Real scientists not a bunch of armchair social pukes.

Salute must have a new sock.

Nope...Pinatubo cooled planet in 1992 but started warming right after.

Casual Cynic said:

---

It's amazing how liberals talk a lot about climate change but will never adopt a climate friendly lifestyle, always someone else that has to make sacrifices.

---

as long as they keep buying Grade A carbon credits , all is good - maybe the dumbest concept supporting the overall dumb narrative

Data is showing that the earth may be warming, it's all natural. Get a grip, that man has no power over this and cannot make the earth cool. Just as man has no power to make the earth warm.

Man has no power to even understand why.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Data is showing that the earth may be warming, it's all natural. Get a grip, that man has no power over this and cannot make the earth cool. Just as man has no power to make the earth warm.

Man has no power to even understand why.

---

That sounds like humility. Very few scientists have any of that these days.

wxmanX said:

---

Nope...Pinatubo cooled planet in 1992 but started warming right after.

---

According to the International Disaster Database, deaths related to extreme heat, floods, storms, and droughts have plummeted as C02 emissions have risen. The fossil fuel economy has provided billions of people with heating, air conditioning, weather warning systems, mass irrigation, and durable buildings.

FTA 2001 said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

You think because 54% of Americans have been indoctrinated to believe something is a problem means that that something is indeed a real problem and we need more government to "solve" it??

---

I don't think it's indoctrination. That is a weak argument.

---

The greatest hoax ever (Covid) was pushed by every government apparatus. Biden wanted to force everyone to get shots to work. All of it was a lie. WHY WOULD YOU BELIEVE THEM ABOUT CLIMATE?

If you are going to freak out about temperatures then at least move all of the official recording stations off of asphalt or concrete. It will make you feel better.

FTA 2001 said:

---

Can anyone provide a strong enough argument that would convince me that these 1,600 scientists know better than the groups and organizations below, who represent many many more than 1,600 scientists?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Quote:

---

American Association for the Advancement of Science

"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

---

Quote:

---

American Chemical Society

"The Earth's climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/sustainability/globalclimatechange.html

---

Quote:

---

American Geophysical Union

"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)

https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Position_Climate

---

Quote:

---

American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)

https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/climate%20change?uri=%2FAMADoc%2FHOD.xml-0-309.xml

---

Quote:

---

American Meteorological Society

"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)

https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change1/

---

Quote:

---

American Physical Society

"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)

https://www.aps.org/newsroom/pressreleases/climate.cfm

---

Quote:

---

The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)

https://www.geosociety.org/gsa/positions/position10.aspx

---

Quote:

---

U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."

https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/internationalsite/documents/webpage/international_080877.pdf

---

Quote:

---

U.S. Global Change Research Program

"Earth's climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

---

Quote:

---

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"It is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the principal driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere.

"Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact."

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

---

---

None of those can tell you the extent on the man made part -zero. Next.

wxmanX said:

---

The Worst drought since 2011, and this summer will beat 2011 temp wise when it is over, which was the hottest summer ever in TX.

---

Almost like this is a cycle. I could've sworn I read about some other cycle that coincidentally happens on roughly the same timeframe from one of those fancy smart science people.

wxmanX said:

---

yea, whatever.

World is 1.6C above the mean, NATL highest temps ever, Gulf highest temps ever. Record warm TX, highest lows ever in Baton Rouge, Tampa, Miami, PHX this year.
Morrocco 122F, highest ever.
Greece, 119F highest ever.
Spain 118F tied highest ever.

---

Google the 2022 Tonga eruption that spewed millions of tons of water vapor into the upper atmosphere and stratosphere. At that time scientists said it could raise global temperatures by 1.5 degrees for years. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Tonto.

Dang the AMA agrees. Well shoot must be true since they know a lot about climate. They're just jumping on the climate change ch$$ ch$$ train like everybody else. Probably get millions in Government funding for researching how climate change causes cancer. I'm sure they're thinking that man if we can only show that climate change causes cancer how much money could we get??

