Dont Call It Global Warming

[rumrocks]

After watching the doc, The Great Global Warming Swindle, I've come to the conclusion the alarmist organization is made up of two groups of people.

The first group are the more senior group, they have the organizational skills and long embedded ties to governments around the world. Most of this group was scarred by manual labor when they were young, working at summer jobs. University professors guided them away from the evils of capitalism, socialism was much much better, getting paid to sit down. Some may have had the urge to start their own business's, but most returned to the safety of the chair [campfire people]. A great deal of their wealth has come from government. I'm sure a lot of this group knows full well this movement is a fraud, for the most part these are not stupid people, they can do research, but travel, authority and a chair that comes with a paycheck trumps all.

The second group are the younger more energetic placard carrying crowd. Anger and noise gets people's attention. Most of these kids views will never be changed, even if we went into a global cooling period they would believe it was caused by global warming. Some are angry because they feel they missed the wealth boat, forgetting wealth usually comes later in life after years of hard work and a little luck, not through gaming and herbal enhancement. They are continually bombarded by social media reinforcing the inaccurate causes of climate change by their friends and media. They would not even consider looking at valid data that would question what they believe to be true.

The ratio of business owners [risk takers] to non entrepreneurs would be very low , socialism and risk are not compatible remembering of course socialists don't like letting go of that safety line. Big business is evil but yet big government isn't, the UN would be the ultimate big business.

This organization has it all, skill, energy and our money.

[dmlfarmer]

So that's great then, snow is common and it just snowed again. No cooked climate refugees running for the borders. Looks like global warming stalled again. Thank god.

That's the great thing about refuting climate change, it takes so little effort and the believers often do it for you.

So if snow is common, why would you start another climate change thread based on a snow event in the first place? Furthermore, Your original post did not refute climate change you simply posted propaganda with the hopes no one would question it.

[binthere]

Re-posting a news article sensationalized by media depicting a normal weather event as abnormal is who's ploy?

[jazz]

So if snow is common, why would you start another climate change thread based on a snow event in the first place? Furthermore, Your original post did not refute climate change you simply posted propaganda with the hopes no one would question it.

Simply testing the tenants of the climate change theory.

Let me refresh your memory.

Carbon bad, yet half the world oil is coming out of that region. Why haven't they stopped production.
A place that warming so fast because of fossil fuels, but doesn't stop production of them.

Governments like Saudi who state openly they deny climate change, nobody says a word.

And one of the places where solar panels actually work, still cranking out the oil and gas. Any carbon tax there? Shouldnt we try to make the worlds cheapest oil more expensive so people find alternatives?

A place that supposed to get so hot that nobody will be able to live there, still gets snow.

The hypocrisy of the climate cult is astonishing.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Dml, the question I can't seem to get an answer to is, is global warming a falsifiable hypothesis? Is there any quantifiable weather or climate phenomenon over any time frame which would serve to disprove the hypothesis?
That is what separates science from religion.

It is impossible to ever with 100% certainty disprove the existence of a God, Because Religion and other cults Are based on beliefs and faith and other abstract notions, Which, while they cannot be proven, they also cannot be disproven. In complete opposition to a scientific principle which can be falsified.

Yet every imaginable weather type is used to justify the validity of global warming. So prove me wrong, and tell us what would disprove the theory?

[fjlip]

the CCSR, "Global annual average temperature (as calculated from instrumental records over both land and oceans; used interchangeably with global average temperature in the discussion below) has increased by more than 1.2°F (0.7°C) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960 (Figure 1.2); see Vose et al. for discussion on how global annual average temperature is derived by scientists."

Great, and what INSTRUMENTS were used for these 120 years? Oh come on "you people", nothing has changed in 120 years? Right. Totally made up temps, estimates, models that start in little ice age and edit out the HOT 30's. Of course and good for the planet that we warmed up. Selective doctored data. NEVER will I believe a WORLD temperature stated to the tenth of a degree. What about the margin of error? certainly not ZERO! Simply a belief, a cult , a scam.

Tony Heller gets my vote, exposes Cult Lies with actual historical printed news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcycq5Ve5C4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcycq5Ve5C4

[dmlfarmer]

Dml, the question I can't seem to get an answer to is, is global warming a falsifiable hypothesis? Is there any quantifiable weather or climate phenomenon over any time frame which would serve to disprove the hypothesis?
That is what separates science from religion.

