Wild fires in BC Canada.

[NickDReed]

Well done! Pathetically sarcastic as usual! Saying something stupid in a sarcastic manner doesn't make them any more true or meaningful!
In fact nobody believes "that hot months are due solely to mans use of fossil fuels" so you are not alone on that one.
But all the science suggests that hotter than usual months are due to fossil fuels.
Hotter than usual months, or any of the other repeatedly changed weather patterns, over a long period, is what is termed "climate change".

I wasn't being sarcastic Jacob, I genuinely support your right to believe what you wish. But I don't believe the same thing.

 

[Jacob]

I wasn't being sarcastic Jacob, I genuinely support your right to believe what you wish. But I don't believe the same thing.

But you weren't saying the same thing. What you said was nonsense which body believes.
Also it's not about "rights" to an opinion, it's about whether or not an opinion is backed up by facts.
Your opinions are completely contradicted by what we know and what we are now experiencing.

 

[paulrbarnard]

I do wish people would stop posting this silly graph. It only goes back 20,000 years, blink of an eye in terms of the planet's history, and I am guessing deliberately chosen because this period has been relatively stable, which is not actually typical at all. If you look at the overall picture the planet has been a lot warmer than it is now for well over half the time we can estimate temperatures for. And there have been large short term spikes going back over millions of years, long before they can conceivably have had anything to do with us. So yes we are undoubtedly contributing to the rise in temperatures, and consequent climate change, and we should stop these aggravating activities as soon as we can. But I think to suggest that it is ENTIRELY a man made phenomenon is probably wrong. We are an arrogant species and very fond of looking at everything from the point of view of our, very fleeting, existence. How long have modern humans been around, and in sufficient numbers to do anything, 50,000 years? That is probably generous. If we talk about organised civilisation it's only around 5/6 thousand years. Dinosaurs were around for over 150million years, and it was a lot hotter for most of that time, as it has been for most of the time since life evolved. There have been umpteen mass extinctions, where in some cases over 90% of life became extinct. These were entirely natural phenomena. True we are without doubt the most destructive creatures ever to have evolved, with a wanton disregard for every other species, plant or animal. So if we don't buck our ideas up will will probably exterminate ourselves, but the earth will undoubtedly carry on, and all remaining species will probably think good riddance.

But it covers the period of time where we have an influence. Sure the world has been hotter in the past but the correlation in the rate of change, which you don’t see anywhere in the past barring extinction events, with man’s industrialisation period is something that sticks out plainly.

 

[Fergie 307]

I didn't argue otherwise, I do not dispute in any way that our current problems are significantly of our own making. I merely observe that what we seem to take as normal, the relatively cool climate that has existed throughout human history, is actually anything but normal in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Jameshow]

But you weren't saying the same thing. What you said was nonsense which body believes.
Also it's not about "rights" to an opinion, it's about whether or not an opinion is backed up by facts.
Your opinions are completely contradicted by what we know and what we are now experiencing.

But Jacob you are just as scathing and rude about other People and thier views. Which in my mind undermines your position!

 

[NickDReed]

But you weren't saying the same thing. What you said was nonsense which body believes.
Also it's not about "rights" to an opinion, it's about whether or not an opinion is backed up by facts.
Your opinions are completely contradicted by what we know and what we are now experiencing.

My opinion is that there is a 'accepted narrative' and there are also very knowledgeable scientist with credible data that are adamant that the accepted narrative is not correct.

As I am by nature a very sceptical person so am unwilling to anchor myself to the opinion you want me to. As far as I'm concerned, what you refer to irrefutable facts, are extraordinarily refutable.

But that's OK, we can have different opinions.

 

[Jacob]

..

As I am by nature a very sceptical person

So why are you not sceptical about the nutters?

