Right after the hottest Easter on record according to the met office.
Climate is not weather, we all know this, its a trope that comes up in almost all climate change discussions.
1 Like
Exactly- So ?
It was also a late Easter.
The fact is - It goes Up and down - It is a variable within quasi fixed parameters - like a forex pair - It just goes up and down !
which was the point of my post.
Yes, I used to agree with Pres Trump who said it was just weather.
It was the new gold rush in Siberia that helped change my attitude - (mammoth tusks).
I was puzzled as to why my local city spent millions on sea defences when they wonāt fill in pot holes in the road - the answer is in the ice.
āā¦At the time, tropical surface ocean temperatures in the west Atlantic exceeded a sweltering 35-37 Celsius (95-99F), several degrees warmer than now, and alligators and plants such as tropical breadfruit trees flourished in the Arctic. ā¦ā
Aye, the formation of Earth, the planets and the cosmos is one of my greatest interests since my earliest days and as I get older the fascination increases.
In my mind there is no doubt that our climate is changing, then again the earthās climate has changed many times (as witnessed by your link 90m years ago was one such change).
You linked to a prof of economics on another thread, he did a talk on climate back around 10 years ago - he suggested that politicians/govts were approaching climate change from the wrong angle and that the Japanese model was the way to go - he didnāt elaborate on that model.
I was speaking to a young guy today (well younger than I am) who has COPD - never smoked - our city is low lying, only in recent years did they introduce smokeless zones, maybe too late for this person.
They also installed a sizable structure that measures air quality but never have disclosed itās findings.
Anyways it is a subject worthy of much thought.
The āscienceā of global warming is āsettledā ā just as the science of astronomy was āsettledā prior to Galileo.
In the last three decades, or so, a growing (and loud) bunch of climate scientists have compared notes, synchronized their computer models, and voted to agree with one another. And they have issued their āconsensusā.
That consensus is summarized in tommorās post, quoted above.
But, that consensus is no longer an agreed-upon opinion ā which is what āconsensusā means. Rather, it has hardened into an article of faith. It is accepted, without question, as truth. And any challenge to that ātruthā is seen as heresy.
The global warming science community is very much a political power, not unlike the Catholic Church in Galileoās time. Challenging the global warming āconsensusā today can threaten a scientistās career, just as challenging the earth-centric view of astronomy in Galileoās time could (and did) threaten Galileoās life.
Mounting such a challenge takes courage.
A number of scientists do have the courage to speak truth to the political power of the global warming science community. Princeton University Professor William Happer is one of those scientists. He rejects the closed-minded group-think of the global warming consensus, and thinks instead outside the box.
Imagine challenging the very heart of the global warming religion ā the belief that āincreasing amounts of CO2 are bad for the planetā.
Thatās precisely what heās done.
Professor Happer contends instead that the planet needs more atmospheric CO2, and the more the better.
Have a look.
1 Like
I go with the verdict of the majority of scientists. When the majority of scientists state they believe global warming is not happening, then I will have to agree with them.
1 Like
Yes it shows āClimate Changeā as 5% to 12% likely responsibility
By far the greatest issues are Habitat loss and Exploitation. I often think that the āGlobal Warmingā is only thrown in as an afterthought because it is just āSo Obviously Neededā without real thought or evidence in such reports.
Youāre wasting your breath mate - actual āEvidenceā is not of any relavence to @tommor. on this subject.
Donāt forget either that ALL of those āscientistsā are competing for funds from the Same Few Governmental Funding bodies and there is competition for the 31 or so āModelsā to show the sexiest āthreat levelsā. [Apparently there is One which does, but that shows very little overall change and it is the Russian Model !]
All the rest are way overstated to accord with the desires (Guesses) of the scientists and they just change the multipliers to the biggest values they dare
Nice video btw @Clint 
This is not a moral issue or a decision of personal conscience or preference. Its a matter of science. If the majority of scientists say climate change is a hoax, I will accept their decision. It doesnāt matter what evidence they have or you have or anyone has - I aināt a scientist, nor can I convince the majority of scientists to accept this argument.
