Climate Denier Hard To Refute

[SuburbanFarmer]

I don't just say so. This is established fact. They actually have to change the recorded temperatures in order to fit the predictions of their models. Otherwise, the data doesn't show a human impact at all.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com ... 062717.pdf

'Established Fact' - Climate models are lies.

Interesting viewpoint.

[Speaker to Animals]

I don't just say so. This is established fact. They actually have to change the recorded temperatures in order to fit the predictions of their models. Otherwise, the data doesn't show a human impact at all.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com ... 062717.pdf

'Established Fact' - Climate models are lies.

Interesting viewpoint.

Uh.. no. You are engaging in fallacy again (straw man). I said it is established fact that, in order to make the raw data fit their predictive models, they had to make adjustments to the raw data, and that nearly all of the alleged human-caused climate change that climate scientists have demonstrated is derived from those very adjustments.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I don't just say so. This is established fact. They actually have to change the recorded temperatures in order to fit the predictions of their models. Otherwise, the data doesn't show a human impact at all.

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com ... 062717.pdf

'Established Fact' - Climate models are lies.

Interesting viewpoint.

Uh.. no. You are engaging in fallacy again (straw man). I said it is established fact that, in order to make the raw data fit their predictive models, they had to make adjustments to the raw data, and that nearly all of the alleged human-caused climate change that climate scientists have demonstrated is derived from those very adjustments.

Mmmmmmmmkay. I'll take your word for it.

Weird that they're still putting out new reports with their slanderous lies, now that the entire underpinning of climate science has been destroyed...

[heydaralon]

It's certainly not hard to understand. We live on a paper-thin bubble of air around a rock. We pump a trillion tons of carbon into the air, which traps heat. You can see the effects on both poles, without anything but a camera. Every one of us can see the effects in weather patterns where we live.

You can make it as tricky as you want to, but it's right there in front of you.

What do you think about the global cooling hysteria from the 1970s? All of the climate scientists were saying the Earth was cooling down at an alarming rate. This is perhaps my biggest concern with the climate scientists. I don't think I am better informed than them, or that they are stupid, I just think that their relative quick reversal of their opinions shows that climate is a difficult phenomenon to study, and that no one, even the smartest academics in the world, have a good understanding of it. I view our climate kind of like the economy. There are a lot of experts, but they are continually blindsided by things that their models did not anticipate. Economists also make models with many assumptions. Some models are made in which prices remain static. Other models are tailored on vindicating political ideas. Very few of these models are proven right in the long run. Again, this might be a poor comparison to make, but I am somewhat leery of people who claim to fully understand what our climate is doing.

Well, ask yourself how our technology has changed over the past 40 years. We just got to the moon in 1969, and had barely even started to study the atmosphere.

Maybe so. It still seems like a lot of guess work to me. I was reading some passages from this book awhile back that talks about severe climate change happening in the 17th century. The book argues that this change exacerbated many conflicts throughout the World during this time period. At the beginning of Tuchmann's A Distant Mirror talks about a severe mini ice age that happened at the beginning of the 14th century. I don't know how these events fit into current climate models.

It also seems like environmentalists cry wolf quite a bit about things. They will exaggerate the impact of a certain industry and practice, and it never seems like their predictions come true. This has led me to tune out much of their message. Its possible they are right about this, but they are subject to the same motivations and distortions that big business is.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I agree that we're still nowhere near a complete understanding of the systems involved. Yet, we're perfectly happy to fuck with them on a global basis because "industry".

The Little Ice Age is a pretty fascinating time in human history. The theory I heard was that it was kicked off by a massive volcanic eruption in the Phillipines, but who knows.

[Speaker to Animals]

The more rational avenue to take is one based on risk analysis.

Altering the chemical composition of the Earth's atmosphere carries potentially catastrophic risk. We shouldn't have to prove that altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere will result in some particular effect. It's rightfully the other way around.

Couple that with some real politic regarding how practical it might to walk this stuff back. Instead of making totally irrational and unrealistic demands about cutting carbon emissions by some ridiculous percentage, develop strategies and policies that lead us in the direction of ever decreasing emissions without hurting economic development.

But because the people pushing this garbage are statists who want state control of the economy, and globalists who want a world government to dominate the nation states, ALL the solutions they come up with involve expanding regulations and restricting economic development. Instead, consider government research projects to develop cleaner technologies that are better and more economical to the ones we use now, and release those technologies into the wild patent-free. As an insurance policy, start researching engineering solutions to various adverse outcomes of human-caused climate change if it does occur at all.

[SuburbanFarmer]

And who should do that, if not a world government or coalition? Did you just get really-fucking-generous with our tax dollars? That's a reversal..

[Speaker to Animals]

And who should do that, if not a world government or coalition? Did you just get really-fucking-generous with our tax dollars? That's a reversal..

The nation state.

Specifically: the United States, since we are the only nation state of people who both have the GDP and human capital to do it, and the motivation to do it.

Nobody gives a fuck about climate change except North Americans and Europeans.

[heydaralon]

I was gonna make some jokes about finding climate change in between my climate sofa cushions, but I think I made like 6 of those jokes in a previous thread. If I come up with some good new ones, I will post them here for sure.

[heydaralon]

I agree that we're still nowhere near a complete understanding of the systems involved. Yet, we're perfectly happy to fuck with them on a global basis because "industry".

The Little Ice Age is a pretty fascinating time in human history. The theory I heard was that it was kicked off by a massive volcanic eruption in the Phillipines, but who knows.

That's crazy if its true.