 

[Fergie 307]

Has to be said that the faked NASA data story has been fairly comprehensively debunked. Yes, NASA did review some of their data. The reasons for doing so we're widely publicised by them at the time, and extensively peer reviewed, and if you actually look at the reasoning behind their revisions there really was no deception. So for example some sites had changed the time of day at which readings were taken, which caused anomalies. In other cases sites had actually been moved, or changed elevation. In these cases data was reviewed and in some cases altered to take account of these changes. In every case the original data was presented alongside the reviewed figures. Detailed information was provided as to why any change had been made, and exactly how any revised figure had been calculated. So quite how NASA were supposedly caught red handed is a mystery, particularly since these claims were made over a decade after this very well publicised process had taken place. If course if you check who is spreading this stuff you find that it mostly originated with people who are connected to a variety of climate change sceptic organisations. Jacob calls them nutters, I would call them fraudsters, since they must be perfectly aware that, in this case, they are talking total b******s.

 

[NickDReed]

So why are you not sceptical about the nutters?

Who said I'm not sceptical about the side of the debate you label 'nutters'?

One of the reasons I am less sceptical about the information that side puts forward, is because when challenged, the response tends to be (in my experience) the provision of additional information that appears to support their position.

Increasingly I have found that the other side of the debate (your side) is not interested in discussion of information. The standard practice appears to be discrediting the other side of the argument with name calling and character assassination rather than addressing their data and hypothesise. This appears increasingly to be the tactic of those who call themselves liberal or 'left' leaning, but are infact just a way to censor the conversation. I would point out that until not too long ago I would have to referred to myself as liberal and left of centre, however these 'groups' appear to have abandoned all the actions and thought processes (around particular subjects) that would actually make them truly liberal.

These new behaviours are the actions, in my opinion, of zealots and the behaviour of zealots only confirms in my mind that their position may be built on shaky ground which prompts me to investigate the other side of an issue.

I personally hold few opinion so dearly that I am not willing to be pursuaded to change it. However, given these exchanges I'm not sure you're the man to change my current opinion on this particular matter.

But our disagreement on this subject is absolutely fine. I'm sure there are plenty of other subjects we will agree on, that is what being part of a community is and I'm thankful that our society allows discord (on certain issues.... at least at the moment).

 

[Jacob]

Who said I'm not sceptical about the side of the debate you label 'nutters'?

One of the reasons I am less sceptical about the information that side puts forward, is because when challenged, the response tends to be (in my experience) the provision of additional information that appears to support their position.

Increasingly I have found that the other side of the debate (your side) is not interested in discussion of information. The standard practice appears to be discrediting the other side of the argument with name calling and character assassination rather than addressing their data and hypothesise. This appears increasingly to be the tactic of those who call themselves liberal or 'left' leaning, but are infact just a way to censor the conversation. I would point out that until not too long ago I would have to referred to myself as liberal and left of centre, however these 'groups' appear to have abandoned all the actions and thought processes (around particular subjects) that would actually make them truly liberal.

These new behaviours are the actions, in my opinion, of zealots and the behaviour of zealots only confirms in my mind that their position may be built on shaky ground which prompts me to investigate the other side of an issue.

I personally hold few opinion so dearly that I am not willing to be pursuaded to change it. However, given these exchanges I'm not sure you're the man to change my current opinion on this particular matter.

But our disagreement on this subject is absolutely fine. I'm sure there are plenty of other subjects we will agree on, that is what being part of a community is and I'm thankful that our society allows discord (on certain issues.... at least at the moment).

How do you account for the apparent changes in climate going on around the globe?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Probably the same way he accounts for the changes in the previous 4.54 billion years.

 

[Jacob]

Probably the same way he accounts for the changes in the previous 4.54 billion years.

How would you account for the rapid changes of the last 100 or so years, as shown in this cartoon?
https://xkcd.com/1732/

 

[Phil Pascoe]

U.S. national archives -
Climate Change Over the Past 100 Years. Global surface temperature has been measured since 1880 at a network of ground-based and ocean-based sites. Over the last century, the average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by one degree F.

 

[Jacob]

U.S. national archives -
Climate Change Over the Past 100 Years. Global surface temperature has been measured since 1880 at a network of ground-based and ocean-based sites. Over the last century, the average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by one degree F.

