Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[suffolkowner]

Perhaps not geological but can you guarantee some Gore & Thunberg doppelganger won't try take us in the opposite direction? What if they decide net zero isn't good enough? The current cash cow can't last forever. They'll need a new crusade to make money off of.

There are two things here. One you would have to develop some means of driving CO2 levels that low, sub 150 ppm. How?
Two this proposed idea would have to be politically popular. Again how? When we are seeing the reversal of the carbon tax in Canada as we speak.
By geological time i meant the next million years or so that there is nothing on the horizon

 

[ArmyRick]

What is this now?

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

Doomsday Addiction: Celebrating 50 years of Failed Climate Predictions

Politicians, scientists, and celebs assure us the apocalypse is tomorrow, and if not, the day after will do. Buckle up for a look at 50 years of cataclysmic predictions.

www.agweb.com

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

The language surrounding these various environmental disasters sounds much like Wednesday night’s town hall, and yet each thesis has faded from public consciousness, and the fear-mongers faced no accountability for their misplaced alarmism.

fee.org

 

[suffolkowner]

If theories explain facts, then this necessarily means they are not facts.

Sounds to me like you are the one who's confusing theory with fact.

Then prove I am wrong.

Warrior is a slightly less bad word for zealot. I hope you enjoy your status.

I am fairly conversant with the scientific method. Again theories explain facts

It is not on me to prove that you are wrong it is on you to propose an alternative hypothesis to AGW and provide the evidence

If a zealot or warrior is one that follows the evidence of the science what is the pejorative for one that denies the science?

The latest review of the science of AGW

IPCC AR6 Working Group 1: Summary for Policymakers

.

www.ipcc.ch

IPCC AR6 Working Group 1: Technical Summary

.

www.ipcc.ch

Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis

The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report addresses the most up-to-date physical understanding of the climate system and climate change, bringing together the latest advances in climate science.

www.ipcc.ch

 

[ArmyRick]

Ahem

 

[ArmyRick]

More

 

[ArmyRick]

With JP

 

[KeLouJoH]

I am fairly conversant with the scientific method. Again theories explain facts

And I already told you, if theories explain facts, then this means they are not facts.

You people want to base policies on something that is not a fact. You want to base them on a mere theory. You honestly don't see what's wrong with this?

It is not on me to prove that you are wrong it is on you to propose an alternative hypothesis to AGW and provide the evidence

No sir, you don't know how a debate works.

You put forth a positive claim, namely climate change is man-made. Therefore you need to prove it. I don't need to prove anything, as I am not putting forth any positive claim.

If a zealot or warrior is one that follows the evidence of the science what is the pejorative for one that denies the science?

I don't deny science. Instead I denounce zealotry. You people read a few articles that had some scientific-sounding words in them and now think you have the monopoly on truth.

 

[ArmyRick]

I don't deny science. Instead I denounce zealotry.

100% spot on. People who think they are truly open minded need to be actually that. The climate narrative of the last 15-20 years was based on a few very small studies and used as a political narrative.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

100% spot on. People who think they are truly open minded need to be actually that. The climate narrative of the last 15-20 years was based on a few very small studies and used as a political narrative.

And a massive money making scheme for the connected ones who make more and more everytime they flip flop and change the narrative.

 

[suffolkowner]

And I already told you, if theories explain facts, then this means they are not facts.

You people want to base policies on something that is not a fact. You want to base them on a mere theory. You honestly don't see what's wrong with this?

No sir, you don't know how a debate works.

You put forth a positive claim, namely climate change is man-made. Therefore you need to prove it. I don't need to prove anything, as I am not putting forth any positive claim.

I don't deny science. Instead I denounce zealotry. You people read a few articles that had some scientific-sounding words in them and now think you have the monopoly on truth.

One observes something = fact
One develops and explanation for that observation = hypothesis
One accumulates evidence to support hypothesis and disprove alternatives over time = theory

The onus is on the person that supports an alternative hypothesis to provide that hypothesis and the evidence to support it

If you do not agree with AGW you are by definition denying the science

 

[KeLouJoH]

One observes something = fact
One develops and explanation for that observation = hypothesis
One accumulates evidence to support hypothesis and disprove alternatives over time = theory

The onus is on the person that supports an alternative hypothesis to provide that hypothesis and the evidence to support it

If you do not agree with AGW you are by definition denying the science

No, you still don't get it.