It is impossible to ever with 100% certainty disprove the existence of a God, Because Religion and other cults Are based on beliefs and faith and other abstract notions, Which, while they cannot be proven, they also cannot be disproven. In complete opposition to a scientific principle which can be falsified.

Yet every imaginable weather type is used to justify the validity of global warming. So prove me wrong, and tell us what would disprove the theory?

AF5 no science is absolute and 100% proven. To demand that climate change meet 100% proof is impossible, the same as demanding that of any science principle. Science hypothesis says gravity affects all matter and therefore until recently science supposed that the expansion of the universe was slowing down because of gravitational forces. Yet new instruments and technology show now indicate the expansion is speeding up. Still, I will believe current science theory that says gravity will cause all things to fall until man discovers the thing that doesn't fall at which time science hypothesis of gravity will have to change.

For me, proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and proof that higher concentration of CO2 does not result in heat retention would cause me to question climate science given that measured CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 800,000 years and are continuing to climb.

Simply pointing out other possible causes of climate change and weather phenoma does not constitute proof that CO2 does not impact temperatures, climate, and even weather events. To claim the sun output can result in change in the jet stream and stalling of weather patterns does not rule out the possibility that raising global temperatures could have the same impact.

Does glyphosate actually cause cancer? The best science says no it does not. But a few studies says it might. So who should we listen too? Should we outlaw all ag chemicals that may impact human health or do we evaluate the risk to health posed by each pesticide and follow the guidelines science has set out to minimize the risk to both producers and consumers of ag production.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AF5 no science is absolute and 100% proven. To demand that climate change meet 100% proof is impossible, the same as demanding that of any science principle. Science hypothesis says gravity affects all matter and therefore until recently science supposed that the expansion of the universe was slowing down because of gravitational forces. Yet new instruments and technology show now indicate the expansion is speeding up. Still, I will believe current science theory that says gravity will cause all things to fall until man discovers the thing that doesn't fall at which time science hypothesis of gravity will have to change.

For me, proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and proof that higher concentration of CO2 does not result in heat retention would cause me to question climate science given that measured CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 800,000 years and are continuing to climb.

Simply pointing out other possible causes of climate change and weather phenoma does not constitute proof that CO2 does not impact temperatures, climate, and even weather events. To claim the sun output can result in change in the jet stream and stalling of weather patterns does not rule out the possibility that raising global temperatures could have the same impact.

Does glyphosate actually cause cancer? The best science says no it does not. But a few studies says it might. So who should we listen too? Should we outlaw all ag chemicals that may impact human health or do we evaluate the risk to health posed by each pesticide and follow the guidelines science has set out to minimize the risk to both producers and consumers of ag production.

You didn't read my post, I said falsify, not prove.

[helmsdale]

You didn't read my post, I said falsify, not prove.

I think he answered your question...

There is no *one* thing that will falsify it, so long as there is a perceived preponderance of evidence on the side of anthropogenic global warming.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I think he answered your question...

There is no *one* thing that will falsify it, so long as there is a perceived preponderance of evidence on the side of anthropogenic global warming.

Which is exactly why I asked it that way. When everything is counted as evidence to support the theory(always in hindsight of course), how could it ever be falsified?

If the proponents haven't laid out any fixed dates, and quantifiable metrics which have to be met or exceeded to prove the validity of their theory, then they can continue to claim everything as reinforcing their theory.

[dmlfarmer]

I think he answered your question...

There is no *one* thing that will falsify it, so long as there is a perceived preponderance of evidence on the side of anthropogenic global warming.

What part of my post do you not understand? For me, proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and proof that higher concentration of CO2 does not result in heat retention would cause me to question climate science given that measured CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 800,000 years and are continuing to climb.

The basic tenant of climate change is increasing greenhouse gas levels including CO2 is resulting in global warming which is affecting the climate. If science proves increasing levels of greenhouse gases are not trapping heat it would defeat the climate change argument.

There is no best before date in science. An accepted scientific theory lives until it is proven false by new information, new measurments, or new discoveries.

[jazz]

For me, proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and proof that higher concentration of CO2 does not result in heat retention would cause me to question climate science given that measured CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 800,000 years and are continuing to climb.

Well geez dml, that's all it takes? I proved that 3 months ago on this blog. There is lots of evidence for that. Please identify the correlation.



Now I will prove its not a greenhouse gas. The chart below shows the IR spectrum absorption for various gases. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths and the rest of heat producing radiation escapes it. Compared to water vapour which spans the entire spectrum in various degrees.

Are you ready to talk yet or just want to give way to unreason like chuck?