Congratulations on making the effort to verify a detail! That wasn't difficult was it?
A figure of 1.9º F gets quoted for change in surface temperature so it may be higher than you think.
You've missed the point anyway but wouldn't want to put you off!
The big issue is air temperature (which is a lower figure you might be pleased to hear - 1.4º) which has severe consequences in terms of climate Changes in Atmospheric Composition - NCAS.

 

[John Brown]

Who said I'm not sceptical about the side of the debate you label 'nutters'?

One of the reasons I am less sceptical about the information that side puts forward, is because when challenged, the response tends to be (in my experience) the provision of additional information that appears to support their position.

Increasingly I have found that the other side of the debate (your side) is not interested in discussion of information. The standard practice appears to be discrediting the other side of the argument with name calling and character assassination rather than addressing their data and hypothesise. This appears increasingly to be the tactic of those who call themselves liberal or 'left' leaning, but are infact just a way to censor the conversation. I would point out that until not too long ago I would have to referred to myself as liberal and left of centre, however these 'groups' appear to have abandoned all the actions and thought processes (around particular subjects) that would actually make them truly liberal.

These new behaviours are the actions, in my opinion, of zealots and the behaviour of zealots only confirms in my mind that their position may be built on shaky ground which prompts me to investigate the other side of an issue.

I personally hold few opinion so dearly that I am not willing to be pursuaded to change it. However, given these exchanges I'm not sure you're the man to change my current opinion on this particular matter.

But our disagreement on this subject is absolutely fine. I'm sure there are plenty of other subjects we will agree on, that is what being part of a community is and I'm thankful that our society allows discord (on certain issues.... at least at the moment).

I wish you were right, but I struggle to see any discernable difference in the way either side carry on.

 

[Jacob]

...

I personally hold few opinion so dearly that I am not willing to be pursuaded to change it. However, given these exchanges I'm not sure you're the man to change my current opinion on this particular matter.
....

No certainly don't rely on anything I say, take a look at the majority expert evidence first it's easy to find, as Phil has just discovered (see above).
I think your problem is that you are taken in by your own powers of sarcasm and insult, which would be OK in a comedy act for instance, but no help to you in the real world.

 

[NickDReed]

No certainly don't rely on anything I say, take a look at the majority expert evidence first it's easy to find, as Phil has just discovered (see above).
I think your problem is that you are taken in by your own powers of sarcasm and insult, which would be OK in a comedy act for instance, but no help to you in the real world.

You've got a real chip on your shoulder haven't you Jacob?

You read sarcasm and insult in everything I've written, but in reality I've not been sarcastic and I've not been the one insulting others.

Have a good Sunday Jacob.

 

[Jacob]

..

You read sarcasm and insult in everything I've written, ...

Because that is all you write, e.g. "I'm not sure you're the man to change my current opinion on this particular matter."
You don't answer direct questions.
Try this one; how would you account for the current changes in climate now going on around the globe, if there is not a process of "climate change" going on?

 

[NickDReed]

"I'm not sure you're the man to change my current opinion on this particular matter."

How is that either insulting or sarcastic?

You don't answer direct questions.
Try this one; how would you account for the current changes in climate now going on around the globe, if there is not a process of "climate change" going on?

When the did I say there is not a process of climate change you madman?

I believe climate is changeable, I believe this is affected by numerous factors, one of which being humans. I do not believe that humans are the sole, or main cause of this. I do not believe humans are responsible for climate change.

Now toddle off and eat your roast.

 

[Jameshow]

How is that either insulting or sarcastic?

When the did I say there is not a process of climate change you madman?

I believe climate is changeable, I believe this is affected by numerous factors, one of which being humans. I do not believe that humans are the sole, or main cause of this. I do not believe humans are responsible for climate change.

Now toddle off and eat your roast.

I hope it's nut roast as the methane given off by cows isn't good for the climate apparently!