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, just because we cant fully understand the climate doesn't mean we cant draw conclusions on what is going on

---

That one sentence tells us you don't have a clue how science works.

---

Apparently, that affliction impacts many on this thread. Although the article is from 2010, it certainly explains how "Climate Science" simply ignores the accepted normal rules of science.

It's not really "science"

wxmanX said:

---

The atmospheric pressure is 1/100th ours. Mars atmosphere is too thin for a significant amount of greenhouse effect from co2.

Venus, on the other hand, had a run-away greenhouse effect from co2, and the atmospheric pressure is 90x our surface pressure.


The heat will keep on baking TX through early Sept. Hopefully no one burns down...lots of trees are dying around central TX. Worst drought since 2011, and this summer will beat 2011 temp wise when it is over, which was the hottest summer ever in TX.

---

Sounds a lot like summer, doesn't it? That "hottest ever" lie is out of line. We've only been keeping records for about 120 years. You don't know that it was the "hottest ever." That is pure propaganda and you know it.

You should read "The Time It Never Rained" by Elmer Kelton.

Why is it that the same people that call me a science denier because I don't believe in man made climate change, are the same people that tell me there are 50 different genders? And they are also the same people that lectured me about "two weeks to flatten the curve."

I should just trust myself, and all the climate scientists I've worked with, some with PHD's from MIT.

I'm sure you guys are smarter than he is. I can just tell by the intelligence on this board.

Specifically, the dude who had some PHD in genetics, that makes you a great meteorologist or climate scientist.

Meteorologists and climate scientists are pretend jobs. Weather men simply look at a computer model and that is their forecast. A 10 year old can do it. Climate scientists are even more of a joke. When we have a hot summer or a bad hurricane, well it has to be man made climate change causing it. Bad winter storm, yep you guessed it, those evil fossil fuels at it again. They do not have any data to back **** up. HTH

joke? I probably took more math/physics than anyone here.

wxmanX said:

---

I should just trust myself, and all the climate scientists I've worked with, some with PHD's from MIT.

I'm sure you guys are smarter than he is. I can just tell by the intelligence on this board.

Specifically, the dude who had some PHD in genetics, that makes you a great meteorologist or climate scientist.

---

You would think they would understand and use the Scientific Method properly with all their skills…….

wxmanX said:

---

joke? I probably took more math/physics than anyone here.

---

Ah, so Xwomxn is a climate "scientist." That explains a lot.

nortex97 said:

---

---

This x 1000

It reminds me of 'just wear the paper mask.'

Per NOAA, earth just experienced the hottest July in the last 174 years, and ocean temperatures have hit record highs each month for the last four months. This second is particularly concerning because March is almost always the hottest month for ocean temperatures in any given year.

Hottest July in 174 years

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

Per NOAA, earth just experienced the hottest July in the last 174 years, and ocean temperatures have hit record highs each month for the last four months. This second is particularly concerning because March is almost always the hottest month for ocean temperatures in any given year.

Hottest July in 174 years

---

That begs the question-why was it so hot 174 years ago???

Does anyone at NOAA have on temperatures? I mean that sincerely btw-is that data published anywhere?

Doesn't matter. There isn't one thing man can do to change it. Earth goes through cycles.

wxmanX said:

---

Really? How did Venus get that pressure? From years of volcanoes erupting and pushing co2 into the atmosphere.

Which blocks IR and heats up planet.

So now, earth is about 424 ppm, up from 270 ppm from 1870s, and temperatures have warmed about 3F since then. If we get to 800 ppm probably warm another 3F.

Add CH4 and it makes it worse.

---

Please comment on this video

50 to 1 Project - David Evans Interview - YouTube

wxmanX said:

---

joke? I probably took more math/physics than anyone here.

---

Did you ever have to work with real data? Data like the recorded temperature rise in the oceans that you have repeatedly (3X from me alone) ignored requests for and/or otherwise refused to share?

