The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

you need to remember at least these 3 factors that are agreed by EVERY climate scientist in the entire world:

- you can NOT pick one location and pretend that is a proxy for Earth.

- NO climate model projects that Earth's warming will affect each location in the same way. Some areas WILL cool. But, the average temperature of Earth is rising.

- mankind is NOT the only factor that affects Earth's temperature, causing change.

Does that help?

 

I urge all who think Climate is a danger to study weather and our atmosphere. In fact weather happens in the Atmosphere.

 

I sure wish all the Alarmists believed that. Will you prove that average is more vital than location?

Democrats used to love change. Seems after Obama departed change is not on their minds.

 

LOL... 1) Yes. Tell that to every liberal nut job that uses exactly this kind of logic in their apocalyptic narratives.
2) Wrong. There is no such thing as a global average temperature. Each local climate exhibits it's uniqueness because of lots of immutable characteristics. But I can tell you that both the Antarctic and the Arctic aren't getting warmer. You might want to consider where this heat you worry about is going to come from now that all of the temp guessing models for those regions has been debunked by the actual collected data.
3) Mankind is likely not a very significant factor in temperature distributions outside of our ability to create heat islands. We know this. We also know that nature itself is vastly by a factor os 12 more likely to dump CO2 into the atmosphere, as well as tons of other gases like SO2, CO, Methane, etc.

So help us understand then what you're position really is? We know climate has, does, and will continue to change. We know that since the dawn of time this has been true. But somehow you expect that suddenly this isn't the case? Also, if man isn't the primary factor, or even a major factor in how climate is changing, what is the point of your posting?

 

The catch with that is that weather and climate change are two very different fields of study.

Weather is what can be projected over the next week or whatever.

Climate change has to do with change over decades.

Weather is only one component of the study of climate change. And, that component is not just the weather of one year, but the pattern of weather over many years.

 

The real problem here is that for many a progressive climate alarmist, right now isn't good enough. The fact that temperatures rebounded after a minimum that caused hundreds of years of death and pestilence, they'd rather go back to that epoch and suffer. It's kind of disturbing. Really.

 

Your definition of change seems unduly limited. Also fraught with intentional variability and likely doesn't create any real representative model of what, or how climate changes.

 

I’m undecided on laughing or vomiting

 

The only way one could come to this mindset is to bury their head in the sands of Afghanistan… oh wait

 

Anybody able to decipher what he said that I colored?

I am completely for taxation. In fact let me explain. The FAIR TAX definitely is a lot more FAIR than our current bastardized system.

A single simple tax system that can't be used to not pay taxes. A simple system that the public will actually support as they currently support sales taxes.
Nobody I know of complains about sales taxes.

 

Oh believe me I have gone to their sites since this Climate bunk job started to grow horns.

As a pilot believe me we do put in time concerned about weather. But even today the FAA training does not say get your shorts on fire over warm temperatures.

Weather is a serious topic. Not only we pilots, but captains of ships had to study weather. I mean globally we studied it.

Weather also is a super concern for our military operations. Hell weather is global and impacts every human.

Climate is very long range. And I am not crapping my pants over you fearing climate.

NASA is busy in space and a lot of posters claim space is not our problem.
Weather is to NASA. Climate, meh.

Take the issue of NASA, Cape Canaveral. I do not believe it plans to remove all they have on the Cape to take it to high ground. NASA in short is not worried about climate.

 

Wait, so the Arctic and Greenland are proxies?

I do not believe I said you said space climate. It was over something else.

 

I believe all Democrats are asking us to do the impossible. Manage Climate. They propose we become managers of Earths climate.
Nope, I simply will not.

I hope you learn this about me. I understand the Sun, Earth and climate and weather.

 

Scientific scepticism about AGW was alive and well prior to 1995; took a nose-dive following publication of the Second Assessment Report, and then was was dealt what was hoped to be a fatal blow by the Third Assessment Report and the promotion of the Hockey Stick.

A rather flimsy edifice for a convincing, highly-confident attribution of recent warming to humans.

I think Bernie Lewin is correct in identifying the 1995 meeting in Madrid as the turning point. It was John Houghton who inserted the attribution claim into the draft Summary for Policy Makers, contrary to the findings in Chapter 8. Ben Santer typically gets ‘blamed’ for this, but it is clearly Houghton who wanted this and enabled this, so that he and the IPCC could maintain a seat at the big policy table involved in the Treaty. Judith Curry

 

If you mentioned NASA, you were talking about space. And NASA speaks about flying as well.

 

Great, you do not believe man controls hurricanes. You and I completely agree. And Man can't control Climate.
Can I get an amen to that too?
If you tell me man has an effect, bingo you believe man is in charge.

 

I simply do not remotely understand such flawed remarks.

This can be compared to a football moving.

First you say him kicking the ball will not move it.
Next you say he has to kick it to move it.

Who are you lecturing? I fully understand everything you keep saying. So if you will, please end the lecture period.

Try this on for size.

Study what Jack Hay is telling you. He understands the topic and keeps handing to you excellent links.

 

???

You somehow missed what "average" means.

That was not addressed by my point. Right?

But, I will add that the fact that there are natural sources of CO2 does NOT negate human contributions. The critical issue is the balance between heat arrival from the sun and heat departure to outer space. That balance can be affected without contributing anything remotely as large as the total. This is obviously a first year physics issue.

What changed is that humans became capable of changing the balance of heat arriving and departing Earth. Humans became a factor.

 

No, that is WAY off the mark.

Today's Earthly population depends on factors such as climate and sea level in where they live, in agriculture, etc. And, the change that appears to be coming will upset those dependencies, causing serious problems.

 

If you have a teapot on a stove, do you not think the turn of the knob has an enormous influence on how the stove warms the water?

Turning the knob effects the water temperature.

This is my case for Death Valley.

Consider it a place to store heat. Consider if things are getting hotter as you claim, it would naturally end up in
death Valley. Were Death Valley actually warming up, you would be more than pleased to use that as your proof.

 

I've pointed out to YOU that you are wrong about this.

NASA studies our atmosphere and Earth's surface as well as the cosmos.

 

Do you happen to have true experiments that support your claims about what warms up Earth?

 

Now, all you have to do is search for some legitimate scientists somewhere who might support that in some way.

 

How quick will Biden yank out of Florida and Houston the low lying places he launches from?

What are the Biden plans to dam off the ocean?

 

Dr. Lindzen commented on that to me and agreed with my claims.