I follow the experts when it's not my area of expertise. This is better than how republicans pretend they know more than climate experts about the climate. The motive for this is less clear. Tobacco companies denying that smoking causes lung cancer, that motive was easy to see. But republicans? Only a minority would have a direct financial stake, others I think it's about being antagonistic to liberals, and the religious belief that humans cannot affect the climate, perhaps that's biblical? Not wanting to change how they live such as enjoying big trucks and boats? Maybe that's another.
Or perhaps some of them understand that the actual data do not support the alarmists' claims. That is the view of many scientists.
Many scientists? I think I recall you as being the one who actually uses data on here. That's a step up from what others do. On the other hand, the scientific consensus is on the other side of the issue. Scientific consensus isn't dogma, but in the absence of personal expertise, it's the default.
This is a recent example bringing together three peer-reviewed papers. New Study: Ocean Warming Is Supposed To Increase Water Vapor – But It’s Been Declining Since 2008 By Kenneth Richard on 24. February 2025 “Our findings are unexpected: despite rising sea surface temperatures, global Eo [ocean evaporation/water vapor] has decreased in the most recent decade.” – Ma et al., 2025 A 2024 study published in PNAS again confirmed climate models fail to simulate what happens in the real world with regard to fundamental climate change variables like water vapor, Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas (due to its alleged warmth-enhancing “feedback” capacity). Per state-of-the-art climate models, specific humidity (SH) should increase as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show no increasing SH trend over arid/semi-arid regions. Per state-of-the-art climate models, relative humidity (RH) should remain relatively constant, if not decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show not a slight declining trend, but a declining trend that is “about an order of magnitude more than the models on average.” In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10. The authors did not understate the profundity of these climate modeling failures. “This represents a major gap in our understanding and in climate model fidelity that must be understood and fixed as soon as possible in order to provide reliable hydroclimate projections for arid/semi-arid regions in the coming decades.” Image Source: Simpson et al., 2024 Now, a new study has once again confirmed there has been an “unexpected” decline in ocean evaporation (which accounts for 85% of the derivation of global atmospheric water vapor) since 2008, the “turning point” (TP) year. These robust results affirming a declining ocean evaporation (Eo) or water vapor trend across two-thirds of the globe – mostly in the Southern Hemisphere – can be found in all four satellite data sets used for the study. Image Source: Ma et al., 2025 It should be noted that in 2020 Dr. Koutsoyiannis published a paper indicating the lack of a model-expected increasing trend in global specific humidity has been observed not just since 2008, or 1980, but since the late 1940s. Observations do not seem to be sufficiently cooperating with the “water vapor feedback” narrative. Image Source: Koutsoyiannis, 2020
No, I think I see it pretty clearly. The fact that you feel the need to call anybody that does not agree with your beliefs a "denier", just like a Medieval Christian would call somebody a "Heretic" if they did not follow their beliefs. Like to many, it is quite clear that you are a zealot and there is no room in your orthodoxy for those that do not follow your beliefs. They either agree with you, or are to be rejected and called a "denier". And you double down even more by fragging in a political stance into the issue. So to you it is more than just your Global Warming Religion beliefs, it is also a very clear political belief. As well as stereotyping almost half of the population. And stereotyping and bigotry is something I find ugly in any group. Sorry, I think I have pretty accurately stated exactly what you believe, if you are even willing to admit it to yourself or not.
Such as geologists. Who know for a fact that this is not the "warmest the planet has ever been", but know to keep quiet when the zealots make those claims or they would get attacked. Things like that most geologists know is an outright lie. But one dares to not contradict the "Church of Global Warming" with such things as facts. I have had more than one tell me that they have to tiptoe around things like that whenever discussing or publishing about past climates. Because if they do, then the results are normally attacks. One even told me not long ago that she and her colleagues could understand a bit what Galileo had felt. They knew the truth, but were forbidden by the Church to ever publish their results. But this is both religious and political in nature. Which makes it even more disgusting in my eyes.
Consensus is the ultimate hogwash. Not all that long ago, the consensus was that the Milky Way was the entirety of the Universe. And that the planet was static, and that as the continents are laid out today is how they had always been. Just as the consensus was once that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Then it became the Sun was the center of the Universe. Then it became that the Milky Way was the entirety of the Universe. To turn a phrase, consensus is made to be broken. Except in this case, one has to tread very lightly when going up against this consensus. Or else they are called a heretic and the pitchforks come out, and the demands that they be silenced, scorned, and excommunicated from science and society because they do not agree with the orthodoxy. And one thing I have learned over the years, orthodoxy is a fickle doxy. Oh, and in case you did not know, even the claim of "consensus" is completely fabricated. There is no such consensus, there never was. But like straws in turtle noses it is a fiction that people want to believe.
This is a hilariously hypocritical post. Well done on the trolling. I'm trying to figure out where you got bigotry from... big trucks and boats? That's my extended family. Nope, you don't know me. You made some leaps and assumptions but no, that does not portray my beliefs. Believing in global warming is more about following scientific consensus and logic. Having an opinion does not make somebody dogmatic, and calling somebody a denier is not meant to imply what you think.
