Is this based on actual temperature (you know, science) or adjusted temperatures (not science) ?
Pretty sure it’s adjusted temperatures as that has always been NASA’s released research.
Global Warming: Extreme Heat In Europe
- Thread starter shufan199_3
- Start date
Pretty sure it’s adjusted temperatures as that has always been NASA’s released research.
Thanks for not reading.
It's a partial collection of statements from science academies, American scientific societies, and government agencies that state that the climate is warming and it's tied to human activities.
Yeah, you might want to familiarize yourself with the scientific method.
- Make an observation or observations.
- Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
- Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
- Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
- Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility — no science."
Are you aware of a single anthropogenic global warming theory that meets this standard?
Agree regarding Akok and Corey. Especially, Akok whose injury was absolutely heart breaking.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Science is fun. 🤦♂️
The scientific method and climate change: How scientists know - NASA Science
The scientific method is the gold standard for exploring our natural world, and scientists use it to better understand climate change.
climate.nasa.gov
Why aren't we promoting moving from places like Malibu for Omaha? Sounds like the time to invest in Omaha real estate. Sea levels must be going higher which will wipe out beach front property.
It is. It’s also not governed by consensus. So let me ask again is there a single workable hypothesis about man-made global warming that actually makes predictions that are either accurate or falsifiable? Because if there isn’t, then you really aren’t talking science, are you?Science is fun. 🤦♂️
The scientific method and climate change: How scientists know - NASA Science
The scientific method is the gold standard for exploring our natural world, and scientists use it to better understand climate change.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
They actually say Vermont is the best place in the U.S. for climate migration.
Heat is on: Lamoille County deemed safest from climate change
Lamoille County might be statistically the safest place in the United States to avoid all the damages that come along with climate change.
I did, it doesn’t say what you think it does. It explains the scientific method generally and then has a standalone unsourced (in the sense that it is not backed up by a study that adheres to the scientific method) statement.
How many people in Malibu who take climate change seriously are putting the house for sale to move to Vermont? Or are they willing to risk it?They actually say Vermont is the best place in the U.S. for climate migration.
Heat is on: Lamoille County deemed safest from climate change
Lamoille County might be statistically the safest place in the United States to avoid all the damages that come along with climate change.www.vtcng.com
I'm sure you can appreciate we don't exactly have another earth we can test this on.
Yes, it is a hope that our efforts would work based on our scientific understanding.
That’s not what your link was to. A graph or two based on some set of temperatures and the statement that climate warming was extremely likely to be man-made.
LOL, we are always eight years away. It creates just the right amount is faux urgency. The problem is we’ve passed many of these eight year deadlines.
Maybe the Google Amp thing messed it up. This is it:
Scientific Consensus - NASA Science
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...
climate.nasa.gov
No. Act by 2030.
We've had this same discussion before.
Day 1 of Greener NJ
People hundreds of years ago owned slaves, shot each other over mining stakes, didn’t allow women to vote, and pissed/shit in a bucket in the corner of the room. That all fly with you too? Perhaps things change? I don't care what people did back then. Of course, it would never fly today.
setonhall.forums.rivals.com
No. Act by 2030.
We've had this same discussion before.
Day 1 of Greener NJ
People hundreds of years ago owned slaves, shot each other over mining stakes, didn’t allow women to vote, and pissed/shit in a bucket in the corner of the room. That all fly with you too? Perhaps things change? I don't care what people did back then. Of course, it would never fly today.
'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says
The youngest woman ever elected to Congress said climate change is her generation's World War II.
www.usatoday.com
And those are the facts jack.
Normally the public would get on board with something when there is a broad consensus among scientists... and we would take the steps on our own.
Now, we all know better than the scientists because politicians say they can't be trusted.
This is such a bizarre argument. Are you suggesting that climate studies don't follow the scientific method? That none of them follow the scientific method? Are you saying that none of these studies have made the completely obvious prediction that the climate would keep getting warmer every year, as it has kept getting warmer? Wouldn't a prediction like that have been "accurate or falsifiable?" Wouldn't it have been proven accurate time after time?
What am I missing here?
'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says
The youngest woman ever elected to Congress said climate change is her generation's World War II.www.usatoday.com
And those are the facts jack.
.... Did you just completely ignore that I gave you the link where I responded to you when you posted that same article 8 months ago.
That's not what people believe. That's not what the study actually said... AOC just said something stupid, as I pointed out to you 8 months ago.
This is why we can't have good faith discussions on this topic.
You don't want one.
Update: How Do You Tell If The Earth's Climate System "Is Warming"? — Manhattan Contrarian
Back in August I had a post by the title of “How Do You Tell If The Earth’s Climate System “Is Warming”? The post took note of the fact that, with a time series (like for temperature) that fluctuates up and down, you can always give a presentation that makes the trend look to be whatever you want
www.manhattancontrarian.com
Because the deadlines change whenever we approach one. 8 years from now we'll have til 2040 to do something about it. How can even want to have a real discussion with all the nonsense that's been said for the last 40 years on the topic. This is just like predicting the weather. You don't know until you get close. And every time we get close there's a new prediction. I'm not saying the whole thing of climate change is a joke, but what they constantly tell us about it is because they don't know. We can't get the weather right 10 days in advance but they nailed this one....yeah ok.
