Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

I'm not making any claim to "climate information"... YOU are... It is on YOU to provide valid sources for YOUR "climate information" claims...

Your warmizombie claims, as I've heard them all before, can easily be refuted since they are based upon violations of (most often) the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law.

 

That's not what your claim was, nor what anyone else said to do. You are too focused on the people themselves and not on the claims themselves.

... and that's all fine and dandy, but at the end of the day, science is not any person or set of credentials. It is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature.

I "listen" to the laws of science themselves, not to any person.

Not a who, a what... The laws of science themselves are more reliable than any person.

Made up number. Appeal to Popularity Fallacy.

... except for all the scientists who DON'T agree with that claim, especially the 'human causes' part of it. I realize that you love to ignore them. That's your issue.

 

One cannot deny an undefined buzzword.

 

I've proposed the entire world of climatologists.

They agree that Earth is warming, and human activity is the cause.

Back to you.

 

My sources are 15, 20, and 25 year old predictions that were issued by the experts on what to expect, and then those predictions ended up falling flat on their face. In science, if your hypothesis doesn't yield the predicted results, it's back to the drawing board. What I've never heard, over the 30 years or so that Global Warming has been a thing, are the experts admitting, "oops, we got that wrong and this is why. Based on our corrections this is the new revised prediction..."

 

Actually there are plenty of predictions that have been very accurate.

And, give that it is science, it is not even slightly surprising that accuracy has improved significantly - that's what science does!

 

There are plenty of predictions that have proven accurate? Well if you could pull one out "by the year 2000..." I would be curious as to what was gotten correct.

And how has the accuracy improved? You state that, but I don't think you've provided evidence of that.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/...are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

 

You may not have understood what I was asking. I was asking what predictions for the year 2000 that they got right. That should be readily available in the news media. I've said this before but I'm not a scientist, so when predictions are made in the media from the global warming community, that's what I'm looking at. Although I'll make it easier on you. How about some predictions made in 2000 or earlier for 2020 to 2022?

 

I would never cite the news media. I'm SHOCKED you would suggest that!

And, sorry, but what I posted is fully pertinent to the issue.

What I posted covers 20 years of forecasting!!

 

Because anybody that does not agree with them 100% and believe that humans are causing all life to end within the next generation are "deniers".

They are radical fundamentalists, and accept nothing other than those who share their extreme views.

I do not deny that there are people who are "deniers". But the problem is, people like him place everybody that does not share his belief into that camp. Those that accept the planet is warming but not caused by humans. Even those like me that admit the planet is warming, that in some areas it is indirectly caused by humans but is not of any real significance, we are all the exact same to him as those that say the planet is really cooling.

 

You mean like, the Jews must be eliminated, because Her Hitler says so?

All who are not Communists must be purged, because Stalin said so?

All who do not admit they are not perfect must purge themselves, because Mao said so?

All who are educated must be killed, because Pol Pot said so?

Yes, I am all too familiar with how radicals like that think. And the funny thing is, most of them never even realize they are radicals. TO them, they are the "clear thinkers", and everybody else is delusional.

 

And once again, it started long before the Industrial Age. In fact, it started way back in the Copper Age when smelting first started.

And you also had a lot of other things that came about, which saw the reversal. Especially as the 19th century ended and the larger cities started to unify their energy sources. For example, much of New YOrk to this day is heated not by electricity, but steam. A lot of military bases were actually heated that way until the last few decades. As most were remote and had requirements to be able to provide their own power and not be dependent on the local grid, most in the colder areas of the countries had electric and steam plants.

You see, this is something I see in almost all of your "arguments". They are really not very well thought out, and have some huge gaping holes in their arguments. And that is not unusual, as some believe that geothermal is a "new" energy source. Yet in at least one city in the US it has been in use for well over 120 years.

 

No, there is no 100%. There are just two main issues - the Earth is warming, Humans are the primary cause.

There are lots of other issues and while I hope you watch science, not every scientist agrees with every one of those issues.

If you don't agree that humans are the primary cause, then why would anyone care about the various nuances of the rest??

 

No, you only cite far-left wing alarmist sites.

 

OK, then what caused the MWP and the LIA?

 

There has been a decided increase in rate of warming that came at the point of the industrial age. That increase has swamped the other causes of warming.

I'm certainly fine with using geothermal energy. That doesn't result in the greenhouse gasses that are identified as promoting warming.

The actual physical warming of such a plant (or coal plants or any other plant) is not the issue. The issue is the change to the atmosphere that causes solar heat to be retained at a higher rate. Geothermal doesn't do that. Coal and other fossil fuels DO do that.

 

NASA, NOAA, and similar sites are NOT politically oriented.

There large numbers of science sites in the USA and in every other country of any consequence. They do independent work, and happen to be in agreement on the two fundamentals.