As a matter of interest, on any other scientific issue, why would you choose to accept the decision of a minority of scientists? What are your criteria?
Hi @Falstaff 
This is the reason why I donāt generally enter into debates concerning these issues - I have no credentials to comment.
I would agree that nothing can be proven in absolute terms - at least not yet. But I do feel there is sufficient evidence to show that climate change is a reality - and a potentially serious threat. Personally, I feel the threatened repercussions of significant global warming are so dramatic and alarming and possibly even irreversible that we owe it to our future generations to resolve the matter as soon as possible - just in case the prognoses are correct.
I donāt think those categories in that table can be considered in watertight compartments, They are surely very interrelated and interactive and which are the cause and which are the affected is a complex matrix - but the end result is that dramatic changes are occuring in the overall global ecosystem which cannot possibly be ignored in the hope that it wonāt actually change anything and life will just carry on as ānormalā.
But I know next to nothing about these things so I am not trying to claim anything here - I am just a worried guy out on the street hoping that our leaders will not just bury their heads in the sand in the name of short-term continued economic progress for the 20% and letting it end in disaster for both themselves and the other 80%.
There is little doubt that there are āthingsā happening out there. BUt do we just ignore it because there is no absolute undeniable proof, or do we investigate the claimed risks and act on it now - just in case tomorrow might just turn out to be too late?
Just another kind of a Risk:Reward issue really when it comes to decision time!
Bottom line guys is the Earth cares zilch for our opinions, scientistās opinions, computer models - itās like the market, it does what it does and is always right.
Can we change the market by becoming increasingly loud? - did I really help much by walking the half mile to the shop this morning to get the Sunday papers which were flown in?
Technology will overtake the difficulty.
1 Like
Fair comment mate - Iāve got enough scientist in me to be able to understand an explanation IF it were ever offerred in terms of electrons and energy etc or anything else really below quantum level. but mostly all we get from the zealots is pretty much what @tommor is saying.
None of them seem to mind weighing in with the 97% of scientists fiction which the Guardian sponsored āresearchā lied into āFactā - the explanation of the reality in somewhere on this thread Iām pretty sure.
However, the fact is that when this stuff first started being talked about I too was concerned. So I thought āI better find out about this stuff - so I can understand whether it is real or just yet another Y2K scare !ā
I researched everything I could and discussed it on some forum boards of the āLiving a more natural lifeā type (The early āRiver Cottageā was one).
Oddly though, there were a few of us trying to discuss it and the books we were reading etc properly, but on the other side all we had was the two approaches we have seen here - the simple chanting ;
āOmmm Mane Padmi Ommm - the high priest has spoken - Blessed be the wordā"
And there was one particularly obnoxious fella as I remember who kept throwing up those links to āBeat the skepticā websites where the āzealotsā took every argument and found ways of denying it had any credibility, using the same tricks we are so familiar with nowadays, āGuilt by associationā group identity, belittlement, complaints to moderators and constant references to George Monbiot (Guardianista warmist zealot )
What was lacking even back then was Any attempt at all to āshow the scienceā - except for Michael Mannās faked up āHockey stick chartā made extra famous in AL Gores dreadful film fiction. It was so bad that even th iPCC dropped it from their literature !
Then came āClimategateā which revealed thousands of emails between various zealots - one complained to Michael Mann about an early version of his "Hockey stick chart " that it was a shame about the āmedieval warm periodā and the āLittle Ice Ageā. In the final version they were GONE !
There were all sorts of shenanigans (and still are) - For example the start date (around 1880 ?) was supposed to be chosen as it was the āStart of the Industrial Revolutionā (It was also the last throws of the āLittle Ice Ageā so temperature was a little colder than what might say would be āAverageā
Even the NASA chart from 1880 to 2020 shows only 0.8 deg C difference over the whole chart of 140 years - and they Admit that that has been āAdjustedā - So what can we say of a difference of 0.8 degC over 140 years except āThat is amazingly STABLE !ā
So Iād been doing this stuff a few years when all of a sudden the āScience is settledā fiction started. One of ths lads on RC was a Chartered Scientist and when we were arguing that the science is NOT settled he popped up and said his Institution had written to all its members saying that they were to stop the discussions and just act āAS IF the science was settledā¦ā
The Brutality of the suppression of any dissenting voice has been incredible - David Bellamy just disappeared off teh TV overnight - although I saw something he wrote or a vid a couple f years back and he is one of a Myriad of TRUE Scientists who are denied any mainstream platform access, to discuss the matter sensibly.
