climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[prop_joe]

Where is the skeptic community’s model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. There's a difference between saying 'prove C02 raises temps' and 'C02 does not raise temps'... i maybe mistaken in the particular context of this conversion but in the wider scheme i think skeptics generally take the first statement. If the second, then you would be correct to ask for evidence. Skepticism... the lazy man's science but without it you wouldn't be sh*t

[prop_joe]

My core concern is for all species.

True dat. Which of the hundred or so species lost today were you most distraught over?

[palmbeacher]

Where is the skeptic community’s model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. There's a difference between saying 'prove C02 raises temps' and 'C02 does not raise temps'... i maybe mistaken in the particular context of this conversion but in the wider scheme i think skeptics generally take the first statement. If the second, then you would be correct to ask for evidence. Skepticism... the lazy man's science but without it you wouldn't be sh*t

Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.

These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
CRU direct surface temperature analysis
Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:

Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost melt

There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend. And it has been scientifically proven that industrial, man-made carbon emissions are the cause.

This debate shouldn’t be positioned as red pilled vs woke, or denier vs believer. It is simply dumb as sh*t vs educated.

[Havre]

And if you truly care about polar beers (and species in general) you are a fool to think co2 emissions should be your area of focus.

My concerns run a little broader than simply pinning everything on C02.

We spill oil

We poison rivers

We burn everything

We need a course correction

Few people want us to spill oil and poison rivers.

[Havre]

Palmbeacher is such a lovely human being.

Tell everyone how stupid and morally corrupt they are. Repeat. If it doesn't work sprinkle in some lies. Tell everyone how stupid and morally corrupt they are. Repeat.

Not really sure what the end goal is? Even if you are right who would listen to you? Other than those that already agree with you and think lying and this kind of rhetoric is OK as long as they agree with you on the subject.

[palmbeacher]

Palmbeacher is such a lovely human being.

Tell everyone how stupid and morally corrupt they are. Repeat. If it doesn't work sprinkle in some lies. Tell everyone how stupid and morally corrupt they are. Repeat.

Not really sure what the end goal is? Even if you are right who would listen to you? Other than those that already agree with you and think lying and this kind of rhetoric is OK as long as they agree with you on the subject.

Not everyone, just people like you who keep bringing up non-arguments and misinformation. The science and evidence is clear.

[Havre]

Palmbeacher is such a lovely human being.

Tell everyone how stupid and morally corrupt they are. Repeat. If it doesn't work sprinkle in some lies. Tell everyone how stupid and morally corrupt they are. Repeat.

Not really sure what the end goal is? Even if you are right who would listen to you? Other than those that already agree with you and think lying and this kind of rhetoric is OK as long as they agree with you on the subject.

Not everyone, just people like you who keep bringing up non-arguments and misinformation. The science and evidence is clear.

So why engange yourself in a discussion then? If there is nothing to discuss? It makes you feel good insulting people?

[palmbeacher]

Palmbeacher is such a lovely human being.

Tell everyone how stupid and morally corrupt they are. Repeat. If it doesn't work sprinkle in some lies. Tell everyone how stupid and morally corrupt they are. Repeat.

Not really sure what the end goal is? Even if you are right who would listen to you? Other than those that already agree with you and think lying and this kind of rhetoric is OK as long as they agree with you on the subject.

Not everyone, just people like you who keep bringing up non-arguments and misinformation. The science and evidence is clear.

So why engange yourself in a discussion then? If there is nothing to discuss? It makes you feel good insulting people?

To counter the misinformation you are spreading with actual facts and science.

[Havre]

Not everyone, just people like you who keep bringing up non-arguments and misinformation. The science and evidence is clear.

So why engange yourself in a discussion then? If there is nothing to discuss? It makes you feel good insulting people?

To counter the misinformation you are spreading with actual facts and science.

Obviously I would take no issue with that. And maybe if you wrote your arguments as a grown up some might even listen. Not only that you might even be able to modify someone's behavior. In my humble opinion that is not going to happen the way you have been communicating so far.

[Pemba]

Not everyone, just people like you who keep bringing up non-arguments and misinformation. The science and evidence is clear.

So why engange yourself in a discussion then? If there is nothing to discuss? It makes you feel good insulting people?

To counter the misinformation you are spreading with actual facts and science.

Palmbeacher I think you might have something to add to this argument but you come accross all angry. Why ? What disinformation is he spreading ? Havre and others are just asking questions I think, which doesn't mean they are denying anything, and rather than repeating yourself and acting angry with them, why not just address these questions if you can ? I'm on your side of the argument but I can't answer them. Which makes them interesting. To me, to them and maybe lots of others. The issue here is obviously very important. It's a pity that it seems to be impossible to discuss or debate it calmly and logically and without going in to politics.