My math ended at differential equations after calculus, but I'm pretty sure that I could still do the subtraction necessary to calculate the rise if you shared today's ocean temperature to compare to some historical temperature.

wxmanX said:

---

I should just trust myself, and all the climate scientists I've worked with, some with PHD's from MIT.

I'm sure you guys are smarter than he is. I can just tell by the intelligence on this board.

Specifically, the dude who had some PHD in genetics, that makes you a great meteorologist or climate scientist.

---

They may be highly intelligent, but it's naive and silly to think that man can control the climate of a planet without doing enormous damage to the ecosystem.

BTW: I doubt anyone on this thread thinks you're very bright. Just another silly liberal with a high opinion of themselves.

wxmanX said:

---

I should just trust myself, and all the climate scientists I've worked with, some with PHD's from MIT.

I'm sure you guys are smarter than he is. I can just tell by the intelligence on this board.

Specifically, the dude who had some PHD in genetics, that makes you a great meteorologist or climate scientist.

---

trust the science

unless the science disagrees with your politics

why? it crap.

wxmanX said:

---

why? it crap.

---

If you know so much more than everyone here, and a credentialed scientist, then it would be good for someone of such stature like yourself, to explain why it is crap.

wxmanX said:

---

---

You are a bit too sensitive. Both questions are legitimate. The first one was me just messing with Aggie Apotheosis.- although still needs an answer. You seem to be an expert-why was it so hot 174 years ago?

The second question is just a question. With a quick search, there were numerous articles on it, including the NY Times (link below-1 of many articles)-not exactly a climate denier advocate, lol.

Anyway, maybe just stick to messing up weather forecasts if you cannot handle simple questions without being offended. I never knew weather forecasters (aka-glorified dart throwers) were so sensitive...

Who knew (NOT the expert wxmanX apparently)-volcano activity CAN change the weather???

I've gotten hooked on this program called NYC Revealed. It's all things about New York City. Last night one of the episodes was focused on their Electrical Utility, and of course, they focused on the need to go Green. They showed some protests in Manhattan and one of the signs said, 'Sea Levels are Rising.'

So let's understand this...if the Climate Change movement is now 43 years old, and sea levels are rising, then why is the Island of Manhattan no different today than in 1979?

wxmanX said:

---

joke? I probably took more math/physics than anyone here.

---

You were ok until this post.

"I'm smarter than you" is not going to win minds.

You obviously are convinced that the CO2 emitted by man, and that alone, is the issue. I'm not convinced it is. We are coming out of an ice age anyway. None of the original models were correct in their forecast of the delta, and none of the dire predictions made by numerous "smart" scientists have come to pass.

Regardless, this is a global issue and the countries with the two largest populations have already decided to not participate. That negates the actions we take. Why can't your side see that?

Thus, the way to approach this is with solutions that deal with it, not solutions to eliminate it. That's my biggest issue with it. Eliminating meat, forcing EV adoption, running the grid on niche energy like solar and wind, etc is insane.

Logos Stick said:

---

Eliminating meat, forcing EV adoption, running the grid on niche energy like solar and wind, etc is insane.

---

And things like THIS are exactly what's evil about the whole scam:

Biden's Multi-Billion Dollar Carbon Capture Gamble

1. $3.5 BILLION wasted on things like this when that money could actually be used to feed and house people or do things other than make politicians rich.

2. The underpinning assumption is that CO2 is bad, but there is a very real possibility that the world is operating at a CO2 deficiency with respect to vegetative and agricultural demand. We should be working on how to feed all of the people in the world, not squandering resources on misguided and bassackward attempts to address an non-issue.

3. And, as mentioned above, ALL of this is negated by the emissions of the two most populous, non-participating nations in the world.

The whole thing is criminal, but I don't think there's enough humility in the world to stop the madness, admit mistakes, and rectify the abhorrent misuse of resources.