Definitely never said this is the warmest the planet has ever been. Nor do I think that's something many climate scientists assert, unless they were taken completely out of context by people with an agenda.
I don't think I'm going to find time for each study (definitely not during work), but on the Simpson one, that's more a matter of refinement of the models than refutation of the models. In something as complex as climate change, needing to refine models and failing to reach perfection is not going to outweigh the totality of the evidence for human-caused climate change.
I don't think those are fair comparisons. A better comparison would be macroevolution. It is based upon multiple types of evidence, and experts in the field overwhelmingly accept it as the best explanation for the evidence available. We're not talking about church fiat or extremely limited observation capabilities. But we are talking about an almost hopelessly complicated thing, without further advances in AI.
Oh really? The very things you have said in the past state that is not true. You very much are a political zealot, and seem to care more about politics and attacking others than in actually discussing the topic. Well, have a nice day with that. Let me know if you ever wish to actually discuss science instead of just attacking anybody that dares to not agree with you.
And once again, primarily because you can not argue with what is said, so believe it should be ignored. And "advances with AI?" Holy cow, now I know exactly how off the deep end this goes. AI is absolute garbage, anybody with working brain cells knows this. And once again delving into religion and bias, I've seen enough.
The sad truth is that your belief in the marketing claim that is designed to control populations and create dependence entirely ignores the actual data, and the science. Are you wiling to change how you live? Are you wiling to give up relying on everyone else to provide for you? It seems not.
lol you think AI is garbage. That's hilarious. I hope you live long enough to see how wrong you are. I mean, it's already impressive. It can count mitotic figures for me. It is far superior to an old-fashioned google search for quick information. It can help to invent toxins and medicines that would take far longer to develop without it. Advances in computing power such as through AI and quantum computing will make current problematic areas of science (climate, social science) much more decipherable. These areas of science are problematic because there are too many variables to wade through and control for.
I don't know what you think you demonstrated, but it appears we have a communication barrier. Yes perhaps eventually we'll have something more concrete to discuss. I'm not sure what the point of this dialogue is at this point.
Funny you should bring this up. You realize that you're using a phrase crafted by CIA to ensure that public debate on subjects can be shut down by the fear of being cast as "conspiracy"... And here you are, trotting yours out.
Sorry, but there's no truth to that. “Conspiracy theory” was, as far as we know at this point, first used in 1863 about claims that the Brits were acting to weaken the US during the Civil War.Jul 27, 2024 What is the origin of the term 'conspiracy theory' and ... - Quora
In a letter to the editor of the New York Times on 11 January 1863 to be precise. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-new-york-times-first-use-of-conspir/96772461/ But the way it was used, it likely was already a phrase that would have been known to readers of the time as being part of the common vernacular. This is simply the first time it was seen written in a form that survives to this day. It is not unusual for words or phrases to be used for decades or longer before they are recorded for posterity. But it became popularized after Sir Karl Popper talked about them in his 1945 book "The Open Society and its Enemies". In which he talked about how totalitarian will found conspiracy theories in order to quash any dissent into questioning their claims. And as should be obvious by his title, Sir Karl Popper was an Australian-British citizen. And the book was published two years before the CIA was even founded. It always strikes me as funny how often people simply can not be bothered to do any research at all. They simply make stuff up, more or less a variant of the "Big Lie". Say something often enough and it will become the truth.
And that is one that is also causing many to question our current interglacial. Now it is very difficult to actually trace many things past our last Glacial Maximum, as each glacial event tends to erase most evidence of what happened before it (which is why it took over 50 years when the evidence of prior ice ages was first discovered until it was finally accepted as being a fact). However, we do know that the Cordilleran Ice Sheet (the one that covered most of Canada and extended down into the US) appears to have melted exceptionally fast. As in around 4,000 years. And geologists and glaciologists have been puzzling over that for decades. As it caused massive flooding in several parts of North America, sometimes in repeated events that happened multiple times (Lake Missoula Floods). This is very unlike prior ice ages. The Laurentide Ice Sheet (believed to be the most extensive on record, 2.58 mya) however is believed to have taken up to 11,000 years to melt. Most now believe that the start of our interglacial was exceptionally hot (Bølling–Allerød Interstadial), as there was no other explanation for such a rapid melting. But then the Younger Dryas hit, which largely reversed that, and has caused us to be at exceptionally cold temperatures ever since. As typically by this point in an interglacial we would have lost most of Florida under rising sea levels. And some people love to act as if what is happening now has never happened before. In the Bølling–Allerød Interstadial, the sea surface warmed by 3c in under 100 years. Our current sea level rise is about .42 per year, but in the Bølling–Allerød Interstadial it was on average almost 50mm per year. Just think on that, over a period of about 1,500 years sea levels rose by over 16 meters. So whenever people try to claim that the current sea level rises are "unprecedented", that means that either they are lying, or they are simply idiots that have no clue what happened in the past so are just making up claims to scare people. But I will grant it is unprecedented, as in fact the sea level rise is far below what it should be. As the fact is, by this point in an interglacial sea levels should be from 5-6 meters higher than they are today.
