There is a large elephant in the room...

Post Reply New Topic

So according to Magna, we're creating hysteria on climate change to further a hidden agenda to... er... what exactly was this agenda? To immediately ban all fossil fuels? Why exactly would we be wanting that? What does anyone gain? Is it because we're really evil people who want everyone to suffer? I mean, seriously, WHY???

Is it so hard to believe that most of us are just trying to find a way forward that is going to cause minimum pain all round, factoring in the needs of future generations? And that maybe the lack of consensus on how to do it is not because of deceit but because getting people to accept the short-term pain needed is HARD.

Here we go again.

I gave some theoretical examples of what the "painful" solutions might be.

Please give me some examples of what believe to be real solutions. Later today I'll re-read my post where I asked for details on the kinds of solutions any of you think would solve the problem of climate change because perhaps the post was unintelligible?

There's no measurement data in the links you cited, only very limited statistical data.

Global warming scientists admit they hide their data. I heard one say "we don't want the public to misunderstand", or maybe they don't want their critics to "have ammunition" to use against them. If they published their data, then skeptics could go out and verify the data.

Regardless, Global Warming scientists are like Bernie Madoff ("I can't show you my data, but look at my charts").

Are you a weather expert? What "measurement data" means?

This link for instance can get temperature data from 1901-2016 http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/climateport ... al_climate

I am not talking about the chart, but the csv/excel data you can download from there, it shows temp per month per year from 1901 to 2016

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 08 Aug 2018, 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

They do hide it, and it's sick and disgusting that these publicly funded researchers get away with it.

How long would it take to setup a website that shows historical location information, GPS coordinates, latitudes/longitude, method of measurement, and the location's mean/median/avg temperature measurements? A week? Two weeks?

I think all funding should be cut, until they do that.

These researchers are taking temperature measurements.

Why hide that data?

Ok, how about you forget these researchers, and seek the raw data yourself from other sources?

This is a link provided by World Bank, plenty of raw data there: http://ccafs-climate.org/data/
Downscaling data is for free, weather station data is not.

I feel there is a preponderance of evidence for climate change....and for global warming. The evidence is derived from mainstream sources.

The issue is, more, what causes it: natural geological variation, or something man-caused? Or a combination?

Frankly, I would like to breathe cleaner air than what I'm breathing now.

There's several problems with telling the public, "GO FIND THE DATA YOURSELF".

1. It's evasive, and it causes "red flags and alarm bells" to go off in people's mind.

2. The "global warming" GW researchers tell us that most warming is happening in the oceans (as the water absorbs heat), so the GW researchers include ship and water buoy temperature measurements. This new site is land-based weather stations, and does not provide that data.

3. Look anything published by a GW researcher, any chart, graph, excel spreadsheet. Can you tell if that research used a statistical mean, median, mode for the temperature data? Can you tell what statistical normalization method was used on that data? Can you tell what the accuracy (error range) of the measuring device is and how the researcher may have corrected for that? What was the sample size? What was the frequency of sampling? Do you know all the assumptions that were used? You don't know what you're looking at. So, I wouldn't even know what I am comparing to.

4. I would expect publicly funded data collection research to be transparent.

5. Lastly, I think the burden of proof is on the people making the claim.

I'm in agreement with you here.

The other issue I have with proponents of man-made global warming and those that advocate change is it seems the typical conversation goes something like this:

Me: "Please give me some examples of concrete changes humans should make to their lifestyles or laws that should be enacted to improve the climate."
Them: "You're a climate denier, right?"
Me: "I'm not sure what that means. That's not an example of what I'm asking for."
Them: "You don't want the earth to turn into an unlivable desert with billions of people dying, do you?"
Me: "No, I don't. If you're worried that's going to happen, how specifically do you think we should stop that from happening?"
Them: "Haven't you done your research?"
Me: "I'm asking you personally what your ideas and opinions are on how to solve this problem."
Them: "See, you do agree it's a problem."
Me: "I don't know if it's a problem or not. You've stated you do believe it's a problem. For the fifth time, I would like to know what YOU think. What changes need to be made to solve the GW "problem"? Ban all fossil fuels?"
Them: "No one is asking for a ban on fossil fuels. Who is asking for that?!?"
Me: "What changes do you think should be made to fix the problem?"
Them: "You are aware that numerous countries met (that means on a global scale) to discuss solutions to GW. It was called the Paris Agreement. Did you miss that? How can you be so clueless and callous?"
Me: "Ok. I'm out. And, as character Harris Trinsky says to Lindsey Weir in the second episode of Freaks and Geeks titled: "Beers and Weirs":..........Thanks for the dance."

So you will continue increasing the CO2 emissions with no measures because you think it's some conspiracy? The CO2 emission's data can be found and downloaded everywhere...and it had been spiking.

Can I add this to my theoretical dialogue I laid out in my post above yours as a "Them" response?

No, I am not leftist.

Public funding should be cut off unconditionally and for good; that’s for sure. People have every right to reject science and noöne has any business shoving it down their throats, let alone forcing them to pay for its continued development.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/

I don't have any solutions that I know will work. Do you? Does anyone?
But why does that make concerns about climate change some kind of conspiracy?