Thousands and Thousands of Scientists Can't be Behind a Hoax(AGW), Right?

Hah!

Want a good rule of thumb about how much you should rely on their predictions of how the climate is going to be changing and how accurate they are likely to be? Just check your local 10 day weather forecast and keep tabs on how accurate it is. When they can get THAT consistently accurate, then I will be willing to admit that they may be on to something.

Here in north Florida, the 10 day forecast is completely useless. They would have better results just by throwing darts at pieces of paper on the wall. And they want to extrapolate that out and tell me what the weather is going to be like in 100 years? Again, HAH!

a reply to: Rich Z
Climate is not the same thing as weather.
Climatologists don't try to tell you what your weather will be like in the future except in a very general sense.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rich Z
Climate is not the same thing as weather.
Climatologists don't try to tell you what your weather will be like in the future except in a very general sense.

It's simply a matter of scale. The difference between a forecast and a prediction. Accuracy is still suspect, regardless.

a reply to: Rich Z
No. It is not a matter of scale.
Weather changes from day to day. Hour to hour.
Climate represents long term tendencies. Decades. Climatologists don't even pretend to predict weather because weather is not climate.

originally posted by: CB328


Yeah, selfish and greedy people like you will lie all day every day to avoid spending anything to help the planet or our future.

What if the real selfish people are those who want to impose their "opinions' and "belief' in AGW without having any real proof to back their claim?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rich Z
No. It is not a matter of scale.
Weather changes from day to day. Hour to hour.
Climate represents long term tendencies. Decades. Climatologists don't even pretend to predict weather because weather is not climate.

NOAA Disagrees With You Phage.

What is Climate?

Climate is the weather in a location averaged over a long period of time.

Unless you want to argue what the definition of "is" is...

~Namaste

originally posted by: Phage
That's pretty much what I said..isn't it?

Nothing really matters, so screw it.

Good attitude. Good plan.

So what is the plan? It's obvious that alternative fuels are not a good direction. Afterall, any idiot who likes Hydrogen doesn't understand physics, and we don't seem to have a plan C. So should we just stop at the Tax thing? Should we tell all the people to use less **whatever** and hope they do? Of should we shame all the unbelievers into believing....for goodness sake?


People are listening. Even the ones who don't buy into PEOPLE being the catalyst to global climate "this time". Why isn't there a plan? And before you post some ideas that you found on Google scholar, think about how much of the public knows about them.

If anything is to be "fixed" there needs to be a clear, concise plan put in place. That is what should be talked about instead of just ridiculing those who don't buy the lies. Pollution is still pollution. (like the picture of China you posted)
People are still intelligent enough to see that and want it fixed. But if you ridicule them and belittle them first, they will ignore you even if you are correct. Lead by example.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Yes, what I said.

Your source:

Climate is the overall picture of weather during periods of seasons or years. Historical records (including geological and recorded history) show us how the climate of the Earth has changed throughout its history.

What I said:

Climate represents long term tendencies. Decades. Climatologists don't even pretend to predict weather because weather is not climate.

a reply to: network dude

So what is the plan? It's obvious that alternative fuels are not a good direction.

It is? How so?

Why isn't there a plan? And before you post some ideas that you found on Google scholar, think about how much of the public knows about them.

There are plans. You don't have to look at Google scholar to find them. Those plans do not just entail the reduction of carbon emissions, but also means of dealing with the changes that are occurring and will continue to occur.

Pollution is still pollution. (like the picture of China you posted)
People are still intelligent enough to see that and want it fixed. But if you ridicule them and belittle them first, they will ignore you even if you are correct. Lead by example.

I posted no picture of China. Right, it's much better to call the scientists fools, liars, and charlatans. That's very helpful, isn't it?

a reply to: Phage

My apologies, it was Defcon5.


Point being, people will listen and even join in with pollution reduction.

Until.....someone calls them stupid for questioning the almighty GW engine. Then they might just act like humans and be offended.

Or is being right that important? Unity beats division every time.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Rich Z
No. It is not a matter of scale.
Weather changes from day to day. Hour to hour.
Climate represents long term tendencies. Decades. Climatologists don't even pretend to predict weather because weather is not climate.

NOAA Disagrees With You Phage.