You claim that climate change is man-made. So you need to prove it. I don't need to prove you're wrong or come up with an alternative. You need to prove that you are right.

I don't think you went to a university.

 

[suffolkowner]

100% spot on. People who think they are truly open minded need to be actually that. The climate narrative of the last 15-20 years was based on a few very small studies and used as a political narrative.

a list of a "few" recent studies

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #6 2025

Open access notables Doing better rather than promising more: A basic principle applicable to both climate modelling and climate policies, Douville, PLOS Climate:

skepticalscience.com

And a massive money making scheme for the connected ones who make more and more everytime they flip flop and change the narrative.

The IPCC budget is approx $9 million a year
the costs of the approx 20000 publishing climate scientists is about $2B a year

 

[suffolkowner]

No, you still don't get it.

You claim that climate change is man-made. So you need to prove it. I don't need to prove you're wrong or come up with an alternative. You need to prove that you are right.

I don't think you went to a university.

the proof was posted in the links above.

I did not need to do that as the onus is on you who wish to overthrow the orthodoxy

 

[KeLouJoH]

the proof was posted in the links above.

No. Prove it in your own words. I am having a conversation with you, I am not having a conversation with your links.

I did not need to do that as the onus is on you who wish to overthrow the orthodoxy

No sir.

Let me try this one more time:

If I put forth a positive claim, and say that I am Taylor Swift, and you say, "No, you're not". Then guess what? I need to prove that I am indeed Taylor Swift, you don't need to prove that I am not.

 

[suffolkowner]

No. Prove it in your own words. I am having a conversation with you, I am not having a conversation with your links.

No sir.

Let me try this one more time:

If I put forth a positive claim, and say that I am Taylor Swift, and you say, "No, you're not". Then guess what? I need to prove that I am indeed Taylor Swift, you don't need to prove that I am not.

you have it exactly backward. You are the one that needs to prove your claim that human generated emissions do not result in AGW

What words could i possibly use that would result in something that hundreds of thousands of scientists could not?

 

[KeLouJoH]

you have it exactly backward. You are the one that needs to prove your claim that human generated emissions do not result in AGW

I did not say that.

I merely contradicted your claim. Contradicting a positive claim is not the same as putting forth one's own positive claim. Therefore, I don't need to prove anything. You, on the other hand, claim that climate change is man-made. This is a positive claim; therefore you need to prove it.

 

[suffolkowner]

I did not say that.

I merely contradicted your claim. Contradicting a positive claim is not the same as putting forth one's own positive claim. Therefore, I don't need to prove anything. You, on the other hand, claim that climate change is man-made. Therefore you need to prove it.

what exactly are you contradicting then?

What other theories do you want me to prove? Its not my claim that AGW is man made, it is the theory based on the evidence

 

[KeLouJoH]

what exactly are you contradicting then?

What other theories do you want me to prove? Its not my claim that AGW is man made, it is the theory based on the evidence

All theories are based on evidence. Just because your theory has some evidence behind it, it does not mean it is now inerrant truth.

There is also evidence that climate change is not man-made. Uh-oh, what does it mean for suffolkowner? I guess now he's a science-denier.

 

[suffolkowner]

All theories are based on evidence. Just because your theory has some evidence behind it, it does not mean it is now inerrant truth.

There is also evidence that climate change is not man-made. Uh-oh, what does it mean for suffolkowner? I guess now he's a science-denier.

all hypothesis are based on evidence. Theories are the hypothesis that withstand scrutiny and have no competitive alternative. I think you continue to confuse the two

evidence?

 

[KeLouJoH]

all hypothesis are based on evidence. Theories are the hypothesis that withstand scrutiny and have no competitive alternative. I think you continue to confuse the two

evidence?

There is evidence for climate change not being man-made. Yet you deny this. Guess this makes you a science-denier.