Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[ArmyRick]

What is this now?

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

Doomsday Addiction: Celebrating 50 years of Failed Climate Predictions

Politicians, scientists, and celebs assure us the apocalypse is tomorrow, and if not, the day after will do. Buckle up for a look at 50 years of cataclysmic predictions.

www.agweb.com

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

The language surrounding these various environmental disasters sounds much like Wednesday night’s town hall, and yet each thesis has faded from public consciousness, and the fear-mongers faced no accountability for their misplaced alarmism.

fee.org

 

[suffolkowner]

If theories explain facts, then this necessarily means they are not facts.

Sounds to me like you are the one who's confusing theory with fact.

Then prove I am wrong.

Warrior is a slightly less bad word for zealot. I hope you enjoy your status.

I am fairly conversant with the scientific method. Again theories explain facts

It is not on me to prove that you are wrong it is on you to propose an alternative hypothesis to AGW and provide the evidence

If a zealot or warrior is one that follows the evidence of the science what is the pejorative for one that denies the science?

The latest review of the science of AGW

IPCC AR6 Working Group 1: Summary for Policymakers

.

www.ipcc.ch

IPCC AR6 Working Group 1: Technical Summary

.

www.ipcc.ch

Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis

The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report addresses the most up-to-date physical understanding of the climate system and climate change, bringing together the latest advances in climate science.

www.ipcc.ch

 

[ArmyRick]

Ahem

 

[ArmyRick]

More

 

[ArmyRick]

With JP

 

[KeLouJoH]

I am fairly conversant with the scientific method. Again theories explain facts

And I already told you, if theories explain facts, then this means they are not facts.

You people want to base policies on something that is not a fact. You want to base them on a mere theory. You honestly don't see what's wrong with this?

It is not on me to prove that you are wrong it is on you to propose an alternative hypothesis to AGW and provide the evidence

No sir, you don't know how a debate works.

You put forth a positive claim, namely climate change is man-made. Therefore you need to prove it. I don't need to prove anything, as I am not putting forth any positive claim.

If a zealot or warrior is one that follows the evidence of the science what is the pejorative for one that denies the science?

I don't deny science. Instead I denounce zealotry. You people read a few articles that had some scientific-sounding words in them and now think you have the monopoly on truth.

 

[suffolkowner]

100% spot on. People who think they are truly open minded need to be actually that. The climate narrative of the last 15-20 years was based on a few very small studies and used as a political narrative.

a list of a "few" recent studies

Skeptical Science New Research for Week #6 2025

Open access notables Doing better rather than promising more: A basic principle applicable to both climate modelling and climate policies, Douville, PLOS Climate:

skepticalscience.com

And a massive money making scheme for the connected ones who make more and more everytime they flip flop and change the narrative.

The IPCC budget is approx $9 million a year
the costs of the approx 20000 publishing climate scientists is about $2B a year

 

[suffolkowner]

No, you still don't get it.

You claim that climate change is man-made. So you need to prove it. I don't need to prove you're wrong or come up with an alternative. You need to prove that you are right.

I don't think you went to a university.

the proof was posted in the links above.

I did not need to do that as the onus is on you who wish to overthrow the orthodoxy

 

[suffolkowner]

No. Prove it in your own words. I am having a conversation with you, I am not having a conversation with your links.

No sir.

Let me try this one more time:

If I put forth a positive claim, and say that I am Taylor Swift, and you say, "No, you're not". Then guess what? I need to prove that I am indeed Taylor Swift, you don't need to prove that I am not.

you have it exactly backward. You are the one that needs to prove your claim that human generated emissions do not result in AGW

What words could i possibly use that would result in something that hundreds of thousands of scientists could not?

 

[suffolkowner]

I don't want to derail this thread, so I will just say this: your precious "orthodoxy" means absolutely jack. Most of the time, most people are on the wrong side of history. Most people are wrong. When you have an overwhelming consensus of people, even if they are scientists, chances are, they are wrong.

is that true? Is that true of science? What consensus scientific theories? Theories are supplanted/replaced by newer ones that better explain the evidence, but how many of those had known issues? Im sure there are lots of examples but i dont know how comparable they are to AGW. How many of them have survived 200 yrs including over 50 yrs of modern science? What is the direction of the evidence over that time?

 

[KeLouJoH]

is that true? Is that true of science? What consensus scientific theories? Theories are supplanted/replaced by newer ones that better explain the evidence, but how many of those had known issues? Im sure there are lots of examples but i dont know how comparable they are to AGW. How many of them have survived 200 yrs including over 50 yrs of modern science? What is the direction of the evidence over that time?