What is Climate?

Climate is the weather in a location averaged over a long period of time.

Unless you want to argue what the definition of "is" is...

~Namaste

Climate is defined as the average weather of a ~30 years period. A quantity's average value and the quantity itself can be extremely different things and be controlled by very different factors. In this case, while climate can be affected by the earth's rotation around the sun (Milankovitch Cycles en.wikipedia.org...), a hot day during a glacial period has nothing to do with it.

Oil companies are among the richest in the world and directly feel the effect of a gw-engine in their pockets. So if gw is a conspiracy explain to me how they fit in that picture?

originally posted by: CB328


WTF? Why would anyone treat scientists as criminals when we have real criminals running our country into the ground?!

Why not put some "sunlight" on the liars and criminals in business, politics, insurance, pharmaceuticals, the oil companies etc??

Those scientists and many others like them have been lying to people for many years. BTW, this thread really has nothing to do with "criminals in business, politics, insurance, pharmaceuticals, etc, etc. Your argument is a non-sequitur. A red herring. There are plenty of threads that deal with those other people, but this one deals with another kind of criminals, and yes these people, and others like them are criminals. They have been purposely lying to the public, posting false data and lies trying to put pressure on governments and people to accept their opinionated views on Climate Change.

Make no mistake, the climate has been changing and will continue to change and get worse. But it really has nothing to do with mankind.

originally posted by: rickymouse
We are altering the climate. That is pretty well proven. We need to fix the problem though, not be creating a tax or causing good businesses harm. We need to lower consumption and make things to last.

...

No, mankind activities can and do influence local environments, but the climate is controlled by forces that humans have no control over.

For many years in these forums other members and myself have been showing evidence which corroborates the fact that the Earth is undergoing some changes which started occurring in the 1600s.

As for "lowering consumption", what consumption are you talking about? Are you planning on not allowing millions of people to stay warm in winter by using wood, or coal, or gas to keep themselves warm?...

If that is your plan then you are dooming millions of people to suffer and die. Yes, we do need to be mindful of the environment, but not at the extreme some people want to take it.

CO2 is not a pollutant. There are other real toxic pollutants that the AGW crowd do not even address most of the time. Instead people who have drank the cool-aid have been brainwashed to believe CO2 is bad, but CO2 is a necessary building block for all life on Earth.

We are living in a world where all life is CARBON based. This means that we will ALWAYS exhale and emit CO2 in one way or another. At least for a few more decades when it concerns human activities that release CO2. However, as living beings we, and every living being on this planet will continue to exhale and use, in the case of plants and trees, CO2.

Of more concern should be the pacific plastic island, and even worse the radiation that is in the pacific from Fukushima. Those are two examples of real issues we need to try to fix, yet instead world leaders keep pushing the claim that "we need to stop emitting CO2"...

CO2 is LIFE, without it there would be no life on this planet. We need CO2 just like we need oxygen. CO2 is life for all plants. The higher the level of CO2 than at present, the more harvests that all green biomass on Earth gives. I am not saying that we should pollute more... No, but people need to understand the difference between CO2 and the REAL pollutants that the AGW crowd most often do not even mention that we should stop emitting.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

CO2 is not a pollutant, that is true. But if the balance is off it can effect a lot of things.

No, we do not have to go without heat, we need to start making products to last which will lower the factories outputs which in turn will fix a lot of this problem.

Where is your undeniable proof that humans cannot effect climate. If there was proof of this everyone would accept it but the evidence is not even applicable to the situation because the parameters aren't broad enough.

Industrialization has spread all over the world and the chemicals that have not been proven safe to the environment are being touted as safe. The reason this occurs is they do not test for broadform impacts on anything, just in certain parameters that are convenient. They have not been looking at the whole picture in the past, especially if it negatively effects the Economy.

Now they have opened their eyes just a tad to see a little more of the truth but only what is convenient. Look at the disasters happening all over, they need a tax to pay for these, money just doesn't fall out of the sky unless a tornado hits a bank. The government does not have to fix these disasters, they can just say everyone is self insured. So what if your house and other insurances double next year, the government does not need to be involved in this. The Feds should only be worried about federal stuff, if local flooding happens, it is not the feds responsibility. Communities need to raise their own safety net, increasing local taxes to pay for these things, setting the money aside to fix things when they go wrong. That won't raise our property taxes more than say fifty percent.