Last edited:
They actually say Vermont is the best place in the U.S. for climate migration.
Heat is on: Lamoille County deemed safest from climate change
Lamoille County might be statistically the safest place in the United States to avoid all the damages that come along with climate change.
Perfectly fine. If the oceans are going to rise and wipe out coastal locations, then let's just adapt. That's all we have to do, yet those with power and influence don't want to give up their pricey coastal homes. Just get up and move instead of yelling at clouds (literally) and trying to change weather patterns, which we cannot do.
Government is so bloated and powerful that it has to keep the population in a constant state of alert/emergency to maintain its control over the people and keep its gravy train rolling.
Covid and global warming are classic examples. They also did it with terrorism and now they're doing it with guns too. Notice how they changed the terminology to "climate crisis" in recent years and their lackeys in the mainstream media immediately latched on. That terminology appeals to the primal, emotional part of the mind. Unfortunately, there are too many dumbed down (by social media, crap TV, etc.), weak minded people in this country to see through it and think for themselves.
Well, yes. It is a projection. Like any projection, it's not going to be 100% correct. It is based on variables and assumptions. We get the best data we can and make the best decisions we can.
Like I said in that other thread... I don't believe it is quite as dire as that data suggested but that's because I think there will be other potential solutions to the problem at that time that we do not have available now.
That's the problem...no one wants to have the real conversation and make this what it should be.
Put a group of independent experts together (scientists, energy company leadership, environmental experts, finance, statisticians, etc.). Put together the long term plan and update it as technology and other factors change.
- Reducing carbon emissions
- Benefits/risks of each form of energy
- Optimal blend of each energy over time (that will change as new technologies/forms of energy change)
- ROI of any recommendations
Now remember, what we do in the U.S. only will contribute to a small fraction on what is causing greenhouse gases (human or natural) on a global basis.
Stop with the silly Presidential executive orders on a climate crisis, the world ending and Bernie Sanders types using the "existential threat" because Mancin acted like an adult. Stop with the "let's just do something" stuff.
Put a group of independent experts together (scientists, energy company leadership, environmental experts, finance, statisticians, etc.). Put together the long term plan and update it as technology and other factors change.
- Reducing carbon emissions
- Benefits/risks of each form of energy
- Optimal blend of each energy over time (that will change as new technologies/forms of energy change)
- ROI of any recommendations
Now remember, what we do in the U.S. only will contribute to a small fraction on what is causing greenhouse gases (human or natural) on a global basis.
Stop with the silly Presidential executive orders on a climate crisis, the world ending and Bernie Sanders types using the "existential threat" because Mancin acted like an adult. Stop with the "let's just do something" stuff.
You could literally be 100% right. You could literally be 0% right. The facts are you don't know and neither do I. I'm going to control what I can. If I like and can afford an electric vehicle, I will buy one. If I don't like them or I can't afford them I won't. I'm not going to worry either way because the facts say whoever is giving this information out really doesn't know, they're only projecting. Sometime projections are spot on, sometimes they're completely off.
Right... But at some point I think we can acknowledge that we can't possibly know everything and have to place some level of trust in the scientific community.
If this topic was like 70-30 or even 80-20... I would get the doubts some people place. But it's not. It's almost 100% of the people who have the background to actually understand this stuff who believe that man is responsible for warming the planet and there are steps we can take to reduce our impact.
And there was a time 100% of the scientific community thought the world was flat. 2000 years from now they may be saying how dumb we were. We just don't know. Part of science is learning what we thought we knew was wrong. I think the problem is we just think we're so damn smart. We're not. If we were would've solved cancer, the weatherman would have the right weather daily, etc. If we were projecting 5 days away I'd say yeah we're onto something. But 10, 15, 50 years from now, it's just not something I'm ready to put much confidence in, especially with all the other things in the past 100 years that we're going to end the world.
Last edited:
Nothing is certain. Used the best data available to make the best decisions for the future.
The best data we have says the world is warming and we have a window or time to act.
Could they be wrong? Sure... But, if they're right and we fail to act in time, we may be faced with more extreme measures to curb our impacts.
Smaller, gradual changes today would help prevent drastic measures later.
What’s the window of time?
What are the specific actions that need to be taken?
What are the results that will occur by taking those actions?
What happens if we fail to act?
What happens if we take these gradual actions what’s the difference?
What are the costs?
When you find the answers to these questions I think we can begin to have a discussion.
Exactly my point. Nothing is certain, so 3 pages of people calling this the greatest threat to the planet (even though we have wackos with access to nuclear weapons) is uncertain. But it's nice to have a real conversation when we can admit we don't know. Not a conversation of "I know I'm right because the science says so" as if the science has never been proven wrong.
There is so much on those questions already. All of them have been asked and answered.
Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report
www.ipcc.ch
But you're acting like we should just ignore what the scientists are saying now because they have not been 100% accurate all of the time. You recognize that is pretty absurd, right?
Like.. you wouldn't go to a doctor, find out you have a life threatening disease and you must do something today to prevent dying in the next couple years... You go get 10 more opinions and they all say the same thing... You would probably do that thing they are telling you to do, right?
You wouldn't just say that doctors aren't right 100% of the time and maybe some unforeseen circumstance may change your outlook?
How about just answering my questions with some basic answers since you seem to know them already.There is so much on those questions already. All of them have been asked and answered.
Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report