I think it took me a litte under 3 years to decide finally that the whole thing is just a crock of Shyte - Propaganda without any real basis in provable fact.
Oh it IS true that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature By the way - Itās just that the CO2 LAGS the Temperature by a couple of hundred years ! If I remember aright This was from an Ice core record which was a bit damged but still readable in the main and I think it was our old Mate Michael Mann again who repositioned the core so it read a few hundred years Earlier than it actually was - Voila discrepancy fixed ! 
So why are our school teachers and others frightening our kids to death with this fictional "Non-News " ?
It is SO reminiscent of āY2Kā āBSEā āSatanic Child abuse in Shetlandsā āSpanish Inquisitionā āSalem Witch Trialsā and other Extraordinary Popular Delusions. Whether in fact it eventually gets put down to āMAss Hysteriaā or something else - I am certain that history will definitely write it into that infamous book !
Most people just āLet them get on with itā as "It canāt do any harm curing it - an it ? "
But the fact is that Energy Bills have gone up in the uk because of āGreen Tarriffsā and the poor ones paying for the āRefundsā to those with the early solar panels, that that particular Redistribution of wealth means that 2700 people die every winter in uk because they canāt afford to keep themselves warm.
Oh @anon46773462 - THe Real situation is by the way - We are at a high point of a warm period, during an exceptionally COLD period on the long term chart. We are about 1,000 - 10,000 years overdue for a significant DROP in temperature, which will give us a mile of Ice over London. ie a traditional Ice AGe.
[Perhaps somebody should tell these 16 year olds demanding instant attention all over the place THAT ! ]
Be Careful What you wsh for ! 
I donāt really understand this! How can the market do what it does without any actions by any market participants? WIthout the participants there IS no market? Sure, I would agree that no individual or even group of individuals can move the market alone by opinion or by action - but I think when the bulk of particpants becomes big enough then there is an impact, they are the market - and that is just maybe what we are seeing on our Earth.
I am well aware that I donāt know facts and figures but I do suspect that the global population is reaching a point where its sheer size and its collective actions can and indeed most likely are impacting our planet. Air traffic, car pollution, concreted and asphalted acreage, deforestation, fertilisation, pollution of waterways and seas, and other issues are all of a scale that there can be, and surely is, an impact on the balance of our natural world. That cannot be a good thing.
I understand the doubts - but the reasons for doubting are no more proven that the reasons for believing and I truly feel that prevention is a far better approach than cure - especially if it turns out that in the end there is no cure! I really donāt want my children to have to explain to their children why their grandparents were so greedy, selfish, negligent and uncaringā¦ā¦.
But beyond the arguments on global warming there is also the point that reducing pollution and protecrting our natural environment is a good way to live for its own sake. What is so wrong with aiming to live a responsible life in a socially responsible manner without the burden of a heavy conscience?
There is surely little in this world that is of greater value than caring for people such that they have a good life and good health. Sadly, these are at the bottom of too many peopleās list of priorities.
If it is needed to be done - it Will be done.
And this ;
Now he doesnāt argue that it is wrong to āBelieveā - just that it is pointless at this stage !
What are the strengths and weaknesses of our planet.
Is there intense competition from outside influences on Earth.
What is the optimal level of sustainability for Mother Earth.
How does our planetās current performance compare to itās past.
What are the primary drivers of life within Earth.
Often it can be perceived that the market has an intelligence, I think it was Wyckoff that described it as the great grey, anyways others described that by getting in tune with that intelligence a person could enter a āmarket zoneā.
The above 5 questions are sometimes used when learning market intelligence:
What are the strengths and weaknesses of our competitors?
Is there intense competition in our market?
What is the optimal price point for different products?
How does our companyās performance compare to current industry benchmarks?
What are the primary drivers of value in our market?