiable data mean even less to politicians, the MSM, and the public. Why should data matter? It doesn't at the UN.
Santa Claus must exist. Someone beyond the knowing of Reason has to be dropping the cash bundles on the Warmists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.