Posted on 04/06/2015 7:06:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
How about models that actually predict reality. You know, what we used to call science?
We have man made climate change. Its called chemtrails. Where we live they spray every sunny day all day. You can watch they criss crossing each other. They do everything but loopdy loops.
Try to remember back when you were younger. Remember when it would rain for a day or two and then maybe not rain for a week or even two weeks? Or depending on the time of year it might rain for two weeks. No more. Now its two or three days of sunshine and then two or more days of rain. Then two or three days of sunshine and a couple of days of rain. That’s abnormal. My belief is that they have screwed the weather patterns up so badly that now they have to spray or it will never rain. Its likely the reason California has no water.
Saturday there was a GA power crew working on the poles in our neighborhood. Mr. GG2 was walking the dog and he stopped to chat. These guys were up from South GA on a temporary project. As they were chatting one of the power guys looked up and remarked “well they are spraying the crap out of us today” Mr. GG2 was shocked. The guy said “oh yeh we watch the sky all the time and they spray really heavy in South GA.”
So for any of you who think that’s just jets flying around up there at low altitudes coming and going aimlessly. Wake up.
Easy enough”
Here is a simple way to overload the warmunists “reported” thought process.
1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet’
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.
7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.
I’m sure many more “easily” answered questions could be added but these are pretty basic.
How about somebody who does not rely on government tax dollars for their survival and to pay their “smart phone” bills to prove to us that it is man made.
Hmm. Remove one word and you can't tell if it's a Liberal talking about Global Warming "Deniers" or a Christian talking about Atheists.
The fluctuation of the suns total irradiance has only a weak relationship(which is NOT none, but rather a sign that it is overwhelmed by other effects)....however the general activity of the sun, which is an exibition of its magnetosphere, is pretty strongly correlated. This means that as the sun’s magnetosphere allows more cosmic rays in, more clouds are formed, which raises the albedo.
“I concluded that the balance of the scientific evidence showed that man-made global warming could likely pose a significant problem for humanity by the end of this century.”
Evidence? Fool! I’ve seen evidence of fraud.
In 1972 David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski presented to the Bilderberg meeting a proposal to institute a technocratic global agenda through an org to be called the Trilateral Commission. This thinly disguised rephrasing of the 1930s Technocracy movement needed a hook to hang the lie upon, and Al Gore was just the stupid enough big name to use for the agenda.
That Science has been prostituted to support such a great lie should not surprise anyone, since the oligarchy will use any means, tell any lie, in order to achieve their goals, namely one world government in a totalitarian form that has the oligarchs atop the pyramid ruling the little people.
Anyone desiring to read more about the Technocracy movement and the subsequent technocratic age of Brzezinski can find the data in Patrick Wood's works on the Trilateral Commission.
By far, the most important lack of credibility for the MMGW *theory* is a simple and standard, scientific measure.
It is called a “negative case”.
For example, if you wish to test the scientific theory of gravity by holding a ball above the ground and releasing it, even if you expect it to fall, you still need to provide a negative case, “If I drop it and it does *not* fall, gravity is not acting on it, for some reason.”
That is a negative case.
But in the case of MMGW, even non-scientifically trained people smell a big rat, when the proponents of the MMGW *theory* are all over the map with their proof, and absolutely *refuse* to provide a negative case.
That is, what happens if there *isn’t* MMGW?
So far, they have attributed hot weather to MMGW, cold weather to MMGW, normal temperature to MMGW, both storms and stillness to MMGW, receding and growing ice caps, etc., etc.
They also have a BAD problem with “circular logic”, such as “The proof of MMGW is unicorns, and because there are unicorns it proves MMGW.”
And when it is pointed out that there are no unicorns, you guessed it, they say it is because of MMGW.
So really, when you talk to a *proponent* of MMGW, before they can preach to you, *demand* a reasonable negative case.
They may first try bad circular logic on you, such as saying something like “The negative case of MMGW is that there is not MMGW”, which is nonsense.
Next they will try and assert that the negative case of MMGW would be if the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere would be declining. Again, this proves nothing, because fluctuations of the trace amount of human produced CO2, which is a fraction of the natural trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, has not been demonstrated to do *anything*, much less muscle around the Earth’s climate.
That is like insisting that a bacteria on a flea controls the flea, and the flea controls the elephant on which it rests, therefore a bacteria controls the elephant. A very, very hard theory to prove.
Your views are beyond heretical. They are hierarchical, euro-centric, patriarchal, hegemonic, gender-normative, imperial, colonial, and yes, racist. What you call "Science" is just a bunch'o'stuff that was invented by dead white men to keep our people down. Data? What difference do they make?
Papa Bear, you will never drink the Kool-Aid or eat the porridge in this community again!
Better questions: What evidence would ever convince a liberal that man-made climate change is not real? None. They are stupid and are told what to think.
The quote from Hayek just shows what we know. These leftists are elitist know-it-all’s, and because we don’t believe their horse manure, we are luddites.
Pathetic,and no evidence to boot.
What would convince me?
The development of a single model that can predict current warming (or pause) and explain past climate variation; based upon anthropogenic variables.
Years ago, when the idea of ‘carbon credits’ was being expounded, any discerning person would/could realize the entire program was to allow some people to make a lot of money, either by promoting or buying ‘carbon credits’. The credits were merely exchanges to keep the pollution controversy alive and lucrative for some people.
Yet amazingly this same phenomenon doesn't occur in the Arctic.
To the global Warming proponents I guess physics work differently in whatever hemisphere you are in.
When climate researchers don't understand what is going on they often attribute the empirical trends to "internal variability."
How convenient.
These are two (of many) examples of why I can't believe in MMGW,
That is in "Real" science you first gather data and from that data you develop a hypothesis, in fake science like Global Warming you first develop a hypothesis and then gather data and then make whatever $[-]/+ up you need in order to make the data fit the hypothesis
“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”
What are examples of low carb, higher fat diets?
Let’s just assume for a moment that man-made climate change is real.
So what? Climate has always changed, we adapt.
So, What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?
When man solves world peace knows how to feed everyone and have no hunger, cures cancer and all other illness etc.
When man becomes powerful enough to do that stuff then he may be powerful enough to change what the universe does to the climate.
When the warmers stop using it to push bigger government and less reliable "green energy" and when they instead push for more nuclear energy.
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.