The scientists you believe in could be wrong.

 

[Baz]

I don't want to derail this thread, so I will just say this: your precious "orthodoxy" means absolutely jack. Most of the time, most people are on the wrong side of history. Most people are wrong. When you have an overwhelming consensus of people, even if they are scientists, chances are, they are wrong.

Oh ffs…

This is not “most people,” this is people who have spent their entire career learning what they do. Have you actually talked to climate or vaccine experts, or is YouTube a peer reviewed scientific source now?

So there is this vast conspiracy to punish people, and these few outliers are the whistle blowers? It doesn’t take much to go from there to true conspiracies… flat earth anyone?

You know the thing that I find when I learn more about climate-deniers? At heart they think they should be more successful and some nefarious “them” took that away.

I’m really hope I say something soon to get me banned from here…

 

[suffolkowner]

The scientists you believe in could be wrong.

i dont believe in them. They could be. It would be the most astounding thing in the scientific world ever IMO. I struggle to find a comparison.

 

[KeLouJoH]

Oh ffs…

This is not “most people,” this is people who have spent their entire career learning what they do.

There are also people who "have spent their entire career learning what they do", and they doubt AGW.

Sounds like you only listen to the popular scientists and discount those who aren't.

Have you actually talked to climate or vaccine experts, or is YouTube a peer reviewed scientific source now?

Oh, so if I have doubts about vaccines, I must be a youtube watcher?

Seems like you have a lot of preconceptions about people. Maybe you should take your own advice and actually talk to people instead.

So there is this vast conspiracy to punish people,

I believe there is a conspiracy, but I am not sure whether it qualifies as being vast. I don't think its aim is to punish people. But I believe it's something very nefarious.

and these few outliers are the whistle blowers?

Correct.

It doesn’t take much to go from there to true conspiracies… flat earth anyone?

I love how to you anybody who doubts the official narratives is automatically a flat-earth, conspiracy theorist.

You know the thing that I find when I learn more about climate-deniers?

You call me climate-denier, I call you AGW-zealot. I guess we are now even.

At heart they think they should be more successful and some nefarious “them” took that away.

You watch too much TV and don't spend enough time interacting with actual people. If you did, you'd know that we don't think that.

I’m really hope I say something soon to get me banned from here…

I don't want you to get banned. I am not done punishing you yet.

 

[Baz]

I don't want you to get banned. I am not done punishing you yet.

Punishing me for what? Disagreeing with you?

And how exactly our you punishing me? Are you threatening me? Going to stalk me? Because if so it will be easy… I haven’t obfuscated my identity.

Why do you think you have the right to punish anybody?

Go fuck yourself.

 

[KeLouJoH]

Punishing me for what? Disagreeing with you?

And how exactly our you punishing me? Are you threatening me? Going to stalk me? Because if so it will be easy… I haven’t obfuscated my identity.

Why do you think you have the right to punish anybody?

Punish you, as in, completely dominate you and humiliate you in a debate.

Go fuck yourself.

Sounds like I succeeded.

 

[suffolkowner]

There are also people who "have spent their entire career learning what they do", and they doubt AGW.

Sounds like you only listen to the popular scientists and discount those who aren't.

if 14000 mechanics tell you there is something wrong with your car and 14 bakers disagree, which advice would you follow?

Oh, so if I have doubts about vaccines, I must be a youtube watcher?

vaccines have been one of the greatest discoveries/inventions in human history

I believe there is a conspiracy, but I am not sure whether it qualifies as being vast. I don't think its aim is to punish people. But I believe it's something very nefarious.

Correct.

a conspiracy of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people seems like a hard thing to keep a lid on

I love how to you anybody who doubts the official narratives are automatically flat-earth, conspiracy theorists.

depends if the doubts are reasonable i guess

 

[Baz]

Punish you, as in, completely dominate you and humiliate you in a debate.

Sounds like I succeeded.

Nope, only in your head. You haven’t changed antibodies mind, just showed the whole world who you are.

And what kind of narcissistic asshole gets a kick of humiliating some random person on the internet?

 

[KeLouJoH]

Nope, only in your head. You haven’t changed antibodies mind, just showed the whole world who you are.

And what kind of narcissistic asshole gets a kick of humiliating some random person on the internet?

Sir, you insulted me first. I was just responding in kind.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

And this thread is locked for a cooling off period.

(Yes I saw what I did there)