Avoiding the issue does not fix the problem, the government can't fix things if it does not have enough money. It is either support our governments efforts to this or else pay more to insurance companies, which can go bankrupt if huge events happen or get bailed out by the government. Either way we will pay for this.

Denying a problem exists does not make it go away. We need to start respecting the environment more worldwide and curb our appetites for things we really do not need. Consumerism is an evil thing if it is abused.

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

...
Global warming by now is beyond tipping point. What we were warned of, has actually happened. Now, if you for some reason have missed what happened, that is simply because, the effects from the tipping point take decennia and in some cases centuries or millenia to emerge...

The changes that have been happening and continue to happen on Earth are beyond our control. It wasn't us who started it, and it wasn't us who is making it worse.

In the 1600s, just as many parts of the Earth were still undergoing the Little Ice Age, the Earth was starting to warm more and more from within.

Here is a graph of borehole temperatures which shows the Earth has been warming for almost 300 years before the height of the industrial revolution.



The Earth's magnetic field started weakening around the 1840s, and it's rate of weakening has been increasing exponentially.

The following graph shows part of the weakening of Earth's magnetic field. The red outline to the left of the graph is showing the weakening in the 20th century and part of the 21st century which has not been seen on Earth in over 800,000 years+.



The sun activity had/has also been increasing despite claims of the contrary from the AGW crowd.

...
it is interesting to note that the overall level of magnetic disturbance from year to year has increased substantially from a low around 1900 Also, the level of mean yearly aa is now much higher so that a year of minimum magnetic disturbances now is typically more disturbed than years at maximum disturbance levels before 1900.

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...


While in the past it was calculated that the weakening of Earth's magnetic field was occurring at 5% per century, data from the 90s shows us that the weakening increased at a rate of 5% per decade. In the past 7 months the weakening of the Earth magnetic field has increased to 10 times faster than it used to be in the 90s. We know this because there has been a measured effect of this weakening since around 1845-1868.

Earth's Magnetic Field Weakening More Quickly

Jul 9, 2014 06:22 PM ET // by Kelly Dickerson, LiveScience
...
While changes in magnetic field strength are part of this normal flipping cycle, data from Swarm have shown the field is starting to weaken more quickly than in the past. Previously, researchers estimated the field was weakening about 5 percent per century, but the new data revealed the field is actually weakening at 5 percent per decade, or 10 times faster than thought.

WATCH: The U.N.'s Plan to Defend Earth from Asteroids

As such, rather than the full flip occurring in about 2,000 years, as was predicted, the new data suggest it could happen sooner.

Floberghagen hopes that more data from Swarm will shed light on why the field is weakening faster now.
...

news.discovery.com...
Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now

There have been many studies that show geomagnetic jerks/changes have caused many past Climate Changes just like it has been happening to Earth since the 19th century.

Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
December 2012, Volume 52, Issue 8, pp 959-976
Date: 30 Nov 2012

Impact of the geomagnetic field and solar radiation on climate change

V. A. Dergachev, S. S. Vasiliev, O. M. Raspopov, H. Jungner

Abstract


Recent studies have shown that, in addition to the role of solar variability, past climate changes may have been connected with variations in the Earth’s magnetic field elements at various timescales. An analysis of variations in geomagnetic field elements, such as field intensity, reversals, and excursions, allowed us to establish a link between climate changes at various timescales over the last millennia. Of particular interest are sharp changes in the geomagnetic field intensity and short reversals of the magnetic poles (excursions).
...

link....


The most profound change is happening to the speed in which the magnetic north has been moving towards Siberia. In the last years, since mid 1990s, the speed of the movement of magnetic north has increased to 50-60 km, meanwhile it used to be moving for the last 100 years at an average rate of 10-20 km, and now in the past 7 months it has been weakening faster. So something is causing these changes to accelerate.( magnetic south is not moving as fast)

For more information, including a video produced by ESA explaining what has been happening to the Earth's magnetic field go to the link below.

thegalaxytoday.com...

