Climate Change

[raw_thought]

Hobbes,
It is very odd. I never thought of you as a right winger!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You climate change-denying idiots would be amusing if you were not so dangerous. It's now affecting everyone on the planet. It's rained here pretty well every day, all day, for at least two months. That's not normal, and it's exactly as was predicted by scientists. Don't you people have weather where you come from or are you so disconnected from the natural world that you don't even notice it?

[Hobbes' Choice]

In response to the false claim that 97% of climate scientists do not endorse global warming.

99% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[Hobbes' Choice]

What do you mean by that? Are you claiming that we are not breaking temp records? Or are you claiming that they do not know that the warming is because of human activity? Both are universally claimed by EVERY scientific organization in the world

Not one scientist can tell you the DEGREE of AGW. SO you are basically over-stating your case as is so common in threads such as this.

AGW= Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You climate change-denying idiots would be amusing if you were not so dangerous. It's now affecting everyone on the planet. It's rained here pretty well every day, all day, for at least two months. That's not normal, and it's exactly as was predicted by scientists. Don't you people have weather where you come from or are you so disconnected from the natural world that you don't even notice it?

You are getting hysterical - what do you not understand by the phrase this:"
Not one scientist can tell you the DEGREE of AGW. SO you are basically over-stating your case as is so common in threads such as this."?

AGW= Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes,
It is very odd. I never thought of you as a right winger!

You are getting hysterical - what do you not understand by the phrase this:"
Not one scientist can tell you the DEGREE of AGW. SO you are basically over-stating your case as is so common in threads such as this."?

AGW= Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Harold Lewis (from the OP) is not a climate specialist. He is a physicist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lewis
He complained that the “American Physical Society” was part of a worldwide conspiracy that includes NASA, Royal Society and EVERY scientific organization in the world.
I find that unlikely!

You are getting hysterical - what do you not understand by the phrase this:"
Not one scientist can tell you the DEGREE of AGW. SO you are basically over-stating your case as is so common in threads such as this."?

AGW= Anthropogenic Global Warming.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You climate change-denying idiots would be amusing if you were not so dangerous. It's now affecting everyone on the planet. It's rained here pretty well every day, all day, for at least two months. That's not normal, and it's exactly as was predicted by scientists. Don't you people have weather where you come from or are you so disconnected from the natural world that you don't even notice it?

You are getting hysterical - what do you not understand by the phrase this:"
Not one scientist can tell you the DEGREE of AGW. SO you are basically over-stating your case as is so common in threads such as this."?

AGW= Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Hmm, deniers used to say it wasn't happening. Now that it's so obvious that even THEY can't continue to deny it, they've changed their stance--to 'yes it's happening, but it's not our fault, it's a natural phenomenon that's happened before blah, blah, blah....' Do you work for an oil company or something? I mean, with the dozen or so degrees you have I'm sure you could pick and choose who you work for.
I know what, let's all just do nothing, and wait and see what happens. I mean, it's only a little bit of extinction--it won't harm anyone.

[Graeme M]

I won't bother going back through this thread, so am probably just covering old ground but I do find it intriguing how easily people are convinced that weather patterns today are somehow so very different from some mythical norm. In fact, I actually find it disturbing that young people are being encouraged to imagine that in the past we enjoyed some gentle climate devoid of extremes and that the weather of today is so very different from the past.

Who knows what people might say now if we experienced another failure of the Indian monsoons as has happened in the recent past, or another Noachian flood in California, or even one of the extreme droughts of the not so long ago. Heck even here in Australia most don't know of the Federation Drought or the fires of the '30s or the extreme rainfall of the 1950s.

This is not to deny climate change as it seems reasonable to accept some degree of change as a result of CO2 emissions, but I am firmly in the camp that the climate response is probably around 1-1.2C per doubling of CO2, and in fact wouldn't be surprised to learn it's even less.

I am not expecting any great impact this century, and expect that we'll slowly move away from fossil fuels over the coming century or two.

It's all a beatup, but probably a useful one that will slowly swing the course of progress.

I shan't be losing too much sleep though!

[raw_thought]

Hobbes,
How is proving that the physicist in your OP is in a very tiny minority and believes that EVERY scientific organization in the world is part of a scam (conspiracy ) hysterical?
How is proving (with sites) that EVERY scientific organization in the world agrees with AGW, hysterical?
Ironically repeating an accusation without any facts on yout side is hysterical.

[raw_thought]

Grame M,
Those "ignorant" peple that believe that our weather patterns are out of yhe norm are over 98% of climate scientists and EVERY scientific organization in the world and they have the data to prove it. Um,oh yeah you are more knowledgeable then the entire scientific community.
If you had actually read their papers you would not post such silly conspiracy enthusiast nonsense.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I won't bother going back through this thread, so am probably just covering old ground but I do find it intriguing how easily people are convinced that weather patterns today are somehow so very different from some mythical norm. In fact, I actually find it disturbing that young people are being encouraged to imagine that in the past we enjoyed some gentle climate devoid of extremes and that the weather of today is so very different from the past.

Who knows what people might say now if we experienced another failure of the Indian monsoons as has happened in the recent past, or another Noachian flood in California, or even one of the extreme droughts of the not so long ago. Heck even here in Australia most don't know of the Federation Drought or the fires of the '30s or the extreme rainfall of the 1950s.

This is not to deny climate change as it seems reasonable to accept some degree of change as a result of CO2 emissions, but I am firmly in the camp that the climate response is probably around 1-1.2C per doubling of CO2, and in fact wouldn't be surprised to learn it's even less.

I am not expecting any great impact this century, and expect that we'll slowly move away from fossil fuels over the coming century or two.

It's all a beatup, but probably a useful one that will slowly swing the course of progress.

I shan't be losing too much sleep though!

It is known with some accuracy that the climate during the Roman occupation of Britain was much hotter that it is now. Without the help of glasshouses, modern fertilisers or modern varieties of vine they used to grow grapes for wine.
In the Jurassic period evidence suggests that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 100 times the current levels.
What are called GW skeptics, are not climate change deniers. The real deniers are those that pretend that there is a normal climate.

Most climate change obsessives don't have a clue about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor how much it has increased. The amount of CO2 remains a trace amount., and has only increased by 0.01% of the total atmosphere. No physical law can offer any explanation as to how such a tiny amount of CO2 can make a significant amount of difference.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes,
How is proving that the physicist in your OP is in a very tiny minority and believes that EVERY scientific organization in the world is part of a scam (conspiracy ) hysterical?
How is proving (with sites) that EVERY scientific organization in the world agrees with AGW, hysterical?
Ironically repeating an accusation without any facts on yout side is hysterical.

You'll never win an argument with such childish rantings.

[raw_thought]

How is that a childish rant? Simply pointing out that giving evidence and links to primary sources is not hysterical.

[Hobbes' Choice]

How is that a childish rant? Simply pointing out that giving evidence and links to primary sources is not hysterical.

You did not give any primary sources. And you were being insulting.
You did not get anywhere near your exaggerated claims.