 

There are a good number of different natural cycles that affect warming.

The concerning point is that human activity is overshadowing them.

For example, we get warm even when the sun is in a cool cycle.

 

Well I'm not going to play scientist. What I'm told about Global Warming comes from the media. So when AOC says the world is going to end in 12 years, I don't see any fact checks on her saying she got it wrong. I don't see any of the true believers on this site correcting her. So after decades of wrong predictions, what am I supposed to think?

From 2007:

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.


Now this never happened, in spite of it coming from "experts." And it was published in the BBC, a respective organ of the fourth estate. So...did Professor Maslowski every apologize for his incorrect prediction? Did he offer an explanation as to why he got that wrong? Should I continue to trust Maslowski because he's an expert and I'm not, even though he was really wrong about a really big prediction?

 

What's your point?

And, WHY would you trust media reports???

Please remember that "could" can easily indicate a worst case scenario. Zeroing in on one word without the context is ridiculous. This issue is more serious than finding stuff like that.

Forecasts are seriously difficult, and they have improved significantly.

 

Once again:
How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted
". . . As a liberal who grew up in a solar house, I have always been energy conscious and inclined towards activist solutions to environmental issues. I was therefore extremely surprised when my research as an astrophysicist led me to the conclusion that climate change is more complicated than we are led to believe. The disease is much more benign; and a simple palliative solution lies in front of our eyes.

To begin with, the story we hear in the media, that most of the 20th century warming is anthropogenic, that the climate is very sensitive to changes in CO2, and that future warming will therefore be large and will happen very soon, is simply not supported by any direct evidence, only a shaky line of circular reasoning. We “know” that humans must have caused some warming, we see warming, we don’t know of anything else that could have caused the warming, so it adds up.

However, there is no calculation based on first principles that leads to a large warming by CO2, none. Mind you, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports state that doubling CO2 will increase the temperatures by anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5°C, a huge range of uncertainty that dates back to the Charney committee from 1979.

In fact, there is no evidence on any time scale showing that CO2 variations or other changes to the energy budget cause large temperature variations. There is however evidence to the contrary. 10-fold variations in the CO2 over the past half billion years have no correlation whatsoever with temperature; likewise, the climate response to large volcanic eruptions such as Krakatoa.

Both examples lead to the inescapable upper limit of 1.5°C per CO2 doubling—much more modest than the sensitive IPCC climate models predict. However, the large sensitivity of the latter is required in order to explain 20th century warming, or so it is erroneously thought. . . . "

 

Why would I trust media reports? Are you telling me I could be a victim of disinformation?

Like it or not, that's how most people get their news. I see popular science stories all the time, but it sounds like you are telling me I should not trust any of them unless I can read the actual studies, run my own models, and do my own math on this.

Or maybe it's just Global Warming that has a difficult time with accuracy in the media. Why would that be?

 

If you believe that parts of the US government are not "politically oriented", then you really are delusional.

I spent a quarter of a century as a "Government Employee". All such agencies are very politically motivated.

Hell, who do you think is in charge of NASA?

 

In other words, you dodge and avoid answering in any way.

Why can you not answer a simple question?

We went from the warmest period in the last 50,000 years to glaciers expanding across Europe in around 400 years.

Talk about a radical and drastic climate shift! We literally went from conditions that are warmer than they are now, to damned near a return to the deepest Ice Age temperatures. Many even thought that was continuing and had not stopped, hence the 1970's belief by many "Climatologists" that we were indeed in another Ice Age.

And yes, I have also noticed the shifting over the decades of the end of the LIA. Once, it was accepted to be in around 1920. Then pushed back to 1900, then 1890, now it is all the way back to 1850.

Remember how many of us talk about "moving goalposts"? This is a great example. Push the end date back more and more, and everything after that seems to be even warmer.

However, we have yet to reach the temperatures of the MWP.

And once again, what caused either of those two events to start and end?

I did see you avoided answering that. Why is that? Maybe, because none of the models can actually explain it? Oh, I know they have been trying to model it for decades. And none of them have ever worked. They put in all the same data that they use today based on what they believe the conditions were then, and for some damned reason they just do not recreate the same conditions that occurred historically.

That is why Jack Hays and I keep asking for historical predictions on dates that have already happened. Funny thing is, none of the models ever seem to work when using all past data, and trying to look at past events accurately. So of course they can not predict future events accurately.

Me, I am aware of all the varying cycles. I myself have brought up the Malkovich Cycles. There are also the effects of ocean salinity, ocean currents and deep ocean currents. Volcanology is a huge one, which I know I have specifically stated but you ignored.

Funny, how you bring up things I already said, and seem to think just saying there are "other factors" proves your point. What point? Where did you even say how those factors would affect things, or give any evidence? I at least talk about the various gasses from a volcano, and how each of the major ones can affect the climate. You do not even freaking do that!