That’s my current short argument:
“Aren’t you even embarrassed that you had to change the name to MEANINGLESS “climate change” after nearly 20 years of no “global warming”?
I think what makes the concept of global warming so completely ridiculous is the change of seasons. Why is a one degree change in the average temperature on a specific date so destructive when the change of seasons isn’t? For example here in New York it can get as hot as 100 degrees, 109 was even reached in New York city around 6 years ago. But then in the winter it can get as low as -10. So that’s a 119 degree change in temperature. Yet when Spring comes, gee whiz, the birds, the trees, the plants, the fish are still around. But because there is a one degree change in the average temperature on June 14 from last June 14th that means all life is in extreme danger? Say what?
“He won, they are shouting climate change, no longer anthropological man made global warming, they admitted it and we didn’t even notice.”
Lots of people noticed it, in spite of the best efforts of the media cartel.
Your father was a real scientist. Manmade global warming is fake science.
This is funny. When I was five years old, we had a nasty hot summer. I remember watching cars tail pipe, thinking that maybe cars were causing this heat wave.
So, really, I invented global warming 30 years before Algore.
But I grew out of it. He never will.
Exactly.
Its ‘settled science’
I wanted to be a geologist. But after 3 years of slugging out the heavy math and science, while having to work at night, I finally had to bail out.
Which is just as well. I really didn’t have the temperament to be a professional scientist. So I became an accountant and made the big bucks.
Retired comfortably at 62 and haven’t looked back...except that I’m really still into science...and God.
Exceedingly difficult to counteract a mass of stupidity intent on being both frightened and self-absorbed at the expense of an Almighty Creator.
IIRC, the Earth has supposedly flipped it’s axis at least six times, according to geologists...
I have no way of individually ascertaining whether they are correct in stating that as fact.
I just decided to accept their published research, as they have no discernible reason to lie about their theories, which they said they could prove.
Climate change has always been the normal state of Earth.
My paying a carbon tax to combat it, is overtly illogical.
The phrase "climate change" is now real-world Newspeak. It has no fixed meaning, only whichever of many meanings is expedient at any given moment for advancing the agenda of the left (in this case state control of the energy sector and of energy usage).
Thus, it denotes the unassailable fact that the earth's climate is changing, when it is desired to paint an opponent of the left's "climate change" agenda as an unscientific rube, or when any instance of climatic variation can be pointed to as "proof" that something must be done. The next moment it is absolutely equivalent to the English phrase "anthropogenic global warming" when it is being invoked to advocate laws constricting energy exploration or usage, the levying of taxes on hydrocarbon fuel use, or the diversion of state funds to prop up "green energy" boondoggles. It can even not refer to actual climate change when the change in question is plainly caused by solar activity, or otherwise puts the lie to the supposed urgency of the left's agenda.
If you want your head to explode, bob over to wikipedia and search for global warming skeptic. The page redirects to climate change denial. It appears wikipedia declared that the only climate change possible is global warming.
Your father was right. Sunspots cause the earth to warm, by reducing daytime low level clouds. The magnetic fields from the sunspots deflect ultra high energy gamma rays from the upper atmosphere. Ultra high energy gamma rays cause a particle cascade shower when they hit the upper atmosphere, causing cloud droplet nucleation at lower atmosphere levels. More daytime low level clouds cool the earth. Svensmark deserves the Nobel prize for postulating it. Read, “The Chilling Stars.”
How and by whom is the ideal mean temperature going to be determined? Ideal for what or whom? Who will prorate the relative importance of people, frogs, tulips, sharks, trees, mosquitos, worms, Panda Bears...................?
I remember reading that if the earth was the size of an average 1400 square foot house, the entire population of human beings would fit into one square billionth of an inch.
There is no way humans pollution could effect the earth’s climate.
The frightening thing is that this is wrong. Geoengineering would work. If we decide to "offset" four degrees of global warming through a major multi-trillion dollar geoengineering project, we will produce roughly four degrees of global cooling. If the "settled science" is wrong on the warming, that could send us into an ice age.
Even if the geoengineering could be done for free and had no indirect costs, I would still oppose such an effort given the state of current science. I'm enough of a scientist to be disgusted by claims that any science is settled. [For anyone who feels otherwise, very little in science is more settled than Newton's Laws of motion and of universal gravitation. Despite that "settled" status, Einstein's work called both into question.]