The theory of what is probably causing this is the rapid movement of plumes (large volumes of molten lava) from the core of the Earth to the upper mantle. The specific plume that could be causing this rapid acceleration of magnetic north is the sudden movement of a plume into the Greenland mantle. Meanwhile there should be two plumes moving into the mantles of north America and the other in south America that would explain the weakening effect of the Earth's magnetic field on the western hemisphere.
However we know of no core mechanisms that could be causing this rapid acceleration and weakening of Earth's magnetic field. What we do know is that there are similar geomagnetic jerks that have occurred and have left signs of these events in the geological record of Earth and have been too fast and too large in magnitude to be caused by any known core mechanism.

Apart from this we know that underwater volcano activity, and magmatic as well as earthquake activity has been increasing, despite some people claiming this is not true.

Underwater volcanoes, not climate change, reason behind melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet


By James Maynard, Tech Times | June 10, 10:43 PM

Melting of a major glacier system in western Antarctica may be caused by underwater volcanoes, and not by global climate change, according to new research.

Thwaites Glacier, a massive outlet for ice that empties into Pine Island Bay, is flowing at a rate of one-and-a-quarter miles per year. The bay opens up into the Amundsen Sea.

The Thwaites Glacier has been the subject of scrutiny by climatologists in the last few years, as new information about the severity of the melting becomes available. Traditional models had assumed heating from subterranean sources was fairly even around the region. New data provides details about areas where little was previously known.

University of Texas researchers studied how water moves underground in the region. They found liquid water was present in a greater number of sources than previously believed, and it is warmer than estimated in previous studies.

"It's the most complex thermal environment you might imagine. And then you plop the most critical, dynamically unstable ice sheet on planet Earth in the middle of this thing, and then you try to model it. It's virtually impossible," Don Blankenship, senior research scientist at the University of Texas, said.
...

www.techtimes.com...

a reply to: rickymouse

What balance exactly are you talking about and who defines what that balance is? Do you define what that balance is?

As to your asking for more proof... The proof is in the fact that the Earth has been warming and continued to warm for almost 300 years before the height of the industrial revolution... The proof is in the fact that places like the Antarctic are being warmed by underwater volcanoes, and not by mankind activity... The proof is that Earth's magnetic field among other activity, which includes solar activity had/has been increasing. But of course, all of this and more can be denied by some people and instead they want to blame a gas that is a building block of life on this planet... Not to mention that their claims rests on computer models which have been shown to be wrong.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Both sides seem to be making up a lot of crap. Never the less, we can't keep putting unnatural or concentrated chemistry into our environment, especially if we are dampening it's ability to repair itself.

I do not know particulars of the chemistry needed to balance the CO2, but many climate scientists do know the answer to that. Computer models are relevent to a certain point, if they have accurate information fed into them. Most of the real climate scientists see there is a problem and are not sure what is actually happening, they are forced to try to produce evidence to prove what is exactly happening. But we are effecting our planets weather patterns somehow, We are exceeding our natural negative contribution to the environment we are living in.

There is no evidence to prove that the earth's ecosystem can handle the impact of the industrialized world we have today. In fact, most evidence shows it is faultering.

Maybe you want to believe it doesn't effect the environment because it negatively effects your way of life to believe otherwise. That is your right. I'm looking at the whole picture, and do understand I am also part of the problem, but I can lower my buying of unneeded things. We will be needing a new Washing machine and I will buy it when I need to, looking to find one with the longest possible life and least electronics. Right now, Washers, dryers, and refrigerators have a life expectancy of about seven years, they used to last for twenty years. A furnace used to last for thirty to fourty years, now they last about fifteen. Is this energy efficiency when you have to rebuy it in such a short time? Also, these energy efficient items lose their efficiency in less than a year, I have actually seen the testing done of them, knowing people with the equipment. It is all a scam, everything is mostly a scam.

originally posted by: network dude


Or is being right that important? Unity beats division every time.

On a major threat to civlizational continuity, YES, being right about physical facts is 100% essential.

Being united in a wishy washy unity which prevents actually doing something is disasterous. And it is only the denialists and their selfish economically motivated backers who are causing the dis-unity. In almost no other field of endeavor is there massive attack against results from professional scientific community. Maybe the vaccine idiots count, but they're a minor flea and not important.