The Weather Thread

[Niall_Quinn]

Literally amazing. I specifically give you one of the greatest deceptions perpetrated and pushed by the warmists, the 94% consensus scandal which was blared across every media outlet and in every supposedly scientific journal for half a decade, and you ask - "Show me that it was the prevailing view of climate scientists and not media hype."

And, btw, I haven't fallen for your sly shift from the BBC and the like to so-called climate "scientists". The BBC reports what these charlatans are pushing, but now you want to throw the media overboard as if they haven't been an integral component of the whole scam?

And it's proof, not evidence. The hoaxers are using numbers and calling it science. If it's real science it should be testable, it should offer proof to support the claim. The very best any of these claims offers approximations based on curated averages, those averages themselves having been fleshed out by proxies in many cases (such as virtual temperature measurements). Yet simple devices like sea level markers around the world's ports stubbornly refuse to prove any of these claims. And stubborn, non-disappearing ice caps do likewise. Entirely unpredicted halts in the warming process spanning decades blows all these models out of the non-rising water. And severe weather events continue to fall well within measured margins of error, refusing to spin out of control. We hear all of this will change should global temperature rise just a couple of degrees, and that we need to invest the entire GNP of the planet with mega-corporations, without populations being consulted, so these corporations (that refuse to clean up their own shit) can generate expensive and equally polluting "solutions" but only here in the west, not in the east.

So what are you saying now? The climate loons didn't make a bundle so far on all their alarmism? That they haven't been making outrageous predictions, that they haven't been funded by huge corporations, that governments haven't taken anti-democratic and ruinous financial steps to alleviate these so called problems the alarmists HAVEN'T been wailing about? Are you serious?

Tell me, why is there a message under every single piece of popular online content that mentions this subject that states - without equivocation - climate change is primarily caused by man? Is that the sort of blanket propaganda you claim isn't happening? Why do you need this message stamped a billion times? shouldn't the case make itself? Shouldn't we be able to see the reality of this impending catastrophe? Shouldn't the claims being made stand on their own without the horrific levels of censorship that were so previously alien to the west except in times of war?

But all that aside, your latest request seems to be that I PROVE you lot haven't been wetting your knickers in public. And if I do that, what comes next? I'll tell you - the very next set of doom and gloom predictions as if nothing else went before. How many goes do you want at this, how many decades does it have to go on before even you get bored or suitable embarrased?

[Letters]

Literally amazing. I specifically give you one of the greatest deceptions perpetrated and pushed by the warmists, the 94% consensus scandal which was blared across every media outlet and in every supposedly scientific journal for half a decade

What do you mean "gave me", you just made a claim. You didn't give any source for it.
There was, and is, a majority view backing human caused global warming.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming
The exact percentage isn't that relevant, it's not some crazy fringe view.
And see how I've provided a source to evidence my claim? That's what I'm asking you to do. Otherwise it's just you saying a thing.

and you ask - "Show me that it was the prevailing view of climate scientists and not media hype."

Let's be clear about what the "it" is.
You have talked about the polar caps being gone by now. The Maldives being under water by now. Polar bears being extinct by now.
Those are the things I'm asking you to show were the prevailing view and prediction of climate scientists. Were they?

The fact we still have ice caps at the poles is not evidence that climate change isn't happening. It isn't evidence that climate change is not caused by human activity. At most it's evidence that some of the models over-stated the impact but as I've said, often scientists produce a range of models which have different underlying assumptions. Of course the press will leap on the most extreme ones and that will be the screaming headline. You of all people should know you have to look beyond the headlines to find out what climate scientists are actually saying.
This is just your black and white thinking again. You seem to genuinely believe that if the world hasn't ended yet then it demonstrates a whole branch of science is bunk.

sly shift from the BBC and the like to so-called climate "scientists"

Sly.
Again, your huge paranoia about people being up to something or doing something underhand.

If it's real science it should be testable, it should offer proof to support the claim.

I literally just finished pointing you to an article which looked at some of the old climate models, compared them to the observed reality and showed they actually did OK in terms of their predictions.

Entirely unpredicted halts in the warming process spanning decades blows all these models out of the non-rising water.
And severe weather events continue to fall well within measured margins of error, refusing to spin out of control.

Cool. So provide some evidence of those claims. Come on, dude. You're not out there making measurements any more than I am. These claims are based on things you've read. Show me where.

Tell me, why is there a message under every single piece of popular online content that mentions this subject that states - without equivocation - climate change is primarily caused by man?

Because it is the prevailing view of climate scientists, a lot of whom think we should be collectively taking this a bit more seriously than we are.

Shouldn't we be able to see the reality of this impending catastrophe?

Are you saying you haven't noticed the climate changing in your lifetime? We live in a fairly temperate climate so there aren't going to be huge impacts here but in some countries the effects are being felt. You often accuse me of "if it isn't happening on my street then it isn't happening at all" thinking. I'd suggest this is what you're doing here.
At the start of this exchange I linked you to an article about some of the impacts of rising sea levels in the Maldives. Are those people lying? The Maldives being under water and there being absolutely no impact of climate change are not the only two options.

I have no issue with the thought that the response to climate change is misguided or ham-fisted and some people will use it to make an awful lot of money.
I have no issue with some of the predictions in the media being very much hysterical worst case scenarios.
But none of that mean it isn't happening at all.

[Niall_Quinn]

Did I say climate change isn't happening? It has been happening constantly, for four and a half billion years. The flea-speck of humanity infesting this planet won't change or even affect that process in any significant way. Again, the warmism cult unleashed on us by the corporate profiteers simply refuse to understand scale. Either the scale of this planet or the scale of time. There's no way or arguing with zealots who happily give out links to the Guardian and then claim they have the scientific high ground. And no, I haven't noticed a single, notable change in the climate and neither have you, nor has anyone else - because we simply don't live long enough as a species to witness such transitions. Granted, if some cosmic catastrophe occurred as hs happened in the past, we'd know about it. But Tunguska is teh largest event in recorded history and that barely caused a ripple outside the immediate area of effect, and certainly didn't do any of the things the climate nutters claim can happen by human beings exerting a minuscule fraction of the influence.

Yet again, YOU are the one claiming there's something to this man made climate religion. Why are you asking ME to prove it? YOU prove it, while we all get warm in in the summer and cold in the winter. YOU tell me why we are being soaked by greedy corporations so we can "save" a planet that has been quite alright, thank you very much, despite countless mega-catastrophic events throughout its history. YOU tell me why we are paying through the nose while China doubles and trebles its efforts to pollute the environment.

Yet again I ask, just how gullible are you?

[Letters]

Yet again, YOU are the one claiming there's something to this man made climate religion. Why are you asking ME to prove it? YOU prove it,

I'm not claiming anything, I'm just telling you what the relevant experts are saying - I've given you enough links to the sources and data.
You have made a load of counter-claims and not provided sources for any of them.
Your entire argument seems to be "well the Maldives isn't underwater therefore man-made climate change isn't happening".
It's a silly argument.

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm not claiming anything, I'm just telling you what the relevant experts are saying - I've given you enough links to the sources and data.
You have made a load of counter-claims and not provided sources for any of them.
Your entire argument seems to be "well the Maldives isn't underwater therefore man-made climate change isn't happening".
It's a silly argument.

No dude, I've said the claims your "experts" (paid by the establishment) aren't materialised in the real world, over decades. DECADES! And you've spun that around to place the burden of proof on me. The only real proof we see here is that